It's not "sex work"

The New Statesman, which you might expect to have a more adult attitude, has a post today by Sarah Ditum who doesn't want "prostitution" rebranded as "sex work":

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...ution-sex-work

She references "Rachel Moran" as a survivor; yet this Rachel is widely felt to be not quite which she represents herself.

It's a major problem discovering what the facts are about sex work; I don't doubt that some people have been damaged, or that some have been trafficked, yet this seems to be a minority.

I worked for a state organisation; I was bullied and threatened by the management, and bullied and threatened by my seniors. Am I a survivor of "work"?

Gah, she's an awful person Sarah Ditum. Ruth Jacobs was a street worker and drug using sex worker. She used to advocate for the Swedish Model and then changed her mind when she realised "end demand" and Sweden's opposition to any form of harm reduction including drug use.

Www.ruthjacobs.co.uk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catriona

Gah, she's an awful person Sarah Ditum. Ruth Jacobs was a street worker and drug using sex worker. She used to advocate for the Swedish Model and then changed her mind when she realised "end demand" and Sweden's opposition to any form of harm reduction including drug use.

Www.ruthjacobs.co.uk

---

I gather that Sarah Ditum isn't an unbiased observer, rather one with an "agenda". That's something I find tiresome, when a reputable magazine/organisation or whatever presents "opinions" as "facts", particularly when the opinions are based on a Procrustian style of evidence gathering—only gather the "facts" that support your position.

Ditum's Twitter profile says it all:

''My gender is a coercively imposed social fact positioning me as the subclass in an exploitative hierarchy.''