Letter To Kadala on Homosexuality in Uganda

Dear Kadala

Pardon me.

We can understand homosexuality, when we allow a regime of  respectful open dialogue.

I am writing to you with joy combined with anticipatory apprehension at the same time. I am so happy you can spare time to read about an issue that has ruffled political, religious, and social feathers in Uganda. What? No, not governance. No, I am talking about a social-gender issue.

Yes, I am talking about the homosexual question or homosexuality, that “thing” or those “things” (as some want to put it). I wanted to start with this so that there is no deception. Also let us be clear. I want to unpack that “thing.” Imagine, there is a powerful politician who calls it that “thing” or sometimes when this politician is making a point the politician says "those things." Mostly the word practice is added in the same sentence where that “thing” is mentioned. I am wondering about this “thing” that can morph into “those things.” When one refers to it as a “thing,” in my mind I start having two further ideas. I agree it is a thing, in the sense that it is existing, it happens to be known, lived and experienced by people. But, the way it is referred to by some reduces it to something like a game. It is not a game or a lesson in which one has to be tested to check their skills or aptitude. 

It is not like terrorism, or picking a lock, or littering or going to Kampala Club to play Squash in order to keep one’s ball-eye-hand coordination sharper. In other words it is not a practice in the sense that it would disrupt state security. It is not a practice that it would trespass over one’s private property. It is not a practice in a sense of throwing unwanted rubbish anywhere thus assaulting one’s aesthetic sensibilities. It is also not a sport. If it were, it would be unpracticed. We would even use legislation to enforce the un-practicing. 

This  “thing” is a normativity. 

As a normativity, it is a consciousness whose emotional antennas (real-felt agency) process one’s sexuality signals against the specifications of society’s prescriptions or conditions for a person based on what was assigned to them at birth, i.e., whether they are typed as male or female. There are those who are fully aligned or comfortable with what was assigned at birth. These are termed cis-male if they are men or cis-female if they are women. This is also termed as sexual-gender conformity. Which takes me to the point of being.

This “thing” is being.

As a state of being, such a person is compelled to reach for two forms of actualization. One at the emotional, intrapersonal or self level. The other at the social or interpersonal level. In reaching for actualization people turn their subjectivity into objectivity. They are perceived as valuable of and in themselves as they relate with self or others. Which takes me to the point of relation.

This “thing” is relation-based 

As a relational entity it is also a reflection of how diverse humanity is. From a subjective richness the objective human being seeks to portray or be portrayed with practical dignity. What may enable or be a barrier to this portrayal are the material, legal, political, social and economic conditions CSOs, communities, leaders, police, courts and parents put in place. Let the space be open for a dialogue on homosexuality or sexuality for that matter please.

Humbly,

Mukala.