The fact that 'sex work' is not a politically neutral term is very revealing of how so-called radical feminists conceptualize work as distinct from violence.

All labor is coerced under capitalism by the violent threat of poverty, homelessness, and starvation. It's still work.

Further, abusers often require extensive labor from their victims, especially emotional labor. That is both work and violence.

The only reason to call sex workers 'prostitutes' is if you want to foreground criminality, which should be abhorrent to someone who sees sex workers as victims.

'Prostituted women' is even more deeply troubling. We don't call other survivors 'raped women', 'domestically abused women' etc because that's obviously highly offensive to define someone that one.

The only reason to refer to 'survivors of commercial sexual exploitation' is if you're more interested in a carceral response than an economic/ labor rights response to the issue.

Ultimately their rejection of 'sex worker' is a rejection of communism and economic equality in favor of liberal carceral feminism. Make sure to bring that up to any anarchist/communist you know who refuses to use the term.

Ask yourself if you also call people in other low-barrier-to-entry industries who are likely working out of financial desperation "survivors of commercial _______ exploitation" + advocate to shut down those industries (do we NEED fast food?) or if you refer to them as workers...

...and advocate for their labor rights, for their access to social services and education and other career opportunities and an end to capitalism instead.

If you do the latter, ask yourself why.

Is erradicating other forms of violence not as important to you eradicating as sexual violence? Are you projecting your own trauma onto sex workers? Do you recognize the limitations of carceral responses? Seriously, sit with it for a minute.

Then read Revolting Prostitutes and leave sex workers alone. Thx.