INTRODUCTION

With the arrival of foreign colonizers at the beginning of the 16th century at the Brazilian territory, the indigenous people were expropriated from their lands and submitted to processes of exploitation, marginalization, and assimilation that lasted for centuries. School education for indigenous people, in this context, worked as an instrument to impose the values of Western society and deny the history of these peoples, their identities, languages and cultures. Therefore, the country has a historical debt to the original peoples, who have always resisted and fought to guarantee the right to own traditional lands, maintain their ways of life, and preserve their cultural diversity.

Although there is still much to be conquered, the Federal Constitution of 1988 (^{Brasil, 1988}) is among the legal documents that brought advances when it comes to guaranteeing the rights of indigenous peoples. According to João Pacheco de Oliveira and Carlos Augsusto da Rocha Freire¹ (2006), the new Constitution broke with the integrationist perspective and with the tutelary heritage of the Civil Code of 1916 (^{Brasil, 1916}), besides guaranteeing access to traditional lands and to differentiated, specific, bilingual/multilingual, and intercultural school education, among other things.

Since then, several changes have gradually occurred in the legislation for indigenous school education, as well as in the way it is conceived and the understanding of who should be the teacher in this space and how their education should be. If in a not-so-distant past non-indigenous people occupied the management and teaching functions in indigenous schools, today there is a consensus that, in order to consolidate a differentiated, specific, bilingual/multilingual, and intercultural indigenous school education, the members of the communities themselves (the indigenous people) must occupy these roles.

^{Helena Alessandra Scavazza Leme (2010}) explains that public policies aimed at the training of indigenous teachers in Brazil, as well as the legislation that supports them today, are inspired by pioneering and innovative experiences of civil society movements put into practice in different regions of the country from the 1970s, when the first courses aimed at the training of indigenous teachers in the country were planned and implemented at the high school level. ^{Aly David Arturo Yamall Orellana (2011}) reports that these courses were generally called Indigenous Teaching and qualified them to work in early childhood education and elementary I education. This modality is still used, and the training generally takes place in service, considering that a significant portion of the indigenous people who attend these courses are already teaching in village schools (^{Leme, 2010}; ^{Orellana, 2011}).

In Rondônia, as happened in other Brazilian states, the first indigenous teacher training courses were offered by civil society organizations from the 1970s on. ^{Mario Roberto Venere (2018}) found out, in his research, that the first government initiative occurred in 1998, with the creation of the Açaí Project — Teacher Training Course for Indigenous Teachers Middle Level, through the State Department of Education (SEDUC/RO), to qualify indigenous teachers to work in the early years of elementary education.

^{Leme (2010}) reports that, with the indigenous teachers’ training at the high school level, a demand for higher education opened up, and the Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso was a pioneer when it created, in 2001, on the Barra do Bugres (MT) campus, the first degree to train indigenous teachers. Following this example, other universities have also opened similar courses, among them the Universidade Federal de Rondônia (UNIR), which, with resources from the Ministry of Education's Programa de Apoio a Planos de Reestruturação e Expansão das Universidades Federais (REUNI), instituted the Intercultural Basic Education degree course in 2008, at the Ji-Paraná (RO) campus, where ^{Josélia Gomes Neves, Heliton Tinhawambá Gavião, and Cristóvão Teixeira Abrantes (2018}) participate.

According to the pedagogical project of the course (PPC), the target public of the Intercultural Basic Education degree at UNIR is made up of indigenous people from Rondônia, the south of Amazonas, and the northwest of Mato Grosso, preferably those who have a link to teaching (^{UNIR, 2008}). The geographical area it covers is extensive, and training indigenous teachers in this context is complex, given the sociolinguistic, cultural, and historical diversities of the peoples of the region. The course lasts five years, the first three years comprising the basic training cycle, and the last two, the specific training cycle in which students can choose one of the four different areas offered: Intercultural School Education in Primary Education and School Management; Intercultural Language Sciences; Intercultural Mathematics and Nature Sciences; and Intercultural Society Sciences (idem).

More than a decade after the creation of the Intercultural Basic Education degree, its PPC has not been reformulated, and new demands have been detected through periodic evaluation seminars, such as the reduction of the course time from five to four years and the change of the curricular structure so that the students already started in the specific area of study.

At the moment, the process of reformulating the PPC is paralyzed because of the covid-19 pandemic, but we consider it relevant to also advance in discussions related to issues of social urgency, such as gender and sexual diversity issues, to meet the demands of women and indigenous LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, queer, intersex, asexual, and more), who argue that their agendas are not encompassed by the indigenous movement. Thus, the interest in conducting the present research arose with the objective of analyzing the perceptions of indigenous students of the Intercultural Basic Education degree at UNIR about the inclusion of the discussion of gender and sexual diversity issues in the course.

During the development of this work, we conducted online searches in the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Biblioteca Digital Brasileira de Teses e Dissertações — BDTD), in the Catálogo de Teses e Dissertações of the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior — CAPES) and in the Scientific Eletronic Library Online (SciELO) associating the keywords: “formação de professors(as) indígenas”, “gênero” and “diversidade sexual”. The objective was to map the scientific productions on the subject, published from 2009 to 2020 — the period of operation of the Intercultural Basic Education degree at UNIR at the time the survey was carried out. We have not identified in the databases any work that intersects the three themes in focus. This highlights the originality of the present research and, with its realization, we intend to fill this gap, with the purpose of obtaining data that can effectively contribute to the discussion about the inclusion of gender and sexual diversity issues in indigenous teacher training courses.

The methodological approach adopted for the execution of the investigation was qualitative research. The research population comprised 168 students enrolled in the second semester of 2018 in the Intercultural Basic Education degree at UNIR, Ji-Paraná campus. From this group, based on pre-established criteria, a sample composed of 19 participants was selected. As instruments to produce the data, we used the questionnaire and the semi-structured interview, and for interpretation and analysis, we resorted to strategies of Thematic Categorical Analysis, a modality of Content Analysis. These aspects will be detailed in the next section.

The research has as theoretical support authors from the area of Gender Studies, with emphasis on the post-structuralist strand, such as ^{Joan Scott (1995}), ^{Guacira Lopes Louro (2007}; ²⁰⁰⁸; ²⁰¹⁴) and ^{Dagmar Elisabeth Estermann Meyer (2013}). From this perspective, gender is an analytical and, at the same time, a political tool. Therefore, it allows mapping the different meanings attributed to “being a woman” and “being a man” in diverse societies and historical periods (^{Scott, 1995}). And, furthermore, it makes it possible to establish their meanings and their logics of operation to maintain or change the social order (thus the political dimension). Therefore, gender cannot be understood by biological determinism, but rather as a sociocultural construction that establishes standards to be followed, so that “being a woman” or “being a man” does not depend on biological sex, but rather on the embodiment of socially and culturally constructed and delimited roles for each gender (^{Louro, 2007}; ²⁰⁰⁸; ²⁰¹⁴).

Therefore, gender goes beyond what concerns masculine and feminine, it also includes human relationships, the products generated from them, and the implications resulting from their constructions. As stated by ^{Márcio de Oliveira, Reginaldo Peixoto, and Eliane Rose Maio (2018}, p. 31, our translation),² “[…] masculine and feminine are starting points for a discussion that goes far beyond, going through the product generated through human relations.”. Thus, this “product” must be widely discussed, including in schools, with the purpose of harmonious, balanced, and respectful relationships, contributing so that people do not suffer discrimination and prejudice because of their gender identities and sexual orientation.

Regarding sexuality, ^{Louro (2007}, p. 209-210, our translation) explains that, even though there are several understandings and concepts, most scholars tend to consider that “[…] sexuality implies more than bodies, that it involves fantasies, values, languages, rituals, behaviors, representations mobilized or put into action to express desires and pleasures.”. Based on this premise, it is possible to conclude that there is a multiplicity of ways to express sexuality, beyond the behaviors that are conventionally appropriate for women and men. Thus, there is not one sexuality, but rather, sexualities, thus justifying the use of the term “sexual diversity.”

The ideas of gender and sexuality maintain a relationship with each other. However, ^{Dinah Quesada Beck and Bianca Salazar Guizzo (2013}, p. 179, our translation) comment that this relationship is not supported by a dependency character and that

[…] sexual identities (which are of the order of desires, pleasures, and the experience of sexuality) are not fixed, terminal, and dependent on the biological sex endowed subjects. Gender identities (which are the origin of femininities and masculinities) are social and cultural constructions, and are not “attached” to the biological sex of men and women.

Radical positions on the subject, which link gender and sexuality to biological issues, foster prejudice, discrimination, and violence. Although issues related to the defense of human rights are present in legislation and curricula, the school contributes to the propagation of discriminatory ideas related to gender and sexuality (^{Oliveira, Peixoto and Maio, 2018}). This allows us to conclude that the problem lies in the people who execute these policies, who insist on reaffirming prejudiced, racist, and homophobic positions.

Discussing gender and sexual diversity issues in the context of indigenous peoples is a complex task. The indigenous anthropologist ^{Gersem dos Santos Luciano Baniwa (2006}) explains that the social organizations of indigenous societies are based on ancestral cosmologies marked by the functions of social subgroups, which, articulated among themselves, make the existence of each ethnic group possible. For the author, the “[…] traditions [are the ones] that underlie the constitution of extended families and social and kinship relations […]” (^{Baniwa, 2006}, p. 212, our translation). And, in this context, women have a fundamental socio-educational role, since they participate intensely in the education of the children who represent the future generations.

However, contact with non-indigenous society has reflected on the traditional ways of life of indigenous peoples, considering that the established relationships enable the appropriation and re-signification of elements from these other cultures, which generates changes in the social behavior of the groups. ^{Ângela Sacchi and Márcia Maria Gramkow (2012}) report that traditional gender relations are still maintained in many of these societies, but, to a greater or lesser degree, they undergo constant transformations as a result of this intercultural contact.

Consequently, a number of factors have contributed to the reconfiguration of masculinity and femininity in the indigenous context, especially with regard to the sexual division of labor, such as: the promotion of indigenous rights, the creation of specific public policies, increasing access to formal education, interethnic marriages, the participation of women in the public space and in indigenous movements, new economic practices, the occurrence of new types of violence, and migration to urban centers (^{Sacchi and Gramkow, 2012}).

In this context, ^{Danielly Coletti Duarte (2017}), based on readings from feminist anthropology, points out that indigenous women suffer a double condition of invisibility in the political field of the Western world because they are indigenous and because they are women, who are on a scale of greater vulnerability compared to others, because, in addition to the oppression experienced by the condition of “being a woman,” they face prejudice against their ethnic origin.

^{Sônia Guajajara (2020}), one of the most important indigenous female leaders in the country, emphasizes the challenges faced by indigenous women, considering that they have historically been excluded from spaces of power, both within and outside their communities; and emphasizes the desire of the category to participate actively and in a qualified way in decision-making processes, both with regard to gender demands and the interests of their communities and their people.

Sexual diversity in the context of indigenous peoples is a subject relatively little explored in the academic sphere, perhaps due to its complexity. ^{Estevão Rafael Fernandes (2016}; ²⁰¹⁹) explains that there is a false belief that indigenous sexualities outside heteronormative standards emerged with the colonization process and are considered, even by the indigenous people themselves, as synonymous with “cultural loss” or consequences of contact with the surrounding society. Research conducted by ^{Luís Mott (1998}; ²⁰⁰⁶), ^{Amilcar Torrão Filho (2000}), ^{João Silvério Trevisan (2018}), among others, present several records made by chroniclers, missionaries, anthropologists, travelers, and historians that refer to indigenous homosexuality before the beginning of the colonization of the Brazilian territory. They even show that there was no discrimination among the natives in this regard. It was the colonizer, based on Christian morality, who brought prejudice and intolerance against sexual diversity, considering that these issues were considered by “[…] Christendom as the most vile, dirty and dishonest sin, punished as a heinous crime […]” (^{Mott, 1998}, p. 6, emphasis from the original, our translation).

LGBTQIA+ indigenous people denounce that they suffer discrimination in their communities because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. ^{Rogério Macena (2019}), from the Guarani ethnic group, resident in the Paranapuã village, São Vicente, on the coast of São Paulo (SP), informs that nowadays the indigenous communities have more information on the subject, but that there is still a lot of intolerance, that is why many LGBTQIA+ choose to leave the villages or do not assume themselves for feeling fear, insecurity, or shame. According to him, this situation has worsened with the arrival of evangelical religions in the villages, because they “[…] have been teaching indigenous people how to have prejudice […]” (^{Macena, 2019}, [n. p.], our translation).

Facing this reality, in recent years, indigenous women and LGBTQIA+ have been mobilizing through collectives to discuss the problems faced by them and to develop actions that generate inclusion and representativeness. These movements do not dissociate their struggles from the agenda of the indigenous movement, especially when it comes to territorial rights. They understand that guaranteeing the rights of native peoples is fundamental for their material and immaterial survival. However, they expect the traditional leaderships to recognize their claims with the purpose of guaranteeing a dignified life, with respect to the identity, gender, and sexuality of each one.

In light of the above, it is evident that there is currently a demand from indigenous peoples related to discussions about gender and sexual diversity issues. The reports presented show that those who do not fit into the heteronormative and gender standards in force, in many cases, suffer several forms of violence and exclusion, which becomes a social problem that should be discussed in the various instances that make up the indigenous societies to find ways to solve or minimize it.

Unfortunately, gender and sexual diversity issues do not appear in the National Curriculum Framework for Indigenous Schools (^{Referencial Curricular Nacional para as Escolas Indígenas — Brasil, 1998}), the National Common Curricular Base (^{Base Nacional Comum Curricular — Brasil, 2017}; ²⁰¹⁸), nor in the National Curriculum Guidelines for Indigenous Teacher Training (^{Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais para a Formação de Professores Indígenas — Brasil, 2015}). However, the indigenous school, like any other, is a reflection of the society in which it is inserted. Therefore, issues related to gender and sexual diversity are present in its daily life, regardless of being included in its curriculum.

The indigenous teacher, who works in these spaces, is faced with situations related to this issue on a daily basis, and his/her action can contribute to reaffirm prejudices and stereotypes already consolidated, as well as deconstruct them and contribute to the construction of a more inclusive society. In this context, inserting these discussions in indigenous teacher training courses can transform school practices by destabilizing preconceived patterns.

PATHS OF RESEARCH

The present research is in the field of Gender Studies, with emphasis on the post-structuralist strand. This is an interdisciplinary field of study, and the research developed in this area seeks to understand gender identities and representations in the wake of the culture of human societies (^{Beck and Guizzo, 2013}), as is the case of the present work.

The methodological approach adopted was qualitative research, in which we considered the social and historical context of the research object and the participants, aiming to get closer to the objective and subjective world. We consider qualitative research an adequate methodological approach to achieve the objectives intended in the present study, because, according to ^{Antônio Chizzotti (2006}), research of this nature is concerned with answering very particular questions, related to human phenomena, which have specific characteristics and their interpretation is independent of statistical quantifications.

The present investigation was developed in Rondônia, more specifically at the UNIR campus in Ji-Paraná, where the Intercultural Basic Education degree is offered. In the second semester of 2018, when the field research was conducted — with due authorization from the institution —, there were 168 students enrolled in the course, of which 118 were in the basic cycle and 50 in the specific one.³

To compose the research sample, we established three criteria:

After the study was approved by the Standing Committee on Ethics in Research with Human Beings (Comitê Permanente de Ética em Pesquisa com Seres Humanos), we started the field research at the end of the second semester of 2018 and found that, of the 50 students enrolled in the specific cycle of the course, 28 already practiced the teaching profession, and of these, 19 agreed to participate in the research. To guarantee the anonymity of the participants, we asked them to indicate a pseudonym of their preference to be identified in the text. Considering the ethnic diversity, gender representation and age of the research participants, we considered the sample representative of the students enrolled in the course (Chart 1).

The participants are from 12 different ethnic groups and this fact is a portrait of the reality of the course, considering that the region attended is part of the Legal Amazon and, as explained by ^{Egon Heck, Francisco Loebens and Priscila D. Carvalho (2005}), is an area known for its complex socio-diversity, occupied by a significant number of indigenous peoples.

Among the participants, five are female and 14 are male. The sample reflects the reality of the indigenous schools in the state of Rondônia, where most of the teachers are men. Data made available by SEDUC/RO — via the Electronic Citizen Information Service System (Sistema Eletrônico de Serviço de Informações ao Cidadão) — show that there are currently, in the state, 101 indigenous schools in activity and a quantity of 350 indigenous teachers, 212 of which are male (60.6%) and 138 female (39.4%).

The average age of the participants is approximately 31 years old, which is justified by the difficulty in completing basic education, since until recently high school was not offered in the indigenous communities’ schools. There is also great difficulty in accessing higher education, since the quota system is not enough to meet the demand of indigenous peoples.

The data shows that the participants are from ten indigenous land, located in seven different municipalities of Rondônia (Chart 2). This fact is a small portrait of the extensive geographical area covered by the course. It is worth emphasizing that we chose not to inform the name of the village in which each participant resides as an extra care to ensure anonymity.

Following the qualitative research perspective, we elected the questionnaire and the semi-structured interview as instruments to produce data for the investigation. In the questionnaire, we used a mix of open and closed questions, aiming to make the instrument more dynamic and self-explanatory, facilitating its completion.

Furthermore, we chose the semi-structured interview because it is more flexible. According to ^{Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo (2010}), this type of interview gives more freedom to the researcher, as it allows him/her to elaborate a pre-established script of questions and add others spontaneously, according to the momentary circumstances. Both instruments were applied according to the participants’ time availability, with previous scheduling of date and time.

We chose to organize, treat, and analyze the research data through elements of Categorical Thematic Analysis, a modality of Content Analysis, with ^{Laurence Bardin (2016}) as reference. According to the author, this type of categorization is fast and effective when applied to direct and simple discourses, as is the case of the present research. Following this proposal, we followed three steps for the organization, treatment, and analysis of the data, namely: pre-analysis; material exploration; and treatment and interpretation of the results obtained.

Pre-analysis is the phase of organization in which there is intense contact by the researcher with the data produced with the aim of making it operational and synthesizing the initial ideas (^{Bardin, 2016}). The material exploration phase “[…] consists essentially of operations of coding, decomposition, or enumeration, according to previously formulated rules.” (ibidem, p. 13, our translation), with the aim of reaching the core understanding of the data. It was during this phase that we established three thematic categories around which the data content was organized:

Lastly, in the phase of treatment and interpretation of the results obtained, we organized the data by means of tables and highlighted excerpts of the participants’ speeches to condense and highlight the relevant information that emerged from the data, which enabled the qualitative analysis based on the theoretical framework that supports this research.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We organized the results and discussion by category of analysis, so the text is subdivided into three subsections. In the first, we will analyze the participants’ conceptions about the contributions of the Intercultural Basic Education degree in Indigenous teachers’ training to deal with issues of gender and sexual diversity in the exercise of teaching; in the second, we will deal with the inclusion of themes involving gender and sexual diversity issues in Indigenous teachers’ training courses; and, in the third, about suggestions for activities to discuss gender and sexual diversity issues in Indigenous teachers’ training courses.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The present research was motivated by our concerns about the absence of gender and sexual diversity issues in the curriculum of the Intercultural Basic Education degree at UNIR. We do not intend to present a conclusive study on the subject, but to foster the discussion about an indigenous teacher education that contemplates the respect for diversity and the promotion of human rights.

The objective was to analyze the perceptions of indigenous students of the Intercultural Basic Education degree at UNIR about the inclusion of the discussion of gender and sexual diversity issues in the course. The data showed that most participants consider that the course has contributed little to train them in this aspect, considering that these issues are hardly addressed in the classes. Therefore, they were receptive to the inclusion of gender and sexual diversity issues in the indigenous teachers’ training courses and, specifically, in the Intercultural Basic Education degree, because they consider that this would contribute to train the students to develop a pedagogical work aimed at respecting human rights, as well as to take information to the indigenous communities, acting against prejudice. To this end, they suggested that activities such as lectures, seminars, workshops, and debates should be carried out, in addition to the possibility of working on these themes in a transversal way or by creating a specific curricular component.

However, we also noticed resistance and discomfort in approaching the theme by some of the participants, because they consider that these issues are not part of traditional culture and should be discussed within the family context. Even those who were in favor usually enunciate a discourse focused on the “acceptance of the other” as a gesture of kindness, compassion, or tolerance, without, however, questioning the established hierarchies, power relations, and standards. This shows a certain degree of prejudice, because it is as if they are granted the right to exist, as long as they are on the fringes and do not disturb the established order. This probably occurs because they have little information on the subject and have not had the opportunity to broaden their knowledge in their education process, which highlights the urgency of talking to the indigenous peoples about the inclusion of these themes in the curriculum of the Intercultural Basic Education degree at UNIR, as well as in other courses for the education of indigenous teachers.

We consider that the objective of the research was reached and that the inclusion of the themes in focus in the curriculum of the intercultural undergraduate courses, with previous discussion with the indigenous peoples, would allow the students to carry out research to identify the cultural elements that contribute to the production of prejudice, discrimination, and violence. And, from then on, promote discussions in their communities and think about inclusive pedagogical practices that fight prejudices related to gender and sexuality.