Sex worker rights are human rights: an approach to solidaristic normative theory
Abstract
In this article, we argue for solidaristic normative theorizing, which entails engaging in sustained dialogue with people who experience oppression and working with them to advance their struggles for justice. We draw guidance from Indigenous, Black, and Latine scholars, who have long done this type of work. We develop and apply principles of inductive recursivity, which privileges the insights of those who experience oppression; comprehensiveness of research materials and attentiveness to power; skeptical but empathetic scrutiny when assessing research materials; and accountability through reflexivity and ongoing relationships with oppressed individuals, groups, and communities. With reference to the struggles of major sex worker rights organizations in Canada and the United States to address the harms associated with criminalization, we outline our approach to theory building and illustrate what it looks like in practice. By developing a conceptual link between the everyday harms faced by sex workers, due in large part to criminal laws around their professional activities, and the deeper ontological and epistemological injustices against them, we hope that our theorizing contributes – even in a small way – to public understanding of the depth of the oppressive governance regime of criminalization and the importance of dismantling it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center
Jackson, S. (1985) · Ufahamu A Journal of African Studies · doi:10.5070/f7143017029 · Cited by 4,441 · see citing works
As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom through Radical Resistance
SIMPSON, L. B. (2017) · doi:10.5749/j.ctt1pwt77c · Cited by 2,010 · see citing works
Grounded Normativity / Place-Based Solidarity
Coulthard, G., & Simpson, L. B. (2016) · American Quarterly · doi:10.1353/aq.2016.0038 · Cited by 525 · see citing works
Goldenberg, S. M., Chettiar, J., Nguyen, P., Dobrer, S., Montaner, J., & Shannon, K. (2014) · Journal of Urban Health · doi:10.1007/s11524-014-9888-1 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Decolonizing Research on the Carceral in Canadian Political Science
Mussell, L. (2023) · Canadian Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0008423923000288 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Reorienting Territorial Rights: The Case for Grounded Normative Theory
Jourdeuil, K. (2024) · Canadian Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0008423924000416 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Johnson, G. F., & Porth, K.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Independent scholar
- Corresponding author
- Johnson, Genevieve Fuji
- Venue
- International Feminist Journal of Politics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-06-14
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101-126
- ISSN
- 1461-6742 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4470
- OpenAlex
- W4282933358
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 2.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Feminist Journal of Politics (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Insight Grant)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminism, Gender, and Intersectionality
- Keywords
- sex workers' rights, human rights, criminalization of sex work, reflexivity, epistemic injustice, Indigenous scholarship, Black feminism, decriminalization, power in research, Canada, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review