Challenging the Dismissal of Lived Experiences: Confronting Gaslighting and Epistemic Injustice in Sex Work and LGBTI research and policy

In a seminar entitled “Toward an ethics of epistemic justice: Research on health disparities related to sexual orientation, gender identity in restrictive settings”, Alex Muller shared thoughtful reflections on a multi-country research project she was part of. The ‘Are we Doing Alright?’ study examined violence, mental health, and access to health care for LGBTI communities in nine southern and eastern Africa.

In the seminar, Muller explored epistemic injustice drawing on the work of philosopher Miranda Fricker – “when someone is wronged specifically in their capacity as a knower […] It undermines our ability to share our knowledge with others and to make sense of our own experience.” This injustice typically flows from prejudice, arrogance and/or unequal power relations.

Following Fricker, Muller described two main forms of epistemic injustice: Testimonial injustice that relates to someone being “less believable because of their marginalised position,” and hermeneutical injustice, where “prejudice and unintelligibility prevent people in marginalised social positions from being able to have their experiences understood”.

This community-led research project revealed the high levels of violence in the LGBTI communities in the nine countries and barriers of access to sexual and reproductive health amongst others, while the seminar focused on structural stigma and some of the ethical considerations of doing research with LGBTI communities on the continent. It highlighted the hermeneutical injustice of the “under-contribution” of the LGBTI community towards “the generation of shared concepts and social meanings” and how this contributes towards how this group is not intelligible by others. 

A few days later, I listened to a webinar discussing a recent report of the ‘UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls’ on “prostitution and violence”.  The webinar consisted of a panel of legal researchers and sex workers critiquing the Special Rapporteur whose mandate is to advise the UN about human rights violations.  

Astonishingly, a recent report by the Special Rapporteur on sex work (therein termed ‘prostitution’)  recommended more criminalisation of sex work, not its complete removal, despite the overwhelming evidence of the harm of such a position.

 The webinar panel pointed out three main critiques of the report:

 i.) the failure of the Special Rapporteur to cite the extensive literature and evidence base developed by other UN Special Rapporteurs and UN agencies showing that the criminal law harms those selling and buying sexual services.

 ii.) The report erroneously conflated sex work and trafficking, and at times made sweeping claims without evidence (e.g. “Many women lose custody of their children as they are labelled bad mothers. Children of women in prostitution also suffer from violence, even while they are in their mothers’ womb. Many children are conceived because of a violent act of prostitution" – no reference provided); and

ii) It disregarded the many sex worker voices that described the devastating effects of the criminal law in their contexts, and the need to decriminalise sex work to make it safer.

The panel attributed the refusal to engage with these voices and testimonies to epistemic injustice, and described it in the webinar as:

"We use the broad frame of epistemic injustice, (i.e. injustice related to power, knowledge, and the role of knowledge practices, including but not limited to scholarly work, as causes and consequences of exclusion) here to capture the [Special Rapporteur’s] report’s practices as silencing of or disregarding evidence proffered by those with whom she does not agree. This injustice is created in part by a practice of ‘conspicuous invisibilisation’: this concept addresses the way in which the report’s frame solicits evidence that fits only the [Special Rapporteur’s] chosen claim (i.e. that sex work is a form of violence, and all sex workers are victims/survivors)”

Regrettably, the approach of the Special Rapporteur is not unique.

 Like others worldwide, sex workers in South Africa experience testimonial and hermeneutical injustice on a regular basis. For example, when reporting rape at police stations, they are told, “You are just whores—you can't be raped”. This denies that sex workers can refuse sex, can experience violent trauma and intimate violation, and are equally deserving of psycho-social support, health care and protection by the law.

Health care workers have told sex workers that “We don’t have time for prostitutes” thus minimising the importance of their health and wellbeing, and indicating that sex workers don’t really know themselves well enough to seek out health care in a timely manner. Or worse, that they are not entitled to such.  

Also, radical feminists often dismiss sex workers who deny the feminists’ claims that sex workers are inevitable victims of violence, as suffering from false consciousness. 

What listening to these two different webinars in quick succession reminded me of was the value and importance of naming and describing epistemic injustice when it occurs and to challenge those who perpetuate it.  Then, following Pratt and De Vries’s guidance, to create opportunities for those from the periphery “to share their experiences of testimonial silencing” and to “create zones for dialogue” for those from the periphery and the centre. These components could contribute towards a new “transformed and inclusive” world.

Ultimately, the Special Rapporteur abused the power and the influence of her office by publishing a report that selectively presents evidence and perpetuates epistemic injustice. Going forward, research, and the use thereof for policy development, needs to be mindful of and recognise the harm and indignity that flow from disregarding the views of people who are most impacted by such.

Voices of the LGBTI and sex work communities (as with many other marginalised groups such as migrants, people who use drugs, the homeless and others) have often been systematically silenced and violently oppressed.  This history of gaslighting has to stop, and a necessary first step is to really listen to the voices of the traditionally marginalised, to engage with their epistemic resources and to take their policy recommendations seriously  – measures the Special Rapporteur has ignored.