Is anyone able to help with references for this?

[UnderMilkyWood]

I would be so grateful if anyone has these to hand:

1. I know there's a research paper somewhere demonstrating that transwomen retain male offending patterns. Does anyone have the reference?

2. I saw an analysis mentioned on social media recently which had demonstrated that transwomen appear to be at greater risk of committing sexual offences than the male population in general. Can anyone link to these?

I need them for a work thing, and don't have time to find as on a deadline...

Thank you in advance, you wonderful people.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4714523-1-in-585-trans-women-are-convicted-sex-offenders?page=5&reply=122885612 ?

The paper on the offending patterns remaining the same is the 2011 Swedish paper:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0016885

www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-sex-offenders-exploiting-trans-rights-policies-behind-bars/

This references the MoJ figures

@NewBootsAndRanty , @nepeta and @OchonAgusOchonOh - thank you all so much. Perfect.

There's TRA pushback on the Swedish paper, because in some interview later, one of the authors said something along the lines of "if you look at just later years, the effect (transwomen having higher rates than women) is no longer significant".

But that's just an offhand interview comment with no published data to back it up, and it's also just a statistical truism, potentially - any data showing a significant result will be rendered non-significant if you look at a small enough slice of it.

Thanks @NecessaryScene - that's good to know. And yes - an off-hand comment with no data (and, even if it's accurate, potentially just referring to a study lacking statistical power) can't really be used to refute this...

I read a long response by someone knowledgeable on the Swedish paper to that interview comment by Djehne. I even went then and re-read the paper. If I recall this correctly (can't guarantee that), the interview comment does not mean that there was no difference in the more recent cohort, but the data they had didn't allow for that to be analysed separately.
At least that is how the tables in the article looked to me on that second reading.

Sadly, I don't recall who wrote that response on Twitter(?), but I think it was someone from Scotland, possibly linked to the political effort before the Scottish debacle of self-id? A female legal eagle?