Re-defining gender as a heinous crime: A case study from the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies

Abstract

In this article, we explore how the discourses around gender are evolving at the core of Brazilian politics. Our focus lies on the discourses at the public hearing on the bill 3.492/19, which aimed at including “gender ideology” on the list of heinous crimes. We aim to identify the deputies’ linguistic representation of social actors as pertaining to in- and outgroups. In addition, the article analyzes through Critical Discourse Analysis how the terminology gender is represented in this particular hearing. The analysis shows how some of the conservative parliamentarians give a clearly negative meaning to the term gender, by labeling it “gender ideology” and additionally connecting it with heinous crimes. We propose that the re-signification of “gender ideology,” from rhetorical invention to heinous crime, is not only an attempt to undermine scientific gender studies but also a way for conservative deputies to gain more political power.

Keywords

Chamber of deputies of Brazil critical discourse analysis gender gender ideology heinous crimes political discourse

Introduction

Recently, right-wing politicians throughout the world have been using the concept of gender synonymously with “gender ideology,” which has strong negative connotations in their discourses (Corrêa and Kalil, 2020). In Brazil, many parliamentarians from conservative right parties continuously launch bills and laws where the term gender is filled with any (negative) meaning that may be appropriate for their political goals. For instance, gender may be associated with anti-Christianity and Marxist indoctrination (Junqueira, 2017, 2018; Lionço et al., 2018). The idea of a threatening “gender ideology” is used as a strategy to attack policies that defend sexual diversity and extended women’s rights (Kalil, 2019).

In this paper, we examine a 50 minutes long discussion about the term “gender ideology” at a public hearing¹ in Brazil, on December 10^th, 2019 concerning the bill 3.492/19, which aimed at including “gender ideology” on the list of heinous crimes, alongside with murder of children and adolescents.² The bill, which was authored by Bia Kicis, Carla Zambelli and Eduardo Bolsonaro (all from the extreme right-wing party PSL), was proposed as a response to the assassination of the 9-year-old boy Rhuan Maycon³ committed by his mother and her girlfriend on May 31^st, 2019. Two years earlier, the boy was emasculated at home without any anesthesia. The mother Rosana and her partner Kacyla said, when asked by a police officer,⁴ that Rhuan wanted to become a girl and they decided to help him. The assassination of the boy occurred, according to Rosana and Kacyla, because the boy had become a hindrance for their relationship.⁵

One month after the assassination of Rhuan, deputy Filipe Barros (PSL) called for a public meeting at the Commission of Human Rights and Minorities to discuss how the state could prevent future crimes similar to the one committed against Rhuan. At this meeting, some conservative right-wing deputies called the assassination of the boy a “gender ideological crime.” Deputy Carlos Jordy (PSL) said: “The perception that we parliamentarians have here is that this is a crime involving the issue of gender, it is a crime involving the ideology of gender. Maybe that’s why it’s not being reported in the mainstream media.”⁶ Following a similar line of thought, deputy Júnior Bozzella (PSL) declared: “In my view, this is a crime of homophobia in reverse. For me this is a crime of gender ideology.”⁷ Deputy Marcel van Hattem (NOVO – right) declared that it was unfortunate that the “human rights people” were not present at that public meeting. The reason for this absence, he said, was due to the fact that the victim’s life was “taken by a couple of homosexuals.”⁸ Finally, deputy Bia Kicis (PSL) highlighted that “the cruelty of gender ideology” was the major cause of the crime. On June 12^th, 2019, Kicis and her party colleagues Zambelli and Eduardo Bolsonaro authored the bill 3.492/19.

Before any bill is voted, a public hearing organized by the Commission of Constitution, Justice, and Citizenship (CCJC)⁹ is required. Previous to that public hearing, two left-wing deputies, Petrone (PSOL) and Ananias (PT) opposed to the content of the bill and asked CCJC to call for a vote for its removal from the day’s agenda. The discussions around the removal or the approval of the bill 3.492/19 are explored and analyzed here.

It is important to highlight that this is not the first time Brazilian parliamentarians table anti-gender bills. In 2015, for instance, a bill (3235/2015) was authored by pastor Marco Feliciano (PSC – Christian conservative right), who intended to eliminate from educational-pedagogical materials expressions such as “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender discrimination, gender issues and similar”, as well as prohibit the publication of guidelines, plans and programs that intended to disseminate, encourage or induce “gender ideology”.¹⁰ At the time of writing this article, there are more than 15 anti-gender bills being processed in the National Congress. Eight of them were presented in the first half of 2019.¹¹

The reason why we chose to focus on the particular bill 3.492/19 is that it is the first bill that actually aims to include “gender ideology” on the list of heinous crimes, even though the deputies that authored the bill never attempted to define the term. The expression “gender ideology” has been embraced by Brazilian far-right politicians for a long time (Corrêa and Kalil, 2020) but now, the term could be given an even more decidedly negative meaning once connected to heinous crimes. The attacks against “gender ideology” would no longer be merely rhetorical but also result potentially in legal punishment.

The aim of this article is to explore through Critical Discourse Analysis (i.e. van Dijk, 1995, 1999) how Brazilian (ultra)right-wing deputies build their discourses around the notion of gender. To do that we focus on how social actors and actions are represented and how this representation contributes to the construction of in- and outgroups (van Dijk, 1999). The analysis includes the discursive aspects of political (de)legitimation, the general basis of norms and values, argumentation resources, and some semantic strategies. By analyzing discourses pronounced at the Chamber of Deputies, we may understand important aspects of parliamentary action. The issues debated by the deputies and the discourses in those debates can reflect their priorities and ideological positions as well as the expectations of those who voted for them (Miguel et al., 2017). In this way, we propose that the re-signification of the term gender as heinous crimes is a way for conservative deputies to gain even more political power.

A brief context on the origins of the term “gender ideology”

Although there is some disagreement regarding when the term “gender ideology” was first introduced, the prevailing version is that the expression appeared in conjunction with the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 (Corrêa, 2017, 2018, 2020). At that time, the notion of gender was employed by feminist activists and official countries delegations, to talk about the situation of women and their reproductive and sexual rights (Francoise, 2008). But for the clergyman Revoredo, the Conference in Beijing was the birthplace for a “campaign” to disseminate the “revolutionary” vision of “gender feminists,” which posed a threat to humanity (Revoredo, 1998: 1). From that moment the expression “gender ideology” gained popularity within the highest leadership of the Catholic Church (Rosado-Nunes, 2015: 1246). The attacks against gender hence started as “a Catholic counteroffensive to the UN Conference in Beijing” (Miskolci and Campana, 2017: 738). According to Butler (2004: 185), the Vatican wanted to reaffirm biological differences between women and men and reinforce the roles assigned to them traditionally.

Junqueira (2018) sustains that although the term “gender ideology” is a Vatican invention, it also seems to be a strategy adopted by the conservative sectors of society to fight advances of social rights, sexual and reproductive rights in particular. One important conservative actor in this context is the American journalist and writer Dale O’Leary. O’Leary (1997) equals feminists to Marxists and describes feminism as an ideology that disrespects biological differences and strives for “the abolition of human nature.” Another important conservative social actor is the evangelical groups, who adopted the term “gender ideology”, in the Brazilian context, “as an accusation category related to the teaching of gender and sexuality, especially in public schools” (Kalil, 2019: 116).

As early as 2003, during the government of Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva, the catholic deputy Elimar Máximo Damasceno (PRONA – right-wing party) proposed the suppression of the expressions ‘gender and sexual orientation’ in the bill 007/2003, with the following justification:

Gender and sexual orientation’ are neologisms to consecrate homosexuality, which is contrary to the traditions of Brazilian society. The homosexual person deserves the same respect as every human being, but homosexuality or its apology cannot be backed by the state.¹²

In 2005, Damasceno proposed the creation of a psychological support project for people who decided to “voluntarily leave homosexuality” (bill 5.816/2005).¹³ Since then, many other Christian politicians have intensified their actions in the National Congress against gender perspectives in the field of education, health, and Human Rights (Lionço et al., 2018; Machado, 2018).

Brazil has experienced a confrontation on the one hand, between feminists and LGBT+ movements, and on the other hand Christian segments, a confrontation that replaces “the ancient dispute between the religious and scientific spheres about truth and/or how to think about human relations and the social order” (Machado, 2018: 1). It is a dispute about meanings, in which social actors in the religious sphere appropriate certain ideas from the scientific field to give the moral authority to conservative Christians to define the social and legal standards of society (Machado, 2018: 1).

The book Gender Ideology: Neo-totalitarianism and death of the family, published in Brazil (2012) by the Argentinean catholic lawyer and bioethics teacher Jorge Scala argues, among other things, that gender theories are not more than ideologies. Moreover, Scala (2012: 11) sustains that “gender ideology” is the “most radical ideology of history, since, if imposed, it would destroy the human being in its innermost core and at the same time would end society”. According to Butler (2017), this might have been the turning point for how gender is understood by the conservative right in Brazil and Latin America.

Miskolci and Campana (2017) states that the term “gender ideology” became widely spread in Brazilian society as a response to Federal Supreme Court (STF), who recognized that gay marriage had the same status as heterosexual marriage. The campaign against “gender ideology” intensified when Jair Bolsonaro (no party at present) ran for president. In his speech on the inauguration of the presidency on January 1, 2019, he stated:

We are going to unite our people, embrace the family values, respect the religions and our Judeo-Christian tradition, fight against gender ideology, while preserving our values. Brazil will become a country free from ideological ties.¹⁴

Bolsonaro’s rhetoric is the total rejection of what he as well as many (ultra)conservative social actors call “gender ideology.”

The composition of the Chamber of Deputies and the relevance of its parliamentarians

The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies has 513 members elected democratically. The deputies are responsible, between other things, for writing, approving, or banning bills; supervising the use of public resources; and legislating on matters of national interest.¹⁵

Based on the foundation that the discourses of the deputies reflect their ideological positions, it is crucial to present the composition of the Chamber of Deputies with regard to the representation of political parties and their ideological alignment (Table 1). We follow the classification of political parties made by the Inter-Union Department of Parliamentary Advice (DIAP, 2019).¹⁶ We are aware that the political space is more complex than the dichotomous separation between left and right. Since the 2016 impeachment process against the then-president Rousseff, the traditional political establishment appears to be in decline in Brazil (Kalil, 2019). Parties such as the third-largest PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party), which is traditionally identified as right-wing is now commonly identified as “extreme left” or accused of being “communist” by Bolsonaro’s supporters (Kalil, 2019: 17). Albeit aware of these ambiguities in the perception of the Brazilian political parties, we decided to use the traditional denomination “right” and “left” poles for most of the parties (for further reading on this matter see, i.e. Madeira and Tarouco, 2013a, 2013b; Ducroquet, 2019; Vasconcellos, 2019). Because of its ultraconservative agenda, the Social Liberal Party (PSL) has been classified as an extreme right-wing party throughout this whole work. The main characteristics of the extreme right in Brazil are the idea of the Christian family as the guarantor of moral values (Mudde, 2019); the repressive ideology expressed by the cult of police violence (Löwy, 2015); the rejection of democracy and the growth of the demand for the return of the military dictatorship (Chauí, 2016); the hatred of human rights (Ribeiro, 2015) and the exclusion of gender discussions from the school curriculum (Faganello, 2015).

Table 1.

Composition of the members of the Chamber of Deputies in 2019 according to their ideological alignment.

Alignment	Number of deputies	Parties
Right	210	PSL*, DEM, PP, PR, PRB, PSC, Novo, Patriota, PRP, PTC and DC
Center-right	94	PSDB, PSD, Pode, PTB, PHS and PMN
Center	76	MDB, SD, Pros, PPS, Avante, PV, Rede and PPL
Left	73	PSol, PT and PCdoB
Center-left	60	PDT and PSB
Total	(436 men and 77 women)

Source: DIAP (2019: 30).

Extrem right-wing party.

It is relevant to mention that besides the party affiliation, there are also supra-party blocs, which are common interest groups independent of political parties. These groups have the objective of seeking to influence decisions in favor of the public policies they defend. At present, there are seven such groups: Business, Relatives, Union, Female, Rural Caucus (also called Beef), Evangelical (also called Bible) and Security (also called Bullet), in Portuguese known as the BBB blocs: ‘Boi (Beef), Bíblia (Bible) and Bala (Bullet)’. These last three blocs, composed by 223 deputies, strengthened and grew, due to the fact that their ultra conservative political agendas are supported by President Bolsonaro (Prandi and Carneiro, 2018 and Quadros and Madeira, 2018). For a more developed analysis on the extreme contours politics assumed in Brazil in the last few years, see (Faganello, 2015; Viana, 2015).

Theoretical and methodological framework

Critical Discourse Analysis (from now on CDA) is “a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” (van Dijk, 2001: 352). There is a general consensus that CDA should be seen as an approach that includes different theoretical and methodological perspectives and not as a single method (i.e. Chilton, 2005; Chilton and Schäffner, 2002; Fairclough, 1995; van Dijk, 1993, 2009 and Wodak, 2001). Based on this foundation, the methodology of this study is grounded on a multidisciplinary theoretical framework pertaining to discourse, society, and social cognitions such as beliefs, values, and ideologies. The conceptual notions of discourse, ideology, and power are essential to this approach.

Discourse is here understood as social practice or a dialectical relationship between social actors and social realities (Fairclough, 1992). As the discourses analyzed here take place in a parliamentary arena, it is relevant to place them in the scope of political discourses. From the interactional viewpoint of discourse analysis, political discourses have to be located in the public sphere, where not only the politicians participate in the communication but even various actors, such as the voters, the citizens, and other groups in the society (van Dijk, 1997). In a parliamentary arena, political issues, ideological definitions, and discursive practices are constructed and legitimated (Dörner and Vogt, 1995). Political discourses are therefore a form of social action and, as Giménez’ (1981: 126–127) suggests, “it is not so much aimed at ‘convincing’ the adversary, as traditional rhetoric implies, but at recognizing, distinguishing and confirming supporters and attracting the undecided”, even more in polarized environments.

Another central conceptual notion for CDA is ideology, here understood as:

basic frameworks of social cognition, shared by members of social groups, constituted by relevant selections of sociocultural values, and organized by an ideological schema that represents the self-definition of a group. Besides their social function of sustaining the interests of groups, ideologies have the cognitive function of organizing the social representations (attitudes, knowledge) of the group, and thus indirectly monitor the group-related social practices, and hence also the text and talk of members (van Dijk, 1995: 248).

Power is about relations of difference, and particularly about the effects of differences in social structures: who takes the floor, who controls, who defines what is good or bad? (Wodak, 1989; Wodak and Meyer, 2015). “Language only gains power in the hand of the powerful; language is not powerful ‘per se’” (Wodak, 1989: xv). The way power relations are exercised and negotiated through text and talk is very important for CDA, for instance how relationships to others are articulated in discourse and how interests are defended and legitimated.

This way of understanding ideology and power allows us to engage in critical discourse analyses that examine the ways ideologies may be expressed more systematically. To engage in this kind of analysis we need to be clearly aware of the properties in discourse that express opinions, perspective, positions, or any other discursive resource that represents a conflict of interests articulated with an us (ingroups) versus them (outgroups) dimension (van Dijk, 1995: 22). The polarization of us and them characterizes shared social representations and their underlying ideologies (van Dijk, 1998). Positive Self-Presentation of the dominant ingroup and Negative Other-Presentation of the dominated outgroups can be found in all levels and structures of text and talk, for example in contrastive topics, local meanings, syntactic forms, lexicalization, metaphor, and hyperbole (van Dijk, 1993, 1998). In addition to these general discourse strategies, there are also other important analytical dimensions to be mentioned:

Semantic strategies

Discourse meaning realizes underlying beliefs and ideologies of speakers. The semantic strategies used to represent us and them should therefore be accentuated. The ideological-political discourse will:

Emphasize positive things about us.

Emphasize negative things about them.

De-emphasize negative things about us.

De-emphasize positive things about them (van Dijk, 2000).

Actor description

The representation of social actors (van Leeuwen, 1996) has been incorporated into this work and may help us to see the strategies used by the deputies to make the representation of in- and outgroups. The fundamental categories are exclusion and inclusion, within which other sub-categories take shape. For instance, the Left may be included or excluded from the debate on gender, they may be represented in specific or more general terms, named negatively or positively or even unnamed (van Leeuwen, 1996).

De(legitimation)

The concept of (de)legitimation (van Leeuwen, 2008: 105–106) contributes to explaining how political actors build strategies to reinforce their discourses. The two categories of (de)legitimation¹⁷ suggested by van Leeuwen, that are relevant to this study are: authorization, that is, the legitimation by reference to the authority of tradition, custom, law, and/or persons in whom the institutional authority of some kind is vested, and moral evaluation, which is the legitimation by reference to value systems.

Argumentative structures

The purpose of argumentation is to resolve a difference of opinion “by means of exploring the relative justification for competing standpoints” (van Eemeren et al., 1987: 218). Argumentation plays a functional role in political discourses as they are conducted between parties that not rarely are in opposition. Arguments and the various strategies of supporting them presuppose shared sociocultural knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about Self and the Other (van Dijk, 1997: 42). More concrete argumentative categories are i.e. exemplification, disclaimer, and fallacy.

Counterfactual arguments

Argumentative moves based on imaginary situations, normally constructed for the purpose of better predict expected negative consequences that are used to persuade the audience of the necessity of specific policy measures. Counterfactuals are frequently formulated in ‘if . . . then . . .’ sentences (van der Valk 2003: 320).

We have particularly focused on the discourse-analytical dimensions of the data under study. Other structures are considered as far as they fulfill a supportive function.

Analysis and discussion

We start the analysis with a more overall view about the reasons why the deputies wanted or not wanted the withdrawal of the bill 3.492/19. The majority of the parties who opposed the bill argued that the text had to be reformulated due to inconsistencies in relation to the Brazilian Penal Code, for instance, the proposed penalty of 50 years for the crime, when the highest penalty in Brazil is actually 30 years. Ananias and Misasi (PV – center) raised another problem: the lack of consensus about the meaning of “gender ideology.” Deputy Petrone (PSOL – left) focused upon another problem, that in her opinion was a major one, namely the fact that the authors of the bill ignored scientific studies on gender.

The deputies who wanted the bill to be approved, in its majority, presented reasons related to the preservation of moral and ethical values within the Brazilian society. For these deputies and from a critical discursive perspective, the bill is legitimated by moral evaluation (van Leeuwen, 2008). It is possible to assume that these parliamentarians want to impose rules of moral decency of persons. Deputy Orleans e Bragança (PSL – extreme right) for instance, emphasized the subversion of moral values and the importance of protecting family. Zambelli (PSL) highlighted that the bill intended to preserve good moral values in society. We can see an ideological conflict, that consists of the antagonism about how the deputies understand the notion of gender.

It is interesting to observe that even though the extreme right-wing deputies want a controversial terminology to be included in the Brazilian Criminal Code, they never attempt to develop a comprehensible definition of the expression in the text presented at the CCJC. The deputies seem to assume that there is no need to do it as if the term was already well established in society. One could also hypothesize that these parliamentarians want the expression to remain as open as possible so that it can be filled with the meaning that most fits their political agenda. “Gender ideology” would remain as Kuhar and Zobec (2017) said a “multi-purpose enemy, which can be shaped in different ways to fit into the concrete goal of a political protest” (Kuhar and Zobec, 2017: 31).

The vote finishes when deputy Pedro Lupion (DEM – center), who is the main responsible for formulating the bill, agrees with its withdrawal from the agenda, sustaining that he would change the text “making it clear that the typification would be in the case of murder, torture and private imprisonment motivated by gender ideology, that is, not the criminalization of gender ideology itself.”¹⁸ Lupion, hence, continues to connect “gender ideology” with crimes.

As a matter of fact, during the discussions, deputy Enrico Misasi (PV – center) asks his fellow deputies to better explain what they mean by “gender ideology.” Misasi called the term “vague” and sustained that he was concerned that if the deputies did not clarify its meaning, the Supreme Federal Court would do it instead.¹⁹

Although some parliamentarians seek to find a consensual definition of gender, to be used in the context of the creation of projects, bills, and laws, others try to re-signify the terms according to what they believe is correct. This attempt of defining or adapting terms occurs when the deputies present their ideological positions about social actors and actions. The use of semantic strategies helps us mapping the way social actors and actions are represented as they are construed in the texts that we analyze. It is therefore important to show how actors are inscribed as in- and outgroup in the discourses of the deputies, while they express themselves about gender. Table 2 summarizes the main semantic features that the deputies present in the construction of opposing groups:

Table 2.

Representation of ingroup and outgroup.

Parties	Semantic and lexical strategies
Parties	Ingroup	Outgroup
PSL (extrem right-wing), DEM (right), PRB (right), NOVO (right) PL (center), PV (center)	The Right, the protectors of the children, family and institutions; democratically elected; against prejudice; against gender ideology; the protectors of the society; against serious crimes; society caregivers; the defenders of everyone in the society – heterosexual as well as homosexuals.scared; normal; sincereThe bill: very good; important; extremely important; is about life; is about protecting the children, is not nonsense; could be improved and reformulated	The Left; gender philosophers; the ones who postpone actions; advocate only for homosexual rights; the ones who impose gender ideology; subversives who attack the family and the institutions; barbariansGender ideology:crime; a heinous crimeGender studies: anti-scientific, anti-evidence, anti-reality, deconstruction of human nature; a non-existent concept; absolutely reductionist; simply thought of at UN conferences
PSOL (left), PT (left), PDT (center-left)	Gender studies: an analytic category sociologically built; loaded with power and hierarchical relations; a scientific term	The Right; a shame for Brazil; LGBT-phobics; the inventors of the term “gender ideology”, the ones who produce violence against women, girls, children and the LGBT community.Gender ideology: nonexistent, an assumption; a controversial issueThe bill: bad; badly written; disconnected from the legal system; contradictory; anti-scientific; anti-reality; nonsense; political-ideological clash; shameful

When it comes to semantic roles of propositional arguments (i.e. Agent, Patient), the right-wing and extreme right-wing deputies represent themselves as agents of positive acts and non-responsible patients of negative acts of the Other. The left-wing deputies prefer not to focus on their own acts, instead, they concentrate on the negative acts of the Right. Concerning the selection of word meaning through lexicalization, the representation of outgroups is loaded by evaluations, which serve the purpose of indicating the low moral or ethical level of the Other. Both right- and left-wing deputies make the representation of the outgroup as deviant, shameful, prejudiced and subversive.

The left-wing deputies try to delegitimize the expression “gender ideology” sustaining that instead of debating on a nonexistent term, they should be focusing on well-established scientific studies on gender. But, this legitimacy is questioned by the deputies of the ultra-conservative party PSL, which means that gender studies should be seen with skepticism and “gender ideology” as a legitimate expression that stands, in this case, for crime.

In what follows we present the discourses of the deputies more broadly and we provide an analysis that shows more in-depth the way the deputies construct their points of view and the representation of social actors. We start with examples 1 and 2 as follows²⁰ (see attachment 1 for the originals):

(1) Talíria Petrone (PSOL – left-wing) - In fact, it is bizarre that this is a matter for this Commission to deliberate when we have a Brazil with so many issues, including some that affect children and adolescents. The supposed gender ideology, what they call here a gender ideology, is something nonexistent. You have to study gender. Gender is an analytic category constructed sociologically to explain that there is a difference in our social context of what it is to be a man and what it is to be a woman, which is loaded with power relations and hierarchical relations. This is where the term “gender” comes from, a term scientifically used to explain historical and cultural inequalities that affect men and women and that even produce, Deputy Patrus, violence against women in Brazil, which is the 5th country with the highest rate of feminicide, where men think they can touch a woman’s body, assault her and kill her; a country that produce LGBTphobia, because it is understood here that women who love women and men who love men can be assaulted for their social condition, for their orientation; a country that produce violence against girls, against children [. . .].

(2) Bia Kicis (PSL – extreme right-wing) - President, I get really scared by that kind of argument. I see deputies here philosophizing about what would or would not be gender ideology, about the oppression of women. This project here is about life, about protecting children, about protecting children who are being cruelly murdered. While some philosophizes and asks for more time to study the case, another child may be being murdered by people who should be caring for them. We have had terrible examples, such as the case of the 9-year-old Rhuan Maycon Silva Castro, who was barbarously abused, tortured, emasculated in order to make him transgender, and then murdered, having his body quartered to have its history erased from this world. All this barbarity was practiced by his genitor and her companion in the Federal District. In this case, yes, we can talk about gender ideology, and it is not nonsense to say that, because what they wanted was to turn this boy into a girl. He died simply because he was born a boy.

In examples 1 and 2, deputies Petrone (PT – left-wing) and Kicis (PSL – extreme right-wing) use semantic resources to construct their standpoints on gender through judgment and evaluations. In example 1, deputy Petrone tries to validate gender studies by incorporating authorized voices, such as scientific studies and statistics that legitimate (van Leeuwen, 2008) her position. “Gender ideology”, she says, does not exist, but it is a concept created by those who do not know better. Likewise, Petrone affirms that historical and cultural inequality produce violence against women in Brazil.

On the other hand, deputy Kicis (PSL – extreme right-wing) constructs her discourse by selecting word meanings that represent her ingroup as protectors of the victims and who have to fight against the acts of the ‘outgroup’, namely, the left and/or the deputies who defend scientific studies on gender. Kicis uses the adjective [scared], to describe the impact that the arguments presented by deputy Petrone had on her. Gender, according to Kicis, is nothing more than “gender ideology”, which is the same as “[turning] a boy into a girl.” The deputy construes her argument on the basis of the assassination of Rhuan and she re-contextualizes the whole concept of gender as something abnormal, that can lead to monstrous crimes. We can see in this discourse, the way deputy Kicis introduces the idea of moral panic (Cohen, 2011), by sustaining that “while some philosophizes and asks for more time to study the case, another child may be being murdered”.

Examples 3 and 4 show how the deputies Petrone (PSOL – left-wing) and Tonietto (PSL – extreme right-wing) present their viewpoint creating differences among in- and outgroups, through a particular perspective that reinforces that their own way of seeing gender is the valid one.

(3) Talíria Petrone (PSOL – left-wing) – The contradiction present in this anti-scientific, anti-evidence, and anti-reality matter is absurd! You see, most of the girls sexually assaulted are raped by members of their families, such as parents and stepfathers. This is the case with most rapes and it is what should be denounced by this House. But, no: a term is invented to dialogue with common sense and they don’t come up with solutions to extend the rights of children.

(4) Chris Tonietto (PSL – extreme right-wing) – [. . .] the gender theory is the one that is totally anti-evidence and anti-reality, it has no support in science. There is no scientific endorsement. Even the medical association has already met and made a great statement that deconstructs 100% of this gender theory. It is a deconstruction of human nature, loved and created by God. So, of course, the PSL says “no”, because this gender theory was simply thought in the context of UN conferences. And they want to bring to the Brazilian legislation something that is not even scientifically supported and does not even have an accepted concept. On the contrary, it is a non-accepted concept, although many try to sustain that it is a fight against prejudice. It is, in fact, absolutely reductionist. It is not a fight against prejudice, even because we are against prejudice. Now, we are against gender ideology.

From both sides there is a predominance of terms that encode (de)legitimation of authority (van Leeuwen, 2008) such as “anti-scientific”; “anti-evidence”; “anti-reality”, expressions used by both Petrone and Tonietto. Petrone reinforces the statement that the right “invented the term gender ideology” to “dialogue with common sense.” The implicit message is, everybody else knows about the scientific consistency behind gender studies, and so should you.

Tonietto replies by saying that gender theory (singular) is already deconstructed by the medical association. The right-wing deputy reiterates the same terms used by Petrone, in order to discredit her arguments. In her sayings, “gender theory is totally anti-scientific; anti-evidence; anti-reality; has no support in science; (stands for the) deconstruction of human nature; (has) no scientific endorsement; (is) not even an accepted concept; absolutely reductionist.” Deputy Tonietto uses what Garbagnoli (2014) calls “labeling strategy”, which means a deformed way of making the representation of the Other. The deputy distorts, stigmatizes and delegitimizes the work created in the field of Gender Studies naming it “gender ideology” and connecting it with negative epithets.

Tonietto also takes the opportunity to praise her own party PSL which, according to her is “against prejudice”; yet, she exclaims that PSL is against “gender ideology.” The two sentences fit perfectly in the sense that it is appropriate for a right-wing deputy, from a moral and traditional point of view, to be in opposition to “gender ideology.” Another reading would be that Tonietto is actually redefining what prejudice is, once she is saying that “gender ideology” can be prejudiced against boys who want to be boys; against traditional families.

To put Tonietto’s assertions in a broader perspective, it is important to mention that there are other important social actors in the Brazilian society that sustain similar ideas. As an example, we can mention the Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ernesto Araújo, who said in a public hearing that “gender ideology is a harmful ideology because it contradicts science, which has proven that there are only men and women.”²¹

Moreover, deputy Tonietto declares that “gender theory is a deconstruction of human nature, loved and created by God.” This argumentative line on gender is similar to that used by the Vatican and conservative social actors, such as O’Leary (1997). Deputy Tonietto also says that gender theories were designed by an external actor, namely the UN. According to Serrano-Amaya (2019: 158), this narrative associates the use of the term “gender ideology” with “a project of feminism oriented to erase the ‘natural’ sexual difference as a social foundation, and to impose it in a global order promoted by international organizations.” In this way, it is reiterated “a record of suspicion, falsehood, threat, and colonialism that often appears in the ‘gender ideology’ literature” (Serrano-Amaya, 2019: 158).

Example (5) shows how deputy Pedro Lupion (DEM – right) tries to defend the idea (as he portrays) behind the project, which is not according to him, to put “gender ideology” on the list of heinous crimes; even though, the bill effectively proposes the modification of the “Article 1 of Law No. 8072 of July 25, 1990, to include murder against child and adolescent and to include gender ideology on the list of heinous crime”²² (our highlights).

(5) Pedro Lupion (DEM – right-wing) – [. . .] there is confusion and even a certain kind of exaggeration in relation to the typification of gender ideology as a heinous crime. That is not the purpose of the project. I speak as the author of the matter. The intention of the project is to typify the act of forcing a defenseless minor to change sexes, someone who is not in a position to have a formed opinion and, especially, to defend himself against gender ideology.

Lupion states that those opposing the bill did not really understand what it is about. The opponents to the bill, Lupion means, exaggerate when they affirm that the purpose of the bill is to classify “gender ideology” as heinous crimes. The term “gender ideology” is presented as a synonym to “sex change” and even something that is harmful to innocent children, who are not able to defend themselves. In this way, the expression can be explained as an umbrella term or a “symbolic binder” (Serrano-Amaya, 2019: 158) that creates a shared meaning among large audiences. At the same time, it can also be understood as an “empty signifier” (Kuhar and Zobec, 2017), “since it contains a great variety of elements that can articulate the action of a political subject that was not present before in the public debate” (Serrano-Amaya, 2019: 158). The example above shows how deputy Lupion shapes the term “gender ideology” with a signifier that fits his conservative political agenda, that is, to classify “gender ideology” as a heinous crime.

Another example of the plasticity of the meaning of “gender ideology” is the one shown in the example 6:

(6) Carla Zambelli (PSL – extreme right-wing) – [. . .] It can happen, for example, that a normal couple has a child who is homosexual, who was born a boy, but wants to dress like a girl, wants to be a transsexual, and also be murdered for it. This is another gender ideology, that can also be considered. I wanted to call on the Left for a dialogue in this sense. In this case, we had an attempt at gender ideology trying to change the sex of the child. He was a boy, and they tried to turn him into a girl. [. . .]. It could have been the opposite. It could have been a boy who, during his life, tried to behave like a girl and the parents who were prejudiced against homosexuality, murdered that child. In that case, wouldn’t the Left rethink the project and analyze it according to this factor? [. . .] We cannot let a gender ideology make this a motive for murder [. . .] Let’s vote on this project and show society that prejudice, whatever it may be, cannot be accepted. [. . .] It is a very good and important project so that homosexuals do not suffer murder imposed by gender ideology.

The main author of the bill, deputy Zambelli (PSL – extrem right-wing) tries to defend the bill by presenting the idea that even the LGBT+ community would benefit from it. It is interesting to point out that many of the deputies, who defended the bill 3.492/19 highlighted the fact that the two women, who committed the crime and who are lesbians, followed some kind of “gender ideology” agenda. That would be the main reason why the crime against Rhuan happened in the first place. In example (6), the deputy construes her discourse on the basis that the imposition of “gender ideology” is not only when homosexual parents want their children to change sexes and kill them for that, but even when “normal” parents (meaning heterosexual parents) force their children to remain heterosexuals and if not, kill them. The fact that Zambelli evaluates heterosexual parents as “normal” reinforces her criticism toward the “deviant” group, namely the homosexuals. The ingroup (PSL – extreme right-wing) is presented as a community that is free from prejudice, and the outgroup (the Left) is invited to become as tolerant and accepting as the Right, by voting yes for the project. The strategy used by deputy Zambelli is to sustain that the Left is immoral and tends to defend homosexuals to a greater extent than heterosexuals. She builds a scenario with a counterfactual argument (van der Valk, 2003), based on an imaginary situation where the murderers are heterosexual parents who cannot accept their children’s homosexuality. At the end of her speech, one might get the impression that the bill 3.492/19 is actually a project that opposes prejudice and could potentially protect members of the LGBT+ community. It seems that anything can fit in the concept of “gender ideology.” Zambelli gets the approval of the president of the (CCJC) Francischini (PSL - extrem right-wing), who evaluates the bill in the following way: “It is a very good project. That is why it is on our agenda, Mrs. Carla. Congratulations on the project!”

The reaction of Patrus Ananias (PT – left) comes quickly. See example 7:

(7) Patrus Ananias (PT – left-wing) – Just to clarify as well, responding to the consideration of the noble colleague. Reading the project, I saw that gender ideology has been highlighted as a crime.

Carla Zambelli (PSL – extreme right-wing) – No.

Ananias – It is highlighted.

Zambelli– It is not the ideology itself. It’s only in the case of murder due to gender ideology. we do not want to criminalize gender ideology. . . I’d like to. . . but not on this project. This project only talks. . . [Laughter] I’ll have to be honest, I’m sorry. I even think it should be a crime.

Ananias – That’s right. [Laughter] It’s embedded in the bill, then, isn’t it, Deputy?

Zambelli – But Deputy, it is not. I’m being honest with you [. . .] Doesn’t the Left defend that homosexuals can finally go public anyway? Imagine a traditional, conservative father and mother who, for some psychopathic reason - because it is psychopathy - murder their son because he is gay. This project would also serve this purpose because it is also an imposition of gender ideology. So, please, think about it. It’s not because we want to criminalize gender ideology. That is another matter, a matter for education, for another agenda [. . .] this matter should not be a right-wing matter, it should be a matter for all of us.

Patrus wants Zambelli to elucidate what she means by highlighting “gender ideology” as a crime and her first reaction is to deny that it is so. Zambelli implies that “gender ideology” has to be fought, because homosexual parents killed a child trying to change his sex. Then, the deputy uses a disclaimer [we do not want to criminalize gender ideology. . . I’d like to. . . but not on this project] to finally agrees that she wants to criminalize “gender ideology”, which makes many deputies laugh, including herself. This last statement is then replied by Ananias with a rhetorical question “It’s embedded in the bill then, isn’t it, Deputy?”

The discussion confirms the polarization between the two groups (Left and Right), since the deputies and their party colleagues have opinions about gender that oppose them to each other. This conflict becomes even clearer when Zambelli insists that the Left is eager to defend homosexual rights. If so, Zambelli argues, then the Left should also defend the homosexuals now because heterosexual parents could also commit the same kind of crime. Zambelli, once again, appeals for a counterfactual argument.

In example 7, the deputy changes the way she evaluates heterosexual parents from “normal” (see example 6) to “traditional, conservative father and mother.” It is interesting to note that when Zambelli hypothesizes the situation, the crime of killing a child becomes “psychopathy”, but when it comes to the real crime, it is directly connected to “gender ideology.” Zambelli finishes her speech by presenting her ingroup as a community that defends children and shares human values, while the Left is concerned only with the rights of the LGBT+ community.

The last example (8) shows how deputy Orleans e Bragança (PSL – extrem right-wing) reproduces the idea of the internal enemy (or the enemy who lives inside the Brazilian society):

(8) Luis Philippe de Orleans e Bragança (PSL – extrem right-wing) - [. . .] Unfortunately, our society is suffering a subversive attack on our family. This project is in line with the protection of our family and all the institutions that we care so much. I want to register my support here. Congratulations to the authors. Congratulations to the proponents. You can count on my vote. I would like all deputies here to be aware of the inability of adolescents and children to make their own judgments on these issues involving their sexuality, as it is proposed by several of these gender ideologies. Anything that protects children and adolescents in this formative period is important.

The deputy uses metaphors of a society that is suffering a subversive attack on its family, arguing that the bill is important because it is in line with the protection of our family”. According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980: 156), metaphors:

highlight and make coherent certain aspects of our experience [. . .] metaphors may create realities for us, especially social realities. A metaphor may thus be a guide for future action [. . .] this will, in turn, reinforce the power of the metaphor to make experience coherent. In this sense metaphors can be self-fulfilling prophecies.

Metaphors play a very important role in the construction of social realities (Koller, 2005). Van Dijk (2005) says that few semantic-rhetorical figures are as persuasive as metaphors, since abstract meanings can be made more familiar and concrete. Given that metaphors create ways of understanding the world, the dominant groups might make their metaphors the prevailing ones. When individual cognition turns into social cognition, people start relying in metaphors unconsciously and the metaphors become part of what they believe and cannot be easily resisted (Lakoff and Turner, 2009). In example 8, Orleans e Bragança talks about a national enemy that threatens families and those who have moral values accepted by his ingroup. Serrano-Amaya (2019, 162) sustains that “those who produce the internal enemy reinforce the perception of insecurity, abnormality, and collective fear that justifies the need for private security. A security that can be offered by the same groups that produce such fears.”

Regardless of the legal inconsistencies found in the bill 3.492/19, Orleans e Bragança still thinks that it is an important bill, that has to be approved by all Congress members. He then presents himself as a good citizen, who wants to protect children and adolescents from a major threat. According to his discourse, the bill has to be seen as a security measure that provides the protection of the family and all institutions that he and his inner group “care so much” about. With other words, Orleans e Bragança presents gender in the scope of a bad ideology, that induces children and adolescents to make their own judgment on issues involving their sexuality.

Finally, the deputy reinforces the idea of moral panic (Cohen, 2011), by declaring that most of the “gender ideologies” aims at proposing children to make the wrong choices about their sexuality. The deputy creates a discourse that emphasizes a “threat to the social order itself or an idealized conception of some part of it” (Thompson, 2014: 8). As Junqueira (2018: 461) says, to create moral panic it might be enough for the accuser “to maintain the alarmist attack, combining it with vague and imprecise discourse in defense of something supposedly indisputable, such as the life and well-being of children.”

Conclusions

The overall aim of this paper was to explore, through Critical Discourse Analysis (i.e. van Dijk, 1995, 1999), how the discourses around gender are evolving at the Chamber of Deputies in Brazil. We focused on the discourses about gender at the public hearing on the bill 3.492/19. In order to provide linguistic evidence on the deputies’ representation of events and its participants we analyzed their linguistic representation of social actors as pertaining to in- and outgroups and we also investigated how the notion of gender is defined and evaluated.

The discourses analyzed in this article show how some of the conservative parliamentarians give an unequivocally negative meaning to the term gender, by connecting it with heinous crimes. One of the most obvious discursive strategies, regarding the representation of social actors is the labeling of the other. The outgroup (the Left, homosexuals, “gender ideologists”) is represented with epithets such as “deviant”, “threat”, “subversives” and even “barbarians.” The answer provided by the leftist deputies to these accusations was that the Right is actually “LGBT+ phobic”, “a shame”, “the ones who produce violence against women, girls and children.” As we could see, while the left-wing deputies focused particularly upon the negative representation of their opponents, the right-wing deputies put their focus on a positive self-representation of their own groups, as the ones who “protect children, family, society and institutions”.

Another feature of the discourses from both sides is the calling for evidence on science. The deputies from left and right try to prove that their own way of thinking is based on science. Petrone (PSOL - left) draws attention to the fact that gender is a “sociological term scientifically used to explain historical and cultural inequalities that affect men and women.” The right-wing deputies (especially from the extrem right-wing PSL) claim that science has proved precisely the opposite, that there is no such a thing as gender theories. The correct expression would be “gender ideology”, a term that some deputies want to include on the list of heinous crimes. This term, according to the discourses analyzed, could be anything that goes against moral and conservative values, such as gender and sexuality education, same-sex marriage, feminism, or LBGTQI+ rights.

By introducing new laws, dominant societal norms and moral principles may be altered significantly (Habermas, 1986). Including “gender ideology” on the list of heinous crimes, may thus affect public opinion to become more hostile toward gender. The re-signification of “gender ideology”, from rhetorical invention to crime, is not only an attempt to undermine scientific gender studies but also a way for conservative politicians to gain even more political power.

As mentioned above, there are more than 15 bills being processed in the National Congress in Brazil that aim to criminalize gender. On May 12^th, 2020, president Bolsonaro promised a group of children, present at the flag-raising ceremony at the Palácio da Alvorada, that he would send to Congress a federal bill with constitutional urgency against “gender ideology”.²³ He criticized the Federal Supreme Court, that in a unanimous decision on April 25^th, 2020 declared unconstitutional the Law 1.516/2015, which prohibited the dissemination of material with reference to “gender ideology” in the municipal schools of Novo Gama in Goiás.

As the bill 3.492/19 is waiting for its appreciation, it remains to be seen whether or not the mutable term “gender ideology” will be finally defined in legal terms and who will be entitled to appropriate the definition of this politically explosive concept.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council under grant number 2018-01757.

Notes

Author biography

Janaina Negreiros Persson is a Doctor of Hispanic Linguistics. She works at the University of Stockholm at the Nordic Institute of Latin American Studies. Her interests include political discourse in Latin America, gender studies, Critical Discourse Analysis and representation of social actors. This article presents results from an ongoing interdisciplinary project on gender funded by the Swedish Research Council. The overarching aim of the project is to track how the concept of gender flows through different arenas of the Brazilian society, mobilizing social actors towards various forms of collective action.

Attachment 1 – Originals

(1) Talíria Petrone (PSOL – left-wing) – Na verdade, é absurdo que este seja um tema de deliberação desta Comissão diante de um Brasil com tantas questões, inclusive algumas que atingem crianças e adolescentes. A suposta ideologia de gênero, o que aqui eles chamam de ideologia de gênero, é algo inexistente. Vocês têm que estudar o que é gênero. Gênero é uma categoria analítica construída sociologicamente para explicar que há uma diferença na conjunção social do que é ser homem e do que é ser mulher, que é carregada de relações de poder e de relações de hierarquia. É daí que surge o termo “gênero”, um termo usado cientificamente para explicar desigualdades históricas e culturais que atingem homens e mulheres e que produzem inclusive, Deputado Patrus, violência contra a mulher no Brasil, que é o 5º país com o maior índice de feminicídio, um país em que homens acham que podem tocar no corpo de uma mulher, agredi-la e matá-la; produzem LGBTfobia, porque se entende aqui que mulheres que amam mulheres e homens que amam homens podem ser agredidos pela sua condição social, pela sua orientação; produzem violência contra meninas, contra crianças [. . .]

(2) Bia Kicis (PSL – extreme right-wing) – Presidente, eu fico realmente assustada com esse tipo de argumento. Eu vejo Deputados aqui filosofando sobre o que seria ou não seria ideologia de gênero, sobre opressão de mulheres. Este projeto aqui trata de vida, de proteção a crianças, de proteção a crianças que estão sendo assassinadas de forma cruel. Enquanto se filosofa e se pede um estudo com mais calma, mais uma criança pode estar sendo assassinada por pessoas que deveriam cuidar dela. Nós temos tido exemplos terríveis, como o caso do menino Rhuan Maycon Silva Castro, de 9 anos de idade, que foi barbaramente seviciado, torturado, emasculado, a fim de o fazerem transgênero, e depois assassinado, tendo o corpo esquartejado para ter a sua história apagada deste mundo. Toda essa barbárie foi praticada por sua genitora e pela companheira dela no Distrito Federal. Nesse caso, sim, fala-se em ideologia de gênero, e não é nenhum absurdo que se diga isso, porque o que se quis foi transformar esse menino numa menina. Ele morreu simplesmente por ter nascido menino.

(3) Talíria Petrone (PSOL – left-wing) – A contradição presente nesta matéria anticientífica, antievidência e antirrealidade é absurda! Vejam, boa parte das meninas violentadas sexualmente são violentadas por membros das suas famílias, como pais e padrastos. Esse é o caso da maioria das violações e é o que deveria estar sendo denunciado por esta Casa. Mas, não: se inventa um termo para dialogar com o pensamento do senso comum e não se apresentam saídas para ampliar o direito de crianças.

(4) Chris Tonietto (PSL – extreme right-wing) – [. . .] a teoria de gênero é que é totalmente antievidência e antirrealidade, não tem qualquer respaldo na ciência. Não há qualquer respaldo científico. Inclusive, a associação dos médicos já se reuniu e fez um grande parecer desconstruindo 100% dessa teoria de gênero. Trata-se, sim, de uma desconstrução da natureza humana, querida e criada por Deus. Então, é claro que o PSL orienta “não”, porque essa teoria de gênero foi simplesmente pensada nas conferências da ONU. E querem trazer para a legislação brasileira algo que nem sequer tem respaldo científico e nem sequer tem um conceito fechado. Pelo contrário, é um conceito fluido, embora muitos tentem admitir que é uma luta contra o preconceito. Isso, na verdade, é absolutamente reducionista. Não se trata de uma luta contra o preconceito, até porque nós somos contra o preconceito. Agora, somos contra a ideologia de gênero.

(5) Pedro Lupion (DEM – right-wing) – [. . .] há uma confusão e até um certo tipo de forçação de barra em relação à tipificação de ideologia de gênero como crime hediondo. Não é o intuito do projeto. Falo como Relator da matéria. O intuito do projeto é tipificar o ato de forçar um menor indefeso — alguém que não tem condições de ter opinião formada e, principalmente, de fazer a própria defesa —, através da ideologia de gênero, à mudança de sexo.

(6) Carla Zambelli (PSL – extreme right-wing) – [. . .] Pode acontecer, por exemplo, de um casal normal ter um filho que é homossexual, que nasceu menino, mas quer se vestir como menina, quer ser um transsexual, e também ser assassinado por isso. Essa é uma outra ideologia de gênero que também pode ser considerada. Eu queria chamar a Esquerda para um diálogo nesse sentido. Neste caso, nós tivemos uma tentativa de ideologia de gênero tentando mudar o sexo da criança. Ele era um menino, e tentaram transformá-lo numa menina [. . .]poderia ter sido o contrário. Poderia ter sido um menino que, durante a sua vida, tentou se portar como menina e que os pais que fossem preconceituosos com a homossexualidade assassinassem essa criança. Nesse caso, será que a Esquerda não repensaria no projeto e não analisaria segundo esse fator? Nós não podemos deixar que uma ideologia de gênero faça com que isso seja motivo de assassinato [. . .] Vamos votar esse projeto e mostrar para a sociedade que preconceito, seja ele qual for, não pode ser aceito [. . .] é um projeto muito bom e importante para que os homossexuais não sofram assassinatos impostos por ideologia de gênero.

(7) Patrus Ananias (PT – left-wing) – Só para esclarecer também, respondendo à ponderação da nobre colega.Lendo o projeto, via que a ideologia de gênero vem destacada como crime à prática da ideologia de gênero, está destacado.

Carla Zambelli (PSL – extreme right-wing) –Não.

Ananias – Está destacado.

Zambelli – Não é a ideologia em si. É só no caso de assassinato decorrente da ideologia de gênero. Nós não queremos criminalizar a ideologia de gênero, de forma alguma.

Eu até gostaria, mas não é nesse projeto, tá? Esse projeto só fala. . . [risos]

Eu vou ter que ser sincera, desculpe-me. Eu acho até que deveria ser crime.

Ananias – Está certo. [risos] Está embutido no projeto então né deputada?

Zambelli – Mas, Deputado, não é. Estou sendo sincera com o senhor. [. . .] A Esquerda não defende que os homossexuais possam, enfim, se revelar de qualquer forma? Imagine um pai e uma mãe tradicionais, conservadores, que, por algum motivo psicopático — porque é psicopatia isto —, assassine o seu filho por ele ser gay. Também serviria esse projeto para isso, porque também é uma imposição de ideologia de gênero. Então, por favor, pense nisso. Não é porque queremos criminalizar a ideologia de gênero. Esse é outro assunto, um assunto para a educação, para outra pauta. [. . .] essa pauta não deveria ser uma pauta de direita, deveria ser uma pauta de todos nós.

(8) Luis Philippe de Orleans e Bragança (PSL – extrem right-wing) - [. . .] Infelizmente, a nossa sociedade está, sim, sofrendo um ataque subversivo a nossa família. Essa pauta vem ao encontro da proteção da nossa família e de todas as instituições que nós cuidamos com extrema valia. Fica registrada aqui a minha nota de apoio. Parabéns aos Relatores. Parabéns aos proponentes. Contem como meu voto.

Eu gostaria que todos os Deputados aqui estivessem sensibilizados com a incapacidade de os adolescentes e as crianças fazerem julgamento próprio quanto a essas questões que envolvem sua sexualidade, ao menos tão cedo assim, como é proposto por várias dessas ideologias de gênero. Qualquer coisa que proteja as crianças e os adolescentes nesse período formativo é importante.

References

Butler

(2004) Undoing Gender. Nova York: Routledge, 2004.

Butler

(2017) Judith Butler escreve sobre sua teoria de gênero e o ataque sofrido no Brasil. Available at: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ilustrissima/2017/11/1936103-judith-butler-escreve-sobre-o-fantasma-do-genero-e-o-ataque-sofrido-no-brasil.shtml (accessed: May 19 2020.)

Chauí

(2016) Sociedade brasileira: violência e autoritarismo por todos os lados: depoimento. Entrevista concedida a Juvenal Savian Filho e Laís Modelli. Revista Cult.

Chilton

(2005) Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In: Wodak

Chilton

(eds) A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chilton

Schäffner

(eds.). (2002) Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse (Vol. 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Cohen

(2011) Whose side were we on? The undeclared politics of moral panic theory. Crime, Media, Culture 7(3): 237–243.

Corrêa

(2017) Ideologia de gênero: rastros perdidos e pontos cegos. Online lecture, 30 Oct. Available at: https://youtu.be/VWBj6GX2Umo (accessed 15 May 2020).

Corrêa

(2018) A “política do gênero”: um comentário genealógico. Cadernos Pagu, (53).

Corrêa

(2020) A ofensiva antigênero como política de estado. Interview. Conectas: Available at: https://www.conectas.org/noticias/ofensiva-antigenero-politica-estado. (accessed May 15 2020).

10.

Corrêa

Kalil

(2020) Políticas antigénero en América Latina: Brasil - ¿La catástrofe perfecta? In SPW. https://sxpolitics.org/GPAL/uploads/Ebook-Brasil%2020200204.pdf (accessed May 15 2020).

11.

DIAP – Departamento Intersindical de Assessoria Parlamentar (2019). https://www.diap.org.br/index.php

12.

Dörner

Vogt

(eds.). (1995) Sprache des Parlaments und Semiotik der Demokratie. Berlin: de Gruyter.

13.

Ducroquet

(2019) Generalogia dos partidos—poder—Folha de São Paulo Available at: https://arte.folha.uol.com.br/poder/eleicoes-2018/genealogia-dos-partidos/ (accessed: April 28 2020).

14.

Faganello

(2015) Bancada da Bala: uma onda na maré conservadora. Sebastião Velasco e Cruz; André Kaysel; Gustavo Codas.(Org.). Direita, Volver, 145-161.

15.

Fairclough

(1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.

16.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Polity press.

17.

Francoise

(2008) Negociando los derechos sexuales y la orientación sexual en la ONU. En Parker

Petchesky

Sembrar

(eds) Políticas sobre sexualidad. Reportes desde las líneas del frente (pp. 347–398). México: Sexuality Policy Watch-Grupo de Estudios sobre Sexualidad y Sociedad-Fundación Arcoiris.

18.

Garbagnoli

(2014) L’ideologia del genere»: l’inarrestabile ascesa di un’invenzione retorica vaticana contro la denaturalizzazione dell’ordine sessuale. Ag About Gender 3(6): 250–263.

19.

Giménez

(1981) Poder, estado y discurso. Perspectivas sociológicas y semiológicas del discurso político-jurídico (México, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas UNAM).

20.

Habermas

(1988) Law and morality. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 8: 217–279.

21.

Junqueira

(2017) Ideologia de gênero”: a gênese de uma categoria política reacionária – ou: como a promoção dos direitos humanos se tornou uma “ameaça à família natural. In: Ribeiro

PRC

Magalhães

. (orgs). Debates Contemporâneos Sobre Educação Para A Sexualidade. Rio Grande: Ed. da FURG. Pp. 25–52

22.

Junqueira

(2018) A invenção da “ideologia de gênero”: a emergência de um cenário político- discursivo e a elaboração de uma retórica reacionária antigênero. Psicologia Política 18(43): 449–502.

23.

Kalil

(2019) “Gender Ideology” incursions in education: Constitutional principles and the secular state. SUR - International Journal of Human rights 16(29): 115–123.

24.

Koller

(2005) Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society 16(2): 199–224.

25.

Kuhar

Zobec

(2017) The anti-gender movement in Europe and the educational process in public schools. CEPS Journal 7(2): 29–46.

26.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Lakoff

Turner

(2009) More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

28.

Lionço

Peixoto

Bacci

(2018) Crimes de ódio e ataques morais contra feministas, LGBTs e defensores de direitos sexuais e reprodutivos. Revista Periódicus 1(10): 1–6.

29.

Löwy

(2015) Conservadorismo e extrema-direita na Europa e no Brasil. Serviço Social & Sociedade (124): 652–664.

30.

Machado

MDDC

(2018) O discurso cristão sobre a “ideologia de gênero.” Revista Estudos Feministas 26(2): 1–18.

31.

Madeira

Tarouco Gda

(2013a) Esquerda e direita no sistema partidário brasileiro: análise de conteúdo de documentos programáticos. Revista Debates 7(2): 93–114.

32.

Madeira

Tarouco

GdaS

(2013b) Partidos, programas e o debate sobre esquerda e direita no Brasil. Revista de Sociologia e Política 21(45): 149–165.

33.

Miguel

Biroli Fand Mariano

(2017) O direito ao aborto no debate legislativo brasileiro: a ofensiva conservadora na Câmara dos Deputados. Opinião Pública 23(1): 230–260.

34.

Miskolci

Campana

(2017) “Ideologia de gênero”: notas para a genealogia de um pânico moral contemporâneo. Sociedade e Estado 32(3): 725–748.

35.

Mudde

(2019) The Far RightToday. Cambridge: Polity Press.

36.

O’Leary

(1997) The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality. Lafayette: Vital Issues Press.

37.

Prandi

Carneiros

(2018) In nome do pai: justificativas do voto dos deputados federais evangélicos e não evangélicos na abertura do impeachment de Dilma Rousseff. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 33(96): 1–22, e339603.

38.

Quadros

MPDR

Madeira

(2018) Fim da direita envergonhada? Atuação da bancada evangélica e da bancada da bala e os caminhos da representação do conservadorismo no Brasil. Opinião Pública 24(3): 486–522.

39.

Revoredo

ÓA

(1998) La ideología de género: sus peligros y alcances. Lima: Conferencia Episcopal Peruana. Available at: www.aciprensa.com/controversias/genero.htm. (accessed 20 February 2020).

40.

Ribeiro

(2015) Extrema-direita avança com ódio aos direitos humanos, diz filósofo: depoimento. Entrevista concedida a Roldão Arruda. Estadão. Available at: https://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/roldao-arruda/extrema-direita-avanca-com-odio-aos-direitos-humanos-diz-filosofo/. (accessed: 10 October 2020).

41.

Rosado-Nunes

MJF

(2015) “Ideologia de gênero” na discussão do PNE: A intervenção da hierarquia Católica. Horizonte: Revista de Estudos de Teologia e Ciências da Religião 13(39): 1237–1260.

42.

Scala

(2012). Ideologia de Gênero: neototalitarismo e a morte da família. Entrevista com Jorge Scala. Zenit, by Thácio Siqueira, v. 31 Available at: https://pt.zenit.org/articles/ideologia-de-genero-neototalitarismo-e-a-morte-da-fami-lia / (accessed 13 March 2020).

43.

Serrano-Amaya

(2019) “Ideología de género”, populismo autoritario y políticas sexuales. Nómadas(50): 155–173.

44.

Thompson

(2014) Pánicos Morales. Bernal: UNQ.

45.

Van Eemeren

Grootendorst

(1987) Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 1(3): 283–301.

46.

Van Der Valk

(2003) Right-wing parliamentary discourse on immigration in France. Discourse & Society 14(3): 309–348.

47.

Van Leeuwen

(1996) The representation of social actors. Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis 1: 32–70.

48.

Van Leeuwen

(2008) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. “The Discursive construction of legitimation.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 105–123.

49.

Van Dijk

(1993) Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

50.

Van Dijk

(1995) Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. Language and Peace 10(47): 142.

51.

Van Dijk

(1997) What is political discourse analysis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11(1): 11–52.

52.

Van Dijk

(1998) Towards a theory of context and experience models in discourse processing. In: van Oostendorp

Goldman

(eds) The Construction of Mental Models During Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 109–131.

53.

Van Dijk

(1999) Ideología: una aproximación multidisciplinaria. Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa.

54.

Van Dijk

(2000) “Parliamentary debates. Racism at the top. Parliamentary discourses on ethnic issues in six European states, 45–78.

55.

Van Dijk

(2001) Critical discourse analysis. The handbook of discourse analysis, 349-371.

56.

Van Dijk

(2009) Society and Discourse. How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

57.

Vasconcellos

(2019) Maioria dos partidos se posiciona como de Centro. Veja quem sobre no campo da Direita e da Esquerda. Na base dos dados - O Globo. Accessed: April 28, 2020.

58.

Viana

(2015) A direita abraça a rede. Pública. Available at: https://apublica.org/2015/06/a-direita-abraca-a-rede/. (accessed 11 October 2020).

59.

Wodak

(ed.) (1989) Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse (Vol. 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

60.

Wodak

(2001) What CDA is about–a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis 1: 1–13.

61.

Wodak

Meyer

(eds.) (2015) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Sage.