Opinions
Breaking binaries and advocating for intersex justice in Southern Africa
Movement embraces intersectionality and affirms people’s multiple identities
A transformative movement is gaining momentum in Southern Africa, a region known for its diverse cultures and traditions. This movement challenges gender norms and advocates for the rights and dignity of intersex individuals. This article explores the vital concepts of breaking binaries and intersex justice in Southern Africa, where cultural nuances and a rapidly developing fierce spirit of activism reshape the landscape of gender diversity and sexuality.
The world is quickly changing, and with it comes an increasing recognition of the importance of diversity and inclusion. In the past, many people have looked at the world in terms of binaries — Black and white, male and female, homosexual and heterosexual. However, this way of thinking is limiting and does not reflect the diversity that exists in our communities. Breaking these binaries and embracing diversity and inclusion is crucial to creating a fair and equitable society by recognizing and protecting all these diversities.
Intersex intersectionality
Intersex justice is a social and human rights movement that advocates for the rights, dignity and well-being of intersex individuals. It is also a political movement making political statements since in the broader context of identity politics and the recognition that vulnerable and marginalized communities have historically been subjected to social, political and legal discrimination. When gender-diverse people dare to express their identities openly (and using the plural term for identity here intentionally because, using the theory of intersectionality, everyone has their own unique identities and experiences), it can be seen as a form of resistance and a statement against the systemic discrimination and oppression they may face.
Intersex people are born with variations in their sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. Intersex people often face stigma, discrimination, medical interventions without informed consent and societal violence. Inclusive binaries and intersex justice are significant issues in Southern Africa, as they intersect with the region’s traditional, cultural, social and legal aspects. In many parts of Southern Africa, intersex persons are often frowned upon, hidden or even believed to be a curse and killed.
As we work on intersex awareness, though annual commemorations such as #IntersexAwarenessDay, there is a solid need to reject stereotypes that lead to discrimination and prejudice. Breaking binaries embraces intersectionality and affirms that people have multiple identities that intersect and interact with one another.
Several Southern African customs have a long-standing relationship with gender and sex, associated with male and female and masculinity and femininity and there is no in-between; males are expected to masculinize, and females are supposed to feminize. The push for inclusive binaries challenges these traditional gender norms and promotes a more inclusive understanding of human diversity.
Gender norms and it has influenced societies
Gender norms have profoundly influenced Southern African societies, shaping cultural, social, and economic dynamics for centuries, and this has also impacted modern gender norms in our communities. Gender norms can be defined “as social principles that govern the behavior of girls, boys, women and men in society and restrict their gender identity into what is considered to be appropriate,” a definition also very limiting and binary based with little consideration and acknowledgement of the diverse gender spectrum.
Gender norms, a social construct, were often prescribed specific roles and responsibilities for men and women, and we have been inaccurately taught in history, moral education and social studies lessons in schools that in the past, men were traditionally seen as hunters, warriors and providers, while women were responsible for domestic tasks, childcare and subsistence farming.
These roles have reinforced gender-based inequalities in access to resources and economic opportunities that we experience today in a somewhat progressive modern society. Gender norms typically grant more decision-making power to men, and they often hold leadership positions within the community. This practice continues as men’s voices are prioritized in governance and social development matters, which has resulted in the exclusion of women from participating in important decisions that affect their lives and communities, and this is even worse for gender-diverse persons and they do not satisfy the bias “male” and “female” category.
The unequal power dynamics enforced by society’s gender norms have contributed to higher levels of gender-based violence. Domestic violence and harmful practices such as child marriage and female genital mutilation have persisted in some Southern African communities due to these norms. Intersex persons have not been spared from genital mutilation as some have undergone “gender reappropriation” surgeries as infants. There is a growing push in advocacy and legislative reform to protect intersex minors from unconsented gender surgeries as this is a choice that should be for them to make. The influence of gender norms has further influenced healthcare service delivery as sexual and reproductive health and rights development have been limited and not inclusive and accessible for intersex persons. This limitation has resulted in a lack of bodily autonomy for intersex people. Being gender-diverse has many excluded intersex people from essential fundamental health services such as family planning and mental well-being.
Another aspect influenced by gender norms is inheritance rights. Many African societies are built in a cisgender patriarchal system, and because of this, inheritance and property rights have been structured in a way that favored male heirs. This has often left women and girls without access to land and resources, making them economically vulnerable and dependent on male relatives.
The result of not conforming and fitting into mainstream male or female gender identity often left intersex persons excluded, facing stigma, discrimination and prejudice from various packets of society. Efforts are being made to raise awareness about intersex issues, promote inclusivity, challenge discrimination and prevent the invisibilization of intersex voices and identities. Intersex justice organizers work to ensure intersex individuals are recognized, respected and provided with the support and care they need while fighting against harmful practices and discrimination.
Efforts and promoting intersex rights and justice in Southern Africa
Promoting intersex rights and justice in Southern Africa has become an increasingly important focus for advocacy and human rights organizations in recent years.
Human rights organizations, such as the Southern Africa Litigation Center, are actively involved in legal advocacy for gender-diverse individuals and work to challenge discriminatory laws and practices, and supporting strategic litigation that promotes the rights of gender minority and gender-diverse people in Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho and Zimbabwe.
Regional organizations such as Iranti and Gender DynamiX advocate and provide training and educational resources to healthcare professionals, religious and cultural leaders, policymakers, and the public. These advocacy initiatives aim to enhance understanding and sensitivity regarding intersex issues and collaborate with other human rights organizations to foster a more inclusive and accepting society.
Legal and policy developments on intersex rights in Southern Africa
Legal and policy developments related to intersex rights in Southern Africa have gained momentum in recent years, reflecting a growing recognition of the need to protect the rights of intersex individuals. Additionally, the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women, a progressive human rights instrument, requires state parties to take specific measures to end violence against women regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, the Protocol calls for the ending of genital mutilation and the promotion of bodily autonomy and reproductive health choices of women, including intersex women.
In South Africa, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act as amended in 2005 interprets the definition of “sex” to include intersex persons; therefore, intersex persons are protected from unfair discrimination, harassment and hate speech and promote equality for intersex persons.
In 2014, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted Resolution 275, which protects against violence and other human rights violations against persons based on their actual or imputed sexual orientation and gender identity. Resolution 275 expresses grave concern about increasing violence and other human rights violations, including murder, rape and assault experienced by sexual and gender minorities. It calls upon states to stop such violence and take appropriate measures to ensure adequate remedies for victims.
Botswana made significant progress in 2017 by recognizing the rights of transgender and intersex individuals to change their legal gender markers on official documents. This ruling by the court was a crucial step towards recognizing the diversity of gender identities and would pave the way for the protection of gender-diverse persons. In many Southern African countries, such as Eswatini, Lesotho and Namibia, intersex persons can legally change their name and sex on birth certificates to suit their preferred gender identity per the national registration acts.
In 2022, the Zimbabwean government adopted two recommendations at the country’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council on gender minorities, which were to protect intersex minors from unconsented operations surgeries and violations of bodily integrity and to strengthen efforts to address violence against women, children and all persons based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Intersex advocacy groups in Zimbabwe have been working to raise awareness and challenge harmful practices. Following the adopted recommendations, there is an expectation to see an increase in dialogue between the government and human rights organizations on protecting intersex people’s rights.
In March this year, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted Resolution 552, which seeks to promote and protect intersex rights on the African continent. Resolution 552 comes with clear recommendations for states to create administrative and legislative measures to protect intersex persons from violent harassment at home, school, the workplace and in the broader society. It calls on member states to ensure that members of their judiciary, immigration officials, law enforcement officers, healthcare and education practitioners, as well as traditional and religious communities, are sensitized to protect, respect and treat intersex people equally without discrimination or prejudice. It further calls for the recognition and protection of intersex movements and human rights defenders to organize without any threats and that perpetrators are tried and persecuted.
Intersex liberation is our liberation too
The fight for the recognition, protection, and inclusion of intersex people is an ongoing and essential human rights struggle. And while there has been progress, challenges still exist for intersex rights. It is necessary to continue advocating for the full recognition and freedoms of all intersex people, to protect their bodily autonomy and to ensure that they can live their lives with dignity and without discrimination.
Bradley Fortuin is the LGBTIQ+ Program Officer at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a social justice activist.
This article is part of advocacy efforts on recommendations to the government of Botswana’s Universal Review of Botswana at the 43rd Human Rights Council. A joint submission Stakeholder Report was submitted by Banana Club,Black Queer DocX, Botswana Trans Initiative, Life|Loss|Love, Mmammati Human Rights Hub, Iranti, the Southern Africa Litigation Center and the Sexual Rights Initiative.
Opinions
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Our endorsed candidates hold their affiliation as a badge of honor
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We believe in a District where everyone can live a happy and dignified life. That means housing, healthcare, transit, education, and safety are treated as guarantees rather than privileges reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.
Our endorsed candidates do not hide what they believe. They engage in the democratic process openly, explain their politics clearly, and ask their fellow members to spend long nights and weekends doing the hard work of campaigning. And as the last six years of local elections have shown, including three successful D.C. Council campaigns and the overwhelming passage of Initiative 82, D.C. voters are often a great deal more interested in the endorsement of Metro DC DSA than in the handwringing of the Washington Post editorial board.
That is what makes Peter Rosenstein’s April 2 op-ed in the Blade so revealing. His piece was not just wrong. It was smug, unserious, and politically disconnected from the actual lives of queer people in this city. Worse, he used the platform of our local LGBTQ outlet to disregard Palestinian humanity while scolding democratic socialists for refusing to join him in that moral failure. Put plainly, Rosenstein has been publishing crank op-eds for years, and this one was no exception.
My name is Hayden Gise. I am a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and I am a union organizer. I do not speak on behalf of the national DSA organization, the local chapter, or any campaign. But I will not sit quietly while Rosenstein wraps himself in the mantle of queer Jewishness to sell the lie that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
He packages that lie in the same kind of pinkwashing rhetoric used by Benjamin Netanyahu, who mocked solidarity with Palestinians by saying, “Some of these protesters hold up signs proclaiming ‘Gays for Gaza.’ They might as well hold up signs saying ‘Chickens for KFC.’” Rosenstein’s liberal Zionism is not thoughtful, brave, or nuanced. It is just a more polished way of telling Palestinians their lives matter less and telling queer people we should be grateful for the empire so long as it flies a rainbow flag. Which, by the way, is showing itself to be a losing strategy.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza is not some tragic deviation from the history of an otherwise peaceful Israel. The Nakba was the mass expulsion and displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s establishment in 1947–49, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. My Jewish values tell me that is wrong. Rosenstein’s politics treat anti-Zionist Jews like me as illegible. No serious person should treat that accusation as an argument.
But the deeper problem with Rosenstein’s piece is that he has no real understanding of why Democratic Socialism resonates here. For queer people in D.C., Democratic Socialism is not an abstract theory. It is rent that does not consume half your paycheck, a union on your job, childcare you can actually afford, public transit that works, and a city where working-class Black and brown queer people are not displaced so developers and donors can cash in. Queer politics is not only about recognition. It is also about whether ordinary people can afford to survive.
That is why D.C. is fertile ground for Democratic Socialism. In the race for mayor, one of the leading candidates is Kenyan McDuffie, whose campaign already looks like a focus-grouped merger of Andrew Cuomo’s slogan and Donald Trump’s graphic design instincts, backed by big business interests and the super PAC money that follows them. The other has the endorsement of the major labor unions in the District. Who has a cohesive vision to make D.C. more affordable and childcare universal. Who puts people over profit and human rights over political expediency. Our next mayor, and our first Democratic Socialist Mayor: Janeese Lewis George.
D.C. is exactly the kind of city where Democratic Socialism should grow: working-class, queer, tenant-heavy, union-minded, and tired of being told that dignity is too expensive. Which side are you on? I know what side the queer people of the District of Columbia will be on.
Hayden Gise is a union organizer in Washington, D.C.
For half a century, the arc of LGBTQ progress in America has bent—slowly, imperfectly—toward justice. We fought for visibility, for legal protections, for the right to marry, serve openly, and live with dignity. Each generation built on the courage of the last.
And yet today, that progress is in peril. Across the country, lawmakers are rolling back protections, demonizing LGBTQ people for political gain, and trying to erase us from public life.
Opponents of our equality are working to erase us from the Constitution, and indeed, public life. In moments like this, based on my personal involvement working with one of the most effective leaders for LGBTQ rights I find myself asking a simple question: What would Jeffrey do?
Jeffrey Montgomery—the focus of a new documentary “America You Kill Me” and a long time Michigan activist and founder of the Triangle Foundation—was never content with quiet advocacy or compromise. He was a rabble-rouser, a strategist, and a relentless thorn in the side of powerful bigots. When politicians tried to marginalize LGBTQ people, Jeffrey didn’t politely ask for scraps. He forced the issue.
Jeffrey Montgomery started with his own determined voice and turned it into a movement. His story is living proof that personal courage can spark national conversations about justice and inclusion.
At a moment when the LGBTQ movement again faces hostility and regression, Jeffrey’s playbook offers lessons we would be wise to remember.
First, Jeffrey understood the importance of punching above our weight. In the early days of LGBTQ organizing, our movement was small, underfunded, and politically marginalized. But Jeffrey refused to let opponents see us that way. Through visibility, media savvy, and relentless organizing, he made LGBTQ advocates appear larger, stronger, and more unified than our numbers alone might suggest.
That perception mattered. Political opponents think twice before attacking a movement that looks organized, energized, and capable of mobilizing public pressure. Jeffrey knew that power is partly about reality—but also about what your opponent believes your power to be.
Second, Jeffrey never compromised on the value of our lives. Movements make compromises all the time. Politics often requires it. But Jeffrey understood that some things are not negotiable. The basic humanity of LGBTQ people is one of them. You can’t put our basic rights on the ballot. You don’t tell people to wait their turn. There are no turns. It’s now. It’s always now.
Too often, our opponents frame equality as something to be bargained over—as if the dignity and safety of queer people were a policy preference rather than a fundamental right. Jeffrey rejected that premise entirely.
You can negotiate strategy. You can negotiate timelines. But you cannot negotiate the worth of human lives.
And finally, Jeffrey understood the power of coalition. Today, one of the most effective tactics used against marginalized communities is division. If LGBTQ people can be fractured—by identity, ideology, generation, or strategy—our collective strength weakens.
Jeffrey instinctively resisted that trap. He worked with civil rights groups, labor leaders, faith communities, civic leaders and allies across movements. He understood that the fight for LGBTQ equality was never isolated from the broader fight for justice.
When opponents try to divide us, the answer is not retreat into smaller camps. The answer is to build broader ones.
If Jeffrey Montgomery were here today, he would not be discouraged by the backlash we are seeing. He would recognize it for what it is: the predictable response of those who feel their power slipping away.
And he would remind us that progress has never been linear. It has always required courage, persistence, and a willingness to challenge power directly.
So, when the moment feels uncertain, when the political winds shift against us, and when our opponents try to make us feel small, the question remains a useful one: What would Jeffrey do?
If history is any guide, the answer would be simple. He would make some noise. And making noise, today, means refusing to let fear, fatigue, or false unity quiet us when our lives are on the line.
Sean Kosofsky was director of policy at the Triangle Foundation.
Opinions
D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
Candidates like Janeese Lewis George should reject its endorsement
D.C. is not the place for the antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who advocate for the end of the State of Israel from the ‘river to the sea.’ The candidates they endorse agree to their platform, which includes not talking to any Zionist organizations. Being a Zionist simply means supporting the existence of the State of Israel. It does not mean supporting the war criminal who heads the government, or what he is doing, including murdering innocent Palestinians, or bombing civilians in Iran and Lebanon. As Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, wrote in a column in DC Jewish Week, the views of the DSA are totally unacceptable.
The Council is non-political, but I am not. I can say one candidate for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, has asked for, and received, the endorsement of the DSA, and by doing so agrees to its antisemitic platform. After her endorsement became public, George tried to ‘privately apologize’ saying she didn’t see the questionnaire submitted by her campaign, rather it was submitted by a staffer. Now George says she is both not antisemitic, and supports Palestinians. Well, that sounds good. But she, and anyone else who accepts the DSA endorsement, has to answer a series of questions: 1. Are you for a two-state solution and the continued existence of the State of Israel, contrary to the position of the DSA? 2. Do you support BDS? 3. What is your definition of a Zionist? 4. What is your acceptable definition of antisemitism? 5. Will you meet with Zionist groups in DC?
Then, we must recognize if one candidate, like George, can go after and accept an endorsement from an antisemitic organization, it gives tacit permission for others to do the same with organizations that might be Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-immigrant. All unacceptable. I urge D.C. voters to reject any candidate, for any office, who has the endorsement of the DSA. That is not what we want the leaders of our government to represent.
Thankfully, there are many choices in this year’s Democratic primary elections for every office. There is a race for mayor, congressional delegate, attorney general, Council chair, two D.C. Council at-large seats, additional Council seats, Democratic State Committee seats and ANCs. D.C. political leadership will look very different after this election.
I urge voters to whittle down their choices by first rejecting anyone endorsed by the DSA. The DSA’s platform, aside from being antisemitic, also includes suggestions to ‘Defund the Police.’ That is a slogan some of the candidates running adopted a few years ago, thinking the people wanted it. They quickly found the people of D.C. didn’t want fewer police, they wanted their police better trained, with better community oversight. They wanted to be sure the police were here to protect them, not to harass them. People should know the DSA at one point even withdrew its endorsement from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she wasn’t strident enough in her opposition to Israel and actually met with a Zionist organization. There are many Zionists like me — a gay, Jewish man — who support the existence of the State of Israel, yet want to see Netanyahu, a war criminal, a murderer, tried for his crimes and in jail, and his government replaced. Zionists who support Palestinians and want them to have their own free state.
As you decide who gets your vote, one way to find out about a candidate is looking at their website. I would suggest you reject any candidate who doesn’t have a strong issues section. The least you can expect of a candidate is to tell you in detail what they intend to do if you elect them. That includes our delegate to Congress, even if they won’t have a vote. If Democrats take back the House of Representatives, we can expect our delegate to once again get a vote in committee, and that can be very important.
In the next couple of weeks, I will make some endorsements and share them with you in the Blade, for anyone who might be interested. They will detail why I endorse a particular candidate. I will not suggest second, third, fourth, or fifth choices. That is for you to decide. No matter who you give your first vote to, even with ranked choice voting, you can still vote for only one person. If you decide to list more choices, make sure the views of your second, and other choices, coincide with those of your first choice.
So here is to an honest election season, one in which we end up with candidates winning who really care about our city, who have proven track records, and who will make us proud. Your job is to VOTE, and I hope everyone will.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
The White House5 days agoVIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
-
Movies5 days agoTrans-driven ‘Serpent’s Skin’ delivers campy sapphic horror
-
Opinions5 days agoD.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
-
The White House5 days agoPam Bondi ousted as attorney general
