None of that has any relevance to my comment? My sole point in the second paragraph was that prostitution is not solely a woman's domain. So is prostitution violence against all genders? If so, why specify women? If not, why not?

The existence of people in the sex industry (yes, it's in fact an industry) who are not women doesn't disqualify the relevance of women's social position in the world to the industries (they are industries, sorry) of prostitution and mainstream pornography, which are primarily oriented toward straight male customers.

I don't know what to tell you if you can't parse the first paragraph of my comment.

Weirdly, while certain feminist positions started with insisting that women and men be treated the same, other positions by self-styled "feminists" are simply the insistence that women must be treated differently. ("False equivalence")

Being part of a sexually dimorphic sentient species with strong instincts for the social "outgrouping" of different "others" is an awesomely weird experience. At other times, it really, genuinely sucks.

The basic problem with humans, is that we are wired up so we can't always recognize everyone else as fully "human." When it comes to this, it definitely "takes two hands to clap." Were it to be truly otherwise, many of the problems of the human condition would be solved. (Consider the above a reference to you and the gp commenter.)

Women occupy a different social position then men, so we must think about them differently, thus treating them differently. This old talking point about "equal treatment" is a "strawman".

I think if you do a sufficient amount of reading about the history of feminist movements (there are good books, like Lorber's "Gender Inequality") you'll find that "insisting that women and men be treated the same" is explicitly not the prioritized framing of all feminists or feminist movements. There are other framings.