More than one “woman” a week prosecuted for rape?!?!

Entering something correctly 97 times out of 100 is actually a really really high rate of accuracy. 436 errors in ten thousand cases is good, not bad.
Imagine if I said that in the finance world I live in.
Farewell paid employment!
You’d be clutching at straws to argue this one data point has had a significant error increase while others have remained constant. Any data analyst/ statistician would blink that this seemed a likely argument, but if you really wanted to try it would be feasible to do a statistical analysis on the likelihood that a single data error rate increased noticeably from a certain point, with the null hypothesis being something like error rates have increased across the board after this certain point in time.

You've found something that you think supports your prejudice and are proudly declaring this as evidence of secret trans conspiracies...

And yet, you have only focused on demonising people for pointing out ONE of the reasons for the increase. I indicated upthread that I was open to understanding more about this and if it was females accurately being captured why, what is the difference.

You talk about 'prejudice', yet the only one who seems to be showing prejudice here is you.

Do you have any interest in engaging with the actual subject?

Do you?

And speaking of being devoid of evidence - do you have any?

[quote CorrBlimeyGG]There was I thinking that the concern was about the real life impact on women.

Indeed. These 'feminists' are not in the least bit interested in the impact of austerity on women, about discrimination in the workplace, or even about the 98+% of sexual offences committed by men. They're more focused on the

If you are finding my posts offensive, then please by all means, post the proof that the increase is due to fat fingers.

I, myself, have already stated that if it is indeed correct and there are more female sex crimes being recorded, then we should definitely be finding out why. So that it can be addressed properly. Why are females penetrating others and with what.

So, homosexual men (despite crimes many times being about power), older men, 'nice' men, impotent men or incapacitated men, and men who simply want to, are fine in the women's estate, then? Because they are what?

Mind you, back to the stats... ! Too many squirrels.

It is you who are keen to minimise this as data entry error. You have expressed no curiosity outside of 'it is fat fingers' and asserting your experience with unknown databases and not this one at all.

It's based on decades of experience with working with large databases and large organisations that use them.

aawww.... so NO experience directly with entering these particular records.

I, too, have decades of experience with large databases. But not for these particular records. But enough to know that any data entry error would be prevalent all the way through the data's history and would not be causing the anomaly as you suggest. And that if it was a particularly poor data entry service, it would have been picked up and rectified.

Look ---> A unicorn!

I've never understood the seeming lack of any curiosity from the TRA side. I personally think its very unlikely that such a rise can be attributed to 'fat fingers' but is no-one, anywhere, saying 'hmm, there's a rise here in the number of women being charged/convicted/incarcerated for rape, maybe it's a statistical anomaly, but maybe we should check it out?'

It's like the huge rise (4400%) of teenage girls expressing a wish to change their gender. Apart from one study regarding ROGD (which was immediately quashed, adding to the chilling effect on research), there is no other research going on at all, by Stonewall or other organisations. Is there no intellectual curiosity, at all, about the issue?

You realise the bat/squirrel stich wasn't funny the first time and becomes increasingly more offensive the more you repeat it. This is a serious issue and treating it like a child arguing about whether they can play with their Xbox before doing their homework is frankly embarrassing.

All the more so because you're using it purely to deflect away from the fact that you've made a whole series of claims devoid of any evidence. Do you have any interest in engaging with the actual subject?

Also, will the men be kind enough to restrict their rape to just using their penises. Considering you state that women are using broom handles. Are the males less dangerous than the women, then? That is a new perspective. I thought that no females were put into the men's estate for their safety from women . In fact, I though even the prison service didn't move transmen into the men's estate precisely for the opposite reason. They'd be in more danger in the men's estate.

There have been some horrible attacks and murders of women by men who used more than their penises.

What if you're a male homosexual rapist?

But.....why?

It shouldn't be a free for all. You can ensure that the violence experienced by incarcerated women isn't added to by the inclusion of males prisoners into their environment.

That leaves the focus on tackling on the incidents you mention.

It's based on decades of experience with working with large databases and large organisations that use them.

And maybe, just maybe the people that have gone through and researched the actual number of trans people committing crimes recorded as female might be onto the right information and robin has nothing to support their credibility but fat fingers and tin foil hats…

Except that you haven't done that, have you? You've found something that you think supports your prejudice and are proudly declaring this as evidence of secret trans conspiracies...

And robin, having had quite a bit of experience with large databases and indeed the data entry into those databases as well, that % of error would have already been there historically and would correspond to the same data error %.

Or are there more fat fingered data entry people are the moment?

Oh my god….. is that a bat?

[quote CorrBlimeyGG]There was I thinking that the concern was about the real life impact on women.

Indeed. These 'feminists' are not in the least bit interested in the impact of austerity on women, about discrimination in the workplace, or even about the 98+% of sexual offences committed by men. They're more focused on the

Forgot to add my own comment on that post
It was just 'Agree.'

IF loads more female women are being prosecuted for rape due to their role in assisting a penis person.

Then I have no doubt it would be big news. Because women doing crimes that are almost always committed by men get disproportionate attention by the media.

(With a great effect on the public of the idea it's more common than it is, while the men rarely get in the main news just for rape).

And telling anyone who points out that it is done to accommodate people’s identities as tin foil hat conspiracy theory, stating that no male rapists or sex offenders have been recorded as female due to their gender identity.

You're assuming. Don't assume. It's dangerous not to find and correctly portray facts and statistics.

Professor Sullivan is a statistics expert @MildCreamyCheddar She is not 'assuming' - she is using her considerable research expertise in the field to require that published national statistics are indeed correct, and portray the situation correctly.

There was I thinking that the concern was about the real life impact on women. What about the impact on women who are being locked up with male rapists and sexual assailants?

Well given that women “rape” other convicted criminal women with broom handles, fists, and other objects more physically damaging than a penis, I personally think adding a few penii to the array of women’s prison rape weapons is not an issue in the top 100 of feminist issues.

I am assuming that policy has meant that male crimes are recorded as female crimes. Deliberately. Because that is the policy for those police departments and other departments.

You are putting it down to clerical error.

Decisions on which prison someone should be put in are not made based on a reporting box ticked on a CPS system. If the CPS recorded a 65 year old as an 11 year old, you think they just shrug their shoulders and shove them in a young offenders institution?

The point about the MoJ not knowing their own offender population is exactly the point I'm making - you're assuming that this is malice when error is vastly more likely.