4TlouPart1.qxd


Many members of the public as well as members and employees

in the military still see homosexual behaviour as incompatible

with military service and a threat to the combat effectiveness of

the military. People who are homosexual have been treated

differently in most of the armed forces globally. Bell and Binnie

(2002) writing on the gays and the military debate believe that

the relationship between this debate and the wider question of

sexual citizenship needs to be examined. They continue:

At its simplest, of course, the argument is that denying

homosexuals the right to fight for their country denies

them full citizenship, given the continuing durability of the

relationship between the citizen and the nation-state. This

obviously sidesteps the crucial question of the legitimacy of such

a strategy in the context of rights agitation. In the same manner

as the debate on lesbian and gay marriage, the gays in the

militar y debate is upheld by some as having a

destabilizing, radical function: opening up one of the most

heteronormative state institutions to homosexuals begins

the task of undermining heteronormativity itself (emphasis

added)(Bell & Binnie, 2002, p. 455).

When South Africa became a democratic country in 1994, a new

Constitution was introduced which is regarded as one the most

liberal in the world. The Bill of Rights that is contained in

chapter t wo of the Constitution, is the cornerstone of

democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people,

including homosexuals, in our country and affirms the

democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.

According to the clause on equality, Section 9 (3), “…the state

may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against

anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex,

pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual

orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture,

language and birth”. 

It goes without saying that South African Government

Departments including the Department of Defence (DOD) had

to align its departmental policies with the Constitution of the

country. The Department of Defense consequently drafted a

Code of Good Employment Practice regarding Sexual

Orientation in the Workplace. The policy is now at an advanced

stage of drafting and inputs are currently been awaited from

local Non-Governmental Organizations such as the Gay and

Lesbian Equality Project.

The South African military stands in sharp contrast to the

military in both the USA’s and the UK’s ruling: “don’t ask, don’t

tell. The South African Department of Defense acknowledges

that homosexual people are an integral part of South African

society and that they are only different in terms of their sexual

preference. The DOD also acknowledges that as an employer, it

has members and employees of all sexual orientations. The

DOD’s Code of Good Employment Practice does not make any

value judgment in this regard, but accepts differences in sexual

orientation as a given. The Code of Good Employment Practice

BENEDICTOR LEAH TLOU

WILLEM SCHURINK
Programme in Leadership in Performance and Change 

In the Department of Human Resource Management 

Rand Afrikaans University

ABSTRACT
A are opportunity presented itself to undertake an explorative qualitative study of the perceptions and experiences

of an authentic lesbian who was for some time an employee of the South African Department of Defence (DOD). In

order to capture, describe and reach an understanding of this woman’s experiences and worldviews, we employed a

qualitative methodology, i.e. with her assistance an autobiographical sketch was constructed, and utilizing a variant

of analytic induction (AI) and symbolic interactionism, we analysed and interpreted the material. 

According to qualitative requirements we provide in this article an account of the major steps taken during the

execution of the case study. Following the Lowney-Winslows AI approach (1981), we are convinced that our study

provided one real case, which enhanced our intuitive understanding of lesbians working in the South African

Defence Force. It namely served as a starting point for further research that could carry our case study on to a more

formal implementation of AI, and particularly the execution of steps five through to seven. 

We feel convinced that the study was ethically properly and scientifically correctly executed and that it enabled us

to obtain valuable and rich information on lesbianism and the South African military. 

For the benefit of the reader we present Thando’s entire narrative. 

OPSOMMING
’n Unieke geleentheid het hom voorgedoen om ’n ekploratiewe kwalitatiewe studie van die persepsies en ervarings

van ’n outentieke lesbiër wat vir ’n tyd lank werksaam was by die Suid-Afrikaanse Departement van Verdediging, te

onderneem. Ten einde die vrou se ondervindings en wêreldbeskouings vas te vang, te beskryf en ’n begrip daarvan

op te bou, het ons ’n kwalitatiewe methodology benut, dit is, met die samewerking van die vrou, is ’n

outobiografiese skets gekonstruuer, en het ons ’n vorm van analitiese induksie en simboliese interaksionisme benut. 

Ooreenkomstig die vereistes vir kwalitatiewe navorsing verskaf ons in hierdie artikel ’n uiteensetting van die

vernaamste stappe wat in die uitvoer van die studie geneem is. In navolging van die Lowney-Winslows AI benadering

(1981), is ons daarvan oortuig dat die studie een ware geval daarstel wat ’n spontane begrip van lesbiërs in die Suid-

Afrikaanse Weermag aanmoedig. Dit dien naamlik as ’n beginpunt vir verdere navorsing wat hierdie gevallestudie na

’n meer formele implementering van AI, en in die besonder, die uitvoering van stappe 5 tot 7 kan neem. 

Ons voel oortuig daarvan dat die studie eties behoorlik en wetenskaplik verantwoordelik van staple gestuur is en dat

dit ons waardevolle en ryke inligting omtrend lesbinisme en die Suid-Afrikaanse weermag bied.

Vir die gerief van die leser word Thando se volledige verhaal aangebied.

A GAY WOMAN’S EXPERIENCES DURING HER CAREER 

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE 

PART: 1 – FLEET OF HOPE

Requests for copies should be addressed to: BL Tlou, Department of Human

Resource Management, RAU University, PO Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006

24

SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 2003, 1 (3), 24-34

SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 2003, 1 (3), 24-34



A GAY WOMAN’S EXPERIENCES – PART 1 25

Conduct regarding Sexual Orientation in the Workplace was

drafted specifically to combat discrimination based on

members’ sexual orientation in the Department. 

In 2000 the Chief Directorate Equal Opport unities in

conjunction with the Centre conducted a study on the

attitudes and perceptions of the DOD population regarding

the integration of gays and lesbians among its personnel for

Effect Analysis. The research results gained by this

quantitative st udy indicated substantial prejudice and

stereot y pes with regard to gays and lesbians in the

Department. On eight of the ten statements contained in the

questionnaire, the sample responded negatively in respect of

the integration of gays and lesbians in the DOD. Exceptions

were respondents of the office of the Secretary for Defence

and to some extent respondents of the South African Military

Health Service (SAMHS). The latter two sub-groups were

inclined to hold more positive attit udes regarding the

integration of gays and lesbians. The general conclusion

reached was that the respondents appear to be very divided on

issues related to the integration of gays and lesbians in the

Department. These research results indicated the need for a

DOD code of good practice regarding sexual orientation in the

workplace, which was subsequently drafted.

The results of this study were also presented at the 4th Biennial

Equal Opportunit y Research Symposium held from 5-6

December 2001 at Cocoa Beach in Florida, USA. Issues that were

raised centred on the question of the negative perceptions held

by most of the African population and the more positive

responses by the Asian population of the DOD regarding the

integration of gays and lesbians. Recommendations were made

and one of them was to undertake a follow-up study in the form

of focus groups in order to explore qualitatively the negative

perceptions that prevail regarding the integration of gays and

lesbians in the Department. 

While research on African and Asian members of the DOD

regarding their views on gays and lesbians is very important and

must certainly receive attention, a rare opportunity presented

itself to undertake a qualitative study of the perceptions and

experiences of one former white female gay employee of the

DOD. This opportunity implied that we could learn first-hand of

the experiences a gay woman, who worked for some time at the

DOD, had. More specifically, an opportunity presented itself to

discover and describe how such people experience and handles

the behaviour and perceptions of their heterosexual colleagues

towards them. Finally, there is a scarcity of scientific knowledge

on homosexual/lesbian work1, and particularly the careers of

gay women in the South Africa’s military. 

While Tlou discussed the proposed research with a colleague, he

mentioned that he knows a gay female staff member of the DOD

who would be keen to participate in a research project. We

discussed this opportunity and decided that Tlou would contact

the female employee, which she did. The woman indicated that

she was indeed interested in participating in the study. 

AIM

This article is based on an in-depth study of one white gay

female employee’s experiences and views of her homosexuality

while she was working at the DOD. The objective is to gain a

better understanding of the problems facing gay female

employees of the DOD.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to capture, describe and finally reach an understanding

of the lesbian’s experiences during her career in the Department

of Defense, a qualitative methodology was used. 

CONTACT WITH GAY WOMEN 

Tlou met the first potential research participant to be known as

Lindi through one of her male colleagues that was on a military

course with her. As they shared and talked about the work

schedule and the studies, he became interested in her MA study.

He then explained to her that if there is a need to interview or

talk to a lesbian, he is ready to introduce her to a friend who

would be willing to assist her. He made the initial contacts and

provided Tlou with his friend’s contact telephone numbers. Tlou

talked to Lindi over the phone and they made an appointment to

meet at Lindi’s home. On 14 June 2002 Tlou met Lindi, her

partner and her mother and after explaining the purpose of the

survey Lindi was prepared to be involved with the study. 

Lindi is a white lesbian in the service of the Department of

Defence. She is a very friendly person, kind and outspoken. She

and her family gave Tlou a warm welcome and Tlou felt at ease

and home. Tlou’s general impression of the family was that they

are kind and respectable people. When she was at Lindi’s place

other family members as well as another gay couple came to visit

and Tlou was also introduced to them. She felt quite comfortable

and they invited her to join them for supper. 

ENTERS THANDO

Tlou and Lindi arranged to meet again on 2 July 2002 at 18h00

and also agreed to communicate via e-mail. On 24 June Tlou

received an e-mail whereby the research participant raised a

concern regarding the study. When they met on 2 July she

indicated that she felt that she was not the right person to assist

Tlou with her study since she has never had any personal

experiences that she can write about because she was still “in the

closet”, i.e. concealed her homosexuality. She further indicated

that she knew someone who had negative experiences and who

might be willing to assist with the study. Tlou then agreed to be

introduced to the second research participant so as to determine

if she would be willing to assist with the proposed study.

Lindi made contact with the second research participant to be

known as Thando and she arranged for the two of them to meet.

They made the initial contact via e-mail and telephonically and

thereafter Lindi, Thando and Tlou met on 7 August 2002. Tlou

was introduced to Thando and explained the purpose of the

study to her. After Tlou answered the few questions Thando had,

she agreed to assist with the study. She agreed to write a sketch

and promised to have the first draft ready on 17 August 2002.

Thando is a white lesbian who is confident and outspoken and

she seemed very friendly from our their first contact. She worked

for the Department of Defence for more than 10 years and left

the service three years ago. 

The first draft of the sketch was received as arranged. After an e-

mail discussion with Schurink, further questions and clarifications

were forwarded to Thando. On 22 August Tlou met Thando again

and handed over information that was still required from her and

she promised to have the report ready on 9 September 2002.

During this meeting it was agreed that some detailed information

would not be divulged since it may reveal Thando’s identity and

have some repercussions for some of her friends who still serves in

the DOD. Thando also requested that the sketch should not be

published in any DOD magazine since her story may jeopardise her

friends who are serving in the Department and are still in the

closet. The material obtained from this research should therefore

be used for study purposes only. Thando was re-assured that her

identity would be kept confidential. Thereafter Thando and Tlou

kept contact through e-mail correspondence. The final report was

received on 12 September 2002. 

As we already indicated Thando’s sketch forms the basis of the

article. But how credible is this story? This is the question we

now turn to. 



TLOU, SCHURINK26

CREDIBILITY OF THANDO’S SKETCH

In order to assist the reader to assess Thando’s account we

generally followed the guidelines provided by Howard Becker

(1970) on establishing the credibility of case studies as well as

more recent ideas on the trustworthiness of qualitative research

in ensuring a quality study. The following were the key decisions

we took:

First, as already pointed out the substantive, question we had to

address was: How does one authentic lesbian manage her

military career? 

Second, and flowing from the former question, our

epistemological approach was that we wanted to generate,

“subjective, soft” data in order to come to a interpretive

understanding of lesbianism and military work in the South

African context. Therefore, as already indicated, we opted for a

qualitative methodology. That is why we request Thando to

compile an essay briefly reviewing her total gay life but focusing

on her career in the military. We did not proceed with any

particular theory of lesbian work. Nevertheless, after having

received Thando’s sketch, we did examine particular theoretical

ideas about lesbianism in our attempt to make sense of it. While

our analysis reflect some aspects of grounded theory (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967), we feel that in general our approach is more in

line with analytic induction (AI). But what does AI implies? 

Manning (1991, p. 405) writes: 

Analytic induction seeks to develop universal statements

containing the essential futures of a phenomenon, or those

things that are always found to cause or lie behind the existence

of a social occurrence. The essential features are revealed, it is

argued, when they are always present when the phenomenon is

present; when they are absent, the phenomenon is itself absent.

The definitional aspect of science is critical in analytic

induction, and in the procedure redef inition and

reconceptualization are often required to narrow the range of

applicability or the scope of the theory. Exceptions or negative

cases assume a major significance, since the explanations aim for

completeness and universality. Traditionally, only a few selected

cases are subjected to careful scrutiny (persons and families have

been used). (Emphasis in the original.)

He continues by describing 7 specific steps formalized by

Cressey (1953) and concludes: 

In Cressey’s statement we discover the core features of the method

as practiced: def inition, tentative explanation, possible

reformulation, and generalization. As he implies, the process may

continue until a point of closure is achieved. This point is not

defined in a straightfor ward manner (Manning, 1991:408-409).

Gill and Johnson (2002, p. 157) have the following to say:

In sum, AI and analogous theory-building approaches ostensibly

seek to capture aspects of the social world from the perspective

of actors and allow the revision of hypotheses and conceptual

structures through the analysis and elimination of negative

cases. In doing so it attempts to maintain faithfulness to

empirical data gathered f rom a relatively small number of

cases (emphasis added). 

Though our work bears a close connection to AI, specific

features of our approach that we need to emphasise, include: 

i) We focused on one lesbian’s views about her life in the South

African Defence Force.

ii) We did not formalize specific hypotheses regarding

lesbianism or lesbian work before the data were collected and

did not formally examine or “test” any hypotheses drawn

from the literature

iii)We do provide a commentary in a subsequent article, in the

light of a general sociological approach to lesbianism as well

as of some ideas of scholars on homosexuality and the

military, and propose some ideas with an eye to

reformulation. Following the Lowney-Winslows AI approach

(1981), we feel our study provided one real case, which

enhanced our intuitive understanding of lesbians working in

the South African Defence Force. It served as a starting point

for further research that could carry our case study on to a

more formal implementation of AI, and particularly the

execution of steps five through to seven. 

Third, and following from our usage of AI, we made use of the

symbolic interactionist perspective in which AI is embedded. We

explain this perspective in greater detail below. 

Fourth, in how human documents could be constructed, we

noted that there are many different ways in which a person

could express his/her personal life (cf. Plummer, 2001). Since we

needed a human document, which would focus on a particular

aspect of a woman’s life, namely how she as a South African

white lesbian experienced her career in the defence force and

one, which, at the same time would provide us with some sense

of her overall life, we decided upon the topical life document.

While we do not want to claim that the document that was

finally constructed could be placed on the same shelf as such

well-known classic life history documents as Stanley ‘s

delinquent life (Shaw, 1966), or Bogdan’s (1974) study of Jane

Fry’s transsexuality, we are convinced that it represents a topical

life document that provides a rather vivid description of

Thando’s experiences of her military career and her gay life. In

sum: The data collection method utilised in the study was an

autobiographical sketch. We are convinced that by using a life

sketch or a combination of two autobiographies, i.e. topical

autobiography and edited biography, we generated a

comprehensive account of a local white lesbian’s experiences as

a former employee of the South African Department of Defense.

Fifth, we edited Thando’s life history in the sense of Tlou

asking her questions, and by requesting her to elaborate or

clarif y certain aspects in her story that were not clear to us. She

was able to respond to almost all the questions except where she

had indicated that such information might compromise the

identity of some of her colleagues and friends still serving in

the DOD. 

Sixth, while ethics are particularly problematic in qualitative

research including life history research emphasizing the flux and

ever changing nature of human behaviour, we believe that we

attended reasonably adequately to this. By employing pseudo-

names and deleing certain pieces that contained identifiable

information we tried to ensure that neither Thando nor anybody

that she wrote about could be revealed when academics read the

sketch/article. Of course, while these tactics could make the risk

of identification less likely, it can never be regarded as full proof.

Regarding hurt and harm, we tried as far as is reasonable to

prevent that the writing of her story for academically purposes

would cause Thando harm or traumatize her. While Thando did

not make mention of any uncomfortably she had when writing

her story, it might have occurred and that Thando for some

reason did not reveal it to us. Another related aspect, is that of

exploitation. Since Thando’s real identity had to remain

confidential she did not gain any status for her account. Finally,

the fact that we requested Thambo to write about her life,

contributed to her life being changed. Plummer (2001) describe

this dilemma as follows:

To speak traumas hitherto unnamed – of child abuse, of rape, of

holocaust sur vival, of undiagnosed illness, of coming out as a

transvestite – is to solidify and consolidate in words a kind of a

life. And for this – in a way – the researcher becomes responsible.

Seventh, Thando and us signed an informant consent form, thus

indicating that she undertook the research voluntarily, that her

identity, would be kept confidential and that neither her name



A GAY WOMAN’S EXPERIENCES – PART 1 27

or anybody else’s, nor any identifiable information would occur

in the research articles we would compile. 

Eight, in light of the discovery of “life story scandals” or studies

accused of treacherous and untrustworthy (cf. Plummer 2001),

we tried within the length limitation of this article, to account

as fully as possible how the study was executed. 

Ninth, while life history research can certainly not easily

involved deceptions, we did ensure that Thando had absolute

clarity of what our research interests were and what we wanted

her to do.

Tenth, we employed what has became known as member checks,

i.e. to get people acquainted or related to the research

participant or sketch writer, to check on the factual correctness

of the story. In this study, we were able to control the intern

validity of the life history after, Thando, at our request, handed

her story to a person that checked her account. 

Finally, we employed what Plummer (1983) autocritique, i.e.

we asked Thando herself to check the final version of her life

sketch. She studied the draft article in order to ensure that her

viewpoints and experiences were not interpreted out of

context as well as to ensure that it did not contain any

information that could reveal her identity and hurt her in any

way. The draft, edited version of the sketch was e-mailed to her

and she signed an agreement permitting us to use the sketch

for scientific purposes. 

We now present a brief discussion of the theoretical perspective,

symbolic interactionism, which, as already mentioned, guiding

the study.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM AS 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

According to Denzin (1970) symbolic interactionism rests on

three basic assumptions. Firstly, social reality as it is sensed,

known and understood is a social production. Interacting

individuals produce and define their own definitions of

situations. Secondly, humans are assumed to be capable of

engaging in “minded”, self-reflexive behaviour. They have the

ability to shape and guide their own behaviour and that of

others. Finally, in the course of taking their own standpoint and

fitting that standpoint to the behaviours of others, humans

interact with one another. Interaction is seen as the emergent,

negotiated and often-unpredictable concern and is symbolic

because it involves the manipulation of symbols, words,

meanings and languages.

The integral part of this perspective is the view that the social

world of human beings is not made up of objects that have

intrinsic meaning. The meaning of objects lies in the actions that

human beings take towards them. Human experience is such

that the process of defining objects is ever changing, subject to

redefinitions, relocations and realignments. The interactionist

assumes that people learn their basic symbols, their conception

of the self, and the definitions they attach to social objects

through interaction with others. That is, interactionists regard

human interaction as their basic source of data and regard face-

to-face interaction to occur in social situations.

According to Goffman’s analysis in Denzin (1970, p. 5-6) it is

possible to assemble the following seven features of focused

interaction: 

� Focused interaction involves two or more individuals taking

one another’s point of view. 

� Interaction occurs in social settings, which can be physically

located and described. 

� Social objects fill social settings and will be acted on by the

individuals under study. 

� When taking one another’s perspective, individuals use a set

of rules that tacitly guide and shape their ongoing

interaction; these rules may either be civil or legal in nature. 

� All interaction involves persons differentially related to one

another. They may be strangers, friends, colleagues, enemies

or politely civil acquaintances. The total amount of time two

or more individuals spend in one another’s presence is

termed the occasion of interaction. 

� Every focused exchange between these individuals is termed an

encounter. Social situations furnish the occasions of interaction,

which in turn produce the condition for encounters. 

� The interaction process is filtered through gendered social

identities.

According to Schurink et al. (1994) symbolic interactionism

emphasizes the diversity of social roles and subcultures as well

as the manner in which individuals construct roles and identities

through interaction with others. Interpretation, according to

symbolic interactionists, is neither an autonomous act nor does

a specific force determine it. People can only come to know

themselves or their own social identities through the responses

of others. They typically develop shared perspectives or

common definitions in a given situation since they interact and

share experiences, problems and backgrounds. 

According to Schurink (2002, p. 13) in terms of epistemology,

i.e. accepted statements justif ying what the researcher believes

to exist, the subject matter of his discipline/area of study, the

qualitative researcher is subjective because s/he interacts with

the subject (object of observation). Data will be valid if the

researcher does not impose his or her own ideas and

preconceptions on the subjects during data collection. The

epistemic imperative according to Mouton (1996, p. 28) is

committed to the search for truth. He applies the term

epistemic in the original Greek sense which means ‘truthful or

certain knowledge’, in other words, knowledge that is well

substantiated (as opposed to opinion) and hence provides us

with an accurate representation of reality. The term ‘imperative’

implies a kind of ‘moral contract’ willingly entered into for the

sake of greater good. The ‘epistemic imperative’ hence refers to

the intrinsic moral and binding character that is inherent in the

pursuit of ‘truthful knowledge’. He further contends that the

search for the truth is not just another option or matter of

choice. Scientists who are engaged in scientific research are

bound in a moral contract to commit themselves to the search

for truth. Violation of this imperative implies total rejection or

suspension of the notion of science, i.e. another way of saying

that the terms ‘science’ and ‘truth’ are intrinsically linked.

Epistemologically we attempt to capt ure, describe and

eventually appreciate social reality, i.e. trying to gain insight

into the perceptions and attitudes of one authentic former gay

employee of the DOD. 

We decided to select symbolic interactionism as theoretical

framework for the study mainly because of the following two

reasons: Firstly, this perspective is primarily concerned with

people’s views and interpretation of social reality. More

specifically it was used in the present study to describe and

capture the experiences and perceptions of one gay female

former staff member of the Department of Defense. Finally,

various scholars believe that this perspective is particularly

appropriate to illuminate homosexuality and especially the

process whereby people develop a gay identity.

In the preceding paragraphs the background to the article was

sketched, the methodology was outlined, the author of the

sketch was introduced and the theoretical underpinnings of the

study presented. In the remainder of this article, we provide the

entire sketch written by Thando for the benefit of the reader. In

order to keep the article within reasonable length, our social

science commentary, that is, our analysis and interpretation of

Thando’s story and outlining its most salient implications will

be dealt with in a separate article, Part II.



TLOU, SCHURINK28

FLEET OF HOPE: 

THANDO’S AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

I tried to write a story about my life in the Defence Force, but after

a paragraph or two, I realised how closely tied up my personal life

including family life and my military life was.

Born into a white middle class family in 1963 in the conser vative

province of Transvaal, (now known as Gauteng) in Pretoria, had

many advantages for a young girl in SA. I was the youngest of four

children, loved and pampered by my parents and siblings. I had a

normal well-adjusted home life, filled with love, humour, hope and

expectations. Playing Cowboys and Indians, going on holidays with

the family and enjoying the benefits of a strong family unit were an

integral part of my growing up. If a negative needed to be found, I

suppose being the youngest in the family by 15 years placed me in the

same position as an only child. Fortunately my parents encouraged

and supported me to find stimulation in various activities namely

ballet, tap dancing, horse riding, tennis and a love of reading

amongst many others. 

BACKGROUND

Openness, honesty and transparency were part and parcel of the

family tradition. Issues were discussed and cleared up before they

became problems. The oldest of the siblings had decided that she

wanted a child but did not want matrimony and a permanent man

in her life. The family support was fantastic and she moved into my

parents’ home and became very close to me. My mother, being a

working mother, could not always assist with schooling and all my

teenage demands. My sister Grace fitted the role of surrogate mother

to perfection. She was being financially supported by my parents

and stayed at home to look after her daughter as well as looking

after me. She moved out with her daughter 3 years later and then

decided to come out of the closet and announce to all that she was

indeed gay and proud of it. 

I was 13 years old at that time and Grace’s announcement regarding

her sexual orientation changed my life dramatically. The image of a

strong family unit disintegrated surprisingly fast. She was shunned

as a family member and made to feel unwelcome. Siblings avoided

the issue by simply ignoring her existence and when it did surface it

was a passionate and heated debate. We all argued about why she

had decided to be gay, how long had she been gay and how long had

she been lying to us. We analysed her previous relationships and

wondered which of her friends were actually lovers. The biggest fear

and anger was how it was going to affect her daughter. Would she

also be a social outcast, would she be ashamed of her mother and

would she be able to cope? We were disappointed and outraged that

she had brought this social shame on us. It was the topic of much

talk amongst the wider family circle and we often bore the brunt of

their laughter. For a 13 year old, innocent to the ways of the world,

I felt totally betrayed by a sister who had in the past been a surrogate

mother. I didn’t understand the social stigmas, the fear of the other

members of the family of this unknown condition or the perceived

humiliation this would bring to the family. I only understood that

what had happened was wrong and bad and therefore needed to be

punished. This family banishment lasted for 13 years. Grace moved

further and further away from the family circle and finally cut away

completely when her daughter moved in with my parents.  

My life continued but with maybe a little less spontaneity than

before. First boyfriend at 14. I remained a virgin only because it had

been ingrained in my mind by family and the conser vative school I

attended that pregnancy was a direct cause of intimacy. More

boyfriends followed and at the age of 19, I entered into my first

serious relationship with a man. We were both students and thought

we had the world at our feet. It lasted 2 years. It ended when he

married a girl he had got pregnant. I had really strong feelings for

him; he was strong, we had a lot in common and we had planned a

great future together. I don’t know if that was love but I felt

comfortable and safe and happy. Today I would probably describe

my feelings for him as a huge learning cur ve. He betrayed me but I

was stronger for it. My parents were great and looking back I have no

feelings of regret. It was good while it lasted. Subsequently he was

arrested for fraud and jailed and I was left with a feeling that I had

escaped just in time. 

My own social life was looking bleak after the break-up. My parents

announced that they would be looking after my sister’s daughter,

since they felt it was more appropriate. My sister had met a woman

who displayed violent tendencies and my parents felt that they

could provide her daughter with a more stable environment as well

as look after her financially. My sister put up no resistance. This

rocked me severely and I finally understood the homophobic reaction

of my family. How could a mother give up her child? It had to be

because she was gay. Gay was bad, wasn’t it? I actively participated

in anti - homosexual discussions and debates. Voicing my opinion to

anyone who cared to listen. I was the typical “verbal gay basher”.

Whilst at university parties and boyfriends escalated even though I

still didn’t sleep with any boyfriend. Holding back because I never

felt comfortable?? We were typical students. Going away for

weekends partied until the early hours of the morning. We all had

the odd arguments about sex. I never felt quite comfortable with

having sex even though I would sleep over, cuddle and pet but never

slept with a boyfriend. The fear of pregnancy still a huge factor! I

also believed that I hadn’t met the man of my dreams yet. 

I moved out at the age of 21 and worked part time. I was getting

impatient with not having money, wanting my independence. It was

with the blessing of my parents that I moved into a flat with a

friend. The family members remaining in the fold????, were still

close but the “lost daughter” remained a silent figure. Feeble

attempts were made by various family members to re-introduce

Grace but no favorable results were obtained. My parents were

getting older and they wanted to reconcile the family. They started

visiting my sister again. She had, during that time, found her soul

mate and they had been living together for many years. However, her

partner was never invited to join in the family activities. This placed

everybody in a lose-lose situation. We couldn’t have the sister back

because of her partner and she couldn’t have the family back with

her partner. To keep everybody half satisfied she rather maintained

her distance.

The unthinkable happened at 22. I met a girl working with me.

Openly gay, she stood for everything I abhorred. I verbally attacked

her and took any opportunity to insult her lover and friends.

Despite the insults, she became a friend. The irony of the situation

was that I wanted to be in her company all the time. She resigned

and left for Durban. I followed her to Durban because I started to

realise that perhaps I wanted to be more than just a friend. Not

comfortable with the idea of perhaps being gay, I realised that I

would have to follow her to find out what it was that I wanted

from her. I was also terrified that the family would find out and it

seemed so much easier away from the family. I believed she had to

be aware of my growing feelings for her yet she never made any

advances and I was becoming increasingly frustrated and confused.

I was terrified but finally I made the bold move to tell her I was

sexually attracted to her. 

It was a time of constant questioning of myself and my new lifestyle

and trying to justify why I had made the move. I believe today that

the reason I was so radically anti-gay was my way of trying to

convince myself that I was not “made up of the same stuff” as Grace.

It was also a time of great anxiety that someone would find out

about me and inform my parents. Living away from home made it

so much easier though and we were partners for 2 years. We were

young, in love and believed that Durban was our oyster, far away

from prying eyes, insults and recriminations. We remained insular

in our youthful exuberance, never meeting other straight or gay

people. We were happy with each other and that seemed sufficient.

It wasn’t sufficient however, and the relationship ended two years

later. The reason was that I couldn’t come to terms with the idea

that I was gay and on various occasions I set out to prove to myself



A GAY WOMAN’S EXPERIENCES – PART 1 29

and anybody who cared to listen that I was attractive to men as well

as attracted to them. Obviously this caused many disagreements in

our relationship. Perhaps, both young enough to want to experience

life and all it could offer, we just drifted apart. She left South Africa,

had a daughter and the last I heard, had settled down with a man

in Israel. I felt totally isolated. Not quite sure about my sexuality, not

sure how to handle the guilt of who I was and what I was. I couldn’t

speak to my family for fear of their reaction and subsequent rejection

and not knowing any other gay people I was at the lowest point in

my life. My sister Daisy, realising I was going through a troubled

period in my life suggested I “find myself” overseas.

I transferred my sexual problems overseas still not knowing how to

handle the predicament in which I found myself. Every woman I met

I would assess in terms of her sexual orientation. I wanted to meet

other lesbians but as it turned out I only met two, and never felt

close enough to discuss my situation. I had one or two sexual

encounters with men but nothing serious enough to even warrant

remembering their names. After meeting my family in Greece, I felt

homesick enough to return to South Africa. This was in 1986. I had

made up my mind by then that I was bisexual and I possibly still

would one day meet the man of my dreams, have kids and live with

him forever. It just seemed the easiest way out. I believed that

bisexuals were considered as young people experimenting and

finding themselves. It was easy to hide behind that.

CAREER

Back home, I was pressurized into making appropriate career

decisions and found myself looking at a picture of a female in

uniform, graced with beauty, intelligence and style. This coupled to

the general perception that many women in uniform were believed

to be gay convinced me that I wanted to join the Defense Force. Still

not sure of my sexuality I was not interested in joining the Army,

perceiving the women to be “butch” and “undesirable” in the social

context. Whatever I was and whatever I was going to be, “butch”

was not an option. I had no intention of loosing my femininity,

dressing up in check shirts, big buckles, men’s boots and men’s

pants. I still wanted to believe that I could be desirable to men and

even if I was boyish and lived in jeans, it did not mean looking like

a man. I believed a “butch” to be the stereotype with no make-up,

short-cropped hair, large and masculine. 

BASICS

I applied for and was accepted as a Navy recruit and went to Basics

feeling more secure than I had in a long time. I felt part of a

community and I immediately made friends with a fellow recruit

who was gay and who knew many of the then gay females in the

Navy called Swans. I Entered a New World where drills, shining of

boots, also known as “boning”, and sunset had new meaning. It also

brought new meaning to the word homosexuality, discrimination

and frustration. I was once again placed in a world where the mere

mention of the word homosexuality was frowned upon. However, this

time it was not on an emotional footing as with my parents and

siblings. This time it was deemed dirty, portrayed as evil and

definitely not correct. For the first time in my life, I was mixing, not

with just a partner but a whole group of lesbians, yet, I was feeling

even more isolated because of the barriers, reser vations and

limitations from a homophobic military discipline. We were forced to

be careful, forced to be underhanded and forced to be heterosexual.

Upon arriving in this brave new world of sailors, we were introduced

to the “rights” and the “wrongs” of military life. This included,

much to my surprise, an immediate and serious discussion regarding

the bad elements in the SA Navy. The majority of these “bad

element swans” were junior ratings, even though some of them had

been in the Navy for many years but for some or other reason had

always been overlooked for promotion. A small number of swans

were promoted to senior rating ranks but they were placed in posts

that didn’t have much future. We were cautioned not to be too

friendly with these “undesirable characters” as it would jeopardize

any plans we had of furthering our careers as well as placing labeling

us as “one of the undesirables”. They were described as dangerous

and manipulative – living unhealthy lifestyles – also described as

only wanting to corrupt new recruits. 

REALITY

Within one week after completing Basics I was brought face to face

with the real intensity of the problem. Just speaking to swans that

were thought to be undesirable, brought the wrath of the

“Commander in Charge of Swans” down on us. Veiled threats,

verbal cautions and of course the endless psychological battering of

those who were different were prevalent right from the start. The

irony of the whole situation was that many of these women

throwing stones, were themselves deemed “possible undesirables”

but due to a fear of the system, a fear of victimization and a fear of

ending up in a dead end job, they attacked homosexuality with

everything they had. I have to say that this was the one and only

time the word “Lesbian” was ever used to my face in the SA Navy.

At the time I was shocked that the word could be bandied about

without much regard for the hurt it was causing. Gay seemed so

much more friendly and acceptable. Today the word is much less

threatening and acceptable but in the 80’s it conjured up images of

“total social outcasts”.

Realizing for the first time in my life that I had found a group of

friends within the Navy who felt the same way as I did, I was

thrilled. Cape Town was a hive of active lesbianism with lesbian

gatherings at pre-arranged clubs where everybody brought their own

alcohol and eats, also known as “gatparties”, strong bonds and

many relationships were formed and broken within the group. Just

being in the company of other swans made the idea of “being

different” so much easier to accept. The strangest part of the whole

subculture we lived in was that very few relationships were pursued

with straight swans. It was an unwritten rule that the gay swans

would not actively seek out and try and to convert straight swans.

Perhaps this was in part due to fear of military “justice”. 

I was transferred to Pretoria and groomed to perform. I contributed

in the only way I knew. Be professional, be smart and keep your

nose clean. The gay social setup in Pretoria was very small and I

initially only had contact with one Naval lesbian who introduced

me to the gay scene. I was aware of other lesbians in Pretoria but

life was guarded and your private life remained closed. Now and

then rumours started about infidelities with male counterparts,

which suited me down to the ground. The less known about my life

the happier I was. (Even if he was married the attitude was – “Oh

well at least she is normal and not one of those!”) A rumour was

started about a married senior rating and myself. The man was

called in and told that if it was true, he needed to be more discreet.

Had that been a woman, both the woman and I would have been

fed to the wolves.

Accelerated promotions followed, due to the belief of my

immediate superiors that I was a good candidate for future

success. Security clearances were forever bandied about as the

“gateway to heaven”. If you had a confidential clearance you

qualified for promotion. The first question was always “are you a

lesbian and do you have lesbian friends” – Non committal

answers were always sought, even to the point were you would

rehearse the question with friends over and over again to answer

in the appropriate manner when the dreaded question was f lung

your way. This was common practice. If you didn’t get your

clearance you were placed in a dead end job with no chance of

promotion. This happened to many lesbians in the Navy. I was

fortunate. I was granted a confidential clearance, valid for ten

years, first time around. Being young and ambitious I was pretty

sure at the time that I would not even last ten years in the Navy

and would therefore never have to undergo another inquisition. I

felt that there might be better opportunities in the civilian world

but I didn’t want to enter that world at the time.



TLOU, SCHURINK30

The most feared directorate was Intelligence and when you were

summoned to see the Head, you knew your number was up. The

personal life of a lesbian swan was far removed from the military

day-to-day activities. Parties were always held at home and you

were invited only on recommendation of trust from another

lesbian swan. Clubs were deemed far too dangerous but sometimes

the need to mix with “our own kind” outweighed the adrenaline

rush of fear. Days after wards you would try to be as invisible as

possible to avoid the dreaded call to Intelligence. A colleague of

mine was summoned a couple of days after being to a gay club and

two days of accusations behind closed doors were thrown her way.

She discussed the accusations with us some time later and

confirmed that she had been seen by an undercover intelligence

agent at the club. The undercover agent described what she had

worn and what she had to drink, whom she had spoken to and

what time she had left. Obviously this could not be confirmed but

it was interesting to note that she was one of the first swans to be

placed on the Retrenchment list.

RELATIONSHIPS

I avoided the label for quite some time, perhaps because I had an

excellent working relationship with my immediate superior as well

as the fact that I did not have a permanent relationship in

Pretoria. I was seeing somebody in Durban but it was a mutual

holiday relationship and seemed very far removed from Pretoria.

However, I soon met a swan who had been transferred to Pretoria,

and we really hit it off. The scary part was that she was in the

intelligence division and to top it all she was straight. We spent

many weeks talking, becoming firm friends. She started putting

two and two together and came up with four and finally one night

after our usual dancing around various issues she made a move.

She asked me if I was gay and she told me she wanted to be part of

my life. I actually didn’t give her a straight answer but found

myself on a roller coaster of emotions. I wanted her to know and I

wanted her to be a part of my life. I was terrified. Even though we

had mutual trust as friends, she WAS INTELLIGENCE. Could this

be a scam to place me in a compromising position? She convinced

me that she was not “spying” and was really interested. It is not

easy to keep a secret of such magnitude when you are opening your

heart to someone. However, we moved towards an intimate

relationship as any heterosexual relationship would. We moved

very slowly into a relationship, initially spending a weekend out of

town and talking about the repercussions, the advantages and why

it may not be a good idea to get involved. I also came to the

conclusion that she possibly had more to lose from this

relationship. I had no responsibilities. I was young with money in

my pocket and a place to stay. She was a single mother who needed

to pursue her career. She was granted a state owned flat but I could

not move in with her, as the system did not allow for this. If you

were a single mother, which she was, divorced or married you

qualified for a state owned house or flat. You were not however

allowed boarders. She also could not stay in the Naval

accommodation, since they did not have facilities for children.

This left us in a predicament. I could not live with her; she could

not live with me at the Naval accommodation. The only

alternative was to count the pennies and buy a property that we

could share since I was not prepared to rent a place. 

Living with your partner. WOW what an experience. Two well-

prepared bedrooms, your clothes are in your own cupboard, except

those you share with your partner. Always making sure no one

knows what goes on in your life. It’s lying and faking; you could

never really be yourself until you closed the door of your home

behind you. At the time we were probably only true to each other.

Not allowing ourselves to show affection in front of her daughter,

not being truthful at work about our social lives and even

pretending to those in the apartments around us that I was only a

visitor. Clothes were packed in separate cupboards, bedrooms were

designed to show our own identities and we had to have three

rooms to prove that were sleeping separately.

There were of course other problems. We could not have a combined

subsidy, as we were not married. The property had to go into either

her name or mine and at that time she could receive the better

subsidy due to her rank and length of ser vice. We had to get by on

trust. I had no official or legal hold on the property and even a

personal contract did not hold much weight. It would not prevent

her from placing us in debt if she used the property as surety.

Fortunately this never happened.

This led to even more obvious consequences. This was a huge move

for both of us as we were really exposing ourselves. How do you really

keep something like this a secret? I was living with a woman!! It had

to be a gay relationship. I was out in the eyes of the Navy. Mandy

was called in and cautioned about her relationship and her security

clearance was placed under scrutiny. We of course denied the

existence of a gay relationship vehemently citing economic reasons

at the risk of her losing her subsidy. She could not receive rent from

me or her subsidy would be cancelled. You reach a stage in your life

when you almost say – “To hell with the consequences”. We stayed

together, still being discreet at work but started to be more open in

the eyes of the social world around us. 

OFFICERS SELECTION

Leadership positions came my way and a natural progression was to go

on “Officers Selection”. Physicals, psychological questionnaires and

physical endurance tests known as “vasbyts” followed. When fellow

candidates were asked for their choices as ideal officers based on

leadership qualities, my name was on everyone’s list. However, the

deciding authorities had other ideas and a very polite letter of refusal

was forwarded to me with a small paragraph indicating that I may

apply again at a later stage. A fellow candidate from my unit (also a

high achiever – also studying, also receiving good merits and appraisals

and also gay) was given a letter with a proviso not to apply again.

LIFE GOES ON

Unfortunately, due to the normal pressures of life as well as added

pressures of economics, military duplicity and the pressure of being

homosexual in a heterosexual world, we decided to part after four

years and go our separate ways. We remained friends, split our joint

finances and moved on. Nothing nasty but we both felt the time had

come to move on.

At the same time I also decided that it was time to face my sister

Grace whom I had not communicated with for some years. Mandy

and I had made tentative moves towards reconciliation with her as

she lived just around the corner from us. I suppose I felt that since

she was also gay there was no reason for me not to approach her. She

had been seeing her daughter on the odd occasion and I felt it was

the right thing to do. I met her and her life partner and we

immediately felt the deep bond we had had so many years before.

Compounded by the fact that we are both gay, I am happy to write

that we are still very close, especially after her partner passed away.

They were together for more than 15 years.

RELATIONSHIP 2

I became very friendly with a colleague who had been a victim of a

homophobic Navy from way back in the early 80’s. We became

partners and it was probably the happiest time of my Naval life. We

spent many hours together at work, finding we had so much in

common. We felt a mutual attraction developing and even though

we had known each other for many years within the Navy we had

never really spoken to each other on a personal basis. We started

doing everything together and found that our common bond of

friendship gave us a good headstart in our relationship. I had found

what I was looking for: An emotional stable relationship with a

strong, highly respected woman, totally loyal to the Defence Force

AND she loved me as fiercely as she loved life. 



A GAY WOMAN’S EXPERIENCES – PART 1 31

She had faced many years of discrimination in the 70’s and 80’s. A

few examples are: You could only be promoted to the next rank if you

had a confidential clearance. Her promotion was kept back two years

because she couldn’t get a confidential clearance. The Intelligence

department thought she was gay? The only way she could convince

them that she was straight was to make an oath before God that she

was not gay. This was really very difficult. This was serious stuff.

She was lying and God knew it? Anyway the promotion must have

been more important. It worried her for a very long time though.

In those years a gay woman just could not apply for officer’s

selection. Why? Just seeing what happened to all the other great gay

women applying and not being selected prevented her from going

through the same embarrassment. Having the Intelligence

department investigating your private life from the day you were

born, she knew there was no way that they would not find out that

she was gay. Once again it is ironic to note that many of those

fieldworkers investigating her were gay themselves. They all jumped

out of the closet when the new government came into power. Now

that is what I call being MOFFIE!!! 

House break-ins were the order of the day. Weapons and jewelry never

stolen! Crockery and linen always remained neatly unpacked. Photo

albums were ALWAYS opened, disturbed or moved. No evidence was

ever found that it was an investigation, but the feeling was that

perhaps, just perhaps, “our Intelligence friends” were looking for some

form of confirmation of her being gay. Although just a suspicion, the

invasion of privacy was deeply felt. Your own personal mementos,

letters and clothing were being touched by unknown people, perhaps

being joked about and perhaps being insulted. 

She frequently recalled one incident when the military decided that

they would send a signal and transfer all “the gay people” to Pretoria

Headquarters to ensure they could keep an eye on them. The entire

gay population was up in arms. Everybody panicked (My partner

was already in Pretoria at the time.) A well-known judge decided to

take the military to court for drafting his daughters to Pretoria on

the presumption that they were gay. (They both were!) The

instruction was subsequently cancelled and everybody felt safe for a

while. But many were on the gay list: Lesbians in crime. This term

sort of fits the general feeling that lesbians were regarded as nothing

more than criminals.

Another incident was when a well-known gay club was raided.

Everybody “caught” swore under oath that they did not really know

what the place was. Of course nobody believed that! Threats were

made to publish names in newspapers!! Nobody knows what the

actual end result was but for many weeks the newspapers were

studied intensely.

Fortunately all of this never stopped her. She still loves the military,

is still loyal and still promotes the military to all and sundry.

A NEW WORLD

In the 90’s we settled down as a married couple would. We both felt

very comfortable with the fact that we were lesbians, that we had

made a commitment to each other and we both found that

everybody around us seemed more relaxed and accepting of our

lifestyle. Subsidy procedures had changed by then and we could co-

own a small house and lived openly as a gay couple. Our neighbours

became friends and our strong bond was the envy of all around us.

We went to gay clubs with our gay friends even taking some of our

straight friends along, had private parties at home with close

colleagues, gay and straight. Our dogs were our children, our home

our protection and our love for each other our comfort. 

My parents were invited and they became regular visitors. I had

always had a close relationship with them but had just kept my

own private life very much apart from my family life. They never

mentioned the fact that I was gay but it was evident that they

were aware that I was happy. They had a good relationship with

Sarah (my lover) and they had softened their stance considerably

towards my sister Grace. It is the one regret that I have that I was

never able to openly discuss the matter with them, but I always

had appropriate excuses. “I didn’t want to disappoint them” “They

were too old”. “They didn’t need to be involved”. They had been

hurt by the whole Grace saga and I didn’t feel that they deser ved

to be hurt again. Looking back, I believe they would have

completely accepted my sexual orientation but I didn’t have the

courage to face them with it. 

After the death of both my parents and four years down the line I

still have not discussed the matter with my other siblings even

though they are all aware of my sexual orientation. My sister Daisy

is totally homophobic and if the subject is brought up she either

ignores the issue or derides it. That is the way she feels and I respect

her opinion on it. My brother John is more relaxed and even though

we have never openly spoken about my being gay, we will discuss

homosexual issues and my homosexual friends in a very open

manner. They all have their own married lives and families to

contend with as well, so it is not as though my sexual orientation is

a “top of mind” issue with them.

There was an unspoken openness about our relationship. We never

forced ourselves or our lifestyle on anybody. We were who we were. If

you didn’t like it, that was fine, but we respected the fact that what

you did behind closed doors was your life and we expected the same

respect from others. Traditional gay roles were never established. We

were equal partners drawing strengths from each other. Both worked

in the garden, both did the cooking and both cleaned the house

amongst other shared duties. I completed my degree, which I received

after studying part time. I had majored in Communication (and

will be doing my honours next year) and we actively took part in

sport. We spent some time overseas on holiday. The fear of

Intelligence was greatly reduced and the pressure of being gay was

slowly but surely being replaced by a confidence in our relationship

and ourselves. Contributing factors may have been the retirement of

the feared head of intelligence, the man who was legendary amongst

the gay community as the man who could end your career as easily

as clicking his fingers. Soon after the introduction of the New

Constitution followed which catered for homosexuals as a minority

group with RIGHTS. 

We were fortunate. All around us our gay friends were having

relationship problems. Even some of our straight friends parted.

This made our love stronger. It seemed as though everybody was

caught up in the “seven year itch” syndrome. Previously strong

relationships were becoming strained and partners were starting to

look around for greener pastures. We were adamant this was not

going to happen to us. 

At work, we became known as a couple Yes, this is still in the Navy!

We had a close-knit family of friends, both straight and gay. Young

gay swans started asking us for advice and joining our sports team.

The team, mostly gay girls, became unit-sporting heroes when we

achieved. Life was good and the Navy (at least in our unit) seemed

to be relaxing its views about what we were even though we were still

being spoken about when attending sporting events and we were still

being regarded as “those girls”. When attempting to break records we

were reminded, “even though we are good, we don’t have to prove

that we are better than men”. These constant behind the back

reminders stayed but we all chose to ignore it. 

As stated earlier, by this time we had a strong circle of friends who

were loyal and who accepted our sexual orientation. They invited

us to parties and we reciprocated with invitations of our own. We

openly discussed our lives with them and they did the same.

Because we were so accepting of who we were, the people around us

were accepting our relationship as well. We never made a big deal

of it but portrayed it as a natural relationship in a different way.

We were accepted and liked by straight and gay alike that knew us.

However, when we needed to go to other units or military bases it

was still obvious that the social stigma was alive and well. Men

constantly tried to challenge us. Trying to prove to us that we could



TLOU, SCHURINK32

never be men and they were better than us. We never wanted to be

men and sometimes it was just better to back down and not get into

gender sensitive areas. We would assure them that it was OK. We

were not trying to be better, more intelligent, and stronger – just

trying to be ourselves in a world where we are all looking for our

happiness. Open hostility was never present however behind our

back sniggers and remarks were continuous. You tend to develop a

hard shell to block out the remarks and the hurtful actions and

carry on with your lives. 

OFFICERS SELECTION 2

I was advised by my superior that “perhaps the time was right” to

re-apply for Officers Course.

Selection was on and once again I came out with top honors.

Requirements for passing were standard psychological testing,

fitness tests; work related situational exams and panel discussions

as well as teamwork and general obser vations. After discussions

with my Candidate Assessment Superior (the divisional officer of

the candidates), instructors as well as discussions with the

psychologists I was told that I was doing far better than what was

required and acceptance was but a formality. The signal

(notification memo) reflecting the chosen few was faxed to Naval

Headquarters and an enthusiastic supporter of mine brought the

selection list to me. 

During this time, an admiral received the written signal and

decided to do a bit of impromptu investigation. Approaching a

colleague, she was asked in a vague manner whether she would

respond to a gay off icer giving her orders. She replied in the

negative. Need I say more? I was at no time questioned by this

man yet he decided on the basis of one reply that I was not off icer

material. The signal that was off icially released had my name

inserted one line lower than the original. One line lower meant –

NOT ACCEPTED. At no time was any mention made as to the

reasons for the non-acceptance. In fact at no stage was a letter of

refusal e ven for warded to me. When I questioned the off icer in

charge of selection he made a vague reference to the fact that no

posts were available, but shortly after that two appointments

were made in exactly the posts that I had requested. After

confronting the female colleague she conf irmed being questioned

by the admiral but also commented that she would have had no

problem receiving orders from a lesbian especially if she had

known it was I. It is a fact that people base their perceptions on

stereotypes and only after getting past the wall of bias can you

start showing who you truly are and what you are capable of. In

the case of lesbians you have not only the disadvantage of being

a woman in a male dominated environment but also the added

disadvantage of being a lesbian.

It highlighted the predicament many straight people were

confronted with in the Defense Force and I suppose the whole

world. Once they knew you they could deal with the sexual

direction you took but they were never completely at ease with it

and found it easier to look the other way when backing was

required. This has nothing to do with the fact that you are a

lesbian. It is a human phenomenon that people are not that eager

to stand up and fight or in this case, stand up and defend. When

people have to defend something that is not totally familiar to them

it is easier to back off and let you face your problems alone.

The Navy had its own code of ethics. Their promotional policy

was different to that of any other arm of the ser vice and it was

run in a more conventional and traditional manner. A distinct

“old boys club” existed where even straight females were left out

in the cold. The gay colleague who had previously applied with

me and been refused, applied for the second time. Again with me.

She was selected only after great pressure was applied from her

direct superior. An admiral with the right stuff you might say. She

left the ser vice after nine months as an off icer!!! A legal off icer

and friend who had heard what had happened approached me

and said I should fight the selection. When you have been

emotionally hammered by men on a selection panel and knowing

you will be faced by a jury of the same ilk it doesn’t really fill you

with much hope of change. (The original selection panel had one

female off icer present.) 

SELF ESTEEM

By this time, my self-esteem had taken a battering and I was

questioning my qualities as a leader. How could I be a good leader if

I am gay? Perhaps the superiors are right and I should be seen,

accommodated, reluctantly accepted but definitely NOT HEARD.

Subsequently I told the legal advisor not to take it further. Looking

back I was probably so brainwashed into thinking “we” as lesbians

would always be branded and limited career-wise by the Defense

Force that I never considered the new options and new rights in our

lives granted to us in the new Constitution.

At my first mustering (specialized) course, I was placed first overall

including camaraderie, academics and leadership and given

glowing reports from all and sundry at the Army College. My fellow

Army, SAMHS and Air Force students, many of them female and

many of them overtly lesbian, did well and progressed to the ranks

of majors and captains. The Navy obviously didn’t agree. At the

time this really made me angry and to some extent I still feel that

the injustice within the Navy ended many careers of people who

were obvious choices within other arms of ser vice. You were never

judged on your capabilities first. You were judged on your sexual

orientation, then by your capabilities. I have subsequently changed

my feelings and look at it as a great loss to the Navy and not

necessarily to myself. 

The result of the selection changed my opinion of the Navy to some

degree, but I had committed so much of my life to the Navy that I

thought I would put it behind me. Life continued, perhaps not quite

so willing to believe in the system and not quite so open about my

lifestyle but without any major hitches. The Navy could offer me

only so much in terms of promotion and soon I would be at the

highest possible rank that I “was capable of”. This with the prospect

of at least another 25 years available to me in the Defense Force just

didn’t sit comfortably with me. I started looking around and

weighing up my options.

CIVILIAN LIFE

I was offered a job at a media marketing company and suddenly

found myself being faced with a life where I didn’t have to hide my

sexual orientation, lie about my partner or fear reprisals from my

superiors. I did at first because I didn’t feel comfortable speaking

about it. I wasn’t sure what the response would be and I definitely

didn’t know what would happen if they discovered my secret. To

my great astonishment, when I finally made the disclosure it was

met with blank stares of “so what?” It was almost more difficult to

disclose it to people who didn’t find it scary, compromising or even

threatening. How could they be so okay with it when I had been

led to believe for more than a decade that it was not acceptable?

What made people in the Navy so narrow minded compared to

civilians? The obvious deduction is that civilians are exposed to so

much more, but I also believe it has to do with the environments

we find ourselves in. The media is universally accepted as being

more liberal and accepting. Difference doesn’t mean challenge but

more likely opportunity.

SELF BELIEF

My self-image had been dented more than I had thought. I was not

this female/male freak who corrupted girls. I was a wholly desirable

female, educated, passionate about my country and the peoples

within it and with every right to hold my head up high in society.

I was very fortunate that the company I worked for believed in



A GAY WOMAN’S EXPERIENCES – PART 1 33

“humankind”, specializing in cultural diversity. This placed me in

a unique situation where the colleagues I worked with were open

and unbiased to all races, sexual orientation and religions. The

purpose of the company was to make people of South Africa

understand that it is not what we are but who we are that makes

us so lucky to be part of a changing country faced with so many

different people. 

CONCLUSION

It was a long road of self-discovery sometimes filled with self-doubt,

guilt and anxiety but it was a road that led to my current lifestyle.

I am involved with a great woman who loves and cares for me as a

person of the world capable of leading nations, if perhaps not Naval

troops. Looking back on my life I suppose, as with all people there are

things I would have wanted to be different, things I would have done

differently. Perhaps I should have joined the Army or SAMHS?

Perhaps I should have taken the officer selection issue further. I

didn’t and that is that. However the most important thing I have

learnt is that we have so much to be thankful for. There are still so

much that we can do that there is no time to be wasted on regrets. I

am happy, I have a great partner, I own a beautiful home and have

a circle of friends and a family who loves me for who I am. What

more do I need?  

IN SUMMATION

Looking back on my time in the military, many incidents were

relayed by friends, unfortunately some unsubstantiated. Perhaps a

few e vents were ne ver mentioned. Howe ver, the feeling of

insecurity within the military felt by all gay members was always

present. The introduction of young lesbian swans changed the

mood somewhat. They never felt the force of homophobia within

the Defense Force and were quite happy and proud to show their

sexual orientation. That seeped through the system and by the

time I left, the overall mood was not fear, even though the older

guard was still cautious.  

Even though by far the majority of lesbians in the Defense Force had

stable, mature and long relationships, this did not matter. The feeling

was that you could flirt, seduce, fraternize and break marriages as

long as you were “NORMAL”. A straight woman could sleep around

as much as she liked, but still be more highly regarded than a lesbian.

As I mentioned earlier, we were judged more on our sexual orientation

than on our capabilities and that was infuriating. To this day I still

cannot understand the double standards.

I cannot comment on present day issues since I have been out of the

Defense Force now for three years. However, in the civilian context,

much is being done to improve the lot of homosexuals in South

Africa, e.g. gay partners can adopt children together, the issue of legal

marriages is being addressed in court at present and medical aid

laws are being changed as we speak. 

CONCLUSION

From Thando’s sketch outlining some of her experiences during her

career in the Department of Defence, we feel that we obtained

valuable and rich information on female homosexuality in the

country and in the South African military context specifically.

Thando’s experiences as a former gay woman working in the

Department of Defence shed some light on the conser vative attitude

of South Africa’s military irrespective of the rights its members have,

including the right to be treated fairly irrespective of their sexual

orientation. Based on Thando’s account we feel it is fair to conclude

that although the law of our country permits homosexuality, it is

still not an acceptable orientation in South Africa and specifically

the military context. Negative perceptions and attitudes still prevail

and these contribute to the phenomenon that most of the

homosexuals in the military are still in the closet. 

It also seems reasonable to state that homosexuals are seen to be

unsuitable for military service because they pose a security risk

and that their presence in its units, disrupt group cohesion,

morale and discipline. Heinecken (1999: p.53) state that because

of homophobic sentiments, gay soldiers are unable to function

effectively in the military since the heterosexual majority does

not want to socialize with them, and when in position of

command, homosexual soldiers fail to demand the respect of

their subordinates. All these evolve around one central issue,

namely: accepting homosexuals in the military will

undermine military effectiveness.

However, it is important to note that most of these arguments are

based on prejudice against homosexuals with no poof that their

integration has undermined the operational effectiveness of the

military. Currently there are no scientific evidence that

homosexual people are inherently less capable of military service

than heterosexual men and women. Furthermore, there is no

explanation why discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

is necessary to preserve the good order, discipline and morale. 

These few rather general remarks will suffice since we provide

more comments in the subsequent article. 

REFERENCES

Becker, H.S. 1970. Sociological work: method and substance. New

York: Free Press.

Bogdan, R. 1974. Being different: the autobiography of Jane Fry.

London: Wiley.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. 1992. Qualitative research for

education: An introduction to theory and methods. Second

edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bogdan, R. & Taylor, S.J. 1975. Introduction to qualitative research

methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences.

New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108. 1996.

Pretoria. Government Printers.

Cressey, D. Other people’s money. New York: Free Press.

Denzin, N.K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical Introduction to

Sociological Methods. Third edition. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall, Inc.

Draft Policy on non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual

orientation in the Department of Defence. 2001.

Duckitt, J.H. 1984. Attitudes of white South Africans toward

homosexuality. South African Journal of Sociology. 15 (2): 89-93.

First, L. 1995. Disclosure of a son’s homosexuality: a social

constructionist perspective. Master of Arts. University of South

Africa: Pretoria.

Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (2002) Research Methods for managers. 3rd

ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory.

Chicago, Ill: Aldine.

Gevisser, M. & Camerson, E. (Eds.). Deviant desire. Ohannesburg:

Ravan Press. Pp. 209-218. 

Helm, B. 1973. Deviant or variant? Some sociological

perspectives on homosexuality and its subculture. In: ASSA:

Sociology Southern Africa. Papers from the First (sic) Congress

of the Association for Sociologists in Southern Africa.

Durban: The Association.

Heinecken, L. 1998. Social equality versus combat effectiveness:

An institutional challenge for the military. African Security

Review. 7 (6): 3-15.

Heinecken, L. 1999. The silent right: Homosexuality and the

military. African Security Review. 8 (5): 43-55.

Isaacs, G. 1979a. Working with the male homosexual client: some

major theoretical and clinical assumptions. Part 1.

Unpublished Mater’s dissertation. Cape Town: University of

Cape Town.

Isaacs, G. 1979b. Crisis inter vention as a form of therapy for persons

with homosexual concerns: an experimental study. Unpublished

Mater’s dissertation. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.



TLOU, SCHURINK34

Isaacs, G. 1985. Gay oppression in South Africa: social and

psychological implications. Unpublished paper presented at

First National Conference on homosecualit y. Gay

Association of South Africa. Johannesburg, 31 May-2 June. 

Isaacs, G. & McKendrick, B. 1992. Male homosexuality in South

Africa. Identity formation, culture, and crisis. Cape Town:

Oxford University Press. 

Joubert, D. 1974. ot dieselfde geslag: debat oor homoseksualitiet in

1968. (Brandpunte 7). Cape Town: Tafelberg. 

Joubert, D, Conradie, E.L., Louw, D.J. & Hurst, L.A. 1980. Perspektiewe

op homoseksualiteit. Durbanville: Uitgewery Boshendal. 

Kotze, C.G. 1975. Die aard en betekenis van die homoseksuele

subkultuur. The South African Journal of Sociology, 12 :91-88.

Krouse, M. 1994. The Arista Sisters, September 1984. A personal

account of army drag. In: Gevisser, M. & Camerson, E. (Eds.).

Deviant desire. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Pp. 209-218. 

Lowney, J., Winslow, R.W. & Winslow, V. 1981. Deviant reality:

Alternative world views. Second Edition. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon, Inc.

Manning, P.K. 1991. Analytic induction. In: Plummer, K. (Ed.).

Symbolic interactionism. Volume II. Contemporary issues.

Aldershot, Hants, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Pp. 273-183.

Miller, M. 1981. The coming out crisis of homosexuality: an

affirmation of emergent identity. Unpublished Honours

dissertation. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

Mooney, L.A., Knox, D. & Schacht, C. 1997. Understanding social

problems. New York: West Publishing Co.

Plummer, K. 1983. Documents of life: An introduction to the

problems and literature of a humanistic method. London:

George Allen & Unwin (Publishers) Ltd.

Plummer, K. 2001. Documents of life 2. An invitation to a critical

humanism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Redelinghuys, J.L. 1978. ’n Psigodinamiese ondersoek na die verskynsel

van lesbinisme binne ’n gesinstruktuur. Ongepubliseerde M.A.-

verhandeling. Pretoria: Universiteit van Pretoria.

Richardson, D. & Seidman, S. 2002. Introduction. In:

Richardson, D. & Seidman, S. (Eds.). Handbook of lesbian and

gay studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp.1-12.

Schurink, W.J.1979a. Seksuele misdaad. In: Lötter, J.M., Strijdom,

H.G. & Schurink, W.J. (Reds.). Eersterust: ’n Sosiologiese studie

van ’n kleurling-gemeenskap. (Sexual crime in Eersterust, a

coloured community). Pretoria: RGN, pp. 3-22 tot 3-22-91

(Verslag S-63).

Schurink, W.J. 1981. Gay-vroue: ’n Sosiologiese verkenning van die

leefwyse van ’n aantal lesbiërs aan die hand van outobiografiese

sketse. [Gay women: A sociological exploration of the

lifestyle of some lesbians, based on autobiographic sketches.]

Pretoria: RGN (Verslag S-74).

Schurink, W.J. 1986. Gayness: a sociological perspective. Paper

delivered at Mardi Gay: GASA’s Fourth Anniversary

Convention, President Holiday Inn, Johannesburg, 7-11 May.

Schurink, W.J. 1988. AIDS and the gay subculture: Some

sociological comments. Paper presented at the AIDS

Congress. Strategies for Southern Africa. Sandton Sun,

Johannesburg, 29 April - 1 May.

Schurink, W.J. 1989. Die realiteit van homoseksualisme: ’n

sosiologies-kwalitatiewe ontleding. (The realit y of

homosexualism: a sociological-qualitative analysis.)

Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike

Hoër Onderwys. (Unpublished doctoral thesis.)

Schurink, W.J. 2002. The history of Dha’kar’s life story. In:

Schurink, W.J. Models of qualitative research. Part Two.

Doctoral Programme: Leadership in Performance and

Change. Department of Human Resource Management, RAU,

Johannesburg. 5 April.

Schurink, W.J. et al. 1994. Prison Health Care Ser vices: Legislation,

Perception and Statistics. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research

Council.

Schurink, W.J. 2001. Models of qualitative research. Part One:

Lectures. Johannesburg: Department of Human Resource

Management, RAU.

Schurink, W.J. 2002. Theoretical underpinnings of qualitative

research: Lecture two. Johannesburg: Department of Human

Resource Management, RAU.

Schurink, W.J. 2002. Capturing and storing soft data: Lecture three.

Johannesburg: Department of Human Resource

Management, RAU.

Schurink, W.J. 2002. Qualitative analysis: Lecture four.

Johannesburg: Department of Human Resource

Management, RAU.

Schurink, W.J. 2002. Brief notes on the usage of life history method

in qualitative research. Johannesburg: Department of Human

Resource Management, RAU.

Schurink W.J & Schurink, E.M. 1982. The development of the

gay personality. In: The Seven Ages of Man. Proceedings of a

three day symposium presented by the Department of

Nursing Science in collaboration with the Centre for

Continuing Education of the University of Port Elizabeth.

Bergvlei: Promex Plastics. Pp. 109-129. 

Schurink & Schurink, 1983. Some characteristics of the

homosexual subculture as reflected by a South African gay club.

Paper presented to criminology students. Johannesburg:

University of the Witwatersrand. 

Schurink, E. M. & Schurink, W.J. 1990. AIDS: lay perceptions of a

group of gay men. Pretoria: HSRC (Report S-187).

Shaw, C. 1966. The Jack Roller: a delinquent boy’s own story.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Strydom, K. 1972. Die psigo-maatskaplike aspekte van

homosesualiteit. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Cape Town:

University of Cape Town. 

Woolfson, L.R. 1980. Psychological androgyny and gender identity

in adult homosexual and heterosexual females. Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.