Zan bill: the misogynistic hatred of those who want an anti-hate law

A very powerful, fierce, atavistic feeling, says feminist Anna Bonforte Papale. She has been bullied and insulted for days just for mentioning a Constitutional Court ruling against self-certification of gender in a debate. We have all experienced this. Zan is not yet law -if it ever will be- but censorship is already underway. And it is above all women who must keep silent
Please be aware that the translation of contents, although automatic, has a cost to Feminist Post but is provided to you without any charge. Please consider making a contribution via the "Support us" page if you intend to use our translation service intensively.
The contents of this site are translated using automatic translation systems without the intervention of professional translators.
Translations are provided for the sole purpose of facilitating reading by international visitors.
Share this article

What is happening to the feminist Anna Bonforte Papale (whose FB post we republish almost in its entirety), has happened to many of us many times.

In this case, Bonforte has been subjected to misogynistic bullying for days. simply for having reported during a debate on the Zan dossier (pictured, Bonforte on the right) the passage from a Constitutional Court ruling, 180/2017, which states: "it must be excluded that the voluntarist element alone can have priority or exclusive importance for the purposes of establishing the transition".. In simple terms, it is not enough to perceive oneself as being of a different sex from one's birth to be able to claim to be recognised as the 'chosen' sex. Ihe transition process is regulated by law 164/82 and subsequent rulings, and cannot be surreptitiously changed by introducing gender identity into the text of a criminal law.

This passage from Judgment 180/2017 is always and significantly omitted from the arguments of the pro-ddl Zan for the simple but very good reason that it constitutes a obstacle to self-certification or self-id, the real goal of the Zan ddl as well as many other attempts at legislation, starting with the Ley Trans currently being discussed in Spain. Rightly so, notes Bonforte, if self-id is to be introduced, it is necessary to propose a reform of law 164/82, not to reform it de facto passing a law against homophobic discrimination, which is a different matter.

Bonforte points out two other things: during the debate, a lawyer also referred to that passage of judgement 180/2017, but nobody dared to challenge it. Bullying was reserved for her who said the same things, but she is a woman and a gender-critical feminist, as such an object of violent misogyny.

The other issue - the main one, according to Bonforte - concerns theArticle 4 of the Zan decree, the so-called 'idea-saver'. Several times, including in the Senate, we have stressed that this article should be read as a kind of excusatio non petita. A historical testimony to the fact that in all the discussion on this matter, Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of thought, has been ignored and continues to be ignored, as witnessed by Bonforte. Talking is already impossible, it always has been. Article 4 entrusts us with thearbitrariness of the judgewhich will have to assess whether or not something we have said is suitable for "determine the concrete danger of the commission of discriminatory or violent acts'.

From Thursday morning, after theStonewall event in Palazzolo Acreide organised by the Dahlia Association, a wonderful opportunity for public debate where people with different opinions and points of view confronted each other with civility, reason and mutual respect, I have changed my mind about the Zan Bill: it should be sunk as it is!

Immediately after the in-person event I was the subject of a shitstorm organised by Dario Accolla, who did not have the will or the arguments to confront, but did use the all denigrating and mystifying techniques via social media, being an expert master of hate speech which he only symbolically condemns while practising it every day, every heroic day. 

From Thursday morning I think the most dangerous article in the Zan Decree not Article 1 letter d (definition of gender identity) and not even Article 7 (the school day against homosexuality and disability), but only Article 4, a truly liberticidal article which I culpably underestimated until I came across it myself, mind you in the absence of an approved law!

I have been asked for 4 days to 'apologise' for my opinions expressed civilly, politely, without contempt or derision towards a person in transition present at the initiative who felt upset and offended by my legal and political opinion argued and supported by lawyer Raffaele Randazzo present and speaker, like me, in the excellent initiative. 

There's no way around it, for the last four days I've been I should be 'ashamed' of having spoken in public expressing the 'civil' opinion I have been expressing for monthsI would like to tell you that whether I am a feminist or a non-feminist, of a certain feminism or of the other has no relevance for the people who 'were not at the initiative' and who expressed solidarity with Accolla instead of me (paradoxical but revealing, when you say FB is useful!), It only matters that I have expressed it, this alone is considered 'violent' in itself, regardless of tone, expression, empathy or lack of empathy, and I am asked to account for it with a public apology because my opinions caused a person in transition present on Wednesday to cry, tears for which I have repeatedly declared myself sorry without this human displeasure being considered the equivalent of an indirect apology to the person involved who considers my words, my opinions to be 'violent and aggressive' without distinguishing between violent or discriminatory acts, between hate speech and hate crimes, because it is all an indistinct act of homolesbobitransphobia. Everything.

There would be no distinction between my arguments and those of a batterer or an aggressor, On the contrary, it is clear that I would be a 'bad teacher' because my words could be 'likely to lead to the concrete danger of discriminatory and violent acts being committed'. ( art. 4) so much so that I should apologise for having said them (...)

I 'did not erase' any trans person especially in a public discourse, let alone in a private one. The young trans person who cried feels hurt by my speech regardless of tone, empathy, understanding, civility of expression: he feels offended by my opinion which he considers homolesbobitransfobic and violent simply because I repeat what he already knows and what a Constitutional Court ruling (180/2017) says "it must be excluded that the voluntarist element alone can have priority or exclusive importance for the purposes of ascertaining the transition". 

It means two things: the transition must at least be initiated even if not completed, the transition must be ascertained by a third party (the state), cannot be self-certifiedWhy are we discussing this within a law that punishes with an aggravating circumstance those who use violence or discrimination accompanied by an expression of contempt (hate crime)? Why has self-id been improperly introduced into a criminal law? in which the victim's self-perception serves no purpose in clarifying the nature of the offence introduced by the extension of the Mancino law. 

This very sensitive subject should be discussed elsewhere (in the law supplementing and amending 164/82) not in the introduction of a criminal law, however when lawyer Randazzo says it, he is a technician, so no one considers it offensive; when I repeat it and add legal arguments, I am transphobic.I have erased the life of the trans person who cried and of all trans people: really the word of a woman, here it makes no sense to specify whether feminist or non-feminist, for all the commentators who 'weren't there on Wednesday' is worth less than nothing!

The supporters of the Zan bill have tried to deny this point, which was sought and wanted in the bill as indicated by the MIT, and they have continued to deny it against all literal and interpretative evidence: this evidence Wednesday evening at the beginning of the evening by the lawyer Randazzo has displaced those present, did not expect to have to antagonize the lawyer and in fact have not even tried, it was easier to antagonise the 'gender critical feminist'. who doesn't parrot anything (about disparaging and misogynistic representation) and in fact the feminist becomes terf and transphobic and not very empathetic. 

These arguments here, on social media, not believed and mocked by the supporters of the Zan bill, I have been writing, arguing and demonstrating them for months and it is precisely because of this position that I was invited to the Stonewall initiative (by the way, why did you invite me if these opinions offend you?).

On Wednesday evening in Palazzolo Acreide there was a lawyer I didn't know and who I'm not even friends with on FB, invited by the Dahlia Association, who said on his own, from the height of his academic title, what I've been repeating for months "parrot-like". But for Rino, for Alessandro, for Simona I should have changed my political opinion and I shouldn't have even pronounced it because just pronouncing it hurts the person in transition. On the contrary, according to you 3 (but you are not the only ones) I should apologise for my opinion expressed civilly and politely because this opinion cancels the life of the person in transition. According to the supporters of the Zan Bill, after its approval as it stands, I should no longer speak at all. (Article 4) because I should be afraid that continuing to argue in this way might lead to demonstrations and 'conduct likely to result in the concrete danger of discriminatory and violent acts being committed', according to you 3 (but you are not alone) I am already violent and transphobic and I should already be silent today, so as not to offend the person in transition who cried, and of course all the more reason I should keep quiet tomorrow under the law. 

You are dangerous and you don't even realise it, you are liberticidal not against patriarchy or feminism, you are liberticidal towards anyone who does not think as you do. and from tomorrow, for you 3 (but you are not the only ones) no one could legitimately argue anything against your opinion, because only your opinion would be legitimised, whereas mine is considered violent and transphobic even today in the absence of a law. 

Of course I'm scared, fucking scared.

You are dangerous to the freedom of all. In Italy we only need a law that punishes violent and discriminatory acts accompanied by an expression of contempt (the extension of the Mancino law) and it is you 3 (but you are not the only ones) that You are only scuttling it to allow Cirinnà and Zan to plant a useless flag. that will not change the life of the person in transition who cried because of my civilly expressed opinion.

As of Thursday morning, I am no longer satisfied with the amendment to the Zan bill: it needs to be rewritten from scratch because as it stands it is a dangerous, libertarian, inadmissible law. #BeddaMatrix 

And that's when the initiatives in attendance are going well and are civilised....figure if the insults had started, the real ones, but maybe if we had beaten each other up it would have been better? Don't talk to me about hate speeches anymore, because hate is a powerful feeling, which can incite to rebellion, indignation, saving rage against the indifferent, the oppressors, the Nazis, the colonisers, the extractors and appropriators of the blood of the struggles of others with impunity.

Unfortunately, all that circulates is the hatred against women, which is very powerful, fierce, atavistic, and which everyone doesn't give a shit about.

Anna Bonforte Papale

Much of the news published by Feminist Post you will not read elsewhere. That is why it is important to support us, even with a small contribution: Feminist Post is produced solely by the voluntary work of many people and has no funding.
If you think our work can be useful for your life, we will be grateful for even the smallest contribution.

You can give us your contribution by clicking here: Patreon - Feminist Post
   - or -
Obligatory reason: FEMINIST POST
IBAN: IT80C0200812914000104838541
You might also be interested in
12 August 2022
Italian Society of Paediatrics: stopping puberty in dysphoric children does not cause permanent problems. But several studies prove otherwise
UK, Sweden, Finland, USA: much of the world is up in arms against puberty blockers that can irreversibly damage the health of girls and boys. The Tavistock clinic in London is closing down, a thousand families are preparing for a class action in defence of their daughters and sons who have not been properly treated, many American paediatricians are attacking their trade association which is pushing for the administration of these drugs. But for the Italian paediatricians' society these problems do not exist
According to the Italian Society of Paediatrics, the effects of puberty blockers used to treat girls and boys with gender dysphoria are perfectly REVERSIBLE: this means that if the girl/boy changes her mind about her intention to 'change sex' and suspends the 'therapy', her development will resume normally, without any definitive effects and/or health problems. This is not the case at all. The effects of puberty blocker therapy are by no means 'completely reversible', as has been demonstrated by several [...]
Read now
6 August 2022
California, transfusion of children
The American state proposes itself as a 'health' tourism destination for minors who are unable to access transition where they live. Exempting the parents and relieving the operators of any risk of litigation in the event of subsequent 'repentance'. Meanwhile in the UK, after the closure of the Tavistock, eyes are on a Scottish clinic where the experimental model (puberty blockers and surgery) continues to be applied
There is a real war going on in the United States over the ideology of gender identity and its promotion in schools. A 'culture war' pitting the elites, who fund and promote gender ideology, against the ordinary people who oppose it (see the Disney case here). While Biden from day one has made many legislative concessions to trans activism at the federal level, the Republicans have intercepted the discontent of the citizenry with various counter-legislation at the state level, such as [...]
Read now
3 August 2022
Worker yes. Minister no. Woman neither
If there is one thing Italian politicians all agree on, it is the erasure of women, starting with language. While the 'progressive' left erases us with asterisks and schwa -fake-inclusive language that returns everything to the masculine- the right refuses to use the feminine for women of authority in institutions. But words are important because they make reality
Incredibly -and with a secret vote, wickedly conceded by President Casellati- a few days ago, the Senate rejected the Maiorino amendment authorising women in the institutions to be called by their names. This issue has profound political relevance. Many poets over the centuries have made use of poetic licences, i.e. intentional grammatical, metrical and syntactic errors with the intention of emphasising a concept or altering the sonority of the composition. On 27 July 2022 at Palazzo Madama is [...]
Read now
29 July 2022
UK. Black week for the glittering trans-patriarchy: closed the Tavistock, gender clinic for children. And Allison Bailey wins in court: she was discriminated against for her gender critical views
The ideology of gender identity under attack in UK: NHS orders closure of paediatric transition clinic and points the way to psychological therapies. And Allison Bailey wins employment tribunal case backed by JK Rowling: employer ordered to compensate her for putting her 'under investigation' because of her gender critical views. At the suggestion of Stonewall, who comes out of it with her reputation in tatters
CLOSES TAVISTOCK, CHILDREN'S TRANSITION CLINIC: 'AFFIRMATIVE' APPROACH (DRUGS AND SURGERY) IS DANGEROUS FOR YOUNG PATIENTS The news is sensational: the British National Health Service (NHS) has ordered the closure of the Tavistock & Portman gender clinic for failing to ensure the safety of young patients, most of whom are girls (full article here). The clinic has been accused by several parties of hastily initiating many minors, most of them suffering from spectrum disorders [...].
Read now
28 July 2022
Argentina: stop neutral language in schools
E' was the first country to introduce gender self-identification. Ten years later it is among the first to ban neutral language in schools as it is 'not even that inclusive: it creates a barrier for children with learning difficulties'
In 2012, Argentina was the first country in the world to introduce self-id or gender self-identification into its legal system. Ten years later, it is one of the first countries to ban neutral language in schools. As taught by the mothers of radical feminism and difference thinking, the neutral is a red herring that actually brings the male point of view back to the centre. If the illusion of the neutral is less noticeable in the English language, it is immediately [...]
Read now
25 July 2022
Open field, closed lists
The tiger's eye does not want to see that you can reassemble and recombine the line-up all you want, but if the faces and names remain the same you have very little credibility. And if the only goal recognisable to most of the electorate is to bar the way for your political opponent - for once a woman, which makes it all the more surreal - your chances of success are not very good.
Work is in progress on the construction of the large rassemblement or open camp (the wide one has been discontinued). The discussion is only between men (with the partial exception of Emma Bonino) and the cement that holds the coalition project together is 'stopping Meloni': there is little discussion of political programmes, and what Calenda, Fratoianni and Di Maio may have in common is all to be understood. Observers and sociologists of politics scoff to point out that building a project 'against' [...].
Read now
1 2 3 ... 39