Transphobic discourse in legislative podium

• Autor(a) principal: Polato, Adriana Delmira Mendes
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Letras de Hoje (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/fale/article/view/43528
• topic: análise dialógica do discurso; discurso político transfóbico; pautas regressivas; dialogical discourse analysis; transphobic political discourse; regressive agendas; análisis dialógico del discurso; discurso político transfóbico; pautas regresivas

In this paper, from the perspective of Dialogical Discourse Analysis (DDA), (BAKHTIN, 1998; VOLÓCHINOV, 2018; MEDVIÉDEV, 2019; BRAIT, 2008; ROHLING, 2020; ACOSTA-PEREIRA; RODRIGUES, 2015; ACOSTA PEREIRA; BRAIT, 2020; SANTOS-CLERISI, 2020; HUFF, 2021), we analyze a transphobic political discourse, delivered from the podium of the legislative assembly of the state of São Paulo, by state representative Douglas Garcia (PSL-SP), on the occasion of a debate on a proposed law that vetoed the participation of transgender people in sports teams. To do so, we situate the insertion of ADD in the field of applied linguistics undisciplinary (MOITA LOPES, 2006) and transgressive (PENNYCOOK, 2006) and from this place we evoke the support of the voices of researchers who sustain the understanding of the phenomenon of gender violence and its manifestation directed to transgender people (BEAUVOIR, 1980; SCOTT, 1995; SAFIOTTI, 1999; BUTLER, 2002; LOURO, 1995; MISKOLCI; PELÚCIO, 2007; JUNQUEIRA, 2014, 2018). The results show that transphobic discourse is built in assembly podium, in a tense way, by the mobilization of dialogic relations and axiologies agencyed based on regressive agendas, linked to the pejorative refractions of the sign “gender ideology”, whose various unfoldings outcome in: discourses of denial of rights, of denial to the occupation of public spaces and denial of the very existence of trans people in society, positivist biologizing discourses of embattlement to dissident identities in relation to cis-heteronormativity, sexist discourses of protection and tutelage to women and the family, pejorative and prejudiced discourses about the intelligibilities of trans bodies, hate discourses and incitatives of violence against trans people, discourses of discrediting and silencing trans people who occupy public positions. Such discourses materialize under diverse and eloquent intonations of certainty, contempt, debauchery, hatred, indignation, irritation, and others.