BBC - female sex offenders report

[UppityPuppity]

Please help me understand my disquiet about this BBC report about female sex offenders. The reflections in the report of abuse inflicted by the mother on the daughter is heartbreaking. A cruel betrayal of trust.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55338745

The piece underlines the need to have accurate stats and language of sex of perpetrators/victims in the criminal justice system and crime reporting.

It also underlines to me how far the BBC has fallen in my estimation with their determined inability to provide clear reporting of the perpetrators male sex in so many other sexual offences contexts.

Instead of immediately thinking that this is an issue that needs to be raised - AND IT DOES these victims deserve support and justice - the BBC is so contaminated in my estimation, that my first thought was the BBC are yet again trying to push the narrative that merges male and femaleness as they do in so many other contexts. This reaction is unfair to the victims of female sex abusers who have my sympathy.

Is it their blatant hypocrisy? They are rightly clear on the sex of perpetrators in this article but not in so many contexts where they state blatant untruths and ignore the male sex of perpetrators. The BBC let down victims of female sex abusers and their distinct experiences, harms and needs, because they fail to report incidence of male sex abusers accurately.

Stats in report-

In 2018-19, 3.8% of all child sexual abusers were female, based on police reports, Office of National Statistics data shows

How do we know the sex - we don’t. As far as I can see - this is increased from previous stats - ONS figures show in 2015 only 1.34% of prisoners sentenced for child sexual abuse as the first main offence were women. The BBCs stats double this.

Is the increase due to different metrics being measured/ die to a greater understanding of the crime/greater reporting of the crime or more male sex offenders identifying as women?

The BBC obfuscation of facts are part of the problem - they have lost their credibility and actively let down victims like this in the report.

People are talking about different sources of statistics; the ONS collates data from a number of sources including victim surveys. It does not only report data provided by prosecutions.

The legal definition of rape is penetration with a penis.

The figures in the BBC programme came from Freedom of Information Request returned from 36 forces in England and Wales.

Did they ask if they had recorded sex? (Rather than self id'd gender)

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000rcq5 at 04.48

"How many reports of sexual offences were by women"

Melroses forgive me, but the excerpt I've listened to there is extremely serious, but it doesn't refer to rape, it also says that it could be due to better reporting but doesn't suggest they've even asked about whether sex = gender identity for some forces?

That part is from 07.20

They reference 382 rapes carried out by women, but rape cannot be carried out by women. They give no explanation or background detail for this. They do not explain if those figures include male born perpetrators. They do not say if they've asked the forces if they're recording this according to self ID. Women cannot be convicted of rape in the uk because it involves penetration with a penis (by law). They can be convicted under joint enterprise and there are two cases in the UK that I can find between 2001 and now. So what's going on here and why aren't the journalists answering these questions for us in their journalism?

And no they haven't asked about anything to do with what they mean by the word "woman", so it could be different for each of the 36 replies they had. The question above is all they broadcast.

Is there anything that people won't turn into a trans debate? 😂

I do of course understand the issue, but it does seem to me that some people use it as a diversionary tactic - makes women look bad so 'must've actually been a man pretending to be a woman.

@GodOfPhwoar

Is there anything that people won't turn into a trans debate? 😂

Well things that specifically relate to male and female perpetrators should absolutely be scrutinised and data collected in order to inform how we tackle these crimes in future. Do you disagree?

Not read the whole thread sorry

Thoughts are, and disjointed.

Yes women can and do sexually abuse. The nuns in the Magdalene laundries and other similar institutions did so. The difference seems to me that they weren't doing it for personal sexual gratification (?) but as torture.

Most women convicted of sex offences have acted as a second to a man.

MRA have long been saying women are as bad as men but don't get reported.

Stats on gender rather than sex make a mess of the stats. See a couple years ago shock headlines women sex offences up xxx%. Rape up massively. You can be female and convicted as accomplice but it's rare. Safe to say the numbers included trans women ( rape in UK law requires a penis).

So.

If there is an under-reported amount of sex abuse committed by women. Then we need to know. It's your mum. Who reports their mum? Also the cases with teen boys and female teachers. This stuff happens. It may well be under reported, as male on male abuse is.

I don't know.

Certainly my life experience tells me that men do this. But sexual abuse by women is I think not sexually motivated, but sadistic.

Who knows. And the point is we will never know if we don't know the sex of the perpetrator or the victim. I mean that's fucking obvious.

The police forces have been recording self declared gender for years without any records as to when or why.

If people care about sex offences, under reporting, children etc. Then accurate records are key.

That's not what's wanted. So.

Well they are arseholes tbh. Who wants to muddy the stats on child sexual abuse?

Now for something where it is vital for future safeguarding requirements, it is imperative that sex based crime recording is brought back.

Considering how many reports of csa offenses (eg. Images etc) of males who have identified as women in the media over the past year, I do believe that these statistics should be validated by sex.

I believe it's also a big problem in America.

Female-perpetrated sexual abuse of inmates is a particularly large problem in juvenile detention centers, where 90% of victims of staff abuse say a female correctional officer was the perpetrator.[10]

Prison rape in the United States
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape_in_the_United_States

jj1968 is being economical with the actualité again.

The linked spreadsheet does appear to be what the programme is based on, and is split into crime survey, police, and other data.

That document does indeed group together "rape or assault by penetration" in all the crime survey data in tables 1-31.

The crime survey only record "sexes" of those performing the abuse in one table - table 13. There I see a "3.8%" under "sex of perpetrator(s) = female" for "any sexual abuse experienced before the age of 16", but that's not quite the same thing as "3.8% of perpetrators are female" stated in the OP. The same column has "male = 91.7%" and "both male and female = 4.5%". And the data is from the ONS crime survey, not the police.

(It's worth noting that 78% of the victims responding to the survey are women while we're here...)

Like other crime survey tables, that table groups together "rape or assault by penetration". So we see "rape or assault by penetration (including attempts)" = 565, with 95.7% male, 1.7% female, 2.6% both.

However jj1968's statement "The category Rape refers to rape or assault by penetration" is not supported in any way by the screenshot or anything I can find in the document. The survey section always uses "rape or assault by penetration" and never shortens that combo to just "rape".

The police stats in 32-37 do break out just "Rape", and a bit of research suggests they really do mean "rape" in the legal definition "with a penis". They're showing offense codes like 19C ("rape of a female aged 16 or over") and 20A ("sexual assault on a female aged 13 and over").

This document confirms that 19C is used for penises and 20A otherwise in these examples:

Where woman believes that they have been penetrated but is unsure with what, there is a presumption that it will be with a penis unless there is clear evidence that this is not the case.

4: A woman makes a complaint that she has been date raped. She believes that her vagina has been penetrated but she can not provide any further details surrounding the assault. / One crime (class 19C). / Following investigation into the offence it is established that a physical object was used and there was no penile penetration. / The FCR can reclassify the recorded rape to one crime (class 20A) (assault by penetration).

5: A woman is accosted at a party and pushed onto a bed by a suspect. Her trousers are removed and she feels her anus being penetrated. She pushes the suspect off her and discovers that the suspect is a female. / One crime (class 20A) (assault by penetration).

The spreadsheet linked by jj1968 does not have any police data on sex, but we can safely conclude that the 19,481 rapes (of 15,779 females and 3,702 males) were by men, based on the codes.

The "382 rapes by women" number elsewhere in this thread does not come from that spreadsheet, but I gather from police reports.

Until we see otherwise it seems reasonable to assume that the police mean "penis" whenever they say "rape" in their stats. Assault by penetration comes under a different general "sexual assault" code for them, even if judges' sentencing guidelines treat them the same. It's not clear that the police could easily separate out "assault by penetration" from other "sexual assault" for stats even if they wanted to if they're coded the same.

I was prepared to give jj1968 the benefit of the doubt, so dug into it, but I am disappointed again.

Winding back a bit to the OP, having dissected jj1968's objection.

In 2018-19, 3.8% of all child sexual abusers were female, based on police reports, Office of National Statistics data shows

How do we know the sex - we don’t. As far as I can see - this is increased from previous stats - ONS figures show in 2015 only 1.34% of prisoners sentenced for child sexual abuse as the first main offence were women. The BBCs stats double this.

The two numbers do not appear to be comparable. 1.34% are convictions, the 3.8% seems to be crime survey, and isn't "percentage of offenders" it's "percentage of people who said they'd suffered any sexual abuse (including non-contact abuse) before the age of 16 where 1 or more perpetrators were female and none were male". There was also 4.5% for "both male and female perpetrators".

And it's clear that the survey data can't be based on self-ID.

There clearly is something interesting in the stats, and the gap between the survey data and the conviction data.

However the gripe "Is there anything that people won't turn into a trans debate?" is daft. If the police are, as they appear to be, saying that 382 "women" committed crimes of code 19 ("rape = penetration with a penis"), it's not unreasonable to point out the trans issue here.

I do of course understand the issue, but it does seem to me that some people use it as a diversionary tactic - makes women look bad so 'must've actually been a man pretending to be a woman.

It’s not a diversionary tactic. It is about accuracy and truth for the public and victims of male rapists who pretend to be women AND victims of women sex offenders. If the majority of ‘women’ committing these crimes are not women - then this needs to be reported.

Pretending men are women does not help combat the stigma for victims of female sex abusers - which reducing it is surely the point of the feature in the first place.

It is diversionary tactics - but more likely that a certain type of ‘woman’ is more likely to vomit these crimes - ‘male women’.

*commit - not vomit - stupid thumbs - but a reasonable replacement.

The problem here is truth. Until a few years ago if the police produced statistics about women/females who had committed a crime we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

If the BBC spoke about women or females we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

We can no longer trust those statistics.

That's it.

@newyearnewname123

The problem here is truth. Until a few years ago if the police produced statistics about women/females who had committed a crime we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

If the BBC spoke about women or females we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

We can no longer trust those statistics.

That's it.

This^

JJ et al may be right. The problem is there is no way of knowing. And we need to know so the issue can be addressed. Not correctly and unambiguously recording the sex of the perpetrator is just stupid.

TRAs will kick up a huge fuss if that data is gathered by sex again. Can't have the narrative that TW are sweet and fragrant derailed by reality. Imagine the horror if they retained the same criminality as males.

Ken MacQuarrie, former head of BBC nations and regions, has been given a new job "executive sponsor safeguarding impartiality". I'd suggest that Fair Play for Women, the good Baroness and others do a wide ranging report to him on the problems the BBC has had covering this issue across all output and this article/File of Four should be included. He seems empowered and best placed to deal with it across the whole of the BBC.

Thank you for breaking down that data, NecessaryScene, very much appreciated.

Great posts.

@newyearnewname123

The problem here is truth. Until a few years ago if the police produced statistics about women/females who had committed a crime we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

If the BBC spoke about women or females we would have trusted that they were talking about women.

We can no longer trust those statistics.

That's it.

Yes.

That’s it.

Thanks for that NecessaryScene - I find the ONS stuff near impossible to read on my iPad.

I did find this, re: cases that reach magistrates stage. It separates rape from assault by penetration:

www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2fcrimeandjustice%2fdatasets%2fsexualoffendingministryofjusticeappendixtables%2fcurrent/sexualoffendingministryofjusticeappendixtables.xlsx

And this recent guidance that confirms women (of the old-fashioned no-penis variety) can only be charged with rape as an accomplice - I can’t seem to find what code that would be charged under, but I presume it would be different to the actual rapist (which is 19c)?

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences

I agree with previous posters that all sexual offences need to be dealt with seriously, including those committed by female people.

We need accurate recording because a massive rise in female offenders needs to be studied and understood in order to tackle the problem, sex offender programmes in prison needs to be tailored accordingly and risk of reoffending properly understood for adequate parole purposes.

Anyone who campaigns for inaccuracy in recording this data (ie recording internal gender identity rather than natal sex) is putting more people, including children, at greater risk of harm.
I can be charitable give the benefit of doubt and assume that gender campaigners hadn’t realised this, but once it’s been pointed out and they persist, all charitability is rescinded.