Prostitution

Trigger warning- discussion of sexual assault and exploitation, human sex trafficking 

Widely known as the oldest career in the world. With an estimated 80,000 female prostitutes in the UK, there is no denying that so long as men want sex, women will be in these careers. Becoming a prostitute is a highly personal choice and may come in the form of a sense of emancipation from the shackles of the nuclear family, a desire to express sexuality in return for cash- in- hand or conversely it can be a career forged out of sheer need, however, it is crucial that we as feminists examine the institutions and laws surrounding prostitutes and ensure that these women are safe, which- spoiler alert- they are not.

Many prostitutes require pimps to protect them from the many legal barriers surrounding their line of work that are often difficult to navigate and understand. Pimps, however, are technically committing an offence for aiding prostitution and hence a prostitute must be 'free agent', essentially meaning that no real protection can be allowed for the woman under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is, of course, important to consider the often exploitative nature of pimps, with internal trafficking of underage children and assault wraught on the woman by the very people who should protect them- pimps. This contradiction between the role pimps should play and the role they often play creates a chasm in the creation and understanding of policy making in the arena of sex work.

Women are not allowed to give sexual services inside in groups of more than one in the UK (this becomes a 'brothel') , thus this prohibition essentially isolates them and makes them extremely vulnerable. However conversely, brothels and brothel 'maids' (someone who administrates, cleans or caters in such venues) can become a danger to young women who find themselves ensnared in these atmospheres. many women work themselves up the ranks to 'manage' them as a way of creating a relative safety net from sexual assault and escape from what some women may find demeaning and diminuitive work. 'Managing' a brothel is illegal as is being a 'maid' hence they are prosecuted depending on the severity of involvement and coercion. 

We can see how cyclical and dangerous this system can thus become, women seeking to escape violence can be threatened by those higher up in the ranks hence as a form of escape, prostitututes may desire to advance their 'careers' and find themselevs on the wrong side of the law. Enigmatically, there is little alternative, to report their managers or maids to the police is made almost impossible due to the power relationship and perpetual fear felt by prostitutes due to threats and coercion from those above them. To report to the police, may become a death wish.

It is a simplistic view to suggest that all women who find themselves in prostitution do so out of desire, there is sometimes a dangerous narrative within feminist circles centering notions of 'more power to her' and 'you go girl'. Very often these women have little agency. For example, many desperate migrants with little money may resort to being taken into the UK in return for the selling of sexual acts, over 80 such women were identified in 2020 alone (and knowing the murky waters of trafficking, many more inevitably remain unidentified.) many migrants who cannot gain Asylum in the UK are not allowed any other career except prostitution due to its unregulated nature. often these migrants are deported such as the Vietnamese migrants who were deported by the home office post-trafficking with no protection provided. This fear of deportation can silence these trafficked migrants in cases of abuse by traffickers and other seniors in the world of sex work, they are marked illegal and disguarded for doing what desperation has led to. This mirrors the arcane, racist and anti-semitic Aliens Act of 1905 defining 'undesirable character' constituting deportation, in over a hundred years the government appears to hold the same stance on the vulnerable trafficked.

There are two key sides to this debate- abolitionists and those who wish for legalisation and protection. Both offer some valid arguments. Is prostitution ever entirely free from exploitation? In a perfect world, would prostitution exist? However, is the risk of outlawing prostitution putting more sex workers in danger and demonising the 'oldest career in history'? Does outlawing even have its desired effect? As feminists, these debates are key to discuss and contemplate in a constructive and non-adversarial manner. In the US, selling and buying sex is illegal, in New Zealand it was legalised in 2003 and in Sweden they have taken up a unique model of Of 'Criminalising Clients' which, arguably has caused far more legal chafing. A similar bill to the Swedish 1999 act was brought to the UK parliament facing much distain from sex workers due to the fear and prejudice it is likely to create. In Northern Ireland, they took up the Nordic Model of prostitution law and charity 'Ugly Mugs' found that violent crime against sex workers has gone up by 92% subsequently.

So laws and protections for sex workers are an enigma, many people studying these laws find themselves entangled in a web of confusion hence we find these laws do not often go to the right extent to protect sex workers. In an ideal world, sex work law should have far more mechanisms to protect the people it effects combined with a compassionate immigration policy (sadly, out of sink with the History of the Home Office build on the foundation of the Aliens Act 1905) as well as a robust welfare state providing money enough to live on for all. 

It is not all a confusing doom and gloom, here are some things we can do right now to help- we can donate, protest and lobby our MPs - collectively we can work to make this profession safer for all.

Charities - Support For Sex Workers - POW Nottingham                                                          Beyond The Streets | UK charity working to end sexual exploitation 

Trans women

Trigger warnings- discussion of gender dysphoria , medical procedure (specifically relating to transition) , hate crime , murder

Transgender women are people who having previously been 'men' in the eyes of society have found their gender identity has always or for a long time aligned with that of a 'women' hence they 'transition' to be socially and sometimes medically recognised as a woman. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 has allowed trans women to be recognised in a formalised manner as the gender they identify with, however, a trans person's name and gender can be changed on most documents without the need for legalised gender recognition. To get one's gender legally recognised in Birth Certificates and other pivotal legal documentation requires a fee of £140. This fee when compared with medical treatment and gender reassignment is minuscule with treatment costing up to and far beyond £20,000. Medical steps taken by trans women come in two key forms; 'bottom and top surgery' (coloquialisms in the trans community) , 'bottom surgery' for trans women usually comes in the form of a Vaginoplasty and 'top surgery' in the form of breast mammoplasty. Other medical interventions come in the form of hormone treatment under which strict criteria and proof of gender dysphoria must be met. Gender dysphoria is a very real, psychological and scientific phenomenon with countless bodies of evidence suggesting that despite many attempts to brand dysphoria as 'all in one's head',this is clearly not the case. Medical evidence shows that the brain structure of trans women before transitioning, more closely resembles that of female characteristic that their birth sex of male and hence sex and gender are not bound together. Sex is not binary and neither is gender. 

Why am I particularly discussing trans women? Just as a taster for the heartbreaking statistics and stories I am about to tell you, in the national LGBT survey, only 37% of trans women felt comfortable being LGBT in the UK. Four in five trans people have experienced hate crime and these hate crimes rose by an astronomical 81% between years 2018-19. Disproportionate numbers of trans women have been murdered simply for expressing their identity and living peacefully as themselves - Amanda Milan was stabbed in 2000 at the age of 25, Bee Love Slater was immolated in her car in 2019 and when reported on by the police was 'deadnamed'. I will keep these examples brief due to their deeply harrowing nature but these illustrate the scale of the problem on our hands, hate crime against trans women is on the rise and TERFS are arguably stoking the fires.

What is a TERF? No, its not that artificial grass one sees at the bowles club. They are a subsect of radical feminists who specifically believe in the exclusion of trans women from the category of 'women' and agree with the belief that women's rights only include the rights of those who are cis- gender (another word for identifying to one's birth sex.) you may recall the term TERF most vividly from the debate surrounding JK Rowling's essay 'TERF wars' (which i shall not link, it does not need futher platforming.) The key arguments of TERFS are as follows- gender and sex and are inextricably linked (which as we have discovered is scientifically unfounded), trans women should not be allowed in to women's only spaces (more on this later) ranging to an absurd argument that trans men are self-loathing lesbian (yikes.) TERF arguments clearly encourage anti- trans rhetoric and behaviours so no, JK, your argument certainly did add to the 'toxicity' in this 'debate' surrounding the very existence of an identity.

Let's explore the bathroom debate and how this effects trans women. As TERFS effectively see gender indentity as an invalid marker of your 'right' to enter the bathroom you feel comfortable in, they see trans women as 'not welcome' in a women's bathroom. Let's theoretically humour them then, they are suggesting a trans person should go to the bathroom that correlates to their birth sex hence a trans man would enter a women's bathroom with full secondary sexual characteristics and outward male gender expression, I have a sneaking feeling that this situation would not pacify TERFS. It would be shallow to contemplate it in these black and white terms, however, TERFS worry about the possibility of sexual assult that may occur if a trans women was allowed into a female bathroom however the slight flaw in this arguement is that the spokesperson for the Transgender Law Center found literally no statistical data to prop this arguement up. Trans women have been present in women's bathrooms for decades and TERFS probably have not even noticed. The problem with the assertion that trans women would sexually assault others in a bathroom is that it is not evidence based, it is bigotry based. Trans women are not men in 'female clothing', one can notice a parallel of the TERF bathroom arguments in dubbing homosexuals in the 60's as 'peadophiles', it is a way of presenting divergence from 'typicality' as 'other' and 'perverse'. It is really pretty tragic to see this demonisation of the earlier centuries mirrored in such a clear way when one considers the sheer amount of TERFS who, themselves, are lesbians, the LGBT community has to stand united against hatred. Factionalism within the LGBT community is also seen in the 'LGB alliance' has proved divisive and serving opression. In short, this scaremongering and these false assertions have caused catastrophic damage to trans women who are now experiencing high levels of opression and hatred due to the false 'feminist' TERFS, lets call them what they really are... Anti- trans.

Charities- https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/, https://www.sparkle.org.uk/, https://www.weexist.co.uk/healthcare                                                                                                                                                                           

Traditional Body Procedures For Women

Nowadays, plastic surgery is becoming a more widespread phenomenon, but undergoing procedures aimed at increasing one's beauty, is not a new thing. For centuries practices have existed that aim to enhance a woman's appearance or desirability, many of which pose a serious medical risk. These traditions are often diverse, ranging from increasing the size of body parts to decreasing them, they offer an insight into the range of global beauty standards set for women.

Bound feet

The practice of binding feet, which has now been illegal for over a century, can be traced back to 10th century China. The procedure involved breaking all of the toes and then folding them under the foot and wrapping them in cloth, so that once the cloth was removed the foot was said to have a lotus shape, with only the big foot left in its natural position. There are different variations of the practice with, some leaving the foot only 3 inches in length.

There are multiple theories as to the origin of this tradition, but it is known to have begun in the upper classes, probably just before the Song dynasty. The practice has since been prohibited, being heralded as violence against women.

Zhou Guizhen said "I regret binding my feet, I can't dance, I can't move properly. I regret it a lot. But at the time, if you didn't bind your feet, no one would marry you." Zhou's account is one of pain and suffering in the name of attracting marriage.

Girls as young as 4 or 5 would have their feet bound. After the procedure the girls were bedbound being unable to walk due to the pain. Some feminist critics have claimed that this is partly why the practice was so celebrated: not only was it seen as desirable and beautiful, increasing a woman's marriage prospects, but it also meant that the woman was even more reliant on her family. Reducing women's movement also had economic advantages for the family; after having their feet bound they would have to stay at home where they could weave and do other work by hand.

This practice is also extremely deplorable from a medical standpoint. For many women the binding of their feet left their mobility restricted and resulted in lifelong disabilities. Walking fast became impossible and even walking slowly could bring great pain and discomfort. Hence, it is clearly a good thing that this painful tradition has been prohibited and no more women have to suffer.

Further Reading: The Medical Consequences of Foot-Binding - The Atlantic;   Painful Memories for China's Footbinding Survivors 

Skin bleaching

Skin bleaching or skin lightening is a practice that aims to reduce the production or concentration of melanin in the skin, in order to make the skin appear paler. It is a worldwide practice, but skin lightening creams are particularly predominant in many African, Asian and Caribbean nations.

They are a product of the cultural messages that lighter skin means wealth, beauty and prosperity. These products exhibit the culture biases and colourism that are promoted by unrepresentative media. However, not only does skin lightening carry racist messages, but it also presents a real health risk: many of the cheaper skin lightening creams that the most popular contain mercury.

Mercury is poisonous to humans. According to the World Health Organisation "the inorganic salts of mercury are corrosive to the skin, eyes and gastrointestinal tract, and may induce kidney toxicity if ingested [.. and] the inhalation of mercury vapour can produce harmful effects on the nervous, digestive and immune systems, lungs and kidneys, and may be fatal. Neurological and behavioural disorders may be observed after inhalation, ingestion or dermal exposure of different mercury compounds."

Thus, skin bleaching is a dangerous practice that promotes racist ideals.

Further Reading: Skin Lightening Is Fraught With Risk, But It Still Thrives in the Asian Beauty Market-Here's Why | Vogue; Mercury and health (who.int)

Neck stretching

Neck stretching is a traditional practice that the Kayan people, practice. It involves the wearing of a brass coil around the neck, which presses down on the shoulders creating the illusion of a longer neck. The coils are first worn by girls from the age of five and then for the rest of their lives, only being taken of to be made longer, for medical reasons or as a way of punishing women who commit adultery.

The Kayan people live in Thailand, near the border to Myanmar, where they had to flee persecution from the government who sought to irradicate the traditions that they perceived to be backwards. There are multiple theories over the origin of this tradition, with some believing that the neck coils were first introduced as protection against tigers and others believing that they are used for more aesthetic reasons, such as creating a more feminine look or assimilating with their cultural identity.

However, this tradition can have negative medical repercussions: the reason the neck looks longer is because the clavicle becomes deformed and the rib cage compresses. The continual wearing of the coil can also weaken the neck muscles, leaving the women light-headed and dizzy when they remove them, with some even saying that the women struggle to support the weight of their heads.

Further Reading: The Ancient Tradition Of Neck Elongation, Explained - Urbo; Why Do These Women Stretch Their Necks? | National Geographic - YouTube

Genital mutilation

Female genital mutilation (FMG) is a practice that exists worldwide, but is particularly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab states, with 98% of women and girls aged 15-49 in Somalia having undergone some form of genital mutilation and with an estimated 137,000 girls and women being affected by FMG in England and Wales, according to the National FGM Centre. This practice predates the rise of Christianity and Islam.

According to the United Nations Population fund "FGM refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other non-medical reasons." It is usually done to girls bellow 15, by people with no professional medical qualification and no anaesthetic or antiseptic, using scissors, scalpels, glass shards and razors.

This procedure can have long-lasting and extremely serious health effects. Blood poisoning, severe pain, infection, haemorrhage and urine retention are all imminent threats, some of which can result in death. Furthermore, the actual act of FMG can bring with it the risk of HIV when tools aren't sterilised but are used to mutilate multiple girls.

The terrible repercussions of FMG are clear, yet it continues to be enacted. The reasons why can be complex and puzzling: FGM can be carried out as a way of preventing female pleasure, thereby controlling women's sexuality; as a way to supposedly increase male sexual pleasure; as a way of ensuring virginity and fidelity are preserved; as part of the local culture; for aesthetic reasons; because of myths surrounding unmutilated bodies; as an initiation into womanhood; to enhance marriage prospects and as a religious practice. However, no of these reasons are important enough to justify the risk of death and long-lasting physical and mental trauma.

This first person account shows the reality many girls face: "My two sisters, myself and our mother went to visit our family back home. I assumed we were going for a holiday. A bit later they told us that we were going to be infibulated. The day before our operation was due to take place, another girl was infibulated and she died because of the operation. We were so scared and didn't want to suffer the same fate. But our parents told us it was an obligation, so we went. We fought back; we really thought we were going to die because of the pain. You have one woman holding your mouth so you won't scream, two holding your chest and the other two holding your legs. After we were infibulated, we had rope tied across our legs so it was like we had to learn to walk again. We had to try to go to the toilet. If you couldn't pass water in the next 10 days something was wrong. We were lucky, I suppose. We gradually recovered and didn't die like the other girl. But the memory and the pain never really go away." -Zainab, who was infibulated at the age of 8 (from WHO)

Further Resources: Female genital mutilation (FGM) frequently asked questions | UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund; Female genital mutilation (who.int); Female genital mutilation (FGM) - NHS (www.nhs.uk); What is FGM? | End FGM; FGM - National FGM Centre; the Spanish-language documentary Eve's Apple on Netflix; Alice Walker's Possessing the Secret of Joy is a fictional novel which explore this theme

From Bikinis to Burkas: Why Women's Clothing Matters

Clothes are an integral part of our outward identity; they strongly influence how we are perceived by others. For women, clothing is even more important: the clothes that we wear are often much more controlled and judged than those of men, with everything from showing flesh to covering your face being punishable around the world.

Take bikinis for example, within feminist circles it has long been a debate as to whether they serve to cater to the male gaze, or whether they can empower women and allow them to exercise agency over their bodies. For decades bikinis were illegal across much of the Europe, with the Vatican going as far as to call them sinful. Even today, wearing a two-piece is only permitted in Barcelona if you are near the beach. The bikini is still highly controversial and sexualised, and the women wearing them are objectified: author Jamie Annie Richardson wrote for HuffPost that "Women wear bikinis because they want to be looked at [...] to catch an onlooker's eye." This belief that women who wear 'revealing' clothes do so for attention presents an inference that all women who dress a certain way exhibit the same motivations and lack individual self-determination.

So, women who chose to wear revealing clothes are deemed attention-seeking and promiscuous. Thus, if a woman wishes to escape judgement for her clothing surely she can just do the opposite and dress modestly? Well, no.

Across much of Europe women who chose to dress modestly are seen as controlled by men too. In particular this judgement seems to fall upon Muslim women who chose to wear the burka or the niqab, with the High Authority for the Fight against Discrimination and for Equality (France's public watchdog group on discrimination) claiming that "the burqa carries the meaning of the submission of women". In Denmark, France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands wearing a burka in public can be met with a fine. For many women, dressing modestly is matter of extreme religious importance, yet this is continually denied. It is even more enigmatic to consider France's 'burka ban' after the pandemic, where face masks were made mandatory starting in Paris from the 28th of August. Whilst it cannot be ignored that face masks are incredibly medically important, some have argued that this selection of which face coverings are okay shows a racist undertone, with journalist Rokhaya Diallo saying "the government's move to make face masks compulsory while refusing to reverse the ban on Muslim face veils reaffirmed the conviction many already had that the so-called "burqa" ban has nothing to do with the incompatibility of face coverings with the French way of life and everything to do with the state's reluctance to include visible Muslims into the French national identity." Whilst forcing women to cover up and removing their agency is arguably wrong, is prohibiting women from choosing modesty not equally as controlling? Should women not be allowed to make their own choices - whether that means covering up or showing flesh?

Whilst a woman can dress to impress others or to live up to others' expectation - if that's what she wants to do - immediately inferring that this is what all women do rejects the autonomy that women should have over how they wish to express themselves. By extension, it says that women act to please men and it feeds into the sexist narrative that strips women of individuality. Deirdre Clemente, a history professor at the University of Nevada who has studied dress codes for women said "people in positions of power say, 'We're putting these rules in place for the woman's good.' The implication is that women are unable to regulate their appearance themselves." When it is assumed that women dress in bikinis and in burkas for male approval it reveals the Catch-22 that exists within women's clothing: whatever they wear it will somehow be deemed as dressing for someone else. Why can't a woman choose to wear a bikini because she likes that bikini? Or, why can't a woman choose to wear a burka because that is how she feels most comfortable? I can't help but agree with the New York Times that 'women's right to dress as they feel comfortable and fitting should be defended against those coercing them into either covering or uncovering.' Surely it is not for us to judge how someone else dresses? 

Further reading: Switzerland referendum: Voters support ban on face coverings in public - BBC News; From Bikinis to Burkinis, Regulating What Women Wear - The New York Times (nytimes.com); Timeline of dress codes: History of men telling women what to wear (marieclaire.co.uk); Countries extremely strict dress codes (businessinsider.com); The bikini: a feminist issue | Turkey | The Guardian