Tutorial 8: Sexuality and Legal Theory
INTRODUCTION
In South Africa, struggles for gender and sexual liberation have often been framed as
separate battles: feminism focusing on patriarchy and gender inequality, and the
LGBTIQ+ movement centring on heteronormativity and legal recognition. This
separation overlooks how systems of domination, such as patriarchy, racism,
heterosexism, and class intersect to shape lived experiences of oppression. This
tutorial argues that meaningful transformation requires coalitional politics grounded
in intersectionality and Matsuda’s “ask the other question” methodology, as
embodied by Simon Nkoli’s refusal to separate his Blackness from his queerness.
To demonstrate this, I first identify the convergences and conflicts between the
feminist and LGBTIQ+ movements, then consider the disagreements between queer
theory and various waves of feminism. I then critically examine how systems of
domination interlock by looking at the experiences of Black lesbian women in South
Africa. Throughout, I apply Matsuda’s methodology and Nkoli’s framework to reveal
how partial struggles reproduce exclusion, and I argue for intersectionality and
interlocking systems theory as essential frameworks for coalition and transformative
justice.
BODY
Matsuda’s “ask the other question” exposes how racism, patriarchy, heterosexism,
and class are interwoven, making it impossible to dismantle one without confronting
the others. Nkoli’s refusal to separate his Blackness from his queerness embodies
this principle, positioning his struggle firmly within an intersectional framework that
rejects hierarchical understandings of oppression.
Convergences and Conflicts: Feminism and the LGBTIQ+ Movement
Both the feminist and LGBTIQ+ movements have historically challenged the
patriarchal regulation of sexuality and gender, converging in their critique of
heteronormative structures. Tamale1 argues that African sexualities are regulated
through the interlocking forces of patriarchy, capitalism, religion, and law, which
together deny sexual citizenship to women and sexual minorities. Van Zyl 2 observes
that the dominance of white, male figures in the South African constitutional struggle
for gay rights reinforced the perception that homosexuality is “unAfrican,”
marginalizing Black queer voices.
Discussion:
Matsuda’s method connects these insights. When we focus on sexuality, we must
ask where patriarchy, race, class, and power operate. Tamale identifies the broader
system Matsuda calls us to uncover, while Van Zyl reveals how internal hierarchies
shape the queer movement itself. Nkoli’s lived reality illustrates this: as a Black gay
man, he experienced racial and sexual oppression simultaneously, reflecting
Matsuda’s claim that forms of subordination are interlocked and must be fought
together.
Feminist critiques of reproductive control and queer critiques of heteronormativity
align in resisting the heteronormative–reproductive ideal, which sustains male
dominance by confining women to domestic roles and marginalizing non-
reproductive sexualities. Yet conflicts arise: earlier waves of feminism often treated
gender as a fixed category and prioritized heterosexual women’s struggles,
sidelining queer experiences. These tensions show that feminist and queer struggles
are not simply additive but rest on divergent conceptual foundations, making
coalition essential if liberation is to be complete.
1
S Tamale ‘Exploring the Contours of African Sexualities: Religion Law and Power’ (2014)
14 African Human Rights Law Journal 155.
2
M Van Zyl ’Are Same-Sex Marriages UnAfrican? Same Sex Relationships and Belonging
in Post- Apartheid South Africa' (2011) 67 Journal of Social Sciences 338.
Discussion:
Nkoli’s insistence that he is “Black and gay” captures this coalition ethic. His position,
consistent with intersectionality and interlocking systems theory, forces feminist
movements to confront heteronormativity and racialization, and queer movements to
address race and gender privilege within their own ranks.
Various ways in which queer theory and various waves of feminism have
been in disagreement with one another.
Conceptually:
- Earlier feminism centred gender as the main site of oppression, treating
“woman” as a fixed political identity.3
- Queer theory, by contrast, disrupts fixed categories and highlights the fluid,
socially constructed nature of identities and desires.4
This friction reveals how some feminist arguments excluded those whose gender or
sexuality did not fit this “essential” idea of womanhood — a blind spot that queer
theory directly challenges.
Strategically, queer politics in South Africa often prioritized legal recognition (e.g.,
marriage equality), while feminist politics emphasized material inequality and
structural patriarchy. Van Zyl shows how legal victories disproportionately benefited
white, middle-class gay men, leaving many Black queer people vulnerable to social
hostility.
Discussion:
Matsuda’s method helps unpack these tensions. Feminism’s reliance on fixed
categories and queer theory’s challenge to them expose the “non-obvious
relationships of domination” Matsuda describes, showing how power can persist
within progressive spaces.
Nkoli embodies the need to bridge these divides. His life demonstrates that liberation
cannot be pursued through a single lens. While queer politics focused on legal rights
and feminism on structural inequality, Nkoli’s position demands a unified struggle,
3
Tamale.
4
Van Zyl.
reinforcing Matsuda’s call for coalitional approaches that confront all axes of
oppression simultaneously.
How systems of domination interlock
The experiences of Black lesbian women vividly demonstrate how multiple systems
of power intersect. Mailula and Mokgoroane’s “second closet” shows how race,
gender, sexuality, and class converge to create unique forms of subordination. Police
minimize violence in same-sex relationships, assuming abuse is “impossible,” while
healthcare workers subject victims to hostility. These institutional failures silence
victims and render them invisible, exposing how formal constitutional protections
(Sections 9 and 12) are undermined by cultural homophobia and patriarchal policing.
Similarly, Muholi’s work on “curative rapes” reveals how sexual violence is used to
discipline Black lesbian bodies back into heteronormative identities, reinforcing
patriarchal and racial power structures. These accounts illustrate how oppression is
not simply layered but structurally interwoven, producing compounded vulnerability.
Discussion:
Mailula and Mokgoroane’s account of the “second closet” and Muholi’s
documentation of “curative rapes” bring Matsuda’s method and Nkoli’s stance into
sharp focus. Matsuda urges us to “ask the other question” — to look beyond the
obvious and uncover how different systems of power operate together. In these
examples, when we see gendered violence, we must also see heterosexism in the
police’s disbelief, racism in the way Black lesbian women are treated, and class
power in the structural neglect that leaves poor queer women without protection.
These cases reveal how oppression is not additive but deeply interwoven,
undermining constitutional protections through the combined force of cultural
homophobia, patriarchal policing, and racialized marginalization.
Nkoli’s framework reinforces this analysis. His refusal to separate his racial and
sexual identities shows that struggles against oppression cannot be fought one at a
time. His lived experience mirrors the realities of Black lesbian women who face
violence at multiple intersections — their safety cannot be secured by addressing
gender, sexuality, or race in isolation.
Towards Coalition and Transformation
Matsuda’s methodology and Nkoli’s positionality offer both the analytical lens and the
lived imperative for genuine coalition. In South Africa, feminist and LGBTIQ+
struggles converge against patriarchal and heteronormative systems but falter when
they overlook how race, class, and sexuality intersect. Intersectionality and
interlocking systems theory provide the framework to bridge these divides,
transforming fragmented movements into a coalition capable of confronting the full
architecture of domination. Only through such a coalition can real, structural
transformation be achieved.
CONCLUSION
The central question was how the feminist and LGBTIQ+ movements converge and
conflict, how queer theory and different waves of feminism have disagreed, and how
interlocking systems of domination shape lived experiences. while both movements
share a commitment to challenging patriarchal and heteronormative structures, they
have often done so in fragmented ways: feminism has historically centred gender,
sometimes excluding queer experiences, while queer politics has often prioritized
legal recognition over structural inequality. These tensions are both conceptual and
strategic, reflecting what Matsuda calls the “non-obvious relationships of
domination.”
This domination/oppression is not additive but structurally interwoven, making single-
axis struggles inadequate. Matsuda’s methodology exposes the depth of these
intersections, while Nkoli’s refusal to separate his identities embodies the lived
necessity of confronting multiple forms of subordination at once. Therefore, the
feminist and LGBTIQ+ movements can realize their emancipatory potential through a
coalition grounded in intersectionality and interlocking systems theory. These
frameworks provide the intellectual and strategic tools to bridge internal divisions,
recognize intersecting oppressions, and dismantle the full architecture of power.