I often write about how differently female rapists are treated compared to male rapists. Here is an excellent example from England.
A 12-year-old boy who was convicted of raping two girls, 11 and seven-years-old, was sentenced to four years in prison and will be on the sex offender registry for life. According to the article, the boy bullied both girls, apparently disliked the oldest, and had a reputation in his neighborhood for verbally abusing his neighbors. He also came from a troubled, possibly abusive home, and has clear boundary and empathy issues.
In contrast, 42-year-old Cindy Clinton received a three-year prison sentence with eight years probation after pleading guilty to 15 counts various crimes including aggravated statutory rape, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, furnishing alcohol to minors, and aggravated statutory rape by authority figure against 11 boys aged 14 to 17. She had previously been charged with 53 counts, but received a plead deal from the prosecutors to spare the victims from having to testify. None of the articles about the case mention whether she must register as a sex offender.
So a 12-year-old boy with a troubled, likely abusive past ended up with four years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry for assaulting two girls, while a 42-year-old grown woman who got boys drunk so she could rape them walked away with three years in prison (she likely will not serve the whole three years), eight years probation, and apparently no requirement to register as a sex offender even though she raped 11 boys.
This is not to say that the boy should not have gotten four years (although the lifetime on the sex offender registry seems a bit much). However, time and time again we see that boys who commit crimes end up with harsher sentences than women who commit the same crimes, even when there are more victims.