This is my second letter to the editor regarding your distasteful and pejorative practice of identifying victims of crime as sex trade workers, or by the recent tidied up language of online escorts.
In the May 11 edition of the paper, there was a short article updating us that a trial date had been set for Sagmoen.
The paper has persisted in identifying two of his victims as engaged in the sex trade. Why? I noted that in the same edition, other victims were never identified by their occupation, including the man shot in a parking lot. An interesting disparity. I find this practice deeply concerning, as those engaged in the sex trade are typically perceived as not as worthy as the rest of us, not as credible and thus dismissed. Each time they are identified by their occupation, these women are left to our misperceptions and prejudices.
I truly don’t see the need of including their occupation as it is irrelevant to the import of the article. I’d like the paper (editor or journalist) to explain why you deem it relevant to identify a victim’s occupation only if it is sex work. Thank you.
Susan Armstrong