The Wits Pride rugby team is not a 'loose coalition of gays and lesbians' but is made up of individuals who identify with a variety of sexual identities
M&G reduces Wits Pride to pink-washed politics
As participants in the “Tackling Prejudice” rugby match at Wits as a part of Wits Pride, we have some issues with the article “Queer sport comes out of left field“.
First, a photograph of two of our players kissing (off the field) was published in print and used as the main picture online. This photograph was taken without their consent. Indeed, they were not even approached for their names, let alone comments. It so happens that neither of them objects to the use of the photograph, but we ask that in future journalists be more sensitive about this.
For many of the younger players and spectators, Wits Pride events allow them the opportunity to embrace and explore their lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual and other sexual orientations and gender identities (LGBTQQIA+) in ways they can’t at home or elsewhere. Publicly “outing” people in this way could be hurtful and even dangerous.
Second, the team was described as “a loose coalition of gays and lesbians”. This is both inaccurate and damaging to the aims of the match and Wits Pride. Many of the players do not identify as gay or lesbian. The two photographed kissing, for example, are both pansexual (sexually and/or romantically attracted to people of various genders) and transgender (do not conform to the gender identity imposed on them on the basis of their assigned sex), and others on the team identify as bisexual, asexual, heterosexual and/or intersex, or choose not to ascribe to any identity label.
Wits Pride is a series of initiatives that challenge prejudices against all LGBTQQIA+ people, located in an understanding of injustices that intersect with these identities, including ableism, classism, racism and xenophobia. We challenge the ways in which issues facing the LGBTQQIA+ spectrum are simplified to single-issue “pink-washed” politics. This aspect of the game was absent from the article.
The last objection pertains to the tone of the article. The match is described as going “on and on” and eventually breaking down. The players are depicted as flippant and frolicking, the spectators snide and bitchy. This is inaccurate and contributes to the perpetuation of tired stereotypes. The match was played quite seriously for 40 minutes and reached a respectable final score of 25-20.
Of course, fun was had, but to imply that the whole match was a joke is unkind, untrue and implies that LGBTQQIA+ individuals should not be taken seriously in sports – the very belief Wham! challenges.
We request that future articles on queer topics bear these principles in mind and treat this topic in a more nuanced way. We invite the Mail & Guardian to future events to continue this conversation. – The Wham! Team, Gabriela Connell Sacco, Zazi Dlamini, Gavin Holgate, Gabriel Khan, Nicholas Leontsinis, Robyn Martin, Teboho Moleleki, Miriam Muthoni, Kyla Mills, Tyler Pieterse, Adriaan Roets and David White
KZN’s bid to school disabled children inadequate
Section27 would like to comment on the letter from the KwaZulu-Natal department of education (“KZN does cater for special needs children“).
We note the efforts listed by the department to improve access to education for pupils with disabilities, but it has failed to address the issue at the core of the article to which it responds (“No place for disabled children in KZN rural schools“) – that there are many children with disabilities not being accommodated at appropriate schools in the Umkhanyakude district.
The article noted that there were many out-of-school disabled children who are wait-listed at special needs schools too full to accommodate them, or disabled children who attend ordinary schools that are ill-equipped to address their particular learning needs. The department fails to address this.
It also fails to address Section27’s specific intervention: we have approached the department to place 17 children, whose parents we represent, in appropriate schools in 2015. Many of them are not in any school.
We have written to the department several times since the beginning of this year on the issue of access to education for disabled pupils but have received no response. In the past week, we heard from the office of the MEC for education, but no remedy for these 17 children was provided.
As with all children, these 17 children are entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the right to basic education, to be protected from unfair discrimination, to dignity, and to have their best interests considered in all matters concerning a child.
Thus, although we acknowledge the department’s response on the growing number of full service and special needs schools in the province, we are concerned that this remains insufficient to address the needs of all children with disabilities in KwaZulu-Natal. – Section27