Does anyone know the article about "prostitute", "sex worker" etc not being the correct terminology

[WeDONTneedanotherhero]

It was shared on here years ago, I can't remember who wrote it but it very clearly explain why the terms "prostitute", "sex worker" etc are not acceptable terms to use.

Could someone share the link please, thanks.

That's a fair point OLKN and I suppose means that when discussing this topic people need to be clear about which groups they are referring to and so on.

I would imagine that any reliable stats will make it clear which group they have been drawn from so care with that is in order also.

Like I said + the other points people have raised also.

I suppose it's not so much to do with wording as to do with language used by people on different "sides" and as such there are unlikely to be terms that everyone will agree on, so probably best to be as factual as possible.

So if talking about women working in brothels in X country, or men & women working from the street etc then best to be clear about it.

Randoms you used to explain what UKP is. The only illumination I got from that is that it was founded by someone who is hateful and misogynistic. Lovely.

Also there are groups who I'm sure those who prefer the term "sex worker" would not want included in with them. For example I imagine that those who prefer the term "sex worker" would not want those who are being unequivocally exploited or for whom it is illegal to sell sex, included in that term. But when talking about certain groups of people who are engaging in prostitution, those people need to be included, because they form a part of the picture.

So I think specificity is key here really.

I got from it that UKP is even worse than a site most posters on this thread know of and think is the pits of the world.

I'm happy with that level of knowledge!

Seven, I agree that we need to specify which groups we're talking about. Sex worker activists point out that people who are forced into prostitution have other laws already covering their situation; kidnap, false imprisonment, rape for example. For those for whom it is illegal to sell sex - children aged under 18 - they are not "child prostitutes" but victims of child sex abuse, and it's important that this is also recognised.

Neither group would be described as "sex workers" by activists.

Yes exactly.

< nods >

What about women in prostitution through "lover boy" pimps?

So I guess you'd say the % of women and girls (or people - men & women boys & girls) engaged in prostitution via whatever means used to describe that - with a pimp (are we allowed to say that or is there a different word for that) - who entered under a certain age due to a relationship etc etc whatever you were measuring.

I think if the language is clear then there is no problem.

Mainly victims of domestic abuse/violence, also a separate group.

Because clearly when considering harms to a group as a whole, separating out the most vulnerable and saying they should not be included in the analysis or that they are a separate conversation is going to muddy the waters.

Same as when considering legalising / liberalising, including these groups is not going to be appropriate.

From a harms perspective, it seems artifical to remove say under 18s. As clearly people do not hit 18 and magically leave, it does not suddenly become OK, they are in the same boat as they were the previous day. Also considering there were calls to reduce the age to 16 from some LibDem people, I think it's better to look across the piece. As well as to look at what is going on with e.g. child sexual exploitation as a separate piece.

But that's not very specific. It disguises a particular issue within prostitution that has nothing to do with DV and everything to do with sexual exploitation of women. Since this is a problem that is particularly prevalent in countries where prostitution is legal, it's not surprising that pro-prostitution lobbyists want to disguise the issue.

"Same as when considering legalising / liberalising, including these groups is not going to be appropriate."

I mean, not appropriate as in not desirable for the people pushing for those things.

It's a minefield

You don't need to refer to DV though do you

A lot of younger people wouldn't quite fit into that category anyway - especially when you think of how most people perceive a DV situation, what their mental image is, a lot of situations would't fit that.

I would think "women and girls engaged in prostitution due to coercion, fear, emotional or physical abuse etc) or similar.

AnyFawker true.

I think that both sides of the conversation aren't actually confused about who is talking about what and it's simply a fight over whether to use a term that widens the group while at the same time excluding the most vulnerable or whether you want to focus on one part of the sex industry and everyone in that part including the most vulnerable.

We all know this though, don't we? Oh, the OP! OP - that is what I think the answer is, just my opinion as ever though.

But under the law, lines do have to be drawn. A child of 17 years, 364 days is a victim of child sex abuse, not a child prostitute, so they do need to be considered in a different way than we'd regard an adult of say 24 deciding to work as a prostitute, whether on the streets, in a brothel, or independently.

I would certainly consider a prostitute with a "lover boy pimp" to be a victim of DV, and in a quite different group from those who choose the work. (And yes, we can then discuss how free that choice is again... But do we really have to?)

But when carrying out studies and so on, you don't have to frame them around what the law is.

For instance different countries have different laws, but it is still reasonable to draw your own line and see what happens above/ below that line, across the globe.

No-one on FWR is arguing for the law on prostitution to change so that people under 18 can engage in it lawfully, FWIW. But is is reasonable if e.g. someone does a study of young people aged 16-21 in prostitution, to talk about that on MN.

Oh, absolutely, but so often irrelevant studies have been used to "make" broader points, and even to attempt to change the law. I'm not referencing any particular study, but have seen arguments based upon, for example, a study of streetworkers in City A showing that 90% of prostitutes were victims of CSA, which is used to argue that 90% of all prostitutes are victims of CSA. Further investigation into the numbers then shows that the sample was of prostitutes in an exit programme specifically aimed at those who entered prostitution aged 21 or under...

So I do think it's important that we know who we're talking about, rather than extrapolating numbers in an arbitrary, or sometimes frankly agenda-laden, manner.

Surely that is the fault of all lies, damn lies and statistics

And I guess a definition of "irrelevant" and "agenda laden" may vary quite widely.

We can agree on that. :)