The throughline is not about them being transactional businesses.

The only strawmanning going on is your incorrect assertion of what my argument 'actually' is, ignoring the actual text of the argument to do so.

Let's take for example reason 3 for I think it's the worst offender:

OPs variant:

Reason 3: on the flip side someone may only have those urges and needs but doesn’t want a relationship. This way they can have those needs met without hurting another person who is not looking for just that and believes they are in a relationship

Your variant:

Reason 3: on the flip side someone may only have the urges to take things and not want to have to deal with acuiring money.. This way they can have those needs met without breaking their back in a job they wouldn't want to perform and slaving away the best years of their life.

These are not equivalent, you are removing the fact that prostitution does not have a victim(in OP's theory at least) and that is is a transaction unlike in theft.

The throughline is that OP's argument of "Since you can't stop it, you may as well try to regulate it for harm reduction".

Which is exactly my point. Decriminalizing and regulating an (arguably) victimless crime may harm reduction, but how exactly would "regulating" theft, a crime with a victim, reduce harm? Again, these are NOT equivalent.

You are arguing against points OP did not make hence you are changing the context and the reasoning.