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 -
You can send to: ASSOCIAZIONE CULTURALE BLU BRAMANTE
Obligatory reason: FEMINIST POST
IBAN: IT80C0200812914000104838541
You might also be interested in
24 September 2022
SPAIN: SOCIALISTS AGAINST THE TRANS LEY
Unlike their Italian counterparts from the PD and the left who stand for free gender identity, the Spanish progressives break with the PSOE's transactivist policies in defence of women and children. In their manifesto the excellent arguments against what, if passed, could be the worst transactivist law in the world
Breaking with its party, the PSOE, and sending a signal to the women of the European left, who are generally aligned in defence of transactivist diktatism, the Federación de Mujeres Progresistas launches a courageous manifesto against the Trans Law wanted by the governing majority in Spain (PSOE and Podemos) and being approved by an emergency procedure, without an effective parliamentary debate or a wide public discussion. The initiative also comes in response to the clamorous break between historical Spanish feminism -united in the Contraborrado cartel- [...].
Read now
21 September 2022
RU486 or abortion pill: myths, misunderstandings and business
Chemical abortion is sold as more free and self-determined, but it is not the solution for everyone: it is longer and more painful than surgery, sometimes less safe, and mostly serves to save the health system money, as the essay by three American feminists explains. Women must be guaranteed the right to be informed and to make an informed choice between the two options: here is a bill to make hospitals work
A few days ago we published 'When abortion matters to men'. In the post we mentioned the various methods of involuntary termination of pregnancy, including the abortion pill RU 486, also known as 'chemical abortion'. Chemical abortion is spoken of as a step forward in self-determination. Younger women in particular can get confused between 'morning-after' contraception (which must be taken within 72 hours of risky intercourse) and the abortion pill, with which pregnancy can be terminated up to the ninth week. [...]
Read now
17 September 2022
When abortion matters to men
Totally ignored by the right and left in peacetime, the issue of abortion becomes central when men fight for their power. But if there is a 'Marche case' there is also a 'Emilia case', a red region: the same percentages of objection and no abortion pill in the consultatories. We women must not take part in this filthy dispute over our flesh, siding with one or the other supporters.
Women - or rather, so-called 'women's rights' - have been instrumentally thrown into the centre of this horrific election campaign, probably the worst ever. Not the low female employment rate, the gender pay gap, the lack of services that forces us into the living welfare part, violence and feminicide, the machismo of politics and all that we know and experience. The issue of issues is abortion, fished out of the oblivion in which it is normally confined -no party [...]
Read now
14 September 2022
Perhaps gender identity does not exist
If it is the biologist Anna Fausto-Sterling, the first to speak about it in the 1990s, the inspiration of Judith Butler and the founder of gender theory, who is in doubt, then perhaps we are at a clamorous and definitive turning point. Stop trans laws before it is too late!
If Judith Butler is The Queen of Gender, Anna Fausto-Sterling is its goddess: zoologist, biologist and lecturer in gender studies -now at Brown University- starting from the rare genetic condition of intersexuality in the early 1990s, she was the first to attack the concept of sexual binaryity, arguing that sexuality is a spectrum and that at least five sexes can be identified ('come on, it wasn't a theory, I was being ironic, it was just a provocation' she later said. But in vain). [...]
Read now
11 September 2022
Trans-Europe: Ireland, UK, Spain, gender laws high on political agendas
While the new British Prime Minister Liz Truss works to block gender self-certification in Scotland, the Iberian government prevents the parliamentary debate on the Ley Trans, which allows sex change even for 12 year olds, to go for approval in a hurry: that is why Spanish feminists break with the left and open dialogue with the Popular Party. Meanwhile in Ireland a professor is arrested for refusing to use fluid language
A teacher at an Irish Christian school, Enoch Burke, was suspended and then arrested for refusing to name a transgender student with a neuter pronoun. Meanwhile, new British PM Liz Truss is reportedly trying to block Scotland's plans to allow self-identification for transgender (self-id) people and has asked lawyers for advice on how to 'pause or prevent' the reforms. Truss, head of the equalities brief as well as a former foreign minister, was instrumental in ruling out [...]
Read now
9 September 2022
Elizabeth, the last matriarch
The missing queen wielded her power so skilfully that it was invisible. A profound influence that never backfired. Wisdom, an iron sense of duty, pragmatism, emotional control and no narcissism: these are the traits of sovereignty that make her a model of female authority
Gaby Hinsliff for The Guardian Stop all watches. Unplug the phone. For once, the opening lines of WH Auden's poem, Funeral Blues, seem appropriate to the moment. Like it or not, much of public life will come to a halt in the days of mourning as broadcasters suspend their programmes and a state funeral is prepared. However long it may have been predicted, the death of the longest reigning monarch in British history is a moment [...]
Read now
1 2 3 ... 40