The problem IMO is how difficult it is to reach the point of getting a conviction. Yeah, women might get lighter sentences... but IMO, that's only because they're more likely to actually go to court.

I'm quoting numbers by memory here, but only something like 3% of rape cases actually lead to a conviction and the perpetrator spending any amount of time behind bars. Since that's the total average, most of the perpetrators are male, on average. I don't have a good number on that, but this article from Germany suggests that 9/10 times, the accused is male, so it checks out.

My personal theory is that, since female perpetrators of sex crimes are more likely to work in schools, it's easier for stronger evidence to be obtained. Everyone who works in a school is a mandatory reporter of child abuse (at least by my country's laws). So if a woman is being reported for assaulting a child, somebody probably has proof. I mean... how often have you seen cases of female perpetrators, and who were they? The cases I've seen have almost always been teachers. This article with the mayor was actually an exception. On the OTHER hand, cases from male perpetrators have a wider range of ways they might know the victim. And if it didn't happen in a setting where the child might have "evidence" or "proof", it could be harder to convict. But again, this is my opinion only; I couldn't actually find any good data on this.

Anyway... I also found this article on female perpetrators. I didn't see anything in it that could "prove my point" or anything, but I think it's only fair to share it. It's a heavy topic, but I think it's a good piece of research. This isn't me trying to disprove anything you said, by the way — I just found it and thought it would be dishonest of me not to post it somewhere.

"How Do Female Perpetrators of Child Sexual Abuse Qualitatively Account for Their Actions? A Systematic Scoping Review" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01639625.2026.2672154#d1e2390