In every other form of human trafficking, it is clear that while some labor practices are harmful, not all of them rise to the level of human trafficking. In those cases, we work to create laws that foster safer working environments and listen to workers’ voices to learn how we can end exploitation. We define forms of labor that children should not be working in and articulate consequences for those who exploit others.
The advocacy to include all commercial sex in the definition of human trafficking comes from folks who oppose all forms of sex work. These are the groups that benefit from and perpetuate conflation. Some of them have had horrible experiences in commercial sex, while others have never been involved in commercial sex in any form. We can’t overlook that fact – people are often speaking to their experiences of trauma, pain, and abuse. And yet with any other form of interpersonal abuse, we approach it differently.
We don’t ban romantic relationships because of intimate partner abuse. Regardless of whether or not a person’s relationship is healthy, we don’t invalidate their choices or take away their autonomy. We don’t launch raids to forcibly extract people in unhealthy or abusive relationships for their own good, not without them asking for help leaving first. We recognize how that strategy might backfire or put the person at greater risk for violence or vulnerability.
This is part of the harm of conflation to survivors and sex workers alike. Imagine if the movement to end intimate partner violence operated primarily by trying to end intimate relationships or ban marriage. Imagine if instead of offering prevention education that taught about healthy relationships and how some things are not appropriate for minors, the education instead taught about how entering into intimate relationships at all, ever, contributed to and normalized partner abuse. Imagine if anti-abuse campaigners slid into the DMs of people on dating apps to warn them of the dangers of dating, or even led them along long enough to set up a date – a date that later turned out to be a kindly woman offering education about how you deserve better than putting yourself out there for abuse by dating. Imagine if the only partner violence services available in a geographical area were those that operated under the assumption that all intimate relationships are inherently abusive and part of the counseling involved helping you “rise above” dating or “recognize that you’re worth more” than being in a relationship.
And now imagine if federal dollars to prevent intimate partner violence went to fund those programs, instead of evidence-based programs that specifically educate about abuse and the differences between healthy, unhealthy, and abusive relationships.
We would be outraged. Those programs would be ineffective and cause harm to the dating public they harass as well as the abuse survivors they leave behind. We would be furious that funding that could be used to fund therapy, housing, and economic justice for survivors of partner violence was being redirected into ideological programming that included a degree of indoctrination into the ideology as part of its “recovery” offerings.
This example illustrates the danger of conflation for survivors of human trafficking. It draws essential resources away from the survivors it was intended to support.
One final note: Advocates for conflation often present it to legislators (and the general public) as a way to get needed resources to those who need them most. And it’s true – many sex workers who are not being trafficked do need extra support and resources to help them make the best choices they can for themselves. Getting them the help they need does not require recategorizing them as victims of human trafficking, though; it simply requires destigmatizing them, decriminalizing their survival strategies, and removing the restrictions that keep sex worker safety organizations from being as well-funded as anti-trafficking groups.