The Church

It goes without saying that we have a long way to go with the Church, especially pertaining to LGBTIQA+ issues. In today’s paper we had Reverend Mazibuko commenting on Pastor Lukhele’s admission of being gay and being a pastor/ holy man at that. 

As opined by Rev Mazibuko, Gods love allows people to come as they are but not remain the same. I am not one to dismiss this notion as I myself am a person of faith (I believe in God). I believe that change/ not becoming the same, means that one drops certain behaviours which are viewed as not being conducive. According to Merriam-Webster in 2016, behaviour can be described as being the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, a form of stimulus towards a certain situation.  Now, being LGBTIQA+ cannot be categorised as being behaviour of sort. An individual’s sexual orientation is a part of who they are as a human being. I will make reference to the six dimensions of human health paying specific attention to the sexual and spiritual aspects. Each dimension interrelates with the other. One’s sexual aspect/dimension has an influence with their overall wellbeing. Sexual expression is very key in acknowledging the health of an individual; as equal as the spiritual aspect. 

The reason behind this analysis is purely to enlighten Mr Mazibuko and others who share in his opinion that someone’s sexual orientation is not to be considered as something separate from who a person is as an individual.  In sooth, it defines who a person is. Sexual orientation is not a behaviour trait, I repeat; it is not a conduct. 

Correspondingly, I must further mention that Reverend Mazibuko’s analogy of LGBTIQA+ identities being similar to drunkards is null and void. One cannot place comparison to these two different things; behaviour trait and personal identification and expression. I have never had an individual identify themselves as being a drunkard. If I recall very well, a person who drinks would usually say that, ’’I so and so drink occasionally’’. Moreover, to prove that being a drunkard is a behaviour trait, cis-heterosexual individuals also drink as well. It has no influence on their sexuality as that is a specific dimension of an individual’s wellbeing.

It must be noted that Rev Mazibuko’s statement opens up the violation of LGBTIQA+ identities through processes of conversion therapy. Mis-conceptualising the Bible and claiming that when one becomes born again, they should stop being LGBTIQA+ is utterely wrong. Conduct change is expected, but not a change in ‘ones’ self-identity. It is a growing norm for churches to then condemn ones sexuality and link it to immorality and force individuals to change in order to show that they have accepted God. I myself have been a victim of such, had 7 pastors challenge my sexuality, claiming I was an abomination and that I should change. Many more have suffered at the hands of the church; we even lost one Miss T Rudd, as she was going through depression. Part of this depression was inflicted by the church. In a conversation with her a few months before she died; she mentioned that she had tried to avow to the churches’ demands. This process had left her feeling misplaced and in distraught; in-fact she lost her self-identity. The only advice I could give to her at 18years of age was that she should be who she is and be proud of it. God loved her the way she was and God had no reason to change ones individuality but illicit behaviours. Sexual orientation as mentioned above is not meant to be treated as a behaviour trait. Part of the Pride concept encompasses being satisfied with who one is and coming to terms with that; overcoming all social ideals and constructs which might otherwise shun on individuality and diversity.

In conclusion, I implore that Rev Mazibuko and others who share in his sentiments do allow us as the community to sensitize churches. There still exists a big gap in respect to the teachings of the church which I believe are attributed to mis-conceptions on LGBTIQA+ issues.

Toxic Masculinity

                                                       
                                                 

The thought of such a topic gives me chills. It is what we grew up with and have been accustomed to. I attended a conference the other day and this topic was brought up; literally got to question my childhood. Its funny how growing up we were continuously taught to be bold in everything, excel in sports and be manly.


This has lived on with us for centuries, with the statement that men don’t cry ‘indvodza ayikhali’. This has been the notion of Swati culture and unfortunately has led to the downfall of masculinity. As a transgender man, I am not allowed to show my feminine side, which is of-course expressing my emotions even when I am distraught. I am expected to be calm, even when I am in pain. I am expected to withhold my tears even when I am meant to let them out. As activists we are exposed to the harshest of conditions. We are meant to brace through every harmful experience as though we don’t matter. I must utterly speak on this; violent spaces do exist and they affect us as well. We uphold feelings of being content and yet honestly we are not. I saw my psychologist the other day and we actually spoke at length about this. She mentioned how we as individuals subject ourselves through these gruesome experiences on behalf of the communities we serve because we love them dearly (hero syndrome she said).


Delaying progress


Now back to the subject at hand, manhood has always been defined as the utmost gender (patriarchy right) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men. This is a social construct of sort. What if we tapped into our feminine side of things, what if we stopped claiming that ‘boys will be boys’? The concept of aggression and being bold as a character trait of masculinity has literally destroyed our society. Some people have literally taken this to heart and this aggression at times escalates to tremendous extremities (machismo).  Some traditionally prescribed masculine behaviors can produce such harmful effects as violence (including sexual assault and domestic violence), promiscuity, risky and/or socially irresponsible behaviors including substance abuse, and dysfunction in relationships(Ming & Shepard,2011). 

A colleague of mine mentioned how he was exposed to fighting during his youthful days (stick fighting) just so that he could prove he was man enough. This has stuck with him throughout, and now as a grown man he still finds the need to prove that he is man enough. Are we as a society preaching the right doctrine I wonder? Do we have to believe in such a concept?


Gender equality


We continue to speak of gender equality and yet the concept of toxic masculinity tends to delay such a principle. The aggression portrayed by individuals over the concept tends to look over and above other genders. Trans-genderism (feminine perspective) and non-binarism is always overlooked, and masculinity is always seen to shine (witticism). Men (either transgender or other sort) are always trying to prove their presence. They are at most times always meant to look like men (posture), hide their breasts, shave their heads etc. Gender equality entails a presence of all genders living harmoniously, viewing each other as equals.
  
Self-affirmation

I have always been one to believe that embracing our true-selves is the only we can reach our full potential. Social constructs will always be there, but knowing what defines you as an individual helps you reach self-actualization. Let us embrace our true beings; who we truly are and not what society has defined us to be.