For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory. Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias. Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.
The claims:
Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.
Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.
The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so. Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to. Women are superior to men.
If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true. If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from) So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime." In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?