1 in 585 trans women are currently incarcerated for sexual offences

[GCITC]

Thanks to the census data, we can now show that 1 in every 585 trans women and England and Wales are convicted sex offenders.

That compares to 1 in every 2500-3000 men and 1 in every 243000 women.

twitter.com/mar2vickers/status/1611484662093828127?t=qo7fa3NkWyf_Qe-hRb9sUw&s=19

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1611682182405160961?t=Kv1nsuxwEr3WlpagKYi7jA&s=19

So which is it? Are trans women inherently more dangerous than men that don't identify as trans, or are men pretending to me trans in order to offend?

The answer doesn't actually matter. The same solution fixes both issues.

The OP did repeat numerous times that the risk assessment was to reduce overall sexual assault then added unless you only care about women. Noone replied to that as far as I got. The OP also replied to one poster saying they were goady! But I thought they were being goady suggesting the questioner only cared about women. Luckily I didn't get that far in for the definition of some of the women on women sexual assaults.
Noone on the thread was interested in the newly released stats and I was shocked at the number if people using the same line about it being hijacked by trans issues. These stats today show how important it is.

Could it be women ate more easily injured by each other. I imagine in male prisons lots of assault ls would go unnoticed as they would know how to punch without leaving a mark? This is one rabbit hole I didn't expect to go down.
I spoke to an employee in the male estate recently who said how dangerous is what that sex offenders could change their sex on birth certificate. They also said that the MoJ had spent millions on sex offenders programmes with a less than 5 percent success rate. This was at odds with the very positive 'very successful' vibe I got from the OP on the other thread.

I interpreted the other post, that adding tw to the female estate would bring anticipated sexual assault down overall in the prison population, but not for women. The implication was that tw in the male estate would inevitably be sexually assaulted, perhaps repeatedly (and maybe this is true) whilst tw would not cause as much harm in the female estate by comparison.
Sacrifices, essentially.

That is exactly what it was saying.

Overall rates reduced but not rates against women.

Women were castigated for caring about women more than people - translation for not putting males (transwomen's) safety first.

So 1 in 5 are convicted and in prison. How many haven't been caught, and how many have been let off?

Sorry, 1 in 585

So 1 in 585 are convicted and in prison. How many haven't been caught, and how many have been let off?

No one knows. But it is definitely not zero. Which means the proportion of transwomen who are sex offenders is higher than 1 in 585.

In fairness, that applies to all males. These horrifying figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

It would be possible to start to get a better estimation of this by going through the “it never happens” thread, looking at the UK reports, and seeing who was given a short sentence, or suspended sentence meaning they weren’t in prison at the time of the census. That means they would have been in the community at that time.

Of course, that’s working under the assumption that such people completed the census form with their transwoman gender identity. We all know sex offenders are famous for their honesty 🤨.

The summary is this:

The ratio of males who say they are transwomen, or males who lie and claim a trans identity who are sex offenders is greater than 1 in 585.

More information can only make this worse for trans activists, because the only way this ratio falls is if TRAs claim, or those males themselves claim that they are not trans, which only highlights the fact males will pretend to be.

I could have sworn I’d read somewhere the conviction rate is 1-2%, could that mean 10-20% are sex offenders? It wouldn’t surprise me tbh.

Am I right in thinking that these figures don't include those with a GRC who are counted as female?

Yus

From that report:

Assault rates have been higher in female establishments than in male establishments since the 12 months to June 2018, with the difference extending each year, after previously being higher in male establishments.

So what happened to change the trend in 2018? The graph in the report shows that before that assaults were consistently higher (per 1000 inmates) in male prisons.

It would be interesting to learn the answer to this, because the change seems rather sudden.

Nrtft but this IS dynamite as pp have said. And GRA should be repealed. And is there a link to the census? I’d like to see their comment on this. Can this thread go on ‘this never happens’ and the where to start newbies thread too? I can’t remember what that one is called.
To everyone who’s written to their MP and not heard back or heard back only TWAW, you should send this. These are government statistics that stand until the next census.
This is hugely important information for safeguarding.
As op perfectly said:
The answer doesn't actually matter. The same solution fixes both issues.

I would like to know what caused the change in assault rate as well.

it would be possible to FOI for the sex of the prisoners involved in the female jail assaults, but I don’t think numbers would be forthcoming for a number of reasons, not least because until recently the sex of prisoners in female jails does not seem to have been officially recorded.

But one could FOI for number of assaults broken down by jail, going back over a number of years.

Also very important to remember that the damage to female prisoners by being housed with a male is lack of dignity and privacy, and risk of assault, which occurs regardless.

Nope the 1 in 585 is a low estimate as any of the 584 could have committed sexual offences that weren't reported or convicted, their time served may be historic or they may offend in the future .

Low estimate.

@NotBadConsidering
"The ratio of males who say they are transwomen, or males who lie and claim a trans identity who are sex offenders is greater than 1 in 585.

More information can only make this worse for trans activists, because the only way this ratio falls is if TRAs claim, or those males themselves claim that they are not trans, which only highlights the fact males will pretend to be."

Another way to reduce the figures would be to encourage the transition of a population of people who are very unlikely to commit violent or sexual offences. If the current trend for young women to transition continues it would blur this statistic.

Another way to reduce the figures would be to encourage the transition of a population of people who are very unlikely to commit violent or sexual offences

Like children who have had their sexual function and libido removed from the use of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones?

It’s estimated that the number of children who have been medically treated at the Tavistock is around the 1000 mark, so even that wouldn’t make much of a difference.

So biological men are 100x more likely to be a sexual predator than biological women (a good reason for sex segregation as a safeguarding measure) but TW are at least 5x more likely than men who don't identify as trans to be sexual predators.

So it's safer for biological women in the mens if companies are lying to us about 'women's' being single sex?

They are ACTIVELY throwing away safeguarding measures.

I know many women can't use mixed sex spaces because of religion or for other reasons - and so this means quite a big proportion of the 50% will have to self exclude from public life - but on a statistical risk basis this is true.

The other advantage of being in the mens is there's a greater than 0% chance of there being a big strong man who is a decent human being and can intervene in a meaningful way if a tiny, weak female (like me or my daughters) is attacked by someone like Dolatowski.

And the 1/585 is the proportion who are currently incarcerated at the time of the FoI.

It doesn’t include those who’ve done their time, or were convicted but got a non-custodial sentence.

And of course leaving aside the unknowable number whose crime was not prosecuted.

The other advantage of being in the mens is there's a greater than 0% chance of there being a big strong man who is a decent human being and can intervene in a meaningful way if a tiny, weak female (like me or my daughters) is attacked by someone like Dolatowski.

This is a point people often miss. At least when society hasn't totally broken down, it's lone males that are the highest danger.

A proper mixed-sex space which mixes men and women but also stops men isolating women is much safer than a semi-private space where a man can get a woman alone.

That's an extremely important point. A mixed space may have some good men in it as well. The only men in a female only space are those who don't respect women's feelings and boundaries.

Of course TRAs aren't in favour of totally mixed sex spaces everywhere, that's not what they've campaigned for.

Honestly I would much rather have that these days. I realise other women don't have that luxury so I will keep fighting for single sex spaces, but for me and my girls, having literally everything mixed sex always would be better for us at this point - safer. There are still quite a few decent men around or at least men who'll intervene in real life, even if they can't be bothered to actually fight for women's spaces and don't believe the risks women face until they see it for themselves.

I don't think Dolatowski would have tried to attack those children in a toilet with men in there.