THE EMERGING OF A GENDER DISCOURSE IN EDUCATION: THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SCHOOL SPACE O EMERGIR DE UM DISCURSO DE GÊNERO EM EDUCAÇÃO: AS DIFERENÇAS NO ESPAÇO ESCOLAR LA EMERGENCIA DE UN DISCURSO DE GÉNERO EN LA EDUCACIÓN: LAS DIFERENCÇAS EM EL ESPACIO ESCOLAR

The present study sought to reflect on issues of gender, sexuality and sexual diversity in school, based on a bibliographic review, considering the recurrence of such discussions in the pedagogical practice in the 21st century. In order to understand the intrinsic relationship between education and sexuality, we guided this reflection in Foucault's studies (1984; 1995), Louro (1997; 1999; 2003; 2004), Butler (1999; 2002; 2003), as well as documents such as The National Curriculum Parameters PCN's and the National Common Curriculum Base – BNCC, because we understand that the school plays a major role in the construction of knowledge. Thus, discussing new policies for the inclusion of gender differences and sexual diversity requires, on the part of the educators, to experience new forms of language use that can produce resistance to sexist or homophobic patterns. Including studies on gender, sexuality and diversity in the school curriculum is an inclusive pedagogical practice and respect for differences.


CONSIDERATIONS ON GENDER EDUCATION AND EQUITY
Reflection on issues of gender, sexuality, sexual diversity and human subjectities have been a recurring subject in discussions about pedagogical making in the 21st century. Understanding the intrinsic relationship between education and sexuality presupposes resuming some studies that help us think about educational processes throughout history. This paper sought to analyze the epistemological pathways inherent to sexuality, sexual diversity and gender equity present in discourses produced in/by the school institution, based on the notions of sexuality and biopolitics devices present in History of Sexuality I -The will to knowledge Michel Foucault (1984). In this sense, and by this analysis, we intertwined with other theorists, as well as establish links with documents that deal with Brazilian education, such as the Law of Guidelines and The Base of Brazilian Education -LDB and the Common Curricular Base -BNCC.
In the Foucaultian work, the author took sexuality as a discursive-institutional creation, whose function would be the control of individuals and populations. According to Foucault (1984, p. 38, our translation): Sexuality is the name that can be made to a historical device: not to the underground reality that is learned with difficulty, but to the large surface network in which the stimulation of bodies, the intensification of pleasures, incitement to discourse, the formation of strengthening controls and resistances chain each other, according to some major strategies of knowledge and power.
Thus demonstrating that sex and sexual practices behaved as part of the so-called device of sexuality, because what was at stake would essentially be an established network of knowledgepower acting on bodies and populations when producing standardizations and lifestyles.
In Brazil, the meeting with the perspective of studies of gender, sexuality, diversity and education has been marked by discontinuities and conflicts. In the 1990s, with the emergence of national curricular parameters -PCN, the issues inherent to sexuality and gender equity became part of educational discourses and practices in a more forceful, but no less conflicting way.
The delicate conception of the theme has its origin in the social norm produced and maintained within the device of sexuality, that is, in heteronormativity. Thus, we understand that the difficulty pointed out in PCNs is the result of a conflict about gender conception, defined not as a category of analysis of power relations between genders (SCOTT 1986), on the contrary, due to gender perception as roles to be performed by the determined biological sexes.
In this context, sexual and gender minorities are also absent themes in PCNs. Although these emphasize the need to treat sexuality as a cross-cutting theme, there is no mention specifically on the subject, especially in relation to homosexuality. It is mentioned respect for "diversity of values, beliefs and behaviors that exist and are related to sexuality, provided that the dignity of the human being is guaranteed" (BRASIL, 1997, p. 133); or, also, "(it) recognizes as cultural determinations the characteristics socially attributed to males and females, positioning themselves against discrimination associated to them".
When analyzing the crux of the issue we are talking about here in the PCNs, a direct reference to discrimination against homosexuals and other sexual diversities in educational institutions, it is the teacher's responsibility to interpret whether or not issues related to gender and sexual diversity need to be included.
BNCC presents itself as a guiding document for the creation of the curriculum, inserting knowledge that surrounds them as: socioeconomic, historical, cultural contexts, power device among other things that education and school must elaborate. In this same sense, it is up to the school to include in its curriculum issues related to such themes objectively so that the intentions that the subjects involved in the process, may have clarity of them, that is, the intentionality and the various ways of thinking that each subject will have during his or her formative route on which the curriculum represents.

GENDER: A CONCEPT UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Gender is not a concept that was born overnight, nor presents itself as a static concept and finished in itself. On the contrary, the theory about gender reflection and its intersections are presented as a reflective process of theorists among groups of studies and research and social activists of the LGBTQ cause. However, it is important to say that such a concept begins to be generated within the feminist movement in Western societies since the 19th century.
In this sense, it is necessary to understand that gender relationships permeate various concepts and studies, from the construction of male and female roles, of the learning of these that form the subjects' subjectization, sexuality, the focus on violence against women, from discussions about masculinities, heteronormativity, homosexuality, to issues that can relate gender and power, highlighting that female subordination is not natural, static and immutable.
Some argue that the concept begins to be drawn from Beauvoir's statement (1949), in her book "The Second Sex", saying that no woman is born, she becomes a woman. This assertion is accompanied by the explanation that: "no biological, psychic or economic destiny defines the form that the human woman or female assumes within society" (BEAUVOIR, 1949, p. 9). Thus, the author draws attention to the fact that women do not have a purely biological destiny, she is formed within a culture that defines what her role within society is, then awakening to the most different interpretations of sex as a social construction.
In this perspective, there is only room for correspondence between body-sex-desire, that is, body "male-penis-female desire" and "female-vagina-male desire" so that the characteristics attributed to the two genders, that is, gentleness, objectivity and aggressiveness, constitute an immediate response to this gender-gender normative system.
Working gender relationships means only and only demonstrating that boys can also be sweet and sensitive without being able to "hurt" their masculinity, and that girls can be aggressive and objective, in addition to enjoying football, without having these characteristics harming their femininity.
The term gender as a concept will be inaugurated by North-American researcher Joan Scott (1986), who began to use the term gender to refer to the socially established relationships between men and women. According to the author, there is no natural determination about the behaviors of men and women. The term gender was proposed in order to establish a paradigm shift of scientific and non-scientific approach paradigms on female gender.
Academic discussions in this field are not merely fixed in the history of women, on the contrary, it seeks to understand the historical movement of males, as in females. They are not limited to a methodological agenda that addresses only the "new history of women", but, rather, a "new history", in which the relationships of class, religion, ethnicity, gender and sexuality are intrinsically articulated. For Louro (1997, p. 23, our translation), the importance of the concept of gender is therefore affirmed: [...] it obliges those who employ it to take into account the different societies and the different historical moments they are dealing with. It moves away from (or at least there is this intention) essentialist propositions about genders; the optics is directed towards a process, for a construction, and not for something that exists a priori. The concept begins to require you to think plurally, stressing that projects and representations about women and men are diverse. It is observed that gender conceptions differ not only between societies or historical moments, but within a given society, when considering the various groups (ethnic, religious, racial, class) that constitute it.
Thus, it is possible to observe the overcoming of the theme of sexuality as a natural object and its historical analysis as a construction of a power device. Foucault (1984) notes that specific mechanisms of knowledge and power centered on sex have been combined since the 18th century through a variety of social practices and power techniques, producing normative discourses on women's sexuality and children and classifying some sexual varieties into perversions, especially homosexuality. Here is the overcoming of the theme of sexuality as a natural object and its historical analysis as a construction of a power device (CARDOSO, 2019).
For this author, regardless of whether or not to talk about sexuality and often try to silence it, it never ceases to be thought of, lived or existing. Thereby, It is up to talk about sex as one thing that one should not simply condemn or tolerate, but manage, insert into utility systems, regulate for the good of all, to make it work according to a great standard. Sex is not only judged, it is administered (FOUCAULT, 1984, p.27, our translation).
Thus, the school has constituted one of the multiple social instances that exercise a pedagogy of sexuality and gender, putting into action several government technologies (LOURO, 1999). These processes are established through self-discipline and self-government technologies used by the subjects themselves, favoring a permanent and productive cycle that dictates ways of being and living sexuality and gender. Thereby, The space of the room, the shape of the tables, the arrangement of the playgrounds, the distribution of dormitories [...], the regulations prepared for the surveillance of recollection and sleep, everything speaks in the most prolixway of children's sexuality (FOUCAULT, 1984, p. 30, our translation).
It is important to understand that a sex education has been thought of since the last two centuries. About this, Foucault described an experience in Germany in 1776. According to the author, in that context, education about sexuality should be so precise that "in it the universal sin of youth should never be practiced" (FOUCAULT, 1984, p. 31). In order to further understand about the subject the author narrates a school party: There was the first solemn communion of adolescent sex with rational discourse, in the blended form of examination, floral games, distribution of awards and disciplinary advice. [...] In front of the assembled audience, one of the teachers, Wolke, formulated students selected questions about the mysteries of sex, birth, procreation: he led them to comment on engravings that represented a pregnant woman, a couple, a crib. The answers were clarified, without embarrassment or shame. No undecorous laughter came to disturb them -except precisely from an adult audience far more childish than the children themselves and to whom Wolke severely rebuked. Finally, the chubby boys who, before the great people, righthandedly traced the garlands of speech and sex were applauded. (FOUCAULT, 1984, p. 31, our translation) The above narrative signals the advent of an important element analyzed by him, that is, the placement of sex in discourse. Discursive tenacity was the production of a true discourse about sex itself. There was talk about it without being disconcerted. This discourse allowed us to speak rationally about sex, using a knowledge little produced by discourses and institutional practices, especially in the field of medicine and psychiatry. In short, it was about telling the truth of and about sex.
The social construction of sexuality is based on the socialization processes carried out in different environments and through the discourses (re)produced, between them and the school universe. There is, then, a strong resistance to social challenges, changes or "transgressions" based on discourses such as, "it has always been so, that is how it should be". In this sense, it was established to know about sexuality in which any expression of it that escapes heterosexual and "natural" patterns is considered abnormal (FOUCAULT, 1984;BUTLER, 1999). Butler (2003) presents a new conception of gender, capable of containing the power relationships that produce the effect of a prediscursive sex. Realizing other differences present in the subjects' relationships, the author recognizes that gender is interrelated with other identities constructed discursively, such as race, ethnicity, class, generation, sex, which makes it impossible to separate gender from political and cultural intersections in which it is produced and sustained. Butler (2003) pointed to the fact that while feminist theory considers that there is a unity in the women category, a division is introduced in this feminist subject, reiterating that the notion of gender is based on the idea that it would take place from the Sex. Thus, the author focuses on a problematization that evidences to discuss to what extent this sex/gender distinction is arbitrary.
The author therefore signals that sex is not natural, but it is also discursive and as cultural as gender. This is what we identified when Butler (2003) states: "maybe sex has always been gender, so that the distinction between sex and gender proves absolutely none" (p. 25). Butler thus indicated that sex is not natural, but it is also discursive and cultural as gender.

GENDER, EDUCATION AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE
The school is one of the institutions where mechanisms of the sexuality device are installed, which is one of the multiple social instances that exercise a pedagogy of sexuality and gender (LOURO, 2007), a fact that triggers an investment continued and productive of these subjects in determining their ways of being or ways of living their sexuality and gender. As an institution responsible for the education of the subjects, the school was conceived identifying the subjects who could and those who could not be educated.
In recent decades, the discussion about the role of the school, with regard to the sexuality of its students, has gained notoriety, at the time when it became the subject of debate by the teachers, parents, students and community. In this sense, this discussion has gained strength from the bill against Gender Ideology that is being processed in the Federal Chamber and prohibits the use of any kind of ideology in national education, especially the use of gender ideology. It is noteworthy that this project gained strength and process in State and Municipal Chambers throughout Brazil.
In the debates around the National Education Plan, and later around municipal and state plans, the term gender ideology was used by those who defend conservative positions, and fundamentalists on gender roles attributed to men and Women. According to Scala (2015), one of the advocates of this perspective, gender ideology means the deconstruction of traditional gender roles: An ideology is a closed body of ideas, which starts from a false basic assumptionwhich for this must impose itself avoiding all rational analysis, and then the logical consequences of this false principle are emerging. Ideologies are imposed using the formal educational system (school and university) and non-formal (propaganda means), as did the Nazis and Marxists (SCALA, 2015, p. 35, our translation).
For and Marx and Engles (1997), ideology has referred to a mechanism used by the ruling class to remain dominating classes by imposing their ideas. Thus, ideology can be seen as a false awareness between those who are dominated and those who mask and reverse the social reality in which they are for the ideals of the ruling class.
It is important to highlight that none of the final documents of the Education Conferences, nor the initial version of the National Education Plan, mentions the term "gender ideology". On the contrary, these documents aim to ensure the scope of gender equality and respect for sexual diversity.

THE SCHOOL AS A STANDARDIZATION SPACE
The standardizing function of educational institutions has been raised by scholars of gender, sexuality and sexual diversity studies in Brazil and in several countries, reinforcing the production of non-transgressive masculinities and feminilities, namely gay, lesbian, transsexual subjectivities (GARCIA, 2009). The school plays a fundamental role in the process of raising awareness of the bodies of children and adolescents.
Thus, understanding the difference permeates, in the sense to which we are referring, the perception of "position of being in a situation of", and not to the "condition of being". That is, the difference is always from the point of view of the subjects who need to be respected and preserved, while being in a situation of difference presupposes treatment of inequality, which is attributed to individuals or groups of individuals and place them in the position of or in minority status. According to Scott (2005), it is in a group situation that differences become visible.
Thus, we understand that by classifying subjects by class, ethnicity and gender, among other categories, the school institution has contributed significantly in the reproduction and hierarchization of differences. For Silva (1999) this model of pedagogical organization ends up marginalizing those who are not in conformity with the hegemonic norm, thus not contemplating the inclusion of sexual, ethnic, generational and gender diversity.
Man/woman binarism, white/black, heterosexual/homosexual, opposes a concept to its partner, establishing poles in which one is subdued by the other. Thus, it classifies, hierarchically, dominates and excludes (LOURO, 1997). Homophobia is then expressed through verbal and/or physical aggressions, isolation and exclusion, the consequences of which may be school dropout and suffering.
According to Rios and Dias (2019) gay, fag, little woman, sissy are pejorative terms that mark and demarcate the life and body of gay boys still in childhood. Words that herald loud and in good sound their ways of being and living.
Being homosexual, recognizing yourself homosexual, brings up the revolution of time, way of being and living, feelings, dreams, bodies of thousands of subjects who (re)build and invent themselves daily in everyday making, which are configured in exercised power by the subjects through maneuvers and techniques that symbolize effects on their actions and are established through constant confrontations, because it always occurs among subjects capable of printing diversified forms of resistance (FOUCAULT, 1987).
We understand the school as an educational space as an important instrument in coping with situations of prejudice and discrimination. However, even with the implementation of the National Curriculum Parameters -PCN and the significant transformations that are happening in Brazilian society and educational field, it is observed that curricula have given little importance to the issues gender and sexual diversity, reproducing perverse logics of oppression against LGBTQ identities (DIAS et al., 2017). According to Dias and Menezes (2017) being suspicious about the school curriculum presents itself as pedagogical innovation from the queer perspective (DIAS et al. 2017;DIAS, 2014;ULJENS, 2016, FINO 2016RUDD, T.;GOODSON, 2016).
PCN's for Elementary School (BRASIL, 1997) bring references on gender and sexuality themes, but still falls short of being able to address them properly. According to (JUNQUEIRA et al., 2007), without having rooted in the culture of education systems, they could hardly carry out this challenge, either because of a lack of support in specific educational policies or because of their shortcomings in relation to these thematics.
The notion of "sexual orientation", of sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS and teenage pregnancy, present in PCN's are allied to a discourse around the accountability of the subjects, and therefore did not address the enlargement and deepening of the debate in more critical, plural and innovative terms (LOURO, 2004). On the contrary, they reinforce the normatizing character of sex education in school, marginalizing the "deviant" subjects.
BNCC recognizes basic education as essential for full student education, focused on diversity.
Moreover "school as a space for learning and inclusive democracy must be strengthened in the coercive practice of non-discrimination, non-prejudice and respect for differences and diversities" (BRASIL, 2017, p. 14). Thus, pedagogical work should recognize the differences between students, such as ethnicity, race, sex, socioeconomic status, among others, aiming at equality, diversity and equity.
It is pertinent to emphasize that sex education at school is provided by law in Brazil since the 1920s. However, there was a lot of resistance regarding its implementation, mainly on the part of conservative sectors linked to the Catholic Church, a fact that occurs today, not limited only to churches, but to other sectors of society, guided by conservative moral values of preservation of the traditional family model.
Contrary to the approaches of sexuality marked by heteronormativity, queer 3 theory raises discussion about the very limits of that model of knowledge construction and how much each subject supports (not)knowing. This theoretical perspective verifies that sex, body and gender itself are cultural, linguistic and institutional constructions generated within the knowledge-power-pleasure relationships, determined by the limits of modern thought. This theoretical perspective has operated a linguistic practice with the purpose of degrading the subjects to whom it refers. "Queer acquires all power precisely through the repeated invocation that relates the queer subject to accusations, pathologies and insults" (BUTLER, 2002, p. 58). This theoretical conception refuses the insertion of otherness in the hegemonic model of the sexual and social norm, because, if so, it would be an action originating from the "tolerance policies" that assume the existence of normal/abnormal binomial and, therefore, tend to mitigate and standardize otherness. On the other hand, queer theory opposes the conditions of vicissitude of knowledge that produces the sexual and social norm.
In this sense, it is worth mentioning that there are teachers who have difficulties in addressing topics such as sexuality and gender in school, since, at the same time, it is understood and treated as a natural instinct is also monitored as something threatening and dangerous that needs to be contained and disciplined (BORGES, MEYER, 2008).
Since the implementation of BNCC it has been notorious that the inclusion of the discussion on gender issues and sexual sexuality and diversity in curricula has been constituted from controversial processes, which has raised debates between favorable and contrary groups to its insertion. The most recent example of this clash was the withdrawal of the expressions "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the final version of the BNCC due to pressure stemming from conservative religious and political groups.
Thus, it is possible to emphasize that there is discontinuity between the approaches of previous documents, such as PCN's, and the new BNCC. We understand that what is not explicit has a greater importance, since it attenuates the conception of education present at the Basis and the understanding of a project of economic and social development for the country. Thus, it is important to say that such resistance ends up directly impacting educational policies.

THE SCHOOL: A FIELD OF POSSIBILITIES FOR GENDER EQUITY
According to Altmann (2003), the school is a privileged space for the implementation of public policies that promote gender equity and the intention to introduce sexuality in school is evident with the insertion of sexual orientation in PCN's (BRASIL, 1997), in the form of a crosssectional theme. However, what has been perceived is that the school remains closed when it comes to respect for sexual diversity, seeking to exclude the ones who are different, as well as treating homosexuality as an aberration or disease.
According to Foucault (1984), it is through incitement to the discourse of sex that mechanisms of control are established over the bodies of individuals, exercised not only within a system of punishments and prohibitions, but especially through mechanisms that subjects and their sexual bodies. This production occurs in the sense of exercise of control over the ideal way of living sexuality, that is, normatively, in view of monogamous, heterosexual and reproductive sexual practices.
From this perspective, it is possible to analyze that PCN's take a preventive approach and, in this context, preventing sexual practices of "risk" would be the normative tonic in the construction of an ideal form of sexuality, When dealing with sexual orientation, one seeks to consider sexuality as something inherent to life and health, which is expressed from an early age in the human being. It encompasses the social role of men and women, respect for themselves and others, the discriminations and stereotypes attributed and experienced in their relationships, the advancement of AIDS and unwanted pregnancy in adolescence, among others, which are current problems (BRASIL, 1997, p. 107, our translation). Regarding Sexual Orientation there is a subitem called Gender Relations, with two and a half pages of text. The insertion of the theme occurs as specific content of Sexual Orientation. The objectives for the approach are: [...] combating authoritarian relationships, questioning the rigidity of established standards of conduct for men and women and guiding to their transformation. The flexibilization of patterns aims to allow the expression of existing potentialities in every human being that are hampered by gender stereotypes. As a common example, one can remember the repression of expressions of sensitivity, intuition and gentleness in boys or objectivity and aggressiveness in girls (BRASIL, 1997, p. 144, our translation). In this sense, the school space is a relevant space that (re) produces subjectivities of gender and sexuality. This space is, however, contradictory, because just as it can reproduce, it can also transform. The school, in this way, can reproduce gender roles and models of sexuality that are based on discriminatory attitudes, but which can also build equitable relationships in which human dignity and equal rights can be guiding principles.
The school institution can and should contribute to an education that addresses the sexual dimension, diversity, human rights and multiculturalism. However, in order for this to occur it is necessary to implement new pedagogical practices.
Considering the conception that subjectities are culturally constructed, it is essential to understand that the school plays an important role, as a sociocultural space in the education of subjects and, in the transmission, (re)production of scientific and cultural knowledge, it plays in the construction of these multiple identities. The school, as part of a society that discriminates, delimits roles and spaces and reproduces inequalities of gender, race/ethnicity and class, has been shown to be a breeding player of inequalities. According to Louro (1997), school norms, discourses and practices order, divide, hierarchize, subordinate, legitimize or disqualify subjects.
It is necessary, then, that issues related to the inclusion of sexual diversity, the valorization of difference, the construction of an environment of respect and welcoming to the different ways of living sexuality make and are integral parts of the school's official documents, such as the Political Pedagogical Project -PPP. According to Seffner (2009), in addition to including such themes in the school's official documents, it is necessary that such topics be discussed with the school community, through clear planning and guidelines on what is desired with this discussion.
The school, since its origin, understands and produces social, ethnic, generational, genderoriented, social, sexual orientation "differences, distinctions, inequalities" among others (LOURO, 2003, p. 57). Also according to the author, the denial of homosexuals in the legitimate space of the classroom ends up confining them to the "mockery" and the "insults" during break time and games, thus young gays and lesbians can only recognize themselves as deviant, unwanted and ridiculous (LOURO, 2003, p. 68). As Butler points out (1999), there is no denying regarding to the function of control and affirmation of the heteronormativity strongly exerted by the school.
The Foucaultian theoretical perspective seeks to overcome the device of sexuality in the direction of a multiplicity and fluidity of sexual and gender identities, avoiding the pitfalls of new identity norms that only broaden the limits of tolerance. According to Foucault (1995, p. 239, our translation), the great political resistance in perhaps contemporaneity, [...] not finding out what we are, but refusing what we are [...] the political, ethical, social and philosophical problem of our days is not about trying to free the individual from the State or from state institutions, but to free ourselves from both the State and the type of individualization that is binded to it. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity, through the refusal of this type of individuality that has been imposed on us for centuries.
For educators who aim to appease the differences this is a nuisance challenge. On the contrary, for educators, captured by permanent restlessness, it is a constant challenge in the search for creative solutions to avoid falling into normalizing practices.
The school, as a social space of education, plays an important role in the transmission and construction of knowledge. Thus, it needs to unveil the issues raised by contemporary society, being co-responsible to address topics related to gender inequality, diversity and sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, among others that constitute the subjects in their educational processes.
Thus, we understand that knowledge for pedagogical practice where gender discrimination, ethnic, racial, homophobia, among others, become an issue for which the school should be attentive, in order to produce, systematize and disseminate knowledge in order to potentiate the professors in order to promote gender equity, while respecting differences. Making this possible in the daily practice of school, through equitable pedagogical practices, should be a marker of contemporary school.
In this scenario, a new pedagogical exercise is an invitation to reinvent our relations with others and ourselves, in a constant exercise of detachment from ourselves. This context will favor the permanent production of subjective forms that deconstruct the male-female, heterosexualhomosexual binary and dichotomous structures.

CONCLUSION
Reflection on issues related to sexuality, sexual diversity, gender equity, among others in the last two decades has proved itself as necessary, considering the sociocultural context in which public equity policies have been drawn in the Brazilian national scenario. We understand, therefore, that the school as a social space plays a major role in the transmission and construction of knowledge, thus needing to be attentive to the unveiling of new scenarios.
Educational policies need to take into account discussions about the school's social function in the construction of masculinities and feminilities contrary to the conventional, male, heteronormative, white and middle-class model. They cannot ignore the effects that the processes of building male, female, straight, homo or bisexual identities and subjectivities produce on permanence, school performance, the quality of interaction of all actors in the school community and their school and professional trajectories.
Thus, discussing new policies for the inclusion of sexual and gender minorities requires, on the part of the educators, to experience new forms of language use that can produce resistance to sexist or homophobic patterns. Including studies on gender, sexuality and diversity in teacher education, too, constitutes as resistance strategies.
We therefore advocate that there must be more efficient public policies that prepare teachers to address such issues and, therefore, promote the respect and dignity of the different subjects in the school space, being them students, teachers, employees or family members.
Recognizing that "[...] ways of living sexuality, experiencing pleasures and desires, more than problems or individuals' issues, need to be understood as problems or issues of society and culture" (LOURO, 2007, p. 67) and that it is a choice or a characteristic of erotic desire for people of the same sex. In this sense, homosexuality should be considered as legitimate as heterosexuality.