I think our main disagreement is in the recognition of the fact that sex trafficking and prostitution are irrevocably linked, such that you cannot meaningfully tackle one without considering the other.
Your approach would be to consider both in a vacuum. Let us legalize prostitution because according to you it is axiomatic that a legal framework will necessarily be better for participants of the prostitution industry, and we can consider sex trafficking as a wholly separate independent problem.
I fundamentally disagree because based on available evidence, legalization of prostitution exacerbates the already existing sex trafficking problems which have demonstrable negative results in countries which have legalized prostitution.
I also disagree with shoe horning sex trafficking into the existing umbrella of "labor exploitation" since sex trafficking is at a scale where it demands it's own consideration for solutions and ways to contain it's growing influence, and yes, one of those techniques is to outright outlaw prostitution to stymie the growth of this cancerous industry in the world.
Fundamentally, you are making a trade off here - you are saying worker rights for prostitution trump stopping the spread of sex trafficking. You could argue it is a fair trade, but there is also an argument that it isn't on balance a societal benefit to make that trade off. Saying "we need to target sex traffickers better" isn't an answer, because countries are already trying and failing to do that - what is the magic secret sauce we can invent as a policy to stop it when there isn't an example to follow? Saying "we need to prioritize worker rights" isn't convincing, because if overall exploitation increases you are increasing the scope of vulnerable people being exploited, and it isn't a good trade off for society.
That is accurately summarizing my view, there are additional areas I think you are overindexing
basically you dont consider the experience of the non trafficked providers
their experience is not cancerous
and what are the “demonstrably negative results”? are you referring to just the trafficking?
and your solutions are false dilemmas, you consider my view an extreme in favor of your view at another extreme
you’re citing “evidence” as “failure” because the state has a poor implementation problem in the labor rights organizations, as if you were previously waiting for data instead of this all being window dressing for your view that all prostitution is inherently cancerous. I’m trying to avoid strawmanning here and this has been a good discussion, I will point out now that everything you wrote so far sounds like Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminism (SWERF) which is broadly discouraged because it silences other women. The hallmarks of it are a few core tenets such as not considering the consensual sex worker’s view and relies on women lacking agency, well not all women, just if they are sex workers. Allowing other people, ironically women, to speak over them as a rebuttal to an impossible standard where the sex worker exclusively must prove they like their job unlike any other laborer. and then discredit that person anyway.
challenging SWERF logic, the experience of non trafficked providers is valid, can be more prevalent, can disappear if nobody wants to offer that service without the government being involved in that at all, and their experience is marginalized and diminished by the criminalized framework you wish for them to exist in, where everything supporting your criminalization is based on criminalization such as the dangers of the environment, and the trafficking which is illegal in both extremes of legality. on the contrary, dealing with trafficking can be improved and those improvements will extend to all laborers. you’re latched in and doubling down on the state being incapable of policing trafficking because you found a study that matched your preexisting discomfort with prostitution existing at all and keep pushing the proposed policy into absurd territories.
Look, for an illustrative example we have immigrants working in fields right now, in the US, under bad coercive pretenses whether the immigrant is here legally or illegally. The coercive pretenses are already illegal and whatever exploitative aspect happens to be legal also needs to be addressed. The state’s inability or unwillingness to tackle that problem is a valid problem, the solution is to beef up the states task forces and attention to that problem. Thats the obvious answer in that field, nobody is seriously ever saying criminalize the agriculture industry, or criminalize contracting or employment because its proven to increase labor trafficking.
Yes, demand for sex for money (prostitution) increases people attempting to capitalize on sex for money (prostitution). Anybody coerced (sex trafficked) should have a way for help and whoever is doing the trafficking needs to be prosecuted and deterred.
The circumstances that support that are analogous to the circumstances around sex trafficking. Treating sex trafficking differently is solely based on a personal discomfort that has nothing to do with the government.
the idea that its lack of legal consequence encourages or endorses being a prostitute again plays into the logic that providers (overwhelmingly and synonymously women) lack agency in considering other choices. thats a community, parenting, and economic problem.
> basically you dont consider the experience of the non trafficked providers
I do consider the experience of non-trafficked providers, but legalization has implications for both that group and other groups - it takes a holistic approach and recognition of all the effects of a policy change to make an informed decision - you cannot make a policy change in a vacuum only considering one side of the coin.
> their experience is not cancerous
To be clear, you are straw manning my views. I do not assume a lack of agency of participants of the prostitution industry. I do not view prostitution itself as a cancerous industry. The cancerous industry is sex trafficking, which as has been demonstrated, has grown in countries which have chosen to legalize prostitution.
> you continue to cite “evidence” as “failure” because the state has a poor implementation problem in the labor rights organizations, as if you were previously waiting for data instead of this all being window dressing for your view that all prostitution is inherently cancerous
Do you or do you not recognize the fact that countries which have made prostitution legal have growing sex trafficking issues? Actually I would be quite happy with data which shows that legalizing prostitution reduces sex trafficking, that would be a feather in the cap of pushes to legalize prostitution and would silence what in my opinion is the largest argument against legalization.
In reality, the countries which have legalized prostitution have seen growing sex trafficking problems. So while you want to imply that I am the one who is insincerely waiting for evidence, it is actually you who are not dealing with the pragmatic reality in the world that shows legalization of prostitution is related to an increase in the size and scope of sex trafficking. Again, these two things cannot be tackled independently - they are intimately and irrevocably related.
If legalizing prostitution increases the size of the vulnerable population being exploited, then on balance it is not a benefit for society.
> on the contrary, dealing with trafficking can be improved and those improvements will extend to all laborers. you’re latched in and doubling down on the state being incapable of policing trafficking because you found a study that matched your preexisting discomfort with prostitution existing at all and keep pushing that into absurd territories.
Again, you are making statements that you wish to be true, but are not borne out by the reality of the facts. If dealing with sex trafficking is easier when the industry is legalized, why is it that countries are facing increasing problems with sex trafficking after making it legal?
Okay, thanks for the clarification we mostly agree then.
For the record, I do acknowledge that sex trafficking is both cancerous and increases in countries with decriminalized and legalized prostitution. (I would point out these are two distinct frameworks)
My view of this is that its like any other thing, lets take actual cancer. Without healthcare, people show up when there are emergencies that reveal they are in stage 4 and terminal. With broad healthcare and improved screening people are found in stage 2 and treated. The studies will show that there is an increase in stage 2 cancer and more resources go into prevention. Sick people from other markets without healthcare do medical tourism and gooses the statistics up even more.
The similarities here are numerous. The change was the expansion of healthcare, the solution is not rolling back the expansion of healthcare because countries with healthcare have spikes in stage 2 cancer, in this example.
Analogies compare dissimilar things with at least one common attribute.
If the bordering countries are operating under criminalization frameworks or economically lesser, then trafficking will be greater from those places. The solution isn't to rollback the legal status to criminalize everyone again. Or use those countries as an example in order to continue to criminalize everyone and make their life more difficult and dangerous.
Your approach would be to consider both in a vacuum. Let us legalize prostitution because according to you it is axiomatic that a legal framework will necessarily be better for participants of the prostitution industry, and we can consider sex trafficking as a wholly separate independent problem.
I fundamentally disagree because based on available evidence, legalization of prostitution exacerbates the already existing sex trafficking problems which have demonstrable negative results in countries which have legalized prostitution.
I also disagree with shoe horning sex trafficking into the existing umbrella of "labor exploitation" since sex trafficking is at a scale where it demands it's own consideration for solutions and ways to contain it's growing influence, and yes, one of those techniques is to outright outlaw prostitution to stymie the growth of this cancerous industry in the world.
Fundamentally, you are making a trade off here - you are saying worker rights for prostitution trump stopping the spread of sex trafficking. You could argue it is a fair trade, but there is also an argument that it isn't on balance a societal benefit to make that trade off. Saying "we need to target sex traffickers better" isn't an answer, because countries are already trying and failing to do that - what is the magic secret sauce we can invent as a policy to stop it when there isn't an example to follow? Saying "we need to prioritize worker rights" isn't convincing, because if overall exploitation increases you are increasing the scope of vulnerable people being exploited, and it isn't a good trade off for society.