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

Thereby, by bringing closer Miskolci’s contributions to the light of our research data, originated by the “18 th LGBT Citizenship Parade” of Campo Grande, we argue that, although the social conditions of existence for the sexual and gender minorities are sometimes adverse, it does not result in being impossible to establish processes of identity construction or to fight for recognition. Quite conversely, when we highlight the visible discrepancy of the vulnerable situations experienced by LGBTQIA+ people in contrast with the heterosexual population, we wish to evince the importance of contemporary struggles and mobilizations, and concomitantly we foster the awareness about the arbitrariness of the heterosexual truth regimes underpinning such situations. IV. C losing R emarks Along the survey conducted during the “18 th LGBT Citizenship Parade” of Campo Grande in 2019, a great deal of data was obtained. The difficulty to gather them all in a single analysis has provided the opportunity for analytical developments about such data (PASSAMANI; VASCONCELOS; ROSA; ISHII, 2020). In the analyses here presented, we have sought to problematize specifically the issue of violence against the LGBTQIA+ people who participated in the Parade. Through this analytical effort, we have evinced the faces of physical and symbolic violence that define the processes of discrimination and aggression. In our itinerary, both the intersectional and post- structuralist perspective was fundamental to understand how the social markers of difference are articulated to produce a place of vulnerability for LGBTQIA+ individuals. No by chance, the data tabulation led us to find out that, when the issue is sexual dissidence, it is sexuality that outstands during processes of violence and inequality. Thereby, based on the data surveyed, it is possible to say that being a LGBTQIA+ person is already a “sufficient reason” to make someone target of discriminatory and/or violent practices. Hence, our conclusion is not that other intertwining categories are not relevant to think violence against the LGBTQIA+ community. We only can say that the variations of these categories, based on the specific local context which the research survey was conducted, are not statistically significant in relation to sexuality. In this regard, our data shows that the great difference in terms of violence results from being or not being LGBTQIA+. Being white or black, poor or rich, educated or not, young or not, does not add statistical difference in terms of violence. We say it again: all of this in the specific context where the survey was produced. The participation of other research subjects, other contexts and events may point (or not) to the prevalence of other markers, once these markers, in an intersectional analytical perspective, are not drawn from an a priori assumption regarding which social marker(s) is (are) used in the investigated situation. In other words, the field is the strength to understand which social markers of difference effectively make a difference. Among the data analyzed, drawn from the universe of experienced violence, the higher recurrence is the verbal violence, followed by discrimination in the family, in the school, in the religious environment, in the community at large. In this way, it can be noticed that, starting with primary socialization, with the institutions someone most commonly has to live with and/or within, being LGBTQIA+ is a dangerous condition in terms of violence. For that matter, it is not unusual that swear words and humiliation are experienced since early age by LGBTQIA+ people who, in many cases, will have to learn to live with that for the rest of their lives. Our data shows that such violent situations and contexts are not experienced the same by heterosexuals and LGBTQIA+ people. There is no doubt that that black, poor, non-educated, disabled and (or) older LGBTQIA+ people may have their itineraries even more aggravated. However, inside the Parade’s context, where we did the research, sexuality gained more relevance into its participants’ perspective on their own violence experiences. Surely, the “larger relevance” can be near the political-narrative context that designs these kind of events. By all means, such research’s data leads us to conclude that heterosexuality, even when it is not combined with another social marker of difference, is already a privileged place. This place may be possibly incremented if there is intersection with other categories. Anyway, being heterosexual is enough to provide the experience of a safer family and social ambience social, in contrast to the experience of LGBTQIA+ people. Based on this reasoning, someone will be hardly assaulted, violated, killed due to the fact of being heterosexual. The same cannot be said about the LGBTQIA+ community. Being and/or being recognized as LGBTQIA+ is already sufficient reason to be included in a spectrum of “killable life” (BUTLER, 2015). When we look at the data in an intersectional perspective, we realize that sexuality is a marker of difference that makes the difference in the context faced by respondents to survey conducted at the “18 th LGBT Citizenship Parade” of Campo Grande in 2019. Such subjects maybe do not comply with the norm based on other features other than sexuality, but the statistical data reveals that the violence perpetrated against them occurs due to the fact of being LGBTQIA+. Such result is not given by chance. Quite conversely, it is necessary to say once again that, historically, heterosexuality was established under the status of a norm. Under this heteronormative regimen, sex, gender, and desire must be performed as coherent and inseparable. This makes © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 57 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Sexuality and Violence: Analysis of a LGBT Citizenship Parade in Campo Grande-MS