The irrevocable gender marks of Portuguese have as a consequence the use of the generic
masculine. This can be bypassed, nonetheless, depending on the strategies proposed by
manuals for gender inclusive writing, to prevent cis and trans women as well as
individuals of other genders or non-binary from being hidden by language. An ideal
linguistic representation, however, should embrace all social genders in the strategies
proposed by writing manuals. On the other hand, language itself holds some aversion to
some of those strategies, especially the ones suggested by neutral language such as the
propositions of ending words with “@”, “x” or “e”. Consequently, LGBTQ-phobic
groups, or those in favor of Brazil above all else stand up to defend under the banner
of God, Nation and Family an allege defense of their mother language when, in fact, they
seem to wish to prevent discussions of gender and sexuality to be held in different social
circles, especially at school. Amidst this Bolsonaro-like moralist setting – despite the
reelection of the President Lula to the Executive Power, or because of that reelection –
that we aim at discussing how IFTO (2017), UFT (2021), MP-TO (2017) and TCE-TO
(2013), manuals and guides for official communications used in the state of Tocantins,
Brazil, are patriarchal, androcentric and sexist. Our general objective will be, then, to
promote a description, accounting and discussion of how these manuals and official
writing guides, including the Writing Manual of the Presidency of the Republic, lack, in
what they prescribe and exemplify with their file models, the that is proposed by gender-
inclusive language. In order to achieve this general objective, we will have the following
specific objectives: to address the distinction between inclusive and gender-neutral
language, with its manifestations in Brazil and in other countries, as well as how it is
received politically, socially and linguistically; discuss gender marking in Brazilian
Portuguese and the gynophobic, lgbtphobic and sexist consequences, in linguistic and
cognitive terms, of this standardized marking; and, finally, draw attention to the unequal
and exclusive way in which different genders and sexual orientations are treated by the
manuals and official writing guides in question, which can be gleaned from the examples
and models that we will extract from them, counting them and discussing their results. To
contemplate the purposes of this dissertation will serve as our main references Almeida
(2020), Bagno (2017, 2020) Barbosa Filho (2022), Bentes, Cruz e Mendes (2022),
Bourdieu (2022 [1930]), Burigo (2016), Caldas-Coulthard (2007), Carvalho (2022),
Cassiano (2022), Cavalcante (2022), Fischer (2020), Franco and Cervera (2006), Freitag
(2022), Glozman (2022), IFAL (2018) , Kilomba (2019), López et al (2012), Mäder
(2015), Mercosur/RAADH (2018), Moura and Mäder (2022), Oliveira (2022), Pessotto
(2019), Rajagopalan (2000), Rio Grande do Sul (2014), Schwindt (2020) and Woolf
(2014 [1923]). As for its object, method, approach, objectives and purpose, the work that
we will present will be bibliographic, deductive, quantitative-qualitative, exploratory and
basic.
|
