> majority of sexual abuse happens with family members, so actually leaving a child with a stranger is a lot safer

This is the same argument used to argue planes are safer than cars, but there is a missing component: for individuals choosing which transport to take, they can evaluate the specifics of their case. If they know they are not a high-risk driver, the chance of dying in a car accident is much lower, but the chance of dying in a plane crash stays the same.

As such, for high-risk drivers, travelling by plane is safer, but possibly so is taking a taxi.

The choice here is between male or female carers all of which are non-family members, so it isn't a consideration.

> dying in a car accident is much lower

This is a super faulty argument as _a lot_ of death related to driving accidents are caused by other people.

If I look just in my environment all care related death have been caused by "other" people which some times but not always also died.

Is it faulty because of the qualifier "much"? It has to be taken with further context, this was just an illustrative example. I'm sure if, for example, you ride motorbikes a vast number of deaths are the fault of the driver.

> all care related death have been caused by "other" people

this doesn't follow from the example I gave. The point is you can't use statistical averages for a decision that likely will have far more context to it.

In this case the discrepancy between sex-offenders in the entire population vs all candidates for a carer position, the least of which is most abuse happening in-family, excluding all those example from the case of a carer that is not family.

> If they know they are not a high-risk driver

Nearly everybody sucks terribly at evaluating their own driving performance, and I have only met one or two people who have had their driving performance properly assessed by a trained evaluator.

TL;DR: no-one knows that they're a low risk driver, and the people who claim "I'm a safe driver" are often much worse than average.