Talk:Sex worker-exclusionary radical feminism

	This Sexuality related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Is this a thing?

Is this actually a thing? Is it prominent and widespread enough to need a standalone article? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is actually rather prominent in current radical feminism, at least in online communities. Wherever you find TERFery online there is often SWERFery interlaced, though as I noted, SWERF stuff is promoted by TIRFs too. Chillpilled (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

From what I can Google, SWERF is a newish term that seems mostly in the online world for now (it pops up in mainstream-ish media like The Daily Dot but it's rare overall; on the other hand, it's all over the searches of social media cancers like Reddit and Twitter). I think it's mainly used as a pejorative/insult. The debate between "sex positive" and "sex negative" type feminists though is not new at all. Like TERF, I see the "SWERFs" as an extension of the very-anti-pornography / sex work "sex negative" part of the radical "second wave" of feminism in the 1970s. BobJohnson (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sex-worker/sex work exclusionary feminism is definitely a thing. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah well, you learn something every day. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Aren't pornography and prostitution objectifying?

Hello!

I read this article and it seems like you're pro-porn and pro-prostitution. You criticise anti-prostitution feminists, calling them "SWERFs".

However, don't you see that pornography and prostitution are inherently demeaning and objectifying? When people watch porn or buy sex from prostitutes, they use porn actors or prostitutes as sex objects to achieve pleasure, not as human beings with their personalities, views etc.

Considering the fact that other people are used to give someone sexual pleasure, it could be argued that porn and prostitution are inherently objectifying. Prostitutes and pornographers are essentially exploited by those who want to use them to satisfy their desires.

Do you think seeing your fellow human being as a tool to satisfy your desires is moral? Do you support exploitation and degradation? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a00:f41:70e8:fd7f:d041:226c:188e:57f3 / talk / contribs}

I wrote the criticism section on prostitution, as it is currently, though had much less to do with the sections above it. I was mostly focused on how different concrete governmental policies can empirically help or harm prostitutes. As I see it, the way radical feminists discuss this may contribute to stigma against prostitutes. The manifestation of that stigma I would be most worried about is from abuse or harassment from the police (which seems to occur, albeit less frequently, even under a neo-abolitionist model, just in craftier ways). I also consider (though I don't think I wrote on this in the article's text) how this links up with a prostitute's individual bodily integrity, something that I should think does matter if we're speaking of women as each her own person with "personalities, views etc."

If SWERFs were just making some cultural critique, that would be one thing, but the attempts by some radical feminist academics to distort the strength of their evidence to subsequently push flawed legal solutions is where I have to break with them. I think it's possible to see the legalization or decriminalization models for prostitution as "less bad" in terms of care versus harm than the neo-abolitionist and prohibitionist models, while even accepting some radical feminist premises like prostitution being sexual objectification. In fact, it seems to me that if some of those same premises — e.g. that poverty is the root of prostitution and that only negligible amounts of women are doing it because they genuinely like it — are followed to conclusion, then the best way to end prostitution would be to end poverty and other social instabilities. Meantime, creating legal regimes that don't add to sex workers' day to day misery would seem wise. Chillpilled (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

As noted in the last talk discussion, the view among feminists that pornography and prostitution are inherently demeaning and objectifying is not universal; the Wiki on sex-positive feminism goes into this. It's a, er, very contentious topic (especially in the 1970s-1980s -- there's a whole f'n Wiki page on that debate.)

For what it's worth, I disagree with a dogmatic label for porn, simply because there is a seriously wide variety of pornography produced, once you get past the stupidity of the Mindgeek crap that permeates the top porn 'tube sites or similar junk. This includes pornography produced by women and feminists. To throw out a mainline example, from what I've heard of OnlyFans (all it's problems aside), part of the appeal of that platform among consumers is that there is more of a "personal connection" (of a sort) with the performers. So it's more complicated than "simple sex object to achieve pleasure" even with that. BobJohnson (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

sex worker exclusionary radical feminism

are against sex work and porn. where does this make them against sex workers? the trans exclusionary variant rad fems are actually against trans women. im not seeing anything that is in opposition to female sex workers themselves, and efforts by swerfs? are made in good faith for the betterment of the sex workers themselves, whether or not one agrees on approach taken to this end. there seems to be no attempt or intent to exclude sex workers themselves or deny them as women.

terf is used to define transphobic rad fems, or more broadly transphobic feminists - not just the radical ones, and not a description they apply themselves. as such it is slur used against them, but is justified imho because it does what it says on the tin.

swerf is used in this article and elsewhere to mean feminist against sex work and porn, and i am not at all sure about the radical part. it like terf not a description that they apply themselves, and is slur applied by others. there is nothing in this article at least that would warrant the slur. not only is it not an accurate description of whom it seems to be applied to, they are not in anyway showing any animosity towards sex workers to reference their work and themselves with a slur. if there is evidence of any kind that the positions this people take is motivated by animosity or is intended to attack sex workers rather than sex work itself, we should say so and support it within the article. simply holding an opposing to view how best to deal with sex work, does not justify attacking people holding such views and mischaracterising their intentions. they are not terfs. we dont need to treat them as such.

if the quote from everydaywhorephobia is anything to go by then i do not have much expectation for any justification for the slur or that it isnt stemming from a needlessly combative position to an opposing view. its idiotic to think that increased toxicity is good for anyone. yeh and get rid of that quote. its out of place here and undermines what is in an otherwise reasoned article AMassiveGay (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think SWERF is a common term honestly except in online stuff... probably it evolved because TERF exists and people need a new term to engage in their shouting match bullshit. Like I mentioned before, in the places I see this term used when Googling (mostly social media), essentially "SWERF" is an extension of the "sex-negative" second wave feminism folks. The problem here is essentially two different viewpoints. The sex-negative feminists see sex work as exploitative and therefore want to outlaw it... and the sex workers themselves, who often not only fail to see the exploitation as being universal, they see the sex-negative feminists as people who want to take away their livelihoods. Generally speaking, yes, the sex-negative feminists aren't against the sex workers in the way that TERFS are against trans women... they see sex workers as victims of exploitation. But to the workers, I doubt many of them see themselves as victims. So... it's contentious.

As for the SWERF term itself, I actually think we could rename this article as "sex negative feminism"... or do what Wikipedia does and merge this into the radical feminism article, as on Wikipedia, much of the second wave sex-negative stuff is covered there.

One issue with sex-negative feminism is the "strange bedfellows" problem... sex-negative feminism's anti-pornography / anti-sex work stance attracted fundamentalist and other noxious social right wingers who also hated that icky sex thing. Andrea Dworkin for instance was happy to testify against pornography for Edwin Meese's commission on such in the 1980s. Fundies however tend to be anti-feminist period... so there you had a sort of useful idiot situation where Dworkin's passion for one particular subject completely clouded the big picture and enabled a group that in the long run would've been detrimental to her cause too. I think you see this issue in a much larger degree with the modern TERFs (many of who are connected to second-wave radical feminism) and how some of them cozy up to the cultural right as well. BobJohnson (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Despite evidence of the anti-prostitution policies harming sex workers, they keep advocating it. To me this shows the hand being played. It's exclusionary in the sense they aren't actually advocating on those women's behalf but on a derogatory and imaginary version of them. "Sex negative feminism" encompasses this but "SWERFism" is a subset of it, since anti-BDSM and I guess broader "anti-kink" is another distinct current in sex-negative feminism that by comparison only involves sex workers minimally. Chillpilled (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Treating sex workers as victims by default is exclusionary. It means denying women agency over their own lives and bodies under the notion they can't be trusted to make their own choices. It also isn't a very good framework for keeping sex workers from harm. Quite the opposite. Driving sex work further underground creates more opportunities for pimps and predators to operate without any form of oversight. It hamstrings sex workers' ability to protect themselves by preventing them from talking openly and warning each other about dodgy clients. This doesn't just occur in systems in which sex work is criminalised by law. It can also occur when sex work is functionally illegal e.g. by every credit card processor refusing to accept payments. You would understand why SWERFs get the pushback they do from sex-positive feminists if you spent even ten minutes engaging with this topic in good faith. You need to stop posting these diatribes that amount to "I don't understand this term, but I have very strong feelings about it." Burnt Toast (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I could support a retitle to something like "anti-sex work feminism" for clarity. "Sex-negative feminism," as Chillpilled points out, is an umbrella term. SWERFism is a manifestation of sex-negative feminism, but it isn't synonymous with it. This article focuses narrowly on anti-sex work feminism while sex-negative feminism can encompass anti-kink, anti-"hookup culture", anti-birth control, anti-surrogacy, etc. Burnt Toast (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It's distinct but it might be worth noting at some point that these beliefs tie together in some interesting ways. For instance they'll talk about johns getting prostitutes to play out kink with them. Or if they're also a TERF they'll tie in transphobia by way of the fact trans people are somewhat more likely to have done sex work (in large part due to poverty and job/housing discrimination). This could be fringe even among TERF-SWERFs but I remember even seeing some say they don't mind trans women being prostitutes, even when these same activists consider prostitution rape by definition, since they think it's just "men playing out a fetish". However I did mention in a note on this article that Catharine MacKinnon is trans-inclusive and that actually tied in the opposite direction, because she said some of the most anti-prostitution people she met were trans women. Chillpilled (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Anti-surrogacy feminists are similarly split between A) the ones who view surrogates as victims of inherently misogynistic exploitation B) the ones who see surrogates as evil patriarchy-enabling handmaidens selling their own kids for money. This intersects with general opposition to family planning and abortion, garden-variety homophobia (gay couples sometimes rely on surrogates), and biological determinism of both the social conservative ("motherhood is a woman's natural calling") and crunchy hippie varieties ("babies need their birth moms because breastmilk/oxytocin/etc").

RW would benefit from articles on sex-negative feminism, surrogacy, and the anti-kink movement. Like, these are all interconnected subjects, yes, but they're distinct in ways that are hard to explain concisely. "No kink at Pride" types on Tumblr are not the product of second-wave sex-negative feminism. Burnt Toast (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I didn't make this clearer, although you probably read between the lines successfully, but the implication from some of these is that those "men with a fetish" obviously "deserve to be raped" because they're "asking for it". Assuming they don't just come out and straight up say that, which I have seen once or twice. Chillpilled (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've encountered one or two TERFs who openly admitted they believe trans women deserve to suffer for the "crime" of publicly existing. But most seem to realise the terrible optics of copping to that level of callousness. So they'll tiptoe around the edges of what they actually think with bad-faith arguments and strawmen. Where my observations intersect with yours, I suppose, is that TERFism and SWERFism are fundamentally reactionary. While they may start out or package themselves as feminism, they ultimately serve to perpetuate systems that limit, control, and persecute all women. Burnt Toast (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

For a prominent example of what Chillpilled was discussing above, JKR recently went mask-off in declaring she doesn't care about trans women SA survivors. Burnt Toast (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)