I attended Harm Reduction Conference for the first time this year, and it was also the first year this conference had the “sex worker track,” a series of workshops and presentations throughout the conference dedicated to addressing harm reduction approach to meeting the needs of sex workers and people in the sex industry. Many of the presentations I’ve posted on this blog last week were part of the sex worker track, and I attended many presentations by other activists.

But there is a downside to holding a specific “track” on sex workers’ issues, as it became clearer as activists and advocates working for people in the sex industry discussed among ourselves: I felt that “sex workers’ issues” was treated like a separate set of issues, distinct from issues affecting people who use drugs–the central focus of the conference overall–despite the fact there are large overlaps between issues and concerns faced by both groups. And it is not just in the sense that many people in the sex trade also use drugs; more importantly, it is because social and economic circumstances that exacerbate risks both groups face are often the same.

For many activists participating in the “sex worker track,” it was obvious that the ascent of the mainstream “anti-trafficking” discourse that reduces the complex issue of sexual labor to evil “traffickers” forcing innocent “victims” into prostitution and prescribes further policing and prosecution as the solution is not just harmful to sex workers, but to people of color, immigrants, street youth, and all others whose lives are under pervasive surveillance and criminalization, as I’ve discussed in my presentation about “war on trafficking”.

We were also keenly aware that police encroachment of social service systems under the guise of fighting human trafficking (mainly domestic minor sex trafficking), as discussed in my presentation about youth services, is dismantling the coalition based on harm reduction principles between social and economic justice movements and public health administration that we have built over last several decades, with serious negative consequences for many other vulnerable communities in addition to people in the sex trade. But I’m afraid that the rest of harm reduction community are not recognizing this clear and present danger to the entire harm reduction movement because they compartmentalize “sex workers’ issues” as a side business, rather than one of the central themes of the entire movement.

One of the most exciting things that came about as a result of our discussions at the Harm Reduction Conference is a new framing for addressing how attacks on people in the sex trade which are perpetuated by the mainstream anti-trafficking discourse operate in relation to other ways communities are targeted and criminalized by the state.

Mainstream (white, middle-class) sex workers’ movement in the U.S. puts lots of emphasis on “decriminalizing” prostitution and sex work–i.e. eliminating laws that prohibit consensual adult commercial transactions involving sexual contact–as well as destigmatization of sex work. But to those of us who are street-based, immigrants, youth, transgender, etc. this agenda appear to be based on the naive premise that people engaging in prostitution are targeted by the state because the legislature passed laws to criminalize prostitution. Those of us who live under pervasive surveillance and criminalization know that the cause and effect run the other way around: we are just targeted and criminalized for who we are, and the laws are passed by the legislature to justify it and make it more efficient.

In other words, criminalization happens on the ground, not in the legislature. For example, even though some States have passed “safe harbor laws” that define minors who are “rescued” from prostitution as victims, not criminals, young people are still arrested and detained as juvenile delinquents, “material witnesses,” mentally incapacitated, etc., or are “charged up” with drug and other crimes that result in longer sentences than simple misdemeanor prostitution offenses. Young people, especially young women of color and transgender women, are still profiled as suspected prostitutes, and are targeted for “stop and frisk” in search of drugs and condoms–which is construed as an evidence for prostitution. They are still forcibly placed under the child welfare system that many young people had to run away from in the first place for years, instead of serving 12 days in jail as they did before. We are not targeted because we trade sex for money, food, shelter, survival; we are just targeted, period, and it is simply slightly more convenient for the state that some of us are also breaking laws against prostitution (and even if we aren’t–we are automatically suspects).

We need an anti-criminalization movement, not decriminalization movement. An anti-criminalization movement is not just about sexual freedom or “right to choose,” although it supports these ideas too. More fundamentally, it is about fighting for social and economic justice in the face of pervasive state violence against communities of color, immigrants, street youth, drug users, and others. An anti-criminalization movement is not just about changing laws, but about delegitimatizing state violence from its very foundation of colonialism and genocide to slavery and the Prison Industrial Complex.

We saw a beginning of this new alliance in California, where voters earlier this month overwhelmingly approved Prop. 35, a ballot measure enacting several “anti-trafficking” laws that focus on increasing criminalization and policing. Even though Prop. 35 was easily passed statewide, the array of organizations that publicly stood against this problematic statute was impressive: along with some sex worker and civil liberties organizations, the list of critics included Black Women for Wellness, Latinas for Reproductive Justice, and Causa Justa / Just Cause–organization led by people of color for people of color who saw through the anti-trafficking rhetoric of Prop. 35 and recognized it for the racism, sexism, and xenophobia that underlie the increased surveillance and criminalization of their communities.

It is this new, emerging alliance against criminalization of our people and communities in an increasingly multi-racial and queer/trans-friendly America that gives me hope despite of the massive overreach of policing and criminalization advanced by the mainstream anti-trafficking movement. We need to continue having conversations not just about decriminalization as a matter of legal reform, but about anti-criminalization, linking the struggles of people in the sex trade with other people and communities that are facing state surveillance and criminalization, building alliances with organization for racial, economic, gender, housing, queer/trans, and immigration justice.

(Thanks to people I spoke with at the conference, especially S. and K. for your insight that informed much of what I wrote here. This isn’t my personal manifesto, but something that came bubbling in the space among and between all of us. I love you.)

Several days ago, I posted slides from my presentation, “Reclaiming ‘Victim’ and Embracing Unhealthy Coping,” which took place during the Harm Reduction Conference.

Much to my surprise, the presentation was received ridiculously well, like, best responses ever. So many people came up to me to tell me how much they appreciated the presentation throughout the rest of the conference, including many who did not even attend the panel but heard about it from someone who did. One person who attended told me that when she saw her friend immediately afterwards and began telling her about what she had just heard, the friend commented, “you look like you are having ecstasy.” I didn’t realize that it was that good, but it was great to have my work appreciated so much.

I think all the positive reactions (which is still good, despite the fact my presentation was about “negative survivorship”) came about because many of the people in the room were folks who work in harm reduction field (as it mostly relates to working with people who use substances), and also are survivors of violence and abuse or know someone who is. They liked my presentation because I made harm reduction principles (which they are so familiar with) applicable to their own personal coping and survival or that of someone close to them.

But during the questions and answers period, some curious discussion came up: a woman asked how harm reduction principles apply to her work with sex offenders, rather than victims and survivors of abuse. I hesitated, because it’s emotionally difficult to engage with the behaviors of rapists, child molesters, and abusers, even in the abstract. But when I heard someone else responding to her, suggesting that harm reduction could be practiced just the same way for offenders as for drug users or abuse victims in order to reduce the harm they inflict, I had to say something: I had to point out the limitations of harm reduction principle, as wonderful and effective it may be in some areas.

A couple of years ago, I went to a workshop about harm reduction philosophy hosted by a local activist collective. The presenter spoke about one of the best examples of harm reduction-based policies, which according to her was the distribution of condoms to U.S. soldiers stationed overseas: condom distribution prevents sexually transmitted diseases, which is good for both U.S. servicemembers (assumed to be heterosexual men) and locals (assumed to be women), as well as other people.

I immediately thought about stories of rape and other forms of violence committed by members of U.S. armed services against native inhabitants of Okinawa, as in (I’m sure) many other places around the world. Under the diplomatic treaties, it is difficult for local police to charge and prosecute U.S. servicemembers with the crime once they return to the base, from which they sent back to the mainland U.S. quickly. That is not to say that consensual sexual acts don’t happen between U.S. servicemembers and locals–but sexual assault is too frequent and too often concealed by both governments for me to celebrate the distribution of condoms (which, I’m not sure if they do in Okinawa specifically) as “harm reduction” measures.

Condoms do certainly reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections, but they do not reduce the number of rapes committed by members of the U.S. armed services, or the size of the Okinawan land forcibly occupied by the U.S. military (about 10% of all of Okinawa, and 18% of the main isle of Okinawa), which is itself a form of violence, a joint product of dual imperialisms of the U.S. and Japan over Okinawa. It is perhaps true that a rape with a condom is less harmful than one without, but making condoms available does not address the worst harm that is being perpetrated; worse, it may perpetuate even more harm by reducing the risk of the behavior to the rapist.

Some people do in fact advocate for “harm reduction” approach to sexual assault. In an article titled “Relapse Prevention or Harm Reduction? (published in July 1996 issue of the journal Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment), forensic psychologist D. Richard Laws wrote:

In this view sexual deviation would be seen as a chronic, well-established disposition to commit sexual crimes, a condition that could not be cured but could be managed, albeit imperfectly. […] A harm reduction perspective with sex offenders acknowledges that lapses and relapses are probably inevitable and that the job of treatment, at the very least, is to reduce the frequency and intensity of these instances, if they cannot be eliminated.

At bottom, our job in managing sex offenders and reducing harm is, in reality, a sort of social policing. What we are really doing is attempting to contain and limit socially undesirable behaviors. This is not unlike the efforts of law enforcement officials to contain gambling, prostitution, or drug dealing.

In the follow-up article, published in July 1999 issue of the same journal, Laws argued:

However, it will eventually prove necessary to normalize some aspects of sexual deviation including some features of sexual offending. We need to normalize sexual offending in the same way that we have normalized other deviant behaviors such as drug dealing, prostitution, or gambling.

I would agree that we cannot, at least for the foreseeable future, eliminate sexual violence altogether. But I am deeply disturbed by suggestion that sexual violence is “inevitable” and can only be “managed,” as well as by the parallel Laws seems to be drawing between non-violent behaviors such as substance use and gambling and sexual violence where there are clear, direct victims who are harmed by the behavior.

An attitude like this, or like that of the workshop participant who stated that harm reduction approach is equally applicable to working with sex offenders as well as their victims, is symptomatic of how harm reduction has turned into a merely more sophisticated form of paternalistic intervention to modify individual behaviors.

But harm reduction is supposed to be more than just reducing or “managing” harms. It is supposed to be a fundamental reframing of priorities for social interventions that places individual and community well-being, as defined by the individuals and the communities that are affected most. I fully endorse a harm reduction approach to survivor advocacy, which includes embracing of negative survivorship, but it would be a misuse of harm reduction principles to simply lower expectations for sex offenders, child molesters, and abusers when they are not the party most directly affected by the harms their behaviors inflict.

This is the last of the series of presentations I gave at Harm Reduction Conference last week. I would really appreciate reactions to this presentation: the explosive title is not at all an exaggeration.

Here are a couple of presentations I gave at Harm Reduction Conference last week as part of the panels critiquing the mainstream anti-trafficking movement. First has to do with debunking commonly stated myths about trafficking–more specifically, domestic minor sex trafficking–and the second addresses problematic public policies that result from these inaccurate claims, and proposes an alternative framework.

Because of weird scheduling I ended up presenting the second part first at the actual conference, but I’m posting them here in correct order.

Here’s another presentation from last week’s Harm Reduction Conference. It is part of the project I’m calling “negative survivorship,” which is one of the things I’m feeling most passionate about these days. Enjoy!

Below is my presentation at this year’s Transgender Day of Remembrance event, TransConnect: Resource and Cultural Fair held at Portland Q Center. This is basically a shorter version of my keynote talk at Portland State University’s TDOR event last year, so there’s not much new materials in it, but I thought some people might prefer the shorter version. The presentation was sponsored by Portland Sex Workers Outreach Project.

I announced earlier that I was going to speak on two panels at Harm Reduction Conference that took place last week, but I ended up doing five panels instead, different themes each time. Here’s one of the presentations I did about Portland Bad Date Line.

Bad Date Lines are a tool used by people trading sex to protect each other by sharing information about “bad dates”–people who use violence to hurt them. This presentation gives a brief history of Portland Bad Date Line, focusing on how its features changed when Danzine, a grass-roots sex workers’ organization that started it, closed its doors and the PBDL was taken over by social service agencies.

I’m giving three presentations in Portland this week. The first two are at Harm Reduction Conference held at Marriott Waterfront on Thursday and Friday; the other one is at TransConnect, a “weekend of events leading up to Trans Day of Remembrance” this Saturday.

“Empowerment-Based Alternatives to the ‘War on Trafficking'” (in panel “Trafficking Wars”)
Thursday, November 15th at 4pm-5:30pm
Harm Reduction Conference
Marriott Waterfront Hotel

“Embracing Negative Survivorship and Unhealthy Coping: A Harm Reduction Approach in the Movement Against Domestic and Sexual Violence” (in panel “Addressing Violence”)
Friday, November 16th at 5:45pm-7:15pm
Harm Reduction Conference
Marriott Waterfront Hotel

“Transgender Youth in the Sex Trade”
Saturday, November 17th at 4:30pm
TransConnect
Portland Q Center

Description: Transgender youth (especially transgender youth of color) are overrepresented among young people who occasionally or regularly trade sex for money, food, shelter, and other survival needs. There are many factors that contribute to the high prevalence of transgender youth in the sex trade, including family and community rejection, violence, isolation, discrimination, lack of medical services, mismatched documentations, and social services that are sex-segregated or religiously-based. This workshop provides an overview of various factors affecting the experiences of transgender youth in the sex trade, and how the broader transgender movement must become more inclusive of transgender people in the sex trade–while they are still alive, instead of merely mispronouncing their (often non-Anglo) names at annual TDOR events year after year after their bodies are discovered decomposing in dumpsters.

I look forward to seeing my friends in harm reduction and queer/trans communities!