[RESUMO] The nomination of , a trans deputy, as president of the Chamber and the approval in the Senate of a bill that criminalizes misogyny became the epicenter of an intense cultural war over what it means to be a woman. The rigid stance of a significant portion of the left on this issue, contrasting even with the group’s more consensual opinions on identity issues, shows the difficulty in dialoguing and convincing the population, something reckless especially in an election year.
In recent days, the unlikely has occurred: the Banco Master scandal, with the potential to shake the Republic while entertaining the audience with the details of its protagonist’s love life, was overshadowed by disputes surrounding the “woman concept”.
The conflict gained momentum with the rise of the federal deputy (PSOL-SP) to the presidency of the Chamber and with the bill to criminalize misogyny.
What is a woman? If the answer to this question once seemed obvious, today it has become the epicenter of an intense cultural war.
“Cultural war” is one of the categories most mobilized by contemporary political science. It can be defined as the dispute over moral values and niched identities, in which organized actors shift the axis of socioeconomic conflict to the symbolic and normative sphere. This is exactly what we see in Brazil.
On the left, one can see the influence of gender theories, according to which it would be appropriate to speak not of “women”, but of “womanhood”. The female condition is read as a spectrum of identities that ranges from “cis women” to “trans women”, including “non-binary” people.
This argument legitimizes Erika Hilton’s presence on the commission, something supported by the absence of legal restrictions that prevent her from occupying the position, for which she was conducted in accordance with the rules of the Chamber of Deputies.
The dispute, here, takes place on a symbolic level, based exactly on the idea of ”representativeness”. As she was not born a woman, would Erika know female suffering to the point of being able to represent Brazilian women?
Her supporters say yes — and use the parliamentarian’s record in defending women’s rights as justification. The curious thing is that this relativization of the requirement for representation does not usually happen in other topics, as it seems unlikely that these same sectors of the left would tolerate a white person presiding over an anti-racist commission, even if they had a robust history of commitment to the cause in their biography.
On the right, there is an alignment with biological criteria from the perspective of radical feminism: the woman as an adult human female. The premise is that reproductive anatomy is the reality upon which the oppressions of patriarchy affect.
The debate is not new, but was previously restricted to academic niches and groups like aea. With the recent repercussion, and episodes such as the questions, the topic has spilled over to the center of popular debate and promises to be one of the axes of the presidential elections in October.
According to a survey carried out by, 82% of the population was aware of Erika Hilton’s appointment as head of the Women’s Commission. Of this group, 84% disagree with her leadership to the post, which suggests a relative consensus in society that transcends polarization between right and left. Approximately 61% of those interviewed agree with Ratinho’s statements.
There is no doubt, therefore, that in the situation they were not reluctant to express support for Erika Hilton, despite the silence from Palácio do Planalto.
This is a gesture of courage that draws attention, especially in an election year, as on other equally controversial issues, such as the legalization of abortion and drugs, the progressive camp has rarely demonstrated such boldness.
The dispute became even more inflamed on March 24, when the Senate approved the , authored by Senator Ana Paula Lobato (PSB-MA) and reported by Senator Soraya Thronicke (Podemos-MS), which criminalizes misogyny.
Although the text was endorsed by all 67 senators present at the session, the wording has been criticized by sectors of civil society and the political class, while it is strongly defended by other groups. The topic has already been swallowed up by the voracity of the cultural war.
Criticism of the text has been voiced by right-wing leaders, such as deputy Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG), senator Damares Alves (PL-DF), deputy Kim Kataguiri (Missão-SP) and councilor Janaína Paschoal (PP-SP), despite the dissatisfaction finding a lot of resonance in civil society.
The rejection is concentrated on two arguments. First, the text would not present a delimited concept of “woman”, opening the possibility for trans people to also claim the protection provided for in the legislation. This could result in a situation in which a transvestite person self-identified as a “trans woman” sues a “cis woman” for misogyny, in addition to the usual accusation of transphobia. This accusation has been constantly leveled by congresswoman Erika Hilton herself against feminist activists who question their gender identity.
The other critical argument is that the scope of conduct that could be criminalized would not be properly delimited, also reaching discursive expressions considered colloquial, thus enabling an excess of punitiveness that would put freedom of expression at risk.
The curious thing is that, although it was approved even by right-wing senators, such as Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), the proposal seems linked only to the left in the public debate, which defends it in a non-strategic and even somewhat aggressive way.
Erika Hilton, for example, declared that men who believe that the bill would prohibit them from talking to women should shut up now, ignoring that many women are also criticizing the PL. The tone was followed by other left-wing parliamentarians, such as deputy Reimont (PT-RJ), for whom critics want to use the “dehumanization of women as a political platform”.
From this point of view, the project would be perfect and no questioning would be morally authorized, even those who wish to discuss the text without denying the importance of adopting measures that protect Brazilian women from all types of violence. If agreement is not complete and immediate, the interlocutor is automatically thrown to the opposite pole, accompanied by all sorts of stigmatizing adjectives.
Opinion polls on the subject will probably be released in the coming days. If the numbers indicate another tactical victory for the right, will the Brazilian left continue to behave like a bastion of virtue, denying the debate with society and forgetting that, in an election, the side that wins the trust of the majority wins?
It is true that, in several countries around the world, the radicalization of the cultural war benefits right-wing political parties and some parliamentarians from the identitarian left, who only need niche voters to renew their mandates. As a field committed to confronting the structures of capitalist accumulation,
