Tomorrow, Tuesday 6 July, we will know the fate of the Zan dossier. We will see if a mediation on the text will be possible, or whether instead the PD and 5Stelle will decide to go into battle in the chamber wrapped in the flag of the gender identity.
For at least a year we have been looking for an interlocution to propose some changes in the text. We were really convinced that a constructive dialogue was possible, also for the very good reason that most of us come from or belong to the centre-left.
All we found were walls, taunts and insults starting with Zan himself, who together with Cirinnà and Boldrini has repeatedly dismissed us as 'residual' and irrelevant, in addition to the deliberate and tenacious failure to listen by the successive PD secretaries, first Zingaretti and then Letta.
Some of us have been studying the issue of gender identity and the impact of legislation for many years. gender friendly on society as a whole and on women, girls and children in particular. We are linked to feminist organisations in many countries, such as ContraBorrado in Spain and Cawsbar in Canada, we are part of the gender critical global network WHRC which has almost 20,000 members and brings together hundreds of associations worldwide. In short, we know a lot, we know more than anyone, and our Feminist Post together with other international sites gathers all the information needed to get an idea.
The intention was make our knowledge available to parliamentarians who probably never dealt with these matters. It did not work. The only breach in the centre-left was opened by Italia Vivawhich has been engaged in a mediation attempt for some time.
In recent weeks, the following have emerged internally two different points of view: Some of us felt that we should continue to seek interlocution, particularly with the PD, with the aim of changing the Zan dossier in order to 'save' it; others took a different tack in the conviction that there was nothing left to save and no dialogue to pursue, having noted an absolute unwillingness to do so. And they coagulated around the proposal to revive the 'old' Scalfarotto bill which could guarantee aexcellent and simple law against homophobic crimes without surreptitiously introducing gender self-determination. I was one of them, and I raised the Scalfarotto hypothesis on every occasion - here, in the newspapers, in the Senate -.
Italia Viva thought it was a good idea, made it its own mediation proposal and relaunched it at the Senate table, and tomorrow it will be put to the final scrutiny: either we mediate or we go to the count in the Chamber.
While there is no shortage of openings from the centre-right, the PD seems to be stuck on the Zan text. Difficult to understand, for at least two reasons: 1. The Scalfarotto bill was also born in the centre-left, is part of its heritage and was signed by Zan himself. and would provide effective protection against homotransphobia 2. the Scalfarotto bill would find a majority in the Senate - even Salvini agrees on the text - while the Zan bill would not..
One argument on the part of the PD is that the Scalfarotto bill would leave transgender people without protection. Absolutely unfounded: the Scalfarotto bill explicitly mentions transphobia, whereas the Zan bill does not; It would be strange if the Scalfarotto bill - which was signed by Zan himself - had left trans people unprotected.
It is, of course, about specious arguments. The real issue is the rcontributions of strength between the PD and Italia Viva on the one hand and the centre-right on the other. But the outcome of the political and electoral tug-of-war could be disastrous precisely on the front of the fight against homotransfobia. Better no law, if not Zan law?
Non-mediation with counting in the plenary could mean not only the sinking of the Zan bill, but also the definitive renunciation of a law at least in this legislature. If, according to the polls, the next legislature were to have a centre-right majority, there would be no more talk of laws against homosexuality.
If, on the other hand, (which is highly unlikely), the count in the Chamber were to be in favour of the Zan bill, this would create a considerable problem in the current government majority, with possible repercussions on other fronts.
In conclusion, there are no sensible reasons to say no to the good law against homotransfobia that would be guaranteed by the Scalfarotto proposal and could be quickly approved. The hope is therefore that the PD will accept mediation.
As for the iand gender self-certification, which, as we said, the Zan bill was intended to introduce in a completely surreptitious manner: it would be a real civilisation change in the direction of transhumanism, project that nothing to do with respect and protection of homosexual and transgender people.
Whoever wants this should rather propose a reform of law 164/82 regulating paths for transsexuals to introduce gender self-certification without expert opinions or judgments, an issue on which one cannot think of taking shortcuts, and which requires long and careful reflection.
The transhuman horizon is by no means an inescapable destiny. There are other possibilities.
Feminism, for example, has a very different idea of civilisation in mind, a neo-humanism with female roots in which relations and dependence between living beings replace the illusion of the transhuman individual freed from all bonds, even with his own body, an absolute precarious, consumer and producer fungible according to the needs of the market.
As you can see, there is much to discuss. This has nothing to do with the legitimate demand for more protection for homosexual and transgender people..
Marina Terragni
