The Nordic model is a good legalization model but if the goal is to reduce exploitation then those exploitative pathways are almost always unmet needs like housing, education, etc. Addressing those is also a necessary step.

My argument is that a lot of work does psychological damage and that putting sex work in a box that says its uniquely damaging is the way to setup the argument that sex work is need of a unique solution to other exploitation. Which I don't think it is. So you may not have made certain points directly but you've definitely been making arguments that conservatives have used to argue for bans on sex workers or at least exempt them from laws intended to reduce exploitation (SESTA FOSTA being an example of a well meaning law that endangered sex workers)

If you're arguing that johns should be stigmatized, then I don't disagree. Its also something that seems like a normative position to me. That johns should be stigmatized also a position nobody argued against.

I do think the stigma that the sex workers recieve themselves for being exploited is also a normative position and that is a more dangerous thing than stigma against johns. Its also a major political obstacle to extending things like housing and social support to sex workers so it seems like an obvious thing people would expect would mention in these discussions and not see as an "argument".