- Advocacy for decriminalizing sex work linked to LGBTQ+ movement
- California bill to protect minors in sex trade weakened by LGBTQ+ opposition
- Concerns about conflating LGBTQ+ rights with prostitution advocacy
In recent decades, so-called “sex workers‘ rights” advocates fighting to decriminalize pimping and buying sex have joined forces with trans rights activists to advocate for the rights of same-sex attracted persons. This was a logical (and highly beneficial) decision on their behalf. Being associated with a proud, well-regarded social justice movement undoubtedly aids their efforts to spread the notion that “sex work is work” and “prostitution is liberating.” Their acceptance into what became known as the “LGBTQ+” movement has, however, been highly detrimental to society’s most vulnerable people, particularly children.
In California, for example, so-called LGBTQ+ activists have successfully campaigned against proposed enhanced penalties for adults seeking sex from prostituted adolescents.
Republican Senator Shannon Grove introduced a bill in April of this year that would have made soliciting a minor for sex or agreeing to engage in any form of commercial sex with a child a felony offense punishable by jail time and sex offender registration for repeat offenders.
“The crime of purchasing a child, of any age, for sex in the state of California should be a prison felony,” Grove told the crowd. However, LGBTQ+ campaigners rejected the bill, citing fears of “unintended consequences”. They warned that enhanced punishments for those who abuse youngsters involved in the sex trade will “disproportionately” damage the LGBTQ+ community.
We are particularly concerned that the harsher penalties proposed in this bill will disproportionately affect marginalized communities, particularly members of the LGBTQ+ community, who already face systematic biases within the criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to sexually based offenses, argued Grove’s opponents during their presentation to the Public Safety Committee about the changes they want to see in the proposed bill.
You might think that harsher penalties for buying and selling children for sex should be obvious. Still, these activists argued that “studies have shown that LGBTQ+ people, particularly gay and transgender individuals, are more likely to be charged with sex offenses compared to their heterosexual counterparts.” According to them, “LGBTQ+ individuals are nine times more likely to be charged with sex crimes, and are thus more likely to be incarcerated – which will in turn lead to increased difficulties in finding housing and employment.”
Really, who cares? Why should there be an exception for LGBTQ+-identified abusers? Do children suffer less when they are mistreated and abused by someone who claims to have been discriminated against for whatever reason?
Ultimately, the Public Safety Committee made multiple revisions to Grove’s measure to appease these activists, considerably weakening it.
The amended bill allows soliciting children aged 16-17 to be punished as a felony only if it can be proven that the minor was a victim of sex trafficking, and judges have the discretion to charge those accused of soliciting children 15 and under with a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, under the modified measure, a felony conviction for soliciting children carries a possible, but not mandatory, jail sentence. Repeat offenders are not required to register as a sex offender.
The bill must clear numerous more hurdles before being signed into law. Many others are concerned that by the time it becomes legislation, it will have been watered down and become entirely meaningless.
Who would have imagined that protecting children from men who want to buy them for sex would be so rigid in California, the United States?
And why is the California LGBTQ+ community attempting to portray child sex solicitation as a part of one’s sexual identity rather than a heinous, unforgivable crime? Shouldn’t it be a source of shame rather than advocacy that some members of the community, namely gay males, appear to be disproportionately affected by efforts to prevent people from buying sex from prostituted minors? Shouldn’t these activists be focussing their efforts on stopping gay child abusers rather than protecting them from the consequences of their damaging actions?
Since the unexplained expansion of the same-sex rights movement to include “sex work” activists, I’ve seen an increase in efforts to portray prostitution as an expression of sexual identity rather than abuse of our society’s most vulnerable members, including children. Today, the movement appears to be resisting common-sense efforts to safeguard children by saying that prostitution, particularly underage prostitution, is an intrinsic part of homosexual male culture and that anti-prostitution policies are being coopted to entrap and criminalize “queer people.”
“Unlock your financial potential with free Webull shares in the UK.”
This is intolerable. The defense of prostitution under the ever-expanding banner of the LGBTQ+ movement damages women and children, making it increasingly difficult to protect them from predators. Furthermore, it contributes to the age-old effort to link male same-sex attraction with child maltreatment.
The debate about prostitution needs to be reframed, both within the LGBTQ+ community and in general society, so that we can all recognize the sex trade for what it is: the oldest form of oppression.
The fact that people are campaigning for the decriminalization of prostitution and mild punishments for those who buy sex from kids in the name of preserving the rights of homosexual and transgender men indicates that something has gone wrong with the lesbian and gay rights movements. This is simply an apology for child abuse, no matter how it is dressed up. It should be challenged for the sake of children, lesbians, and gays who want the campaign for their rights to be separated from damaging prostitute propaganda.
