On the Zan law

I decided to write about this law because in the end there is an underlying hypocrisy that nobody wants to see, even if it is starting to filter through the newspapers. And that is, that not even the PD, after all, really wants it. And when I say that he doesn't really want it, I mean that the usual “yes, but…”, “yes, but…”, “yes, but also” comes into play.

An example can be found here:

Some time ago I think I have already talked about the Terf, since they are an example of how, by dint of "yes, but", the Ma overcome the Yes.

To complete the picture it is also necessary to show who this lady is and what you think about the subject: http://marinaterragni.it/il-transchilismo-e-un-culto-la-realta-non-conta/

I will try to analyze this dialectic, precisely because it is the same one that is prevalent in the PD, where there would be those "progressives". I omit the idea of ​​Terragni, that if an Islamic person (who has suffered a fatwa) compares you to an Islamic terrorist then we have an authoritative source, since being Islamic and having suffered a fatwa, she automatically becomes an expert in Islamic terrorism. I archive this thing together with films where every Asian is an expert in kung fu because they beat him at school and every African knows how to dance well because a friend of mine who is a personal trainer says so.

The transformation of the victim of something into an expert on that thing is the ridiculous phenomenon that allowed a famous person with cancer to explain in the newspapers that "positivity" is enough to cure cancer.

She died of cancer.

The article itself is a catastrophic pile of nonsense, since on one page it states several things that contradict other things.

For example, when she says that there is no transsexual emergency killed, she commits a catastrophic methodological error: she says that there is no transsexual emergency because, according to her, the quantity of transsexuals killed "quails" with the percentage of "people" killed.

This is interesting, because he is using the same technique that is used to demonstrate that a "gender gap" exists: he takes a multi-factor problem and analyzes it on a single dimension . Basically he is taking a killing problem (which has many dimensions, one of which is prostitution) and analyzing it only in terms of the mean, but for example it does not consider the standard deviation. If the transsexuals killed range from 23 to 35 years old, and you compare that to a 0-75 year range (of global deaths), in my opinion you are having an operation that "requires some strong if not extravagant hires." If an age segment (which is NOT a random sample) gives you a prevalence of that type, (and the transsexuals killed are almost all prostitutes, i.e. poor and relatively young, then there is also the income dimension and the profession performed), you do not compare it with the global data. Point.

This method is dangerous ALSO because the same fallacious argument can be used in other ways: for example, the number of murders of women in Italy is 'HALF' of the number of murders that have men as victims. For every woman killed TWO men are killed. Since females are half of the population, following the logic of Terragni we should deduce that there is no problem of femicide, indeed, if anything, it is the opposite: men prefer to kill other men . This is to say how wrong his methodology is. (in reality a multi-dimensional problem is analyzed on several dimensions, period: I know, this also demolishes the tale of the “Gender Gap”, but I can't help it and science doesn't give a damn).

Obviously, as Orwell says, to prove an absurd thesis it is necessary to change the dictionary, or at least it is good, so better if we invent a term, “transchilism”. It is an incoherent, incomplete and inconsistent definition, but coincidentally an argument of the TERF, according to which transsexuals are the EinsatzKommando Toiletten that the patriarchy uses to occupy the bathrooms of females. Except that if you call the lady "TERF", she gets angry and becomes the victim of a fatwa, (after all with the TERF she has only the objectives, the dialectic and the methods in common, why should we suspect anything?).

Let's face it, Terragni would also be credible when she accuses others of fundamentalism if she hadn't just invented a word, “transchilism”, to indicate an accusation to be made to those who think differently.

The situation feminist complains that it is difficult to talk to the queer world (in order to prove to them that they are shitty impostors, enlightening their poor alien minds from incorrect statistical analysis ), as if it were easy to talk to TERF feminists (or better: feminists indistinguishable from a TERF who take offense if you call them TERF).

And it is for this reason that, when asked about the question of the Zan law, we come up with the discourse that a law against homophobia should concern people abused for sexual preferences, but let's forget about transsexuals and queers .

And he claims to do it for "reality", as if his proposal were realistic . Do we REALLY go into reality? Imagine a process in which some fascists after having mistreated someone receive the question:

• Mr. Galeazzo Musolesi (cit.), How was the victim dressed? Did she have men's clothes, or were the trousers pink for example? Violet? Fuchsia?
• in my opinion the pants were pink. We very heterosexual males do not distinguish fuchsia from purple, as is well known. And I don't want to mention that he had an earring. And the foundation.
• Your Honor, here we have a clear example of pederastic jewelry: it is obvious that it has been sought: it is queer. I ask for absolution, or at least the mitigating circumstances: certainly not the aggravating circumstance of homophobia. The victim is queer, not gay.

Here, this is about what the lady above wants in her realism : because the only way to make a Zan law without putting gender identity in it can only produce criminal trials of this type: the accused will have to 'just to prove that you have done something bad to a queer person, but not to a TÜV / ISO certified gay canon. (whatever that means).

Now, imagine a debate in the classroom that is hard enough, requiring compactness, when someone stands up and says "yes, but". It is clear that the parties of the "NO" immediately gain strength.

And here is the problem: the left has a problem of "feminism", or rather the fact that when any topic that may concern, directly or in passing, rights to be assigned for issues related (even from a distance) comes into play gender or sexuality, the "feminists" (ie the right-thinking women, because this is what we are talking about) break in and begin to say that no, if rights are to be assigned, males must be excluded, or those who were born such , while anything that benefits someone's rights must benefit women born women, and only those.

And I can prove it: let's assume the absurdity that this girl is right and there is no reason to protect even queer people. But we are wrong and we give this protection to them too. So, not only can fascists not mistreat gays and lesbians, but also mistreating trans / queer people is considered just as wrong (which Terragni doesn't want). What's the risk? To give "too many" rights? To protect them "too much"? To protect too many people? And since when is a right like "not to be mistreated" too much? I mean, let's even assume it's "too much" to protect even queer people, what is the problem of "protecting too much", exactly? Are we giving him a subsidy, creating fake pensioners? Where's the risk? Where's the cost?

The truth is that if we talk about rights, the problem of giving "TO TOO MANY PEOPLE" rights does not arise: the problem of "TOO MANY PEOPLE" arises ONLY when we give PRIVILEGES. Because if we give them to too many people, they're no longer privileges.

The lady, therefore, comes from a subculture of feminism for which one does not fight for rights, but for gender privileges. And when this faction (which for the PD is electorally heavy) finds itself in parliament, it is clear that the consensus is starting to creak.

The leftist press tries to blame the League if the law has run aground, but the shyness of the left comes (as usual) from being WEAK inside.

And it is weak with regard to the Zan law because of these "feminists", that is, pink ben-thinking. From an entire culture, based on badly executed statistics and a Jesuit-type apologetic thought, which in the end will do nothing but say "yes", beating gays is a horrible crime, instead the trans women being "transkilist" men can easily get killed with punches, who cares, the average of the murders is that, darling.

But it's not a TERF. Let's say that if m is a number close to TERF, there is another number between me TERF, and there is her. In short, it is not "equal" to TERF: it "tends to".

And to be honest, the idea that protection is extended to "too many" people, even if wrong, scares me a little.

I'm more scared of what happens now.