Not all sex workers are victims

guardian.co.uk

New laws on prostitution are sexist – being paid for sex does not objectify me any more than working in a low wage job did

On the 1 April 2010, the Policing and Crime Act became effective. We are facing not a feminist measure, but an ideology that sees women as unable to be sexually independent and free of their own actions. Anti-sex-worker laws are sexist. They are essentialist, paternalist and reinforce the division of women.

It is an essentialist conception to consider sex work as always a violence whatever the period, the place, or the conditions. Sex workers are often seen only as women when many men and transsexual people are also working, and women are always seen as victims by essence. All acts of violence against a sex worker are thus analysed as intrinsically the result of sex work itself and not the conditions in which sex work is exercised.

It stops the real violence that exists in the sex industry being visible. We are told that we must stop sex work to avoid this violence. If we refuse, we become accomplices of the patriarchal system. We are accused of being responsible for maintaining an industry that harms women.

Yet bell hooks warned feminists of the dangers of a "shared victimisation" sisterhood. A victim's status for women reduce them to beings who must be protected. It participates in the denial of their capacities. It denies sex workers the free disposal of our bodies, our self-determination, our capacity to express our sexual consent like children under 16. It reinforces the idea that sex workers are too stupid, lazy, without any skills, and without consciousness of their alienation.

Many anti-sex-workers' rights activists think that rape is the conditioning to becoming a sex worker. These claims about rape in our childhood or Stockholm syndrome are used to de-legitimate political attempts to be recognised as experts on our lives and to confiscate our voice. How could we say that a victim of rape has lost her capacity to express her consent because she is traumatised for life? We never say that for other people.

Another paternalistic way to deny our voice is to claim that we are manipulated by pimps. It is a common accusation since the beginning of our movement in 1975. This strategy has been used against many groups. For instance women were accused of being manipulated by the church to be deprived their right to vote.

Instead of fighting the "whore stigma", middle-class feminists prefer to distance themselves from it, and by doing so reinforce it and exclude those who incarnate this identity. This participates in the segregation between women. This may be a form of internalised sexism by other women who think female sex workers give them a bad name. According to some anti-sex-workers' rights activists, sex workers maintain the idea that men can own women's bodies. Sex workers are told that they create a sexual pressure on the whole women class.

On the contrary, I think that it is by using expressions such as "selling your body" that we reinforce the idea of sex workers being owned and women as objects, while sex workers try to impose the term the "sale of sexual services" between two adult subjects. How can we talk about the ownership of our bodies when we are on the contrary those who impose their conditions? Isn't it an excuse not to question their own sexuality?

Being penetrated doesn't mean that I give my body. Being paid for sex doesn't make me more of an object than when I was working for the minimum wage. What makes me an object is political discourses that silence me, criminalise my sexual partners against my will, refuse me equal rights as a worker and citizen, and refuse to acknowledge my self-determination and the words I use to describe myself.