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.

I presume it would be different to the actual rapist (which is 19c)?

I don't think so - the crime itself is 19C. So they would be an accomplice to that crime. Not sure conviction stats would distinguish accomplices generally.

all charitability is rescinded.

Indeed. This is clearly an active campaign to try to blur the data to conceal the sex of offenders, which is clearly only in the interests of those who find it inconvenient that the vast majority are male. Any blurring can only make males look better.

And it's worse than that - like in many other cases - they're not honestly just "not recording" the sex, they're pretending to record the sex and then use those falsified numbers to justify whatever they want.

Met Police FOI from 2016:
Rapists recorded by self-declared gender since 2009.

Actual females convicted of rape are guilty of an "inchoate" offence ie: still guilty of rape despite not actually raping anyone themselves (but by inciting the true rapist). For a female to be guilty of rape there must by necessity also be another male person who is the actual rapist. It ought to be a separate offence in my opinion, like 'incitement to cause rape' but it isn't.

However this is rare. Of 382 'female' rapists convicted I would expect almost none to be truly female and almost all to actually be male.

Met Police FOI from 2016:
Rapists recorded by self-declared gender since 2009.

Do we know the rationale and who was and responsible for this change?

We need answers and change to this.

Was it due to people with GRCs - where I know sex does still matter in some circumstances.

I believe the usual culprits such as GIRES were performing their institutional capture by 'getting ahead of the law'.

2009 was prior to the Equality Act and therefore only the architects and lobbyists of legal change had any inkling that there would be the concept of 'self-declaration' soon. In 2009 the GRA was all that existed and that was on the basis of you are either legally 'female' or you are not. So introducing this sweeping change of criminal self-declaration before such a law even existed is astonishing, really.

But then, GIRES were institutionally capturing the NHS with exactly the same principle in 2009 too. It's written into 2009 NHS policies.

They were busily 'getting ahead of the law' a lot.

I hadn't realised the police were doing this before the Equality Act.

Absolutely staggering.

*For a female to be guilty of rape there must by necessity also be another male person who is the actual rapist. It ought to be a separate offence in my opinion, like 'incitement to cause rape' but it isn't.

However this is rare. Of 382 'female' rapists convicted I would expect almost none to be truly female and almost all to actually be male.*

I can find only two reports covering convictions in such cases - in 2001 & 2011

Not only does this artificially inflate figures of women committing these crimes, it is also incredibly likely that it is obscuring the offending profile for women as we know that the male profile tends to be very different.

So we're not protecting children from men claiming to be women, and we're making it harder to identify interventions which could protect them from female sexual offenders.

[quote GodOfPhwoar]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[/quote]
Going back to my above comment, it would be interesting to know whether the US also class TW as women as this would give some clarity.

90% of perpetrators abusing juvenile delinquents is a shocking figure!

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.

Yes indeed, PlantMam. And there’s another angle. You’ve reminded me of a case a couple of years ago of a male sex offender who identified as a woman, where the judge said something along the lines of it being difficult to sentence this individual because of the lack of rehabilitation programmes for “female” sex offenders.

It was staggering. Here was a male person, raised male, offending in a typically male pattern way - but the judge was so woke (or well “trained”) he believed that this male person couldn’t be served by the existing programmes for other male sex offenders because of the magical transformation that had happened once this person had uttered the words “I identify as a woman”.

(With hindsight, I believe those programmes have been shown to be not fit for purpose, in fact to actually increase the likelihood of those who take part in them re-offending, but that’s another thread.)

My head nearly exploded at that one. It begs the question: what does “living as a woman” even mean, especially when the individual in question does everything they used to do when “living as a man” but wearing dresses and lipstick and being called by a woman’s name.

Sorry, that’s a bit OT, but it does bring up another question - suppose there were new sex offender rehabilitation programmes that were tailored to the different profile of the actually female offenders, how much use would they be if they were then thrown open to those male sex offenders who identify as female, even though their offending pattern was typically male? Which is surely what would happen.

Women’s needs would be sidelined, and the funding for such a programme redistributed to benefit male people who identify as women once again, just like the repurposing of that unit for teenage girls at Downview Prison for biologically male trans prisoners.

@Barracker

I believe the usual culprits such as GIRES were performing their institutional capture by 'getting ahead of the law'.

2009 was prior to the Equality Act and therefore only the architects and lobbyists of legal change had any inkling that there would be the concept of 'self-declaration' soon. In 2009 the GRA was all that existed and that was on the basis of you are either legally 'female' or you are not. So introducing this sweeping change of criminal self-declaration before such a law even existed is astonishing, really.

But then, GIRES were institutionally capturing the NHS with exactly the same principle in 2009 too. It's written into 2009 NHS policies.

They were busily 'getting ahead of the law' a lot.

It makes my head explode again to realise just how far back this goes and how much deliberate intention there has been to bring about radical and far-reaching changes in society without the general public being in the slightest bit aware of it.

*But then, GIRES were institutionally capturing the NHS with exactly the same principle in 2009 too. It's written into 2009 NHS policies.

They were busily 'getting ahead of the law' a lot.
angry angry angry

It makes my head explode again to realise just how far back this goes and how much deliberate intention there has been to bring about radical and far-reaching changes in society without the general public being in the slightest bit aware of it.*

Do we know if this is part of Ann Sinnott’s complaint?

Surely this means if it has been superseded by the EA (10) exemptions/or not formally taken account of new laws - then it is illegal?

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

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.

Yes indeed, PlantMam. And there’s another angle. You’ve reminded me of a case a couple of years ago of a male sex offender who identified as a woman, where the judge said something along the lines of it being difficult to sentence this individual because of the lack of rehabilitation programmes for “female” sex offenders.

It was staggering. Here was a male person, raised male, offending in a typically male pattern way - but the judge was so woke (or well “trained”) he believed that this male person couldn’t be served by the existing programmes for other male sex offenders because of the magical transformation that had happened once this person had uttered the words “I identify as a woman”.

(With hindsight, I believe those programmes have been shown to be not fit for purpose, in fact to actually increase the likelihood of those who take part in them re-offending, but that’s another thread.)

My head nearly exploded at that one. It begs the question: what does “living as a woman” even mean, especially when the individual in question does everything they used to do when “living as a man” but wearing dresses and lipstick and being called by a woman’s name.

Sorry, that’s a bit OT, but it does bring up another question - suppose there were new sex offender rehabilitation programmes that were tailored to the different profile of the actually female offenders, how much use would they be if they were then thrown open to those male sex offenders who identify as female, even though their offending pattern was typically male? Which is surely what would happen.

Women’s needs would be sidelined, and the funding for such a programme redistributed to benefit male people who identify as women once again, just like the repurposing of that unit for teenage girls at Downview Prison for biologically male trans prisoners.

IIRC when male sex offenders who are enrolled in a Prison Sex Offenders Rehabilitation Programme are moved to the Women's Estate they are no longer required to attend - because there are no programmes for male sex offenders on the Women's Prison Estate.

Possibly linked to the statistics under discussion is the fact that the Prison Service has been medicalising male sex offenders, turning them into "trans sex offenders" and then releasing them early from prison.

The experiment being run by the Prison Service is where male sex offenders are given anti-androgens in an attempt to reduce re-offending. The side-effects include "feminisation" and about half then decide to "transition".

If they reoffend on release and are charged then their crimes would be recorded as "women's crimes".

Would their previous sex-offending then be re-categorised too? If "old crimes" are reclassified then that would mess up the statistics even more, ie. showing that there was an apparent under-reporting of women's sex crimes in the past - since maybe 2007??

Archived Jenny Rossity Twitter thread about anti-androgens for sex-offenders experiment in UK Prisons:

archive.md/3T3TF

Tweets by @ jennyrossity 27 Nov 2018

Earlier Peter Tatchell disingenuously defended women’s rights by telling us we’re wrong to fear transwomen. In general I agree, but we should be afraid that in a cohort of 120 sex offenders given anti-androgens in prison almost half then decided to transition.

And we should be extremely worried that in order to ease prison over-crowding the government has suggested widening that cohort to 1,500 sex offenders in order to release them. Source:
www.express.co.uk/news/politics/944275/sexual-offender-chemical-castration-ministry-justice-worboys

A side effect of anti-androgens is that they cause those taking them to grow breasts. We have treated sex offenders with anti-androgens since 2007:
insidetime.org/download/publications/prison_related/Use-of-Med-to-treat-SexOff_PSJ176.pdf

(@ thefishgod Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
Let me get this right: the government are creating trans prisoners?)

Then these sex offenders gets an idea to exploit hard won trans rights to get themselves transferred to a women’s prison and access victims more easily. In evidence to Parliament GIDs say they cannot cope with the sheer amount of referrals from prison:
data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/women-and-equalities-committee/transgender-equality/written/19532.html

I discovered this because I looked at the case of trans sex offenders Jacinta Brooks and Carrie Cooper and thought: these are not my nice trans friends. This is something else entirely. They both had previous for paedophilia and so I looked into how sex offenders were treated.

The harm this cohort of violent sex offenders could cause to women and girls and also to the trans community should not be underestimated. Surgeons do not want to transition these patients. They see it as conflicting with their duty to do no harm.

From GIDs "Another persistent source of difficulty is NHS rules require patient files to be kept for at least 30 years whilst the GRA requires us to destroy any records which link the patient’s old identity with the new identity. It's unclear which legislation takes precedence."

I wish this weren’t true, but it is & it’s up to the decent trans community & women to stand together & oppose it, not bury our heads in the sand & pretend it’s not happening. Stonewall want acceptance without exception. I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t take exception to this.

This is a national scandal on a par with the PIE scandal.

We know 120 prisoners have been given anti-androgens across 6 sex offender specific prisons. Data from 4 revealed that of that cohort 34 have now transitioned:
www.pressreader.com/uk/the-mail-on-sunday/20180603/281728385203217

Yes. The anti-androgens help them treat the compulsive behaviour that then allows for meaningful psychiatric interventions. I doubt it was their intention but it is often the end result.

(@ SalwayBrewer Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
Is that history destruction required by the GRA correct? No offence meant.)

Replying to @ SalwayBrewer
What I have found is that the prison service will log a new and old name together so it is recorded somewhere. Who has access to that info I don’t know. I am assuming it’s on the criminal record fullstop so hopefully there would still be a way to connect past and future crimes.

Replying to @ SalwayBrewer
I don’t know whether GIDs are correct about that NHS record destruction they would know more than me about that and I haven’t double checked that. Pls feel free to though. I don’t mind at all.

(@ sarahstuartxx Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
There is no proof, as I understand it, that this treatment stops offending behaviour. )

Replying to @ sarahstuartxx
Correct. ESP as it relies on self medication. There is evidence they flog it on the dark web to earn money.

(@ PocketHanky Nov 27 Replying to @ jennyrossity
This is a very interesting thread, but are you sure about this bit? I thought the anti-androgens stopped the production of testosterone, but it was the oestrogen that caused the breast growth)

Replying to @ PocketHanky
See marked section:
insidetime.org/download/publications/prison_related/Use-of-Med-to-treat-SexOff_PSJ176.pdf

(Jenny was banned from Twitter due to sharing that sort of info!)

That Twitter thread was previously posted on Mumsnet here:
Prisoner denied GRS - court case
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3755910-Prisoner-denied-GRS-court-case?msgid=92111284