Queering Child Abuse – Julie Bindel’s Writing and Podcasts

A version of this article was published in Al Jazeera, August 30, 2024

In recent decades, so-called “sex worker rights” campaigns to decriminalize pimping and buying sex have attached themselves like a limpet to the lesbian and gay movement now known as “LGBTQ+.” In many ways, it makes sense that the prostitution lobby would present itself as part of a proud social justice campaign, as it perpetuates the myth that prostitution is liberatory.

I have heard on numerous occasions ‘sex work’ lobbyists compare the campaign to legalize pimping, brothel ownership, and buying sex to the successful 1967 campaign to partially decriminalize homosexual acts. As a lesbian who has always been open and proud, this analogy is as insulting as it is duplicitous. Prostitution benefits men who want to colonize women’s bodies, while being allowed to escape the shackles of compulsory heterosexuality is a matter of personal freedom to define your own sexuality.

Such arguments still rage, especially in light of the institutional hold that gender ideology has gained in many state and non-state agencies.

The latest shock came from California, where LGBTQ+ activists successfully opposed planned tougher penalties for adults who try to solicit sex from prostituted children.

In April of this year, Republican Senator Shannon Grove introduced a bill that would make it a felony to solicit a minor for sex, or agree to engage in any form of commercial sex with a child. Repeat offenders would be required to register.

However, during the Public Safety Committee debate, Democrats pushed for a misdemeanor charge (rather than a full felony) for people 15 and under. But it also excluded 16- and 17-year-olds unless it can be proven they were involved in the sex trade — which is now the only way to criminalize the exploiters. “People who buy children for sex in the state of California should go to prison,” said Senator Grove.

As things currently stand in California, if someone solicits a minor (16 or 17 years old) for prostitution, the penalty is a maximum of one year in jail and/or a $10,000 fine. If Senator Grove’s bill had passed without amendment, judges would have been able to impose a maximum of two years in jail and a maximum fine of $25,000. These proposals are, incredibly, opposed by LGBTQ+ activists – who argue that increased penalties for those who abuse minors who end up in the sex trade would “disproportionately” affect the LGBTQ+ community.

Opponents of the bill also argued that 16- and 17-year-olds should be exempted from the penalties and that the sentence should be reduced from two years in prison to a maximum of one year in the county jail.

“We are particularly concerned that the harsher sentences proposed in this bill will disproportionately impact marginalized communities, particularly members of the LGBTQ+ community, who already face systemic bias within the criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to sexual crimes,” Grove’s opponents argued during their address to the committee on the bill’s changes.

You would think that tougher penalties for soliciting minors for prostitution would be a no-brainer, but these activists argue:

“Studies have shown that LGBTQ+ people, particularly gay and transgender people, are more likely to be charged with sex crimes than their heterosexual counterparts.” They further state that “LGBTQ+ people” are nine times more likely to be charged with sex crimes and therefore more likely to be incarcerated, which in turn will lead to more difficulty finding housing and employment. Why on earth should there be an exception for LGBTQ+ identified abusers? Could it be because the sexual exploitation of children and young people is often seen as a legitimate means of pleasure for men who adopt the “queer” label?

Who would have thought that it would be so difficult in the state of California to protect minors 17 and under from men who want to buy them for sex?

California prosecutors admit that, given the requirements for prosecuting someone who solicits sex from 16- and 17-year-olds, it will be nearly impossible to bring a case. There are simply too many hurdles to jump through.

If California’s LGBTQ+ community is claiming that the ban on paying for sex with minors will disproportionately affect them, I think that’s a pretty damning admission in itself.

Part

I come across these arguments all the time, where prostitution (framed as ‘sex work’) is seen as a sexual identity rather than the abuse of the most vulnerable, including underage children. The argument is that since prostitution is almost an integral part of gay male culture, the police will inevitably use it to entrap ‘queer people’.

The so-called ‘Progress Flag’ currently has a line for ‘liberation of sex work’; this must be removed. The arguments around prostitution urgently need to be revised so that we can see prostitution for what it really is: the oldest oppression. When decriminalized prostitution policies are advocated in the name of lesbians and gay men, something has gone terribly wrong with the lesbian and gay rights movement.

Accusations of ‘whorephobia’ (implying the hatred or stigmatisation of prostituted women and men) are used to silence and discourage any criticism of the sex industry. This stance (which is enshrined in the universities’ ‘safe space’ policy) has led some lesbian and gay students to adopt a ‘queer’ identity.

Peter Tatchell is a gay rights activist who has long campaigned for the age of consent to be lowered to 14. In the early 1990s, he reviewed a grotesque and shocking book, Dare to Speak: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Boyhood–Love (edited by Joseph Geraci). Tatchell wrote: ‘Abusive, exploitative relationships are indefensible, but … (there are) many examples of societies where consenting sex between generations is regarded by both old and young as normal, acceptable, beneficial, and pleasurable’.

In a blog post, Tatchell also wrote:

“Lee is 14. He has had sex with boys since he was eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and recently went out with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdresser’s. But in the eyes of the law, Lee’s partner is a paedophile and Lee is a victim of child abuse. But that’s not how Lee sees it: ‘I want a boyfriend. It’s my choice. Nobody abuses me. Why should we be treated like criminals?’”

Queer activists, including some academics, have promoted prostitution in an attempt to obscure and disguise the realities of the sex industry.

Trans woman Janet Mock is a transgender activist who transitioned from male to female. Her memoir is about growing up as a transgender woman, Redefining Reality: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love, and Beyond seems to celebrate the involvement of children in the sex industry:

“I was 15 when I first visited Merchant Street, what some would call ‘the walk’ for trans women who do street sex work. At the time, I was just starting my medical transition and it was where younger girls, like my friends and I, went to hang out, flirt and fool around with boys, and socialize with older trans women, the legends of our community.”

California Democrats who have advocated for lighter sentences for those who target prostitutes routinely suggest that child prostitution is a “queer” sexual identity. It also gives the distinct impression that men within the so-called LGBTQ+ “community” should be given special dispensation. No matter how it’s disguised, this is nothing more than an apology for child abuse.