Women’s sport and lesbianism Recently, a lesbian relationship of a leading SL women’s cricketer went viral on social media. (But nothing much on that still in mainstream media!) There is a strong belief in our society that women’s homosexuality or lesbianism – the term derived from the Greek word lesbos, an island where a poetess named Sappho who only loved women lived – is aplenty in women’s sport, particularly women’s team sport. One’s sexual preference or orientation shouldn’t be any other’s business but as long as such tendencies affect a national sport, then there ought to be some discussion over it. The SL Women’s cricket team still stagnates at the eighth position in the ICC Cricket Ranking. Only Bangladesh and Ireland are behind them. That’s after over two decades of evolution of the sport here. Still, parents are very cautious when they introduce their daughters to team sports such as netball, cricket, or football. This “fear” is not there in that magnitude with regard to either tennis, badminton, or swimming – some individual sports. In hindsight, do we fear gay issues when we put our sons into either cricket or football? Why all that? Is female homosexuality playing spoilsport? Our investigation and interviews with girls/women in sport – some of them are “come-out lesbians” – have shown us two salient lines of argument: One Women’s team sports are a haven for lesbianism, lezdom, or girl-girl romance – or whatever you may call it. It’s a safe and secure social sphere for such couples or groups. As a result, most of the teams in those sports consist of at least more than 25% of gay women, say the people leaning towards this argument. We stop at naming such teams for obvious reasons. It’s anyone’s guess. One told us that the couples in those major teams “share” the same room the night before key matches and idle on the field during the day of the match. The coaches and managers of women’s teams need to spend more time solving “the lovers’ quarrels” than on their expected duties! Parents still fear sending their girls to such sports for they might be “lured” into lesbianism by their seniors or teammates. Therefore, this fear more or less a menace in women’s sport, especially in a more conservative country like ours and hence needs to be eradicated or, at least, controlled to a reasonable level. Two It’s simply rubbish! There is no such thing. Even if it is so, the girls’ sexual relationships do not relate directly to the performance of either the individuals or the team. Look at “X”; she is the number one in spite of her long-standing lesbian affair! At the same time, female homosexuality can be a plus point when one takes into account the social existence of those female players. Most of them “migrate” from their rural villages to the capital where they are prone to usual male harassment and insecurity. In such instances, your best “girlfriend” is your sole saviour, confidante, and your daily guardian. The women who do sport have to be more aggressive and attacking. It’s not the accepted social role of a woman who is branded the “feeble sex”. Only the “masculine” feminine can survive and thrive in international women’s sport. One is required to break the norm if she is to excel in sport. Let lesbianism, if it’s there in abundance, be there as it is. No point in putting the issue in the limelight.

Sangakkara debate: Sum-up

The opinion is divided over Kumar Sangakkara’s “social/private” behaviour that we tried to shed some light on in the recent weeks. On a broader perspective, we assume we’re living in a changed society. Back then, there was social sharing that was much cherished in our society over singular or personal accumulation of wealth or capital. In addition, a person’s righteousness was placed much above his/her “mundane” riches. But now, we’ve turned towards looking at one’s super-luxury house or the SUV he/she uses to decide on his/her social position. We can see Sangakkara in a different perspective only when we perceive the present society and its economy as one “new” coherent system. If not, by naturalising the “system”, we’ll fall into the trap of taking all his deeds as “common” and “innocent” because all of us have become internally “Sangakkara-like”! Anyway, it is really difficult to justify the morality behind Sangakkara’s social behaviour as an advertiser and businessman. Aravinda, Sanath, or Malinga having such problematic social practice is not as harmful as when Sanga does it, because none of the former maintain such an erudite, accomplished, and influential social image as a sportsman here. His influence as a role model, especially on our younger generation, is different and stronger than that of the others. Therefore, in such a context, it is essential to place Sanga in his right, due place owing to his extensive, inexhaustible tolerance of many harmful aspects in today’s commercial world. Such practice will only hinder our society’s effort to build a better, less harmful future. As responsible media and right-thinking citizens, it is our duty to appreciate the real good in a social figure – we’re too moved by Sanga’s features that bring immeasurable honour and pride to our nation – while being able to be critical about his/her character’s socially harmful aspects. If one like Sanga could have been more critical of the eerie social woes in this present system, wouldn’t he have been a more profound, epoch-making sports personality of our time? What’s your view? You too can join the debate. Email: revatha.themorning@liberty.lk