I decided to answer this point by point communiqué which once again does not fail to misinform.
I strongly believe that the women who signed this communiqué do not have a clear understanding of the concept of "gender identity'. developed and spread over the last few years in youth culture and which has little to do with protection for homosexuals and transsexuals.
The genre is a social construct that is applied to women and men according to their gender and is not something innate, which is why it does not exist as an identity but is more of an 'alter-ego' that, as a trend, is taking hold among young people who do not want to be part of and do not recognise themselves in the sexist stereotypes.
A law to protect homosexuals and transsexuals, which in this case would be an addition to an already existing law, the Mancino law, would therefore recognise as a crime an offence against a homosexual or transsexual person for reasons of intolerance and hatred. This offence could be verbal or physical, or discrimination at work or in social life.
The ideology based on 'gender identity' actually states that any person can assume the essence of another person that she is not herself. In other words, I could feel like a gay man and ask to be considered as such. In other words, I could pretend to be what I am not, and in the worst cases, we could see, for example, men perceiving and identifying themselves as women or girls and asking to be included in spaces and services created especially for them, most of the time for safety against male attacks. It would be nice if these were isolated cases, but unfortunately there are more and more of them both in Canadawhere murderers of women and children and rapists are placed in women's prisons and also in Spain where more recently ex-Jonathan, who had already shown over the years an obsession with Vanessa, his cousin, killed her and was then placed in a women's prison after 'self-identifying' as Lorena.
This ideology, as well as offering today's young people an ploy towards combating sexist stereotypes, serves as a sshortcut to escape from society, a society that we radical feminists want to change.
For this reason, 'gender identity' is a 'new' concept.homophobic ideology, in that it denies the existence of same-sex attracted people by claiming that being a man or a woman is a feeling, a perception; and misogynist, as it considers any being in line with female stereotypes to be a woman.
It goes without saying that a woman who does not correspond to the stereotype of femininity, instead of being accepted as a woman who expresses herself according to her own preferences, is inclined to consider herself as selfish. "transgender'. i.e. not in line with what the 'female gender' asks her to be.
This is why we ask: how can the petitioners consider gender identity the pillar for a law protecting homosexuals and transsexuals?
It is not clear how those who do not recognise themselves in the rigid models of our society would feel mortified if this law were changed.
Feminists are the first to have questioned society as an oppressive system towards women. The first ones who do not recognise themselves in the models imposed, and precisely for this reason we do not want it to be consolidated in any way in a law.
The term "gender'. has been used for a long time to define violence that the system implements on women, domestic, economic, sexual, trafficking, prostitution, emotional violence. It was decided to name it "gender-based violence'. instead of violence against women.
It is not possible to give so many different meanings to a term that already has a meaning and that represents the fruit of centuries of feminist strugglestoday the word 'gender' is a nightmare for women, a "handicap', reminds us every day that we are the different from the standard: 'the masculine'. It reminds us that laws had to be created to try to protect us from 'gender' violence -that is, male violence- because education is not enough to keep us safe from men.
Making the concept of 'gender identity' valid represents a real cultural appropriation which imposes the new meaning of identity as the consolidation of a trend, a fashion, a fetishism which for women is yet another abuse.
It really seems hypocritical mention of the "power play when the Zan law process had all the trappings of this from the start. From the outset this law was considered 'wrong' because of a text of the law consisting of confusing articles and definitions without a scientific basis and conceptual coherence.
The power game and the tug-of-war has been put in place by the law itself when it claims to intervene in the education of young people, even children, and in the imposition of "a way of perceiving life and self-perception". to everyone, in schools, in the media and in society.
The power play was put in place by the first petitioner Alessandro Zan the moment it started to involve famous people and influential among young people to launch a real persuasion campaign through omission of information and misinformation.
This ideology makes its way into the lives of people who often do not know what it is about, but find themselves obliged to choose whether to support it and are therefore "inclusive'.or to refuse it even if only to understand better what it is about and end up directly in the abyss with the label of "transphobic-a" or even homophobic-a.
The only power play they are making is these leftists that instead of considering the criticism of feminists in Italy and open up their views by also looking abroad to consider the consequences of these disastrous lawsare embracing a capitalist neoliberalism which actually has the following objectives: to address the Lgbtq centre economic resources much greater than those intended for women and women's centres, to be considered open and active in solving real problems, which will not be solved by such a law.
Change should be promoted by actions on the ground, education in schools starting with the sexual one, but not by sacrificing it to a 'gender' approach, awareness-raising campaigns.
We exist, we are the majority and we are not the Fake News.
It is true and we say it out loud: FEMINISTS DO NOT WANT THE ZAN LAW.
It is not a question of 'mutilating' it, but to construct laws in a careful and considered waynot as if it were a football match with fans doing the big voice and monopolising the information of an entire country.
But in no democracy can one be forced to "vote for the law as it stands".".
Those who criticise this law do so in order to investigate, inform themselves, read the text - something that not even the 10% of those who support it may have done, and who knows if they will have understood it - and observe the consequences that similar laws have had in other countries. Above all, however, those who oppose the law have clearly understood that the law has now become totally disconnected from what it was intended to be: an amendment to an existing law to discourage discriminatory acts against homosexual and transgender people, who, let us remember, are always seen as the victims of discrimination. male attackers.
If women do not want to continue with this law, it is not because they do not share the goal of stopping violence and discrimination against homosexual and transgender people. Far from it.
We want change in a society that requires us to "identifying with labels calls "genres', we believe in supporting and accompanying people who are not comfortable with their bodies, but we will never support the conversion therapy that this ideology, using LGBT collectives and equal opportunities ministries around the world as a sounding board, is advancing, paradoxically supporting female or male roles that are actually based on sexist, conservative and patriarchal concepts.
Are you sure you are supporting women, 'feminists'?
Are you sure you are protecting lesbian women and gay men?
Probably being able to see beyond your nose, to look beyond the Mediterranean could give you a greater awareness of the landscape.
I am, and we are, always open to discussion... as long as you deign to listen to women, before or after men.