How to know what is “whorephobic”
Edinburgh University Student Association is holding an election. The EU Feminist Society interviewed the candidates for the Women’s Liberation Group Convenors.
We also sent this email to the candidates for Women’s Liberation Group Convenor to ask them some questions. Before you read their replies below, we’d like to remind everyone that FemSoc passed a policy stating we support sex workers’ rights, which means we back the decriminalisation of sex work and condemn all forms of whorephobia.
Two candidates have answered so far. The first to answer gets a trigger warning at the top.
Magdalen Berns
TW: whorephobia
“Whorephobia”? Really? She expresses hatred of prostitutes in her reply? No, of course not.
3. EUSA and Femsoc both passed policies supporting sex-workers. What is your opinion on this?
I think we all agree that those who sell sex for money should be decriminalised and safe from harm, which is the most important thing. With that said, I have not yet seen any credible evidence produced by Scot-PEP (or their associates and the mainstream media narrative), a self described campaigning and lobbying group established with the express purpose of campaigning for full decriminalisation of all aspects of the sex trade, which remotely suggests that decriminalisation of pimps and buyers of sex would in any way make women and children impacted by the sex trade safe from sexual violence. Since evidence does suggest that the main perpetrators of sexual violence towards prostituted people are actually the demographic of men which Scot-PEP have been lobbying to fully decriminalise, it deeply concerns me to find that so far female students have not seen fit to scrutinise the motives, background, associations or the unrepresentative sex demographic of the leadership of this organisation, before assuming good-will and deciding to collaborate with them.
The facts speak for themselves: women in prostitution have been more comfortable in reporting sexual crimes committed against them in Nordic countries and they are not being murdered there; in stark contrast to full decriminalisation regions, where prostituted women are still being killed and reports of indigenous victims being trafficked into sexual slavery are still not being taken seriously by the authorities.[2,3]
As women, we are not stakeholders in the systemic sexual commodification of the female sex which is the very core of the rape culture we all of us experience in our lives. Feminists who oppose the gendered exploitation of the sex trade do so because:
* We recognise there is nothing inevitable about prostitution or its associated male sexual violence
* We understand that the worth of a woman should no longer be measured by patriarchal standards
* We see that women must no longer be defined by patriarchy
* We value sexual consent such that we see it as too priceless to be taken away via social, economic, psychological, chemical or physically coercive methods.Buying or selling access to a woman’s body is not a right: it’s male privilege. I do not stand for the role of Women’s Liberation Convenor to pander male entitlement, I stand for women’s human rights.
How does any of that qualify as “whorephobic”?
It’s explained on the EU Feminist Society Facebook page.
[Person 1] Where was Magdalen Berns being whorephobic??
[Person 2] I think it was the fact that she doesn’t support the prostitution industry, which like… I don’t think that’s ‘whorephobic’ at all? Like, let’s face it most women in the sex trade don’t /want/ to be prostituted. They do it because they don’t have a choice.
IDK how it’s “””whorephobic””” to ensure that exploited women don’t get in trouble for their circumstances, while making sure that the men who are taking advantage of their situation /do/ face consequences.
[Person 3] “Buying or selling access to a woman’s body is not a right: it’s male privilege.” This part is, I think, and another quote slightly above which says something similar, because this sentence takes all the agency from sex workers and puts it into the hands of their clients? It is the SW’s body, and it is her who is choosing to use her body how she wants, and this is really framed as if the SW is a piece of meat on a table and men come and take a part when they want.
She’s choosing it. She’s choosing it, just as she might choose to be beaten, or raped, or imprisoned in her house. She’s choosing it just as she might choose to stay married to and obey a man who told her she could not get a job outside the house, could not get further education, could not meet her friends for coffee, could not travel without him, could not talk on the phone without his supervision.
By the same token, workers choose to work in poultry plants, in mines, in seasonal fruit-picking; workers choose to work in dangerous conditions, for long hours, for bad pay.
They all have agency, and if you say those choices are not wholly free, you are framing them as pieces of meat, and you are a dangerous Phobe.
Person 1 disputed what Person 3 said, and the EUFS stepped in.
Edinburgh University Feminist Society Our members who are sex workers are entitled to a safe space, so they have the right to be warned about statements that deny their bodily autonomy
Person 3 amplified.
As not-a-sex-worker, you don’t have the right to decide if something is not sex worker phobic.
It’s not clear how Person 3 knows that Person 1 is not-a-sex-worker, but who knows, maybe they know each other. Then again it’s also not clear that Person 3 is herself a sex worker, and if she’s not, how does she have the right to decide if something is sex worker phobic? How does anyone? Is whoever put the trigger warning at the top of Magdalen Berns’s reply a sex worker? Do we know that? Is the EU Feminist Society a sex worker? How does the EU FS get to decide if something is or is not whorephobic if it’s not a sex worker? The epistemology of all this is very confusing.
This is a recipe for granting the soapbox to the most apoplectic voice.
And this “trigger warning” isn’t. I mean, it isn’t warning that what follows could trigger or cause some kind of serious, intense, unsettling, frightening, disruptive, or anxiety-provoking thoughts or feelings, is it? Isn’t it just saying, “Warning: somebody holds an opinion different from yours—proceed with caution”?
Yes, it is. Good catch. Basically it’s just a veiled way of saying “all good people hate this person and you should too.”
So, two candidates who didn’t reply (as of the time of writing), one who simply repeated a bunch of platitudinous statements that didn’t really tell me much and Magdalen Berns. Ms Berns I’d vote for if I could. Structured, clear and supported arguments, with nuance, that cut through so much of the bullshit that surrounds these issues. I actually thought she managed to sound quite inclusive and respectful to boot. I can imagine having a very productive conversation with her that might include disagreement, but probably not shouting. I’m pretty sure I’d learn something too.
Hopefully enough of the electorate see it that way as well.
As for the buying and selling quote. that doesn’t actually deny a sex workers free agency (if that actually exists). The statement could be read as affirming that where free agency actually exists, that belongs to the sex worker and the sex buyer is indeed privileged to be able to complete the transaction. by the same token where free agency is not actually present the sentence still works, but the term privilege takes on another tone altogether.
Two side points:
First, free agency. In my view this takes more than simply saying ‘I agree to do this’. Coercion takes many forms, some of them quite subtle. A person can find themselves working as a sex worker, from choice, at a point in there lives where that represented the best choice to their minds. But, how did they come to that point? If life had been different and they were in a different position regarding income, security, education, social status, friends etc, would they still have said yes to being a sex worker? I doubt there are a great many men or women with social and financial security and comfortable lives who wake up one day and decide to be prostitutes. It’s a big world I’m sure it happens…
Second, the use of phobia after every god-damned other word. How many people are actually afraid of whores or trans people or whatever else? To label people as afraid, when in fact they are disagreeing with a political or social stance, often while actually being quite supportive of the target group, is mind numbingly annoying.
I’m not whorephobic, but I do think the trend to decriminalise prostitution is being a very heavy gloss coat currently. I’m not transphobic, but I do not believe that all feminism must always be seen through a trans lense. Find another phrase that is linguistically correct and doesn’t create an untrue and unjustified slur, or hand in your progressive membership card and go sit in the corner with the MRA’s, right-wing nutjobs and theocrats who behave the same way.
@ 4 Rob
Phobia is Greek and is usually translated into English as “fear”, but that is not a literal translation. It actually means “aversion”. The aversion may be due to fear – like fear of snakes or spiders or heights, things we commonly call “phobias” – but it can also be due to an intense dislike, or prejudice. (It’s the opposite of philia, or “strong attraction to”.)
Homophobia, for example, does not mean being afraid of homosexuals. It means intensely disliking or holding a prejudice against homosexuals.
@5 Silentbob, I am certainly a poor amateur when it comes to etymology, so I could well be wrong. My usage and understanding has always been consistent with (admittedly English) dictionaries which all emphasise and use descriptions such as irrational, extreme, unfounded or intense in front of fear or aversion. I’ve never used homophobia to describe holding prejudice, although I guess some people may use it in that colloquial way. I’ve met people who are prejudiced against homosexuals (and indeed for that matter trans, women, non-whites, poor and disabled people) without displaying phobia. By comparison I have met people who display genuine irrational fear and aversion against a number of those groups mentioned above that expresses itself in facial expression, body posture, gesture and vocalisation. It’s remarkable and also remarkably disturbing to observe.
Regardless, the manner in which our political cousins are using whore- and transphobia is as a slur designed to shut down conversation, let-alone debate.
Yes, it is. Good catch. Basically it’s just a veiled way of saying “all good people hate this person and you should too.”
Which is why trigger warnings are a bad idea all round, they are designed to pre-empt critical judgement and so to give interpretaive power to a self-selected ideological group. I hope there is a growing agreement about this.
A friend of mine who has done some sex-work once described me as sex-work positive. I corrected her and said that it would be more accurate to describe me as “sex-work permissive” – I don’t like the fact that people are in the situation where sex-work is their best (or only) choice for a source of income, but I strongly believe that a person should be allowed to choose what to do with their own body.
I do have a hard time with the idea of trying to draw lines to delimit when and how it is appropriate for a person to sell themselves – eg when does performance or providing various physical services become prostitution.
I also see a parallel between sex-work and niqab-wearing. One can ask if a woman really chooses to do sex work, just as one can ask if a woman really chooses to wear a niqab/burqa/hijab, but as far as I can see, banning such practices is more likely to harm than help the victims.
If it wasn’t for the ‘sex’ part, there wouldn’t be all this kerfuffle. ALL workers deserve safe work space, fair compensation, and the right to leave or enter any employment they wish. From fast-food in Louisiana and ‘domestic service’ in Saudi Arabia, to ‘sex work’ in a Nevada trailer park.
Slave wages at McDonald’s might seem like a huge liberation to a burqa-bound teenager in Kabul. A ‘night club’ job might seem like a step up for an unwanted daughter in rural Thailand. The same issues of exploitation and entrapment should apply.
So, while a lot of corrective language is needed to stop stigmatizing the individuals who take payment for sex. There is NO ‘following’ presumption that the customers or employers deserve any such protection.
Pinkeen, #7:
I disagree – they’re just misused a lot, apparently by people who don’t even understand how triggering works. People can be triggered by an expressed opinion, sure, but they can have an equally strong reaction to specific content regardless of tone/attitude/opinion. A trigger warning (or content note*) for a text, when used sensibly, is like a content warning for a TV show or film clip – for anything from sex, violence and swearing to flashing lights. Yes, you can use it to avoid stuff you don’t like/don’t want your kids to see, but it also helps people who actually need it prepare for what they’re going to see so it’s less likely to ruin their day.
*I think “content note” is better, usually.
On their Facebook page, the Edinburgh University Feminist Society have amended (and added to) Magdalen’s trigger warning. They now warn that her interview contains both “whorephobia” and “cissexism”. The addition of cissexism was due to the fact that Magdalen spoke about abortion as a woman’s issue in the interview. The argument being men can have abortions so the interview is now TW for cissexism, as well. I would like to say I’m surprised by this idiocy, but, sadly, I no longer am. This is the link to the new trigger warning: https://www.facebook.com/EdinburghUniversityFeministSociety/posts/860202550714809
It feels like these trigger warnings are very much a subtle way of saying ‘The Feminist Society Does Not Approve Of This Candidate’ without putting it in so many words.
Lately I’ve seen certain libfem groups be very vocal against radical feminism & gender abolition. It sort of feels against the idea of feminism as a group where women can disagree, but ultimately are working together to end patriarchy. This sort of discourse is healthy and trying to shut it down by using the wh-slur just seems kind of gross.
@Jacqueline #11
Not only that, but even if you were to say OK, sure, men who were women and transitioned could have had an abortion – this is an election for a WOMEN’S convenor. It’s *supposed* to be relating to women’s issues.
It’s like saying that it’s sexist to talk about female experiences of rape in a women’s group without always adding that men can be raped too. In other words, derailing. If you are going to say transwomen are women and should be included in women’s groups, then you can’t also say that transmen should be included too.
Whorephobic and cissexist.
Words fail. Both literally and figuratively, here.
SHE WON!
Magdalen Berns won the election for Women’s Liberation Group Convenor so HA.
OMG YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wait.
No, she didn’t.
(FAIL)
They changed the result.
Meaning, she initially won, then they changed it?
At least that they published that she had won and then changed it.
That’s all sorts of wrong. Something stinks, methinks.
Magdalen is going to write a piece for me.
By which I mean, for here – so we can all read it.
Good (that she will write something here).
The website is confusing I have to say with results listed for both elections and a by-election. I’m sad Magdalen didn’t get elected I thought she sounded great.