I write in response to the recent letter published in The Herald, which has stirred understandable concern among many within the coloured community.
Sleepwear may be comfortable, but the reduction of a community to it is not.
What was intended as commentary has instead exposed something deeper — how easily people can be flattened into stereotypes when context is stripped away and identity is narrowed to a single, convenient image.
Communities are not defined by what they wear at home, in passing moments, or in isolated visuals.
They are defined by their history, dignity, struggles, resilience, and contributions that often go unseen or unacknowledged.
When public representation loses this depth, it risks becoming reduction rather than reflection
While public discourse and differing opinions are essential in any healthy society, we must remain mindful of how such views are expressed — especially on platforms that carry the weight and influence of a respected publication.
The tone and framing of the letter risk reinforcing harmful generalisations and, in doing so, unintentionally diminish the dignity of a community already navigating complex layers of identity and history.
Whether individuals choose to wear what may be perceived as sleepwear in public cannot be separated from the broader reality that fashion itself has evolved significantly.
Today, the lines between sleepwear and daywear are increasingly blurred.
What was once considered inappropriate is now, in many contexts, a legitimate and even celebrated form of self-expression.
From designer pyjama sets to the rise of fitness-inspired fashion, the transformation of “tekkies” and even the taboo of tattoos, into formal wear, society is continuously redefining what is acceptable.
This evolution is not always comfortable for everyone.
I admit that I, too, have found myself wrestling with these changes.
I was recently challenged in my own thinking by my daughter, who saw beauty where I initially saw undignified attire.
In that moment, I recognised that what I perceived as “standards” may, in fact, have been shaped by an outdated lens.
Her perspective reminded me that identity is not static — it grows, adapts, and expresses itself in new and sometimes unexpected ways.
Within the coloured community, there exists a richness, creativity, and resilience that deserves to be affirmed rather than scrutinised through a narrow frame.
When we reduce people to what they wear, we risk overlooking the depth of who they are.
More importantly, we risk perpetuating narratives that do not serve the dignity of our people.
This is not to suggest that all forms of expression must be universally embraced, but rather that they should be engaged with respectfully and thoughtfully.
Critique, when necessary, must be balanced with care, awareness, and an understanding of its broader impact.
It would be a meaningful gesture for The Herald to consider publishing voices that reflect this perspective — voices that seek not to divide or shame, but to affirm, uplift, and contribute to a more balanced conversation.
In a time of change, let us choose to honour identity in all its evolving forms and to engage one another with the dignity and respect we all deserve.
Gregory B Stephenson
