This discussion draws on gender regimes and gender performativity in analysing the personal and professional lives of cis-het scholars researching LGBT studies. Academic scholars have increasingly raised questions regarding sex and gender registration. They aim to expand the definitions of male and female or eliminate the fixed binary construction of gender and sexual orientation. Gender regimes are used as a key theoretical concept to interrogate the structures, processes and beliefs in which customary gender roles and categories are produced and reproduced (Connell, 1987). Gender regimes can be defined as the ‘structural inventory’ (Connell, 1987, p. 99) of ‘gender relations in a given institution’ (Connell, 1987, p. 120). Connell (2002) cites four main components to social constructions within gender regimes:

Acker (2006) describes four similar points of gendered processes, referring to the fourth as identity and the making of the self as an adequate and gendered, organisational performer.

The fourth component aligns with Butler’s (1997) notion of gender performativity. Butler (1997) argues that performativity can be explained as a repetition of norms that subsequently constitute the subject. As these norms appear self-evident, necessary and naturalised, they become regulatory (Butler, 1990). Sex and gender segregation are pervasive forces that serve a primary formal and informal organising principle that marginalises and oppresses those who do not fit these fixed boxes. In addition, Butler (1990, 1997) argues that heterosexuality is given the normative, compulsory and dominant status of sexuality in society, often referred to as heteronormativity. Heteronormativity refers to the assumption that heterosexuality is the only legitimate and normative form of sexual orientation (Marchia & Sommer, 2019). Those who transgress ‘normal’ heterosexuality are punished in the Foucauldian sense (see Foucault, 1978). These binary sex and gender constructs become important in employment and labour, as specific occupations are built on deep-seated social ideas about gender and sex (Mennesson, 2012).

In the South African context, the theory of gender regimes provides a valuable framework for understanding the complex dynamics surrounding gender and sexuality. This theory recognises that while legal advancements have been made to affirm and protect the lives of LGBT individuals in South Africa, there still exist repressive and pervasive gender constructions that socially subject them to discrimination and marginalisation (Francis, 2021b). One aspect of gender regimes in South Africa is the persistence of heteronormativity. Under colonial and apartheid rule, patriarchal structures were reinforced and maintained, as power was concentrated in the hands of white males to uphold white, heteronormative family structures (Carolin et al., 2020). The rigid gender roles and expectations that emerged from these systems served to maintain social control and reinforce racial hierarchies. Women, particularly black women, were systematically marginalised and subjected to various forms of oppression, including economic exploitation and sexual violence (Klausen, 2022). In the context of gender and sexuality, colonial and apartheid era laws and policies enforced heteronormativity and criminalised non-normative sexual behaviours (Mbasalaki, 2020). Homosexuality was stigmatised, and same-sex relationships were criminalised, further marginalising and oppressing individuals whose sexual orientations and gender identities did not conform to societal norms (Hove & Ndlela, 2019). The enduring impact of colonialism and apartheid on South African society is evident in the persistence of societal attitudes and power structures that privilege whiteness, heterosexuality and traditional gender roles (Francis, 2021a). This normative framework perpetuates the social marginalisation of LGBT individuals, often relegating them to the margins of society and denying them full acceptance and inclusion. Despite legal protections, LGBT individuals can still face stigmatisation, prejudice and exclusion from various social, familial and religious contexts (Human Dignity Trust, 2020).

Historical legacies of apartheid and colonialism have influenced societal attitudes and power structures, which can intersect with gender and sexuality to produce unique challenges (Francis, 2021b). For instance, black lesbian women in townships and rural areas are particularly vulnerable to violence and corrective rape, as they face discrimination on the basis of their gender, sexuality and race (Gaitho, 2022).

The theory of gender regimes helps us understand the impact of colonialism and apartheid on South African society, particularly in relation to gender and sexuality. The historical legacies of these oppressive systems have influenced societal attitudes and power structures, perpetuating discrimination and marginalisation. By recognising and addressing these challenges, we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable society that respects and celebrates diverse gender identities and expressions.

This exploratory qualitative study used a reflexive (Brookfield, 2017) dialogical (Frank, 2005) single case study approach (Gaya & Smith, 2016) to gain an understanding of the ways in which a cis-het researcher has been affected by his interest in LGBT studies. This is congruent with the belief that the self cannot be separated from the research (Cuenca, 2010). Reflexivity on research processes creates opportunities to develop, adapt and refine the related processes (Calderhead et al., 2012). As a supervisor for postgraduate studies, I prioritise creating a nurturing and inclusive environment for all my students. While reviewing the supervision notes for Katlego, who identifies as heterosexual, I came across instances where his sexual orientation had been inaccurately assumed to be different from his self-identified heterosexual status. Recognising the significance of this issue, I embarked on a thorough examination of the supervision notes and engaged in additional conversations with him to gain a deeper understanding of his experiences. Drawing upon this comprehensive understanding, I have utilised the supervision notes as a valuable resource to write a reflective article on the misclassification of Katlego’s sexual orientation.

This case study focuses on the experiences of a single participant, who is assigned the pseudonym ‘Katlego’ for anonymity. To provide context for the discussion, it is important to reflect on the background of the participant. Katlego identifies as a heterosexual African man who embraces hegemonic masculine patriarchal and indelible evangelical religious values. He initially qualified as a teacher and, upon pursuing postgraduate studies, asked the author to supervise his Master’s in Inclusive Education research. I was upfront that my research focuses solely on school inclusion for LGBT youths. Katlego insisted that he wished to explore the field of LGBT school youths, as he claimed this was a concern at the school where he taught. He, therefore, expressed an interest in learning more, even though this contradicted his personal and cultural beliefs. By virtue of his identity, Katlego became, by default, an outsider researcher in LGBT studies. As a supervisor, the author had no insights on how to prepare him for ethics in practice (Shaw et al., 2020). I was conscious only of my privilege as a gay-identifying scholar with insights into the everyday experiences of the LGBT population.

When writing a reflective article based on the supervision process, it is essential to address the ethical dimensions involved. In this case, Katlego had already obtained ethical approval for their research project from the appropriate ethics committee. The ethical bases for this reflexive article are Katlego’s ethics approvals for his Master’s in Education (2018-026) and PhD (1-2022-038) studies, as granted by the University of Johannesburg. This approval signifies that the project has undergone rigorous scrutiny, ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines and protecting the rights and well-being of participants. Katlego granted his consent for me to use the reflexive supervision notes to compile this article. Given that this article draws upon Katlego’s experiences and reflections within the context of the approved research project, it does not require separate ethical approval. The focus lies on Katlego’s personal journey, growth and insights, without directly involving human participants beyond what was covered by the original ethical approval. All quotes used in this article are made by Katlego.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act no. 7 of 1996 and its amendments), labour-relations legislative frameworks and educational policies protect, affirm and promote the care and support for diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. The Employment Equity Act (EEA) was enacted to give effect to Section 9 of the South African Constitution (Republic of South Africa, 1996). Despite all this, Katlego’s workplace continues to stigmatise and condemn LGBT identities as being immoral. Katlego had to disclose his study to his colleagues when he requested their participation in his research. This brought a sudden spotlight to his entire life. Colleagues insisted on knowing what interest he had with ‘gays and lesbians’, as he is a ‘straight’ man. His focus on LGBT research was perceived as him being a member of this out-group.

Reflections on staff reaction to research focus:

Reflections from a meeting with the school based support group:

Reflections on general comment made by a staff member:

While sexual orientation is a concealable facet of one’s identity and is not apparent from a person’s appearance (Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008), colleagues began scrutinising Katlego’s behaviour and expressions to ‘confirm’ unambiguously that he is gay. Katlego’s marital status remains an obstacle for others to classify him as gay. This is because stereotypically, a man who is married to a woman conveys his unquestionable heterosexuality, and his passage of social milestones into manhood (Maatouk & Jaspal, 2022) are considered normative cues of his masculinity. This highlights the overarching influence of conformity to social expectations, be it in the private sphere (e.g. married life) or the public space (e.g. the professional environment). Katlego’s other non-normative masculine cues, such as his caring demeanour, passion to know more about LGBT lives and the support for this vulnerable group, become stereotypical traits upon which to make inferences about his perceived non-heterosexual identity. He, therefore, started to moderate his behaviour in certain environments. The associated social stigma towards LGBT identities results in fear and loss of dignity because discrimination and violence towards LGBT individuals remain prevalent across South African ecologies (Human Dignity Trust, 2020; Msibi, 2019), including the workplace (Morrison, 2022).

Katlego’s voluntary association with a gay man resulted in an increased censorship of his sexual orientation. From a gender-stereotypical view, the unnatural interaction between the heterosexual and homosexual binaries at Katlego’s workplace is incongruent with hegemonic masculinity and violates the rules of engagement within the gender and sexual orientation regime (Acker, 2006; Connell, 2002). The denigration of LGBT identities underscores the contested interaction between heterosexual and homosexual identities in the workplace.

Reflections about friendship with a perceived gay colleague:

Katlego avoids public interaction with a gay colleague in an organisational social context to allay the misclassification of his sexual orientation and avoid this interaction being seen as threatening the valorised hegemonic masculinity. The distancing emanates from notions that gay men are often perceived as feminine (Borinca et al., 2021), and individuals who fear the infection of their normed masculine identity (as if homosexuality were contagious) are more likely to avoid gay identities (Plant et al., 2014). This aligns with orthodox beliefs that traditional masculine norms are linked to heterosexuality (Herek, 1986). Katlego’s confused and paradoxical internal negotiation to do his hegemonic masculine identity (Acker, 2006) or to transgress the gender norms (Butler, 1990) operates beyond the individual level. It inevitably reproduces an organisational social ordering that maintains boundaries between core and peripheral employees. Katlego’s ambivalent effort to separate his ‘dirty’ research interest from his privileged cis-het identity reifies the hierarchisation between heterosexual employees and those who identify as ‘other’ sexualities and genders. Consequently, LGBT discrimination and stigma in the workplace discourage collegiality across diverse sexual and gender identities and (un)intentionally perpetuate unequal gender regimes.

A workplace incident during a meeting with a parent and his child entangled Katlego’s moral and professional conduct. The father falsely accused Katlego of having a romantic relationship with his son, a gay identifying learner who had asked Katlego to support him in disclosing his sexual orientation to his homophobic father. After the meeting, Katlego anxiously rushed to the school principal to manage the situation and prevent the possible negative ramifications of the parent’s misconstrued views, fearing damage of his professional and gender identity.

Reflections on an incident when supporting a gay identifying learner:

Katlego’s heightened moral and professional identity panic unsurprisingly stemmed from the accusation that he was in a romantic relationship with a gay learner. This incident again resulted in a direct misclassification of his own sexual orientation, which was already on the radar among his colleagues. Katlego needed to perform hyperprofessionalism, hence his instantly reporting the incident to the principal, with the hope of distancing himself from any form of disgrace and undesirable attention. Teachers who identify as LGBT are at risk of being socially framed as unfit for the teaching profession (Msibi, 2019) because they are accused of being ‘converters’ of innocent heterosexual learners (DePalma & Atkinson, 2006; Kagola & Notshulwana, 2023) or having the potential to sexually molest them (Ferfolja, 2007). The intervention from the principal enabled Katlego to maintain his respectability in the workplace and avoid being the target of homophobia (despite him being heterosexual).

Katlego’s narratives indicate that gender performativity is tightly woven into all life domains, such as home, church, friendships and the workplace. The contested heterosexual or homosexual arena creates tensions between Katlego and those closest to him. Katlego faces stigma amid family expectations to conform to the religious and cultural norms of heterosexuality. The stereotypical social norms persistently frame ‘alternative’ non-heterosexual lifestyles as abnormal, sinful and unacceptable. In his efforts to untangle these experiences, he questioned his choice of research interest, which has led to numerous losses.

Reflections about research at the home environment:

Reflections about research focus in various social environments:

Reflections from colleagues on personal presentation:

Social cohesion in many African communities is understood from the perspective of shared traditional, religious and societal values often inscribed in the ethics of ubuntu (Bongmba, 2016). The ontology of ubuntu has its foundation in the interconnected and interdependent relations of self and others. The MacMillan Dictionary (n.d.) defines ubuntu as ‘a quality made up of sympathy, kindness, and respect towards other people’, aiming to ‘create a priority of duty, which is for the fundamental goal of building a community that provides the material conditions for actualising individuals’ substantive rights and well-being’ (Sule, 2022, p. 52). The ubuntu moral compass guides civil interaction, collaboration and compromise, especially during difference and otherness. I reflected on these values of humanity, which brought into question people’s responses to Katlego’s engagement with non-heterosexuality and their intense aversion to deviation from the norms of heterosexuality, also explained as homophobia (Freude & Waites, 2023). Katlego’s experiences with significant others in religious, kindship and friendship circles illustrate that sexual prejudice and homophobia remain pervasive in his social and personal spaces. Katlego’s perceived non-compliance with stereotypical markers of heterosexuality and masculinity relegates him to an out-group status and makes him the subject of social abandonment and alienation (Acker, 2006). This is because heterosexual individuals are likely to monolithically position gay men as having traditionally feminine physical characteristics, traits and roles (Fingerhut & Peplau, 2006) and therefore deserve punishment for violating normative gender regimes (Borinca et al., 2021). The harmonious values of ubuntu are deactivated when non-heterosexuality is suspected. Katlego’s social circles find it fit to dehumanise and marginalise people who do not conform to actual or perceived predominantly established expressions of heterosexuality (Sigamoney & Epprecht, 2013). By virtue of this, Katlego loses social relations, social capital and confidence because of his association with LGBT people and his qualities that deviate from orthodox and valorised masculinity.

Reflections of personal experiences with study in relation to research participants:

General reflections towards end of PhD studies:

The tensions in his personal spaces push Katlego to the edge of self-delusion, dwindling aspirations and cogent anxieties. The dominant notions of complied cis-het norms and the phenotypic hierarchies of sexual identities and expressions result in overt and internal conflict with Katlego’s identity, his kinship and close associates. Ironically, Katlego’s questioned self directly reflects the marginalisation of non-heterosexual orientations and gender identities. Katlego’s positionality shifted from an outsider to an insider researcher when his questioned sexual identity made him the subject of similar vilification, rejection and stereotypes attached to his embodied researched population. It highlights the politics surrounding the pervasive repressive treatment towards minority sexualities and all associated with this ‘dirty’ body of knowledge (Human Dignity Trust, 2020). As he scrutinises himself through his sociopersonal experiences, there seems to be a salient benefit in that his imposed ‘shifting’ sexual identity translates to invaluable insights about privilege, oppression, pain, resistance and social cohesion. It provides him with visceral understandings of how LGBT populations perceivably ‘infringe’ on normative gender identities, which potentially threaten their relationships with significant others. It reflexively presents him with the daily lived experiences of LGBT populations in multiple circles of society. This ‘dirty’ and ‘shameful’ research shapes new understanding of the social world (his own included) and his punishable research interest. This experience is something that he was never prepared for and points to how these trapped emotions of guilt and distress in a ‘dirty’ research field have the potential to derail his entire career trajectory.