Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 2

translation). First of it, experience is cultural construction’s outcome. As she says, “the same context can produce many collective different ‘stories’, differentiating and linking biographies from contingent specificities (BRAH. 2006, p. 362, our translation”. It’s important to highlight that, according to the perspective of social markers of difference, that we defend on this article, is not possible to assert that different individuals experience in the same way and in the same intensity the oppression systems. Quite conversely, we believe that it’s needed considering the relational and interactional complex contexts (and games). Seen in theses terms, markers as class, race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality, generation, religion, nationality, ant other, can, depending on the context, outcome in bigger or smaller conditions of vulnerability. To think this process of constitution of many differences that can or can not turn the difference to an inequality, it seems patent an intellectual employing to reflect on these categories of articulation that, when acted – in our research problem – together with sexuality, commit LGBTQIA+ community in inequality’s position when compared to heterosexual people, for example. Problematizing the intersection between different categories is more than work with notion of sexual difference or even the relationships and contact points between, for example, gender and other categories, like race and class. Noticing how they form themselves in relation (PISCITELLI, 2008). Thus, our article is divided in two parts. In the first part, we present the statistical data which shows how the relationship between sexuality and violence against LGBTQIA+ people based on the results obtained in the “18 th LGBT Citizenship Parade” in Campo Grande. Right after that, we analyze the data in a more systematically way, from an intersectional and post-structuralist perspective. II. D iscrimination and A ggression against LGBTQIA+ P eople: P erceptions of V iolence in the 18 th P arade At first, a methodological note is important to be clarified. It is not easy to apply a questionnaire during a Parade, first because of the people who are in “another mood” than the one that concerns a talk between researcher and interlocutors. After, because we were in a public space, with such a large crowding of people and many background noises made it difficult. Finally, the people were waling. Moving over the place. Stopping and answering the research could mean “get lost” from their group. Our strategy was to apply the questionnaire during the concentration of the event, when many of these matters, we believed, could be controlled. It’s known that the research’s context and its form had impact during de data’s production. However, the important outputs were produced during these contexts. For this article, we concentrated in 14 questions as a survey, with answers “yes” or “not” (Table 1). This way, this studying is understood as quantitative and qualitative, once that, according to Souza and Kerbauy (2017, p. 37, our translation), “[…] the reality is multifaceted and, like that, is not shallow to assert that produced data by different method can be added, helping to understand the many faces of reality”. In qualitative terms, to Günter (2006), it’s important having a base of comprehension of social reality as something that is always moving itself, dynamic and procedurally. Because of this, the weights must be near of the concrete reality analyzed, intending to use properly the senses and meanings expressed there, however, not generalizing its outputs. The reflexive reading, however, may develop the complexities and links with the theoretical references used during the research. In the specific case of the data obtained along the research, it was possible to find that color/race, income (associated with the social class), generation, religion, and education have had a place of lesser highlight (or lesser impact) in the various responses given by participants in the question on violence (either discrimination or aggression), when comparted to the marker of sexuality. That is, being LGBTQIA+, per se, was already enough for a condition of greater social vulnerability. Such data confirms the outcome of other recent studies conducted in Brazil and which emphasize that the country is in the ranking of the most lethal nations for LGBTQIA+ people (OLIVEIRA; ARAUJO, 2020; PINTO et al , 2020; MENDES, SILVA, 2020). Particularly, thinking on the researches that had emphasis on LGBTQIA+ Parades, we can highline some works. Dutra and Miranda (2013) investigated the power relations seen in the “LGBT Parade” from Juiz de Fora (MG) and concluded that the abada’s wearing defined the boundaries of the places where the audience had access. Here, the main social marker of difference was social class, because the ones who did not buy were more distant from the electric trios. About the violence’s theme, they mentioned that some rival groups of young people took the opportunity of crowd to arrange dates and fight spaces, where a young man died. According to theses authors, these acts of violence are not linked properly with the Parade. Moreira and Maia (2017) investigated the Goiânia’s (GO) “LGBT Parade”, among their outputs, we detach two of them. The first tells about exclusions done by the LGBTQIA+ people themselves, for still exists © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 49 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Sexuality and Violence: Analysis of a LGBT Citizenship Parade in Campo Grande-MS Thus, what we are pointing out are the processes of difference’s ranking that, sometimes, show their selves as a form of physical or moral violence. In latter case, swearings are more often and commum. At first, emphasis on punches, kicks, pitfalls, stone- throwings, that, sometimes, can follow in the victim’s death.