Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
19 September 2025 | Story Tshepo Tsotetsi | Photo Tshepo Tsotetsi
Bathroom Safety
From the left: Dimakatso Mokoaqatsa, Assistant Researcher in the Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice; Katleho Mabula, UFS student; Kgomotso Sekonyane, 2024/2025 ISRC Treasurer; and Dr Dionne van Reenen, Lecturer in the UFS Centre for Gender and Africa Studies.

During Women’s Month in August, the University of the Free State’s Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice hosted a dialogue titled ‘How Safe Are You in the Bathroom?’. The event provided a platform for staff and students to reflect on safety, dignity, and inclusivity in one of the most ordinary yet contested spaces: public bathrooms.

Bathrooms are often spaces where fears, anxieties, and discrimination intersect. In South Africa, where gender-based violence remains alarmingly high, many cisgender women understandably see bathrooms as places of potential danger. At the same time, transgender and gender-diverse people frequently encounter exclusion and “quiet violence” when accessing these facilities, making bathrooms symbolic battlegrounds in broader debates about gender and safety.

 

Reimagining the bathroom

Chelepe Mocwana, Acting Director of the Unit, explained the motivation behind hosting the dialogue by drawing from everyday experience in his own office, where colleagues share a gender-neutral bathroom. “It made us think deeply about how people negotiate safety and comfort in these spaces. Following our benchmarking visit to the University of Pretoria, we realised the importance of engaging our own community, especially students, because they are the key stakeholders. We wanted to ask them directly: How safe do you feel in the bathroom?”

Mocwana stressed that inclusivity at the university must be grounded in equity and social justice, not just policy. “Transformation requires the active participation of both staff and students. Everyone must understand the anti-discrimination policies and the offices responsible for transformation. Our intention with this dialogue was not only to talk but also to raise questions, challenge assumptions, and embed social justice into the daily life of the university. Inclusivity must be something that everyone can feel and practise.”

Building on this, Dimakatso Mokoaqatsa, Assistant Researcher in the Unit and coordinator of the event, reminded the audience that bathrooms are “seemingly an everyday place that somewhat goes unnoticed. Everyone goes in and out of the bathroom every day. But most people don’t think about safety – the safety of the minorities, those discriminated against and denied the chance to be themselves in these spaces.”

Sharing her lived experience, Katleho Mabula, a transgender woman and student, reflected on the uncertainty she faces outside the university. “I only feel safe on campus,” she said, recalling how she was once expelled from a nightclub because of her identity. “My experiences as a transgender woman are nerve-racking, because I don’t know what to expect. Today, they might treat me right. Tomorrow, I can get kicked out or even killed.”

Kgomotso Sekonyane, a student leader, noted the paradox of bathrooms as both refuge and risk. “Growing up, my primary answer to what I’d do if intruders broke into our home was always to lock myself in the bathroom. For many of us, the bathroom is really a safe haven,” she said. She urged the audience to reimagine bathrooms as “microcosms of the constitutional promise”, citing Sections 9, 10 and 12 of the Constitution.

 

Building solidarity

Panelists emphasised that inclusivity requires more than symbolic gestures. Dr Dionne van Reenen, a lecturer in the UFS Centre for Gender and Africa Studies who previously worked in the Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice and was involved in shaping the university’s early inclusive bathroom policies, highlighted that inclusive bathrooms were introduced at the university as far back as 2016. But, she added, progress must go beyond policy: “If you’re going to speak about solidarity, you need to pull everyone into conversation, policy, and action. Solidarity cannot coexist with irreconcilable differences of identity politics.”

Similarly, Brightness Mangolothi, Director of the Centre for Diversity, Inclusivity and Social Change at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, stressed that inclusion must be intentional: “Solidarity can only take place when we are aware of others’ experiences. Sometimes people become oblivious because of the privileges they have. Inclusion is not a nice-to-have – it is a necessity, a right.” She added that the conversation should not be about designing bathrooms for marginalised groups but with them: “Nothing about us without us.”

Mokoaqatsa closed the discussion by echoing a reminder she had shared throughout: “I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are different from my own.” 

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept