Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[bilby]

I think that gender is an important consideration in the context of sexual behaviour; so it is legitimate to discriminate based on this factor.

Eye colour and skin colour are not, so it is not.

Discrimination per se is a good thing; but it is so common and accepted that it is rarely discussed; the word 'discrimination' has, as a result, come to mean 'unreasonable discrimination' - ie discrimination on the basis of a factor that has no bearing on the situation at hand.

A person's gender has no bearing on their work as a ticket collector; so it is illegal to discriminate on gender grounds alone when employing ticket collectors.

A person's gender has a major bearing on their sexual behaviours; so it is perfectly OK to discriminate on gender grounds when selecting sexual partners in a business setting.

This is naked special pleading, but it's also very confused. What does it mean to have a 'major bearing' on sexual behaviour? I only have sex with men, and that has nothing at all to do with my gender, but rather my sexual orientation.

Your choice of partners has nothing to do with YOUR gender, no.

But clearly THEIR gender is of central importance to you.

Which rather reinforces my point.

You say "I only have sex with men"; but when it comes to race, you merely have "an order of preference"; which seems to imply that your partner's gender is paramount, and a person being the 'wrong' gender is an absolute deal-breaker; while their race is a matter of preference - but, for you, not (no pun intended) such a black and white issue.

My choice of phrase was poor - it would have been better had I written: "A persons gender has a major bearing on whether others choose them as sexual partners". I contend that race, body shape, eye colour, hair colour, etc. are all far less important to most people - although of course, there are always exceptions.

 

[Metaphor]

This is naked special pleading, but it's also very confused. What does it mean to have a 'major bearing' on sexual behaviour? I only have sex with men, and that has nothing at all to do with my gender, but rather my sexual orientation.

Your choice of partners has nothing to do with YOUR gender, no.

But clearly THEIR gender is of central importance to you.

Which rather reinforces my point.

You say "I only have sex with men"; but when it comes to race, you merely have "an order of preference"; which seems to imply that your partner's gender is paramount, and a person being the 'wrong' gender is an absolute deal-breaker; while their race is a matter of preference - but, for you, not (no pun intended) such a black and white issue.

My choice of phrase was poor - it would have been better had I written: "A persons gender has a major bearing on whether others choose them as sexual partners". I contend that race, body shape, eye colour, hair colour, etc. are all far less important to most people - although of course, there are always exceptions.

But, so what? So what if you find them less important, or even most people? Why do you believe gender to be the criterion that it is permissible to discriminate on, but not race? Because most people discriminate by gender? Well, so what? Does that make sexism more legitimate than racism?

I know gay men who simply do not have sex with Asian men. This group of gay men who discriminate against Asian partners includes Asian men. Since these men reject sex with women and Asians equally (zero percent chance with either), who are you to decide that one preference (gender) is permissible for business transactions, but the other (race) is not?

You've pushed yourself off the slippery-dip when you said 'gender is a permissible discrimination in business transactions' but you want to plant your feet in at an arbitrary point and say 'here, and no further'.

And I suspect you'll find that race -- and many other physical characteristics -- play a huge role in sexual selection for people.

 

[Sabine Grant]

IMO what bilby is pointing to is that when it comes to sexual orientation (hetero male or female, gay male or female) and gender identity (such as MTF transgender prostitute) all those are lived and experienced identities. It is 100% justified that a female GI MTF transgender would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay male would accept only male clients. 100% justified that a gay female would accept only female clients. That a hetero male or female would accept only clients of the opposite gender. It is highly questionable that persons of a specific GI or/and sexual orientation be compelled by any law to render sexual services to clients incompatible with their legitimate GI or/and sexual identity.

However when it comes to rejecting clients based on their ethnicity, it has NOTHING to do with GI or/and sexual orientation based incompatibility.

 

[Bomb#20]

Actually, it's an "I don't accept the premise of your loaded question", "I am not doing that, so the question does not apply" and "Yes, but as you are ignoring it it is futile to continue".

My loaded first question has two premises.

Premise A: I asked you if an employer telling a woman with poor alternate job prospects that she had to have sex with a white guy or lose her job was coercing her to have sex with someone she didn't want to have sex with, and you said yes.

Premise B: I asked you if a government telling a woman with poor alternate job prospects that she had to have sex with a white guy or lose her job was coercing her to have sex with someone she didn't want to have sex with, and you said no.

Which of the two premises of my loaded first question do you not accept?

Re my second question, if in fact you are not applying a blatant double standard for what is or isn't coercive, what single standard are you applying, that you can possibly believe gives the answers you gave without your head exploding from the pressure of the doublethink?

As to the third, no, I'm not ignoring what you've written in defense of your absurd contention; I'm simply observing that none of it is substantive.

I am not making you this issue; I am taking issue with the premises on which you base your arguments. If you feel like I am attacking you personally when I question your deeply held beliefs, that is not my problem; nor is it a problem for my argument.

Of course you were making me the issue. It's not a matter of my feelings; it's a fact. If you'd been taking issue with the premises on which I base my arguments then the positions you brought up and imputed to me would have had something to do with what I'd said. Instead you pulled positions out of your ass. There is nothing at all libertarian about noticing you committing an equivocation fallacy and calling you on it. The only way what you wrote could help you win was by tarring my arguments with guilt-by-association in the eyes of the many forum members who despise libertarians.

Not all government action is force; that doesn't change the fact that enforced licensing laws are force.

How can that internally inconsistent claim possibly be true? What makes enforcing a license force, but enforcing other kinds of laws not force?

Why would you write something as idiotic as that? I've seen you write very intelligent things in a lot of other threads, so I know you are not an idiot. It appears, therefore, that you're so angry at having your own inconsistency pointed out that you wanted so badly for me to have said something inconsistent too, for you to throw in my face, that you replied without thinking.

I expect you probably don't actually need me to explain this, because you aren't an idiot; but just in case, my claim can be true because it's not internally inconsistent, because governments do many things in addition to enforcing laws. Of course enforcing all kinds of laws is force. That's why the word "enforce" contains the word "force".

It's a fact non-libertarians from George Washington to Mao can agree on; moreover the claim that they're force isn't a claim that it's wrong to impose them.

Well we can agree on that at least.

I'm glad you agree. So, since you know perfectly well that a claim that law enforcement is force isn't a claim that law enforcement is wrong, you know perfectly well that an argument relying on law enforcement being force does not consequently rely on the premise that no laws are acceptable. So you know perfectly well that when you attributed that underlying premise to my argument, you had no logical grounds for doing so.

The regulation is not tantamount to a threat at all, in the context of the claim that the government is instructing women to have sex with partners not of her choosing.

Is an instruction that a janitor have sex with one of the men her boss nominates or else he'll stop giving her his company's money tantamount to a threat, at all?

The claim is absurd, regardless of whether it is under threat of death, incarceration, or fines; no such threat exists.

You aren't an idiot; try to follow. It's a two-stage threat. The regulation is a threat of job loss. The threat of job loss is backed up by a threat of incarceration if she doesn't submit to the job loss.

Right now in most of the US, prostitution is illegal - the government can and does fine or incarcerate women for voluntarily engaging in sex, simply because she does so as a business, rather than as a personal, transaction.

Duh. Do you have a reason for playing Captain Obvious that relates to the logic of our dispute?

The proposed change to allow the exchange of sex for money under some circumstances includes the regulation of such transactions. All the usual government rules about doing business blah blah blah

Yes, yes, I think everyone already knows what policy you're advocating. What's puzzling is why you think repeating your proposed change over and over constitutes an argument for it.

Not one iota of this is different from any other licensed and regulated business; and despite the appeals to emotion up-thread, mostly consisting of unsubstantiated claims that sex is 'different' from other personal services, I have yet to see any reason why in is, ought to be, or might be different.

Has it occurred to you that if you stopped putting words in other posters' mouths, stopped committing equivocation and special pleading fallacies, stopped asserting the falsehoods you derive from those fallacies about matters of fact, stopped applying double standards, stipulated to the facts others have drawn your attention to, and simply asked us why we regard sex as different, you might learn something?

Cancelling my liquor license because I refuse to serve blacks is not the same thing as forcing me to sell whisky to people I don't want to sell whisky to; Cancelling my prostitution license because I refuse to service blacks is not the same thing as forcing me to have sex with people I don't want to have sex with.

Duh. So what? Is firing a janitor because she won't put out on command the same thing as forcing her to have sex with people she doesn't want to have sex with? It isn't? Then why are you pointing out this trivial fact as though it has any bearing on what we're arguing about? The circumstance that making good on a threat doesn't qualify as forcing the person to do what you want plainly doesn't stop the threat itself from being coercion. You're committing yet another equivocation fallacy, this time between making the threat and carrying out of the threatened action.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

You are ignoring everything bilby is saying, Bomb#20, and YOU are the one advocating that a sex related business should be treated differently from other businesses by the law.

Talking about your hypothetical janitor is a complete non sequitor. That person has applied for a cleaning job and is being coerced by an arsehole boss for sexual favours. It may happen, for all I know, but it isn't the same case as someone who has applied for a sex work job but wants to perform it according to their own discriminatory template.

And settle down your abusive tone, it doesn't suit you.

 

[Metaphor]

You are ignoring everything bilby is saying, Bomb#20, and YOU are the one advocating that a sex related business should be treated differently from other businesses by the law.

Talking about your hypothetical janitor is a complete non sequitor. That person has applied for a cleaning job and is being coerced by an arsehole boss for sexual favours. It may happen, for all I know, but it isn't the same case as someone who has applied for a sex work job but wants to perform it according to their own discriminatory template.

And settle down your abusive tone, it doesn't suit you.

I would hardly call Bomb#20's tone abusive. Bomb#20 is not the one who said Bilby's perceptions were warped by his culture.

And you've misrepresented Bomb#20's second scenario. It wasn't about someone who 'applied' for a sex work job. His scenario had nothing to do with working for a brothel where the putative prostitute did not want to comply with the brothel owner's rules. It was about a self-employed prostitute who was being coerced in an analogous way, but by the government's rules, not a private employer's rules.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

You are ignoring everything bilby is saying, Bomb#20, and YOU are the one advocating that a sex related business should be treated differently from other businesses by the law.

Talking about your hypothetical janitor is a complete non sequitor. That person has applied for a cleaning job and is being coerced by an arsehole boss for sexual favours. It may happen, for all I know, but it isn't the same case as someone who has applied for a sex work job but wants to perform it according to their own discriminatory template.

And settle down your abusive tone, it doesn't suit you.

I would hardly call Bomb#20's tone abusive. Bomb#20 is not the one who said Bilby's perceptions were warped by his culture.

That's not abusive, that's an accurate observation. If you don't believe it's accurate, it's still not abusive, it's an attempt to understand why 2 usually reasonable people cannot perceive the other's meaning.

Duh. Do you have a reason for playing Captain Obvious that relates to the logic of our dispute?

This sort of thing isn't helpful, however.

And you've misrepresented Bomb#20's second scenario. It wasn't about someone who 'applied' for a sex work job. His scenario had nothing to do with working for a brothel where the putative prostitute did not want to comply with the brothel owner's rules. It was about a self-employed prostitute who was being coerced in an analogous way, but by the government's rules, not a private employer's rules.

If that self employed prostitute has been coerced into the job, then the problem isn't with the discrimination issues, it's with the initial coercion into sex work. That would be analogous with the janitor scenario. If the work is freely chosen, it doesn't come with the right of discriminatory behaviour.

No work does.

 

[Metaphor]

That's not abusive, that's an accurate observation. If you don't believe it's accurate, it's still not abusive, it's an attempt to understand why 2 usually reasonable people cannot perceive the other's meaning.

But I think Bilby can perceive his meaning. He's just backed into a corner and, like Tom Sawyer, now refuses to respond to the arguments he cannot answer.

If that self employed prostitute has been coerced into the job,

No. She was not 'coerced' into the job. She's coerced to have sex with men she doesn't want to if she wants to keep the job. In this case, it's the government doing the coercing. In the analogous first scenario, it was a private employer doing the coercing.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I understand why bilby isn't answering. After a while frustration makes your head explode.


You are OK with the statement

"If you want to specify who you make cakes for, then do so as a private individual, not as a business owner."


but you are uncomfortable with the statement

"If you want to specify who you have sex with, then do so as a private individual, not as a business owner."

The minute you commodify sex then you are subject to all the same rules as other businesses. You have already taken the stance "I demand ordinary human respect, but this body is available for rent."

People should not be sanctioned for choosing which sexual services they provide. Not to pander to any bigotry they may house, but because it speaks to quality of service. As a heterosexual woman I suspect any sexual service I provided to a lesbian woman would be well below par, even with the best will in the world, and even though I own the user manual for the body.

Having said that, I would not be uncomfortable with a law that want further in this regard. If you're going to be professional, be professsional. I bet you don't expect the right to only represent certain sectors of the community.

But what you are proposing supports and codifies in law the sort of discrimination that most of us spend our time here trying to root out. And you seem to be making special pleading for women. Nobody seems fussed about the preferences of rent boys.

And I don't understand it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Right now in most of the US, prostitution is illegal - the government can and does fine or incarcerate women for voluntarily engaging in sex, simply because she does so as a business, rather than as a personal, transaction.

Let's say the events take place in a legal brothel in Nevada.

1. Whenever an old client shows up, Sandy refuses to have sex with him - or her, but it's at least almost always a man.
Her boss Jane tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Sandy?

2. Whenever a client wearing a cross shows up, Ginger refuses to have sex with him.
Her boss Jane tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Ginger?

3. Whenever a Black client shows up, Sage refuses to have sex with him. Her boss Jane tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Sage?

4. Whenever a female client shows up, Angel refuses to have sex with her. Her boss Jane tells her to stop doing that, or she'll get fired. Is Jane coercing Angel?

 

[Toni]

In the U.S., discrimination laws do not apply to private clubs but only to places of public accommodations. A private club may choose to deny entrance or membership to whomever they wish. I haven't been to Nevada nor to the few legal brothels there, but my understanding is that the brothels are behind walls or fences or some such and are not open to the public. A prospective client may be denied entrance.



A lot of this thread seems to me to be about somehow forcing a woman to have sex with any one who wishes to have sex with her because she is a prostitute. I am assuming the same argument would apply to male prostitutes but no one ever seems to mention that there are male prostitutes, most of whom service male clients.

I will go on record as stating that I am against forcing anyone to have sex with any other individual against their will, no matter the profession of either party. Period. Good reason/bad reason/no reason at all: both parties must consent of their own free will and should not be compelled in any way to have sex if they find it objectionable for any reason.

Unfortunately, this is rarely the life of a prostitute. But if the fantasy world that some wish existed really did exist and a prostitute freely chose the profession, I would still state that the prostitute has the right to also freely choose which clients to service, as well as which services to provide and under what circumstances. Similarly, any type of agent may pick and choose his or her clients using whichever criteria they deem suitable.

Yes, it is racist to refuse to have sex with someone solely because of their race but it is not illegal to be racist. It may be wrong, but it is not illegal. It may be discrimination to refuse to provide a service to a client because of the client's race but unless it is a place of public accommodation: that is, open to the public completely, that discrimination is probably not against the law.

Arguments about a prostitute being required to provide services to any client, regardless of race or other characteristic because to do so would be illegal are silly, just as making the same argument that a drug dealer must provide drugs to any prospective buyer regardless of race or that a loan shark must make loans to any prospective borrower regardless of race. We all know that no one will go after a drug dealer or a loan shark for racial discrimination. Nor will a prostitute or a pimp be prosecuted for selecting clients based upon race. That is because the real issue is that the services/product being offered is illegal, period. Arrest/prosecution would be for the illegal acts of providing illegal goods/services.

 

[Metaphor]

But what you are proposing supports and codifies in law the sort of discrimination that most of us spend our time here trying to root out. And you seem to be making special pleading for women. Nobody seems fussed about the preferences of rent boys.

And I don't understand it.

I don't know to whom this post was directed, but who's making 'special pleading' for women? No-one advocated a female prostitute's right to discriminate but said male prostitutes should not.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

Some, like Tom Sawyer, say the wider issue is race politics and fuck gender politics. This whole conversation has really been a struggle between those who primarily play race politics and those who primarily play gender politics. I was right that this would be a fascinating conversation.

 

[ksen]

the solution is, obviously, separate but equal prostitutes.

I'm thinking twins, one fucks black guys and the other doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[Toni]

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

I see nothing as being a wider issue than being able to choose with whom to share your own body, using whatever selection criteria.

I don't apply this only to females but to all genders and all orientations.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

the solution is, obviously, separate but equal prostitutes.

I'm thinking twins, one fucks black guys and the other doesn't.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

The practical solution which unfolds in the real world is inherent in Angra Mainyu's post. If we're talking brothels, the people who want to discriminate are never offered to the people who fall within their exclusions. If someone is servicing kerb crawlers, they avoid the cars driven by the old, the wrong sex, the wrong ethnicity.

The situation where it comes up is in phone ordering and if you turn up and find that your client is someone you don't want to service, nobody can stop you walking away again, short of the violence that prostitutes risk with every transaction. Only someone who is so racist that they feel the need to be provocative has to give the reason.

But the majority of this thread has been about the legalities. Enshrining in law that it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race is a retrograde step.

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

I see nothing as being a wider issue than being able to choose with whom to share your own body, using whatever selection criteria.

I don't apply this only to females but to all genders and all orientations.

Yes, and if you know you have racist issues don't choose sex work as your profession. Not everybody is suited to every field of endeavour.

 

[Toni]

The practical solution which unfolds in the real world is inherent in Angra Mainyu's post. If we're talking brothels, the people who want to discriminate are never offered to the people who fall within their exclusions. If someone is servicing kerb crawlers, they avoid the cars driven by the old, the wrong sex, the wrong ethnicity.

The situation where it comes up is in phone ordering and if you turn up and find that your client is someone you don't want to service, nobody can stop you walking away again, short of the violence that prostitutes risk with every transaction. Only someone who is so racist that they feel the need to be provocative has to give the reason.

But the majority of this thread has been about the legalities. Enshrining in law that it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race is a retrograde step.

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

I see nothing as being a wider issue than being able to choose with whom to share your own body, using whatever selection criteria.

I don't apply this only to females but to all genders and all orientations.

Yes, and if you know you have racist issues don't choose sex work as your profession. Not everybody is suited to every field of endeavour.

Sorry: I reject totally that working as a sex worker means you no longer have a choice about your sex partners. As far as I can tell, my position is supported by law.

 

[bilby]

The practical solution which unfolds in the real world is inherent in Angra Mainyu's post. If we're talking brothels, the people who want to discriminate are never offered to the people who fall within their exclusions. If someone is servicing kerb crawlers, they avoid the cars driven by the old, the wrong sex, the wrong ethnicity.

The situation where it comes up is in phone ordering and if you turn up and find that your client is someone you don't want to service, nobody can stop you walking away again, short of the violence that prostitutes risk with every transaction. Only someone who is so racist that they feel the need to be provocative has to give the reason.

But the majority of this thread has been about the legalities. Enshrining in law that it is OK to discriminate on the basis of race is a retrograde step.

Yeah, there has been talk of how this is an extension of the discussion about women's rights not to have their use of their bodies dictated to them.

Even if those people weren't missing the point, the issue is wider than gender politics.

I see nothing as being a wider issue than being able to choose with whom to share your own body, using whatever selection criteria.

I don't apply this only to females but to all genders and all orientations.

Yes, and if you know you have racist issues don't choose sex work as your profession. Not everybody is suited to every field of endeavour.

Sorry: I reject totally that working as a sex worker means you no longer have a choice about your sex partners. As far as I can tell, my position is supported by law.

There is a big difference between having a choice, and having a prejudice. One is made on a case by case basis. The other is decided in advance. One is lawful, the other is not. And the former does not entail the latter.

Really.

It doesn't.

 

[Bomb#20]

You are ignoring everything bilby is saying, Bomb#20,

You are not basing that judgment on observation of whether my posts have addressed the points he makes. You are basing that judgment on the circumstance that his arguments don't convince me that there is any merit to his position even though you perceive them to be good arguments. That's not a legitimate reason to accuse someone of ignoring what someone else says. If you have a problem with my failure to find an argument convincing, feel free to ask me why I find it unconvincing. Feel free to post your own better-argued version of it. Feel free to tell me why my counterarguments are poor reasons for disagreeing.

and YOU are the one advocating that a sex related business should be treated differently from other businesses by the law.

Is that supposed to be an argument for something? What? Do you think this is a policy I have no right to advocate? Do you think all businesses should be treated the same by law, and those who say they should have no burden of proof? Do you think the general rule should be that governments get to do whatever they please to whomever they please, and therefore if somebody feels there are certain liberties that people should retain by right, regardless of the preferences of their rulers, he should just shut up about it? What point are you making that you feel capitalizing "you" at me might help you make?

Talking about your hypothetical janitor is a complete non sequitor. That person has applied for a cleaning job and is being coerced by an arsehole boss for sexual favours. It may happen, for all I know, but it isn't the same case as someone who has applied for a sex work job but wants to perform it according to their own discriminatory template.

If you think it isn't the same case, you're quite right. If it were the same case, then I'd have had no reason to ask Bilby about both it and the other case -- the whole point of asking somebody about two cases is to get two answers, so they may be compared. But if you think that makes it a complete non sequitur, you're quite mistaken. To deduce the former from the latter would be a complete non sequitur. If you have some other reason to think it's a complete non sequitur, feel free to explain your reason.

Regardless, holding the opinion that the hypothetical janitor case isn't on point isn't a legitimate reason to decline to answer it. It's the intellectual equivalent of putting your hands on your ears and yelling "La la la, I can't hear you." The time to raise the issue of whether it's on point is after you answer it and the guy who asks it then makes an argument in which he uses your answer as a data point. If his argument turns out to be unsound you'll be able to show why it's unsound. But if you dismiss the question before you've heard the argument then you'll just end up saying silly things like "it isn't the same case", as though the argument he were going to make was "I asked you about two cases and they're the same case." Bilby appears to understand this aspect of the debating process; that's presumably why he willingly answered my question even though he thought it was irrelevant.

In any event, I guess it doesn't matter whether I've persuaded you my question wasn't a non sequitur. You answered it -- you agreed that my janitor is being coerced for sexual favors -- and that's all I needed from the question so think what you please of it. Now answer the second question. Suppose prostitution is legal and Dorothy is a prostitute who always turns away white would-be customers. Suppose Dorothy has a kid to support and no prospect of alternate employment. Suppose the government confirms that she is racially discriminating, and they tell her she has to start having sex with white men or else lose her job. Is Dorothy being coerced to have sex with someone she doesn't want to have sex with?

And settle down your abusive tone, it doesn't suit you.

, says the person who opened with a baseless accusation. I remember from the old forum that you have rather odd notions of what's abusive and what's fair comment. Bilby imputed positions to me that I hadn't taken; personally, I find that far more abusive than anything I've said to him. Your mileage may vary -- I presume it does vary, since you're remonstrating with me but you didn't object to what he wrote. Hardly a surprise -- you've done the same thing to me.

Bomb#20 is not the one who said Bilby's perceptions were warped by his culture.

That's not abusive, that's an accurate observation.

Do tell. Which of my perceptions are warped by my culture? The perception that humans have a human right not to be coerced into accepting unwanted sex partners? The perception that people turned down for sex are not "victims"? The perception that double standards and equivocation fallacies are not the signature of rational policy making?

Duh. Do you have a reason for playing Captain Obvious that relates to the logic of our dispute?

This sort of thing isn't helpful, however.

Funny, I thought the sort of remark it was a response to,

Right now in most of the US, prostitution is illegal - the government can and does fine or incarcerate women for voluntarily engaging in sex, simply because she does so as a business, rather than as a personal, transaction.

wasn't helpful. It looked to me like an insinuation that I was failing to take this rather obvious fact into account. Bilby makes that sort of groundless insinuation on a regular basis. It gets tiresome.

If that self employed prostitute has been coerced into the job, then the problem isn't with the discrimination issues, it's with the initial coercion into sex work. That would be analogous with the janitor scenario.

It appears you are under the impression that I was making an analogy. I was not. I was asking two questions. I get to do that, whether the scenarios in the questions are analogous or not. How my argument runs is up to me. It is not required to fit into the mold prepared for it by your preconceptions. If you guess where I'm going with my questions and try to skip to the end and just refute the argument you imagine I'm working toward, you may think you're saving time but in fact you're wasting it.