After some time without posts, I would like to give my point here.
Sometimes, it is said that crucifixion would have been a male-only punishmwnt, while other sources state that women would not have been spared of crucifixion.
Thinking within the Roman mindset, I would say that women were without doubt less often crucified than men in ordinary settings without an rebellion or some kind of war. Women were looked upon as the weaker gender by the Romans and were far less often involved in crimes punished by crucifixion like trait or resistance to Roman power. I think that the Romans were as well more hesitating to crucify female slaves. But trait and challenging Roman power were certainly heinous enough for Romans not to make an example of the female felon. Children and youngsters were probably never crucified during ordinary times.
During rebellions and times of war, however, there were certainly no limits at all for using crucifixion. If the Imperium was truly endangered, everything was justified in the eyes of the Romans in the task region. In just conquered provinces, even more women might have been crucified than men, as the Romans thought that healthy men were good to sell as slaves and gladiators, except leading rebels.
Happy Easter, Alex