Talk:Sex workers' rights

message: ProCon is not a reliable source. It has been removed in the past from several articles. See, for example,  ; . 123username (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: A good article, but it needs work. Briefly, a few things that occur to me at first read:
* how exactly does this need to be separate from Sex Workers' Rights Movement? That appears to be a content fork.
* the lede claims the red umbrella is "the foremost internationally recognized symbol", but the text doesn't support the superlative, or clarify exactly how it's recognized internationally; I've flagged the statement for the former.
** shouldn't The Red Umbrella Project get mention in the lede? Should red umbrellas be mentioned at all in the lede, as it comes across there as trivia?
* portions of the article stray into (IMO) unnecessary overlap with Sex work and Sex worker and Sex industry, so ought be pared back in order to focus on sex workers' rights specifically. For instance, detailing occupational risks does not seem to bear directly upon efforts either to organize/unionize or to pass laws against the industry (which often give sex workers the "right" to find different work and hence are billed as protecting the workers' human/civil rights, e.g. Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance). Another: anti-porn campaigns (feminist and otherwise) should be mentioned only in the context of the individuals who appear in such media, rather than detailing criticism of the industries (much less the underlying philosophies).
* though the lede lists occupations/activities that are encompassed by the term "sex work", the list is unsourced, and does not appear in the article body — and, again, seems more appropriate in Sex work as this article is primarily about the workers.
* more specifically, the first section of the article probably ought to present (1) a brief, clear, and supported working definition of "sex work" followed immediately by (2) a similar working definition of "sex worker", then (3) summarize the "rights" being sought, and maybe (4) summarize the organized efforts that have been made toward that end. And (infra), since "rights" might not bear up under close scrutiny, some clarification could be made between the workers' individual rights to choose their occupation, as opposed to efforts to protect human rights by stamping out or tightly regulating the sex industries.
** if up to me, I'd remove the latter outright, because it hijacks the term "rights" and pointlessly skews the article toward Opposition to pornography, Feminist views on pornography#Anti-porn feminism, Anti-pornography movement in the United States, Anti-pornography movement in the United Kingdom.
Again, overall I like the article, and see it potentially providing a solid base for productive real-world discussion of an issue generally clouded by various forms of irrationalism. Analogously, it is known that sports-branded clothing (Nike, Adidas, NFL, NBA, etc.) is sometimes being made in terrible sweatshop conditions where people are "free to leave" but trapped by economic need… but clearly the drafting of laws to ban the manufacture of sports-branded clothing would be a ludicrous "solution" to the problem.Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the Red Umbrella is fully explained and well referenced in the The red umbrella section of the article.  --John B123 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. You have not provided ANY source to explain how it is in any way "foremost," or even quoted some source that makes such a claim. And because a symbol happens to have been applied by a multination organization really doesn't make it "international." Please go back and add quotations that elevate these claims above original research.Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, but have added a couple of extra refs anyway. --John B123 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  some firm suggestions 

message: I propose to merge sex workers' rights movement into sex workers' rights. I think that the (intended) content of the sex workers' rights movement article is essentially the same as that of sex workers' rights, and the sex workers' rights article is of a reasonable size that the merging of sex workers' rights movement will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Insofar that sex workers' rights movement specifically focuses on organised sex workers (rather than individuals), it is made redundant by the List of sex worker organizations. I therefore think a separate article under the heading of 'movement' doesn't add anything independently notable. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:BOLD, I decided to go ahead with the merger. I think it makes sense and there probably won't be opposition. Some of the material may eventually be moved to the List of sex worker organizations, but first this merger. Feel free to raise objections if you have any. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: — Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in Latinx Pop Culture

message: Sex intercourse in male and female 41.116.59.41 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Pictures in the intercourse 41.116.59.41 (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex intercourse