Last Tuesday (17), the Folha de São Paulo newspaper published a provocative article by researcher Leandro Colling, from the Federal University of Bahia (UFB), in which he questions the limitations of identity policies. In this case, those that respond to LGBT demands and also the naturalization of heterosexuality.
For the researcher, a mistake is made when trying to equate LGBT identities as natural, as advocates of heterosexuality put it. For the researcher, the LGBT movement, instead of seeking the naturalization of their respective identities, should also question heterosexual identity and reveal how much it is a historical, cultural and politically imposed construction as "natural" to the detriment of other representations that involve gender identities and sexual orientations outside the imposed norm.
According to the researcher, there is a need to reverse the logic that naturalizes heterosexuality and pathologizes homosexuality. Colling says it's necessary to "call heterosexuals into the debate, so they realize they're not as normal as they say they are." The problem has been raised and, as philosopher Judith Butler rightly points out, problematization is necessary so that a good debate can be built.
In the text, Colling addresses an issue that the French philosopher Michel Foucault already debated in the 80s: social conventions around sexualities, that is, to move forward on the issue of homophobia and prejudices surrounding homosexuality it is necessary to deconstruct common sense around heterosexuality.
Conventions around an object change. When we say that it is necessary to denaturalize heterosexuality, we overturn a convention that has prevailed – compulsory heterosexuality – that has pathologized and excluded subjects for more than two centuries.
Through this path it is possible to bring heterosexuality to the realm of the wanderers. With this, everyone wins, including heterosexuals who will feel freer from the moral guilt created around homosexuality. With the liberation of humanity from heterosexuality, as a natural behavior, heterosexuals are freed so that they can lie in equal beds and make sure that they do not feel guilty and do not have to hide, or, transform their desire into hatred.
The idea launched by Colling in his text does not end. In fact, it is a debate that is just beginning. Many people can understand that we all live under the aegis of sexual orientation, others will criticize and say that such a stance/ideology reinforces homophobic discourse, as part of the political agenda works on the term sexual orientation which, in this case, can be homo or hetero. What if we talked about sexual inclinations? Aren't bisexuals there to prove that sexual relationships can go beyond the dualistic vision?
Within the issue of identities, educator Guacira Lopes Louro talks about the "queer" identity, a subject whose sexual and gender performance breaks with the hetero x homo binary, and in the same line as Colling, Guacira points to such an identity as the possibility to break with compulsory heteronormativity. From there, we begin to think about building a culture and sexual practices free from heterosexual norms. After all, as the researcher rightly puts it, many LGBT people do not have straight sex, but live as if they were, due to cultural and political imposition.
Identity policies play and will continue to play an important role in the inclusion (standardization?) of LGBT subjects in society. But the question that arises is: after the rights have been achieved? Perhaps this is where the fundamental role of the Ministry of Education's (MEC) anti-homophobia kit comes into play. From the moment that possible sexualities are addressed from adolescence, we may be facing the creation of a new culture of genders and sexualities, which is perhaps less paranoid and hateful.
