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

attempt not to murder an individual, but the whole “species”. Such issues appeared in Carrara’s investigation (2004) on the homicides of homosexuals in the 1990´s in Rio de Janeiro and in the recent work by Efrem Filho (2017) about the murder of LGBTQIA+ people in the states of Paraíba and Pernambuco. That is, spetacular death is recurrent in this kind of research. III. S exuality and V iolence: (IM) P ertinent I ntersections For this analysis, seven social markers of difference were applied (sexuality, generation, race/ color, religion, education, income [in reference to social class] and territoriality), drawing from the concept that such social markers “interact, contextually and circumstantially, in order to promote potential scenarios of social inequalities and hierarchisations” (HENNING, 2015, p. 100, our translation). However, Henning expands this conception based on the idea of intersectional agency, pointing out possible processes of resistance produced by the subjects marked by differences, that is: In other words, a highlight is given to the importance of paying attention to the ways the individuals potentially utilize their own intersectional identity marks (as well as in the relation with intersectional identity traits of other people) in order to deal with the creation, the questioning, and the social deconstruction of inequalities (HENNING, 2015, p. 117, our translation). Given that conception, it is important to emphasize that we did not intend to “prove” that the violence experienced by LGBTQIA+ subjects in the LGBT Parade would be explained by the summation of two or more social markers of difference. However, it is possible to see in Table 3 that only sexuality appears as the outstanding marker of difference, as we have said previously. This is because we believe that an intersectional reading should not establish, a priori , which markers are decisive to understand such theme. According to Henning (2015), an intersectional analysis does not have the obligation of starting a specific marker of difference, but paying attention to the social configurations based on their historical and cultural context. The author says that there is fragility when these differentiations are multiplied, as they may cause some limitation. Thus, he problematizes the use of the ‘“nature of unlimited openness’ of intersectional field” (HENNING, 2015, p. 111, our translation) and projects that intersectionality must be guided by the most relevant markers. In this study, sexuality turned up the primary marker to understand the different processes of violence and aggression experienced by LGBTQIA+ people. Based on Foucault´s notion that sexuality produces effects of power that goes beyond the field of desire, or, said in other way, it goes beyond the individual´s sexual orientation, the comprehensiveness of sexuality takes place in accord with other dimensions including the economic, social, educational, cultural and others. At this moment, we highlight an important concept to understand such process through which heterosexuality is constructed which, according to Dos Reis and Pinho (2016), is the heteronormative matrix or heteronormativity. For these authors, such matrix is conceived in a binary mode, with the presence of two well-defined poles (man/penis that desires woman/vagina), also capturing those who do not construct themselves based on this gender/sex/desire system. Dos Reis and Pinho also add that who does not match with what is conveyed by heteronormativity is exposed to different kinds of violence, which may cause death. That is, in a heteronormative regimen, in order to lead a visible life, it is necessary to seek the exact correspondence between sex, gender, and desire – as if that were possible for everyone (BUTLER, 2008). It is by chance, as Saéz and Carrascosa say, that ‘being a man’ is based on ‘not being’ other things: not being a woman, not being homosexual. It is an identity generated by opposition, by denial, or by the repetition of aesthetic or behavior gestures that lack originality. It is a notion without a precise content. The men power, the patriarchal and macho power, is constructed, on one hand, by means of this contempt against women and, on the other hand, by the hatred against men deemed as less masculine, gay men (2016, p. 127). In this regard, Carvalho and Pocahy (2020) associate the idea of privilege with people who manage to perform such norm, and consequently, exercise their citizenship. Such privileged ones are also able to disqualify and make inferior those ones who do not comply with the heterosexual norm. Here one finds the permission to exterminate the differences. As a counterpoint, the criticism by Favero (2019) to the idea of privilege. According to the author, the causal conception that I am heterosexual, therefore I benefit myself the privilege in relation to other sexual identities, does not consider that the heterosexual individual is also constructed by other social markers of difference, such as race, generation, social class, gender etc. It is the intersection of such markers that would allow for a deeper analysis of how these “privileges” are configured. Thus, it is not enough to be heterosexual to lead a visible life, one has to be white, wealthy, Christian, with no disability, young, among others. Miskolci (2005) points out historically the conditions under which the deviant subject emerges, the individual who does not comply with the norm. At the same time, he problematizes the concept of difference which, designed from the queer theory, see the subject marked by difference not necessarily based on the idea of oppression, but highlighting processes of resistance and agency. © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 56 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Sexuality and Violence: Analysis of a LGBT Citizenship Parade in Campo Grande-MS