And why should anyone pay tax? Or obey the law?
> Is that what you meant by inequality?
In part, yes. And that hard-labor for men isn't at all similar.
> why shouldn't sex be a labor asset?
Why shouldn't having a vagina imply the burden of having to use it? Please stop talking about 'female autonomy', it's a BS framing of the issue.
1) In the case of someone who chooses to be a prostitute freely, (without desperation): that's fine, but then the issue is entirely different; namely that the populace determinate what should be permitted within its borders, and it's economy, e.g. I can make more money if I didn't pay tax, but that's doesn't mean it's an option; likewise, some women may freely pursue sex work, but not in a country that bars that economy.
2) specifically in the case of free, un-coerced choice; why should a female student be able to fund their studies through sex when most male students can't? Why would society encourage the explicit monetisation of sex?
3) My opinion is that having a vagina shouldn't imply the burden of having to use it, and I'm saying that's what it means to consider sex/genitalia a 'labour asset'.
But some do, why would you take away their ability to make money? Do you think they'll thank you for taking away their livelihood?
> It also legitimises sex as a labour asset, increasing gender inequality
The vast majority of sex workers are female, meaning there is a much smaller market for males and so it is more difficult for them to make money. Is that what you meant by inequality? In any case, why shouldn't sex be a labor asset? This goes back to my original comment - what DO you have against female autonomy?