State terrorism in Argentina was installed to guarantee the hegemony of a country model that included different edges: social, cultural, economic, religious and, something that has been less noticed, gender-sex.
In addition, the main basis of the persecution was the construction of people or groups as “enemies”, as has been pointed out for a long time and emerges from the military and police documentation of the time and has been reflected in the different criminal trials for what happened. Another also notorious aspect is the fact that the definition of those who entered that category – who were or were not “enemies” – depended only on the decision of the members of the repressive groups. In particular, the genocides included all the people who, in one way or another, opposed the country model they advocated.
The gender-sex model, in turn, was based on a family ideal -called “moral and Christian” by its defenders- that assigned rigid roles to men and women determined by the macho culture of the 1970s. break the cishetonormativity. Those who moved away from those static roles were going to be severely punished. This is what happened with cis women who were active in political, union, student or armed organizations and with those who challenged the mandatory cisheteronormativity with their sexual orientations and/or their non-normative gender identities. In addition to the violence exerted by State terrorism on all the people designated as enemies, differential violence was added to punish those particular transgressions.
Unlike, in general, other people considered enemies, trans, transvestites, lesbians and gays already suffered -and continued to suffer- repressive state violence and, historically, were persecuted. What happened during the years of state terrorism is that these violences intensified. This intensification focused particularly on trans women and transvestites who, almost all of them, were in a situation of street prostitution – it was almost the only way to procure economic means – and, for that reason, more exposed to the attack of the repressive forces. The devices of State terrorism were added to the daily state violence: they suffered forced disappearance and were taken to different clandestine detention, torture and extermination centers, where they experienced continuous torture, with particular cruelty due to their gender identities. Added to this was the fact that other groups belonging to the armed and security forces, with civilian members, who acted during those years, joined the police – who have always been in charge of repressing them.
Although there is no exact figure that reflects the magnitude of these focused repressive practices – as there is not in general for all the people who suffered State terrorism – the testimonies show that they were not isolated cases. On the contrary, it was a systematic plan that determined the intensification of the violence they were already suffering. However, this does not have a legal counterpart, despite how advanced and consolidated the justice process is in our country. Only recently did the case of a trans woman go to trial and there are few investigations into other cases at the investigation stage.
As Judith Butler says, there are bodies that matter and bodies that don’t. It is necessary to continue advancing and making visible this violence of the past, which continues to permeate this present, and to show that all the bodies that suffered the violence of State terrorism matter. Without that, this democracy remains incomplete.
By the lawyer Ana Oberlin, specialized in gender, human rights and criminal law.
