How trans id dramatically skews crime stats

[IcakethereforeIam]

New article in the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/08/trans-identification-skew-crime-statistics/

https://archive.ph/Zk2Ca jump the paywall, it's not a crime...probably

Carefully avoids using pronouns for the fragrant Scarlet. But a thorough examination of the problem.

Great article. We know it's just plain wrong to ascribe men's crimes to women, but this 'does the maths' on how it also messes up the crime stats.:

Class just one male convicted of murder as female, and the total annual number of female murder convictions goes up by around 5 per cent. Class five males convicted of murder as female, and the total goes up by around 25 per cent. Class just one murder by a boy as if it was convicted by a girl, and the number of murders committed by girls nearly doubles.

Thoughtful piece that makes several points I've not seen before.

Despite all the crime dramas on TV and knowing there's a disparity, I'd no idea that the number of female killers is so small relative to men. It highlights the disproportionate media coverage when there is a woman involved as well as skewing perceptions and official figures.

Women accounted for 184 of those 187 female murder convictions. Only three under-18 girls were convicted of murder across the entire 10-year period.
We do not know how many of the 187 females convicted of murder were the principal (primary) offender.
Most murders are committed by males. Some females convicted of murder will have been accessories to crimes committed by males, rather than the principal offender.
More importantly, in many ways, we do not know how many of the 187 females convicted of murder are, in fact, female.

That last observation is helpful and is probably worth exploring as something that is sex class distinctive. (NB: all of this emphasises what outliers the killers of Brianna Ghey are in their youth.)

It also made me reflect on whether something Karen Jones' crimes when released on licence (the attempted rape) are counted as female statistics where the earlier ones (including killing a friend) were in male statistics or would be retconned into female?

We'll never have decent policy if we don't have clarity.

Really good to see this. It's by the always-excellent Richard Garside who understands this stuff inside-out.

It's the sort of thing the Guardian should be publishing, but won't.

Interesting article. Thank you for link.

Really important article.

Thank you for this. Agreed that it is depressing the Guardian won't publish something like this. I live in hope, because statistics with integrity matter.

Just a note about prison sentences for sex crimes as well. The last time I found figures (maybe 2017?) there were 13500 people in men's prisons in England and Wales convicted of sex crimes - all of which will be male. There were 125 people in women's prisons, sex not clear though likely almost all were female.

Do I think female sex abuse and sex crimes are underreported? Yes. So are male sex crimes. But when someone says 'women do it too!' they are being deliberately misleading with a side dish of misogyny.

"Birth-sex is the single most important determinant of whether a person will be prosecuted or convicted of a crime. Males account for
75 per cent of all convictions each year. They account for
93 per cent of all murder convictions and more than
99 per cent of all rape convictions."

If people read those stats and still can't see why us pesky women on here have an issue with men saying they are women when it comes to crime then there's no helping them. They are just really stupid, and you can't help someone that stupid.

Thats a really good article, and makes things very clear.

Thank you for this. When people inside the system are instruments of an ideology and dare not speak up against it, this is what happens.

Reading it on International Women's Day too...

Who imagined the Telegraph would go radfem.

'criminal statistics are compiled to inform politicians, policy makers and the wider public, and to assist in the development of effective policies to address crime.
They are not collected to affirm feelings, send messages or endorse certain ethical positions.'

YES.

Police crime statistics need to record the protected characteristics of all perpetrators and victims of crime.

Fine, and....?

Absolutely re protected characteristics, preferably accurately.

Crime stats aren’t just an equalities monitoring exercise you know. They’re intended to enable meaningful analysis so that measures can be put in place to reduce crime. Did you somehow miss this sentence: They are not collected to affirm feelings, send messages or endorse certain ethical positions.

Sex is an absolutely crucial part of that picture. They can also collect data about gender reassignment but it doesn’t actually make biological sex less relevant - even if the people the data is collected about want people to believe they are the opposite sex.

Totally fine to record 'gender' and probably useful, so long as it's in addition to, and not a replacement for 'sex'.

As it is only 'gender reassignment' that is protected, not 'gender' then yes, totally agree.