Entre a palavra, a cruz e a espada: tessitura discursiva de homotransfobia parlamentar em uma audiência pública na Câmara dos Deputados

Abstract

Sexual and gender dissent, which have always been part of concrete life, are existential manifestations as legitimate as cisheterossexuality. Nevertheless, the LGBTQIAPN+ community, has been discriminated against since ages, due to sociohistorical worldviews that produced the abomination, pathologization and exclusion of human beings that subverted cisheterossexism, a system that underlies the cisheterossexist hierarchy, which is the anchor of homotransphobia, hostility that are especially (re)produced, in/by discourse – concept defined, in this study, as social practice, use of language to construct meanings and concrete action in the world (VAN DIJK, 1997). From this perspective, the general aim of this study is to investigate the discursive (re)production of parliamentary homotransphobia in the Family Statute Public Hearing on June 25, 2015. The specific aims are: (1) point out and discuss the discursive themes related to parliamentary homotransphobia, addressed in the public hearing investigated; (2) analyze the discursive strategies (re)producing homotransphobia in the parliamentary meeting studied; (3) identify the homotransphobic macro-propositions (global meanings) constructed into the public hearing in question; (4) specify the homotransphobic macro-acts of discourse (global actions of discourse) concretely carried out in the event under analysis; and (5) categorize the subtypes of parliamentary homotransphobia that occurred in the event analysed. This is qualitative research with interpretive analysis, anchored mainly in the socio-cognitive approach of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), developed by Teun van Dijk. The micro and macro analysis of 28 speech excerpts from reactionary participants of the public hearing reveal that, at the local discursive level (the micro level of the linguistic surface), many discursive strategies are mobilized to oppress sexual and gender minorities, their struggles, their rights. At a global (macro) discursive level, seven main discursive themes are addressed, from which prejudiced and discriminatory macro-propositions are reproduced, used, in general, as a basis for the exclusion of the LGBTQIAPN+ community from state public policies and, specifically, to support the denial of family status to same-sex families. The macro-analysis also proves that several macro-acts of discourse are carried out, and the following ones are at the most global level in the event studied (which reflects the discursive themes): (i) abjection to sexual and gender dissent, (ii) misrepresentation of the concepts of homotransphobia, freedom of speech and the secular State; (iii) attempt to delegitimize same-sex families; (iv) disqualification of LGBTQIAPN+ movements; (v) misinformation with the fallacy of gender ideology in Brazilian education; (vi) incitement of hatred against the Democratic Rule of Law through the attack on judicial activism in favor of LGBTQIAPN+ political agendas; and (vii) political violence against the dignity of the human person through the parliamentary call for a gay cure. Subtypes of this parliamentary homotransphobia occur at the event, such as: socio-cognitive, general, specific, religious, pastoral and cordial homotransphobia, revealing different ideological and institutional crossings in the discrimination. Both micro and macro discursive levels build a discursive superstructure, which is part of a parliamentary discursive macro movement that integrates political-religious activism, especially from the Evangelical Parliamentary Front and its allies, combating LGBTQIAPN+ political agendas and imposing the Christian sexual morality in Brazil, through discursive manipulation in state public policies. This fundamentalist homotransphobic discursivization in the Brazilian Parliament is inconsistent with the constitutional principles that rule the country, configuring disrespect for Human Rights and discursive (re)production of abuse of power. Therefore, they are illegitimate discourses and must be combated so that social change can happen.