These days the Italian parliament is busy (so to speak) in the discussion of a law that punishes hate propaganda when it turns against some people's sexual preferences. Since transsexuals are also involved, this has caused the attention whores of the feminist world, that is, the TERF lesbians, to take the field.
First of all, I clarify my bias: I don't think it makes sense to follow the path that has been followed lately in the world of Italian politics, for which a special law is needed for everything. For example, "femicide" was already punished, and if you really thought you could stem the threat by using a higher penalty, it would have been better to use an aggravating circumstance. Otherwise now it will be necessary to build a new case, such as fontaniericide (killing of a plumber because a plumber), gianpiernaikicidio (killing of a Milanese fashionist as such), etc., because it is believed that the motives of the attacker define the incident . So if I kill a woman because I'm a feminicide, but if I kill her because I'm a black, I'm a racist, a feminicide? These applications of intersectional logic to the law are, in my opinion, a mistake. They are a mistake because now that we have a law against propaganda against races, religions and now also sexual orientations, what prevents me from making hate propaganda towards vegans, interists or conspiracy theorists?
Are we going to add an ad hoc law? Or perhaps a law that punishes any hate speech would be better, as §130 of the German penal code does: you cannot propagate hatred against groups of people , period. Any group, from dwarves to Bavarians. (then theologians are still wondering if the Bavarians are "people", which one would not say from the dialect, but this is another problem). The motivations, at best, are an aggravating factor .
With that said, let's see what happens.
But let's get down to it. This happens:
In practice, TERF feminists want to block the law so that it does not punish hatred against various gender identities, because if we say gender identity , according to them people could forget that you are a woman only if you have ever had menstruation at least once.
Now, what is the reason for the dispute? The reason for the dispute is called "fashion": feminists are leftists, and as such they blindly follow any fashion that comes from abroad. Where the word "foreign" refers for them to the Anglo-Saxon countries, which for linguistic reasons struggle to understand the difference between sex and gender.
And since in the USA a political disaster has arisen that is based on this linguistic misunderstanding, then the same thing must be done in Italy, even if the Italian language does NOT allow such misunderstanding.
Let's understand: in English we use the neutral for everything, except when we use a pronoun (she / her, for example), which however is done only for subjects or objects that have a clear reproductive sex .
So you will use "The" for any object, and only if a pronoun is needed will you use a reference to sex . But this is a peculiarity of the English language, which does not distinguish very well between sex and gender .
You can discuss as much as you want with an English speaker the difference between sex and gender, she won't understand it because her language will NOT allow you to pass the message. English, a shitty language as such, does not have the power (let alone cardinality) that serves to describe the problem in logical terms.
But Italian, like almost all languages, is much more sophisticated and powerful.
First of all because it distinguishes between sex and gender.
"La Casa" has no biological sex, such as "Il Palazzo", but we use a female or male gender , as appropriate. In some way, therefore, we have decided that houses, forks, bicycles, shirts, are feminine , but it is clear that nobody would dream of assigning a sexual, that is, reproductive, role to this term.
Then home, fork, bicycle, shirt are of the female gender, but have no sex. The Italian language, like many others, has the power to distinguish gender and gender, already within the syntax.
Likewise, it is absolutely clear that unlike reproductive sex, gender is assigned by society. And different companies assign different genres to the same thing.
The Moon (female) -> Der Mond (Maschil)
Il Sole (male) -> Die Sonne (Female)
The girl (female) -> Das Mädchen (Neutral !!!!)
I have bolded the last example to emphasize how the assigned gender is not only abstract (as happens for moon and sun, which have no sex) but can also contradict reproductive sex . At some point (the Middle Ages) the German company decided to call the girls with the name Mäd, (the root from which the English "Maid" also derives), which was used to indicate the servants. After all, JungFrau (young woman) was already taken and abused, since it means "virgin".
But regardless of the reasons, the point is that reproductive sex is assigned by the activation of the SRY gene, while the gender is assigned by society , and there are very few exceptions, including the hideous idiomatic dialect spoken in London. If you search around, you will find that almost all languages assign gender to objects without reproductive sex, and often have exceptions where they assign a gender other than reproductive sex.
Incidentally (so I am happy with the Wiccans) the German considers the Moon male (as well as Arabic, they tell me) but there is a linguistic loan (usually used in poetry, but rarely used colloquially) which is "Die Lune" , which is female. So you can continue to tell the world that the moon is universally associated with women. (LOL). So we are in case the same thing has two different genres depending on the term we use to indicate it .
In English the problem is terrible to deal with, since The Moon, The Girl, The Sun all have the same article, there is no Italian rule of the word ending with -a, and pronouns are used ONLY for things that have a reproductive sex, with rare exceptions.
The controversy against "gender ideology" therefore arises among English-speaking barbarians, whose miserable speech does not allow us to understand very well the difference between gender and sex. But all other peoples, who have the difference between gender and sex already in the language, should have no major problems understanding the difference.
The controversy against "the theory of gender" is therefore not only ridiculous in countries with a powerful language, but is simply provincial , because like all provincials those who support the controversy do nothing but follow an Anglo-Saxon fashion. We just need to legislate about who is with the Beatles and who is with the Rolling Stones, and the ridicule would be complete.
It is very simple for an Italian to understand that the M2F transsexual person has a male reproductive sex, but has a female gender , and if someone says that the gender MUST coincide with the sex, I invite him to find the uterus in the fork he uses to eat. Who has no sex, but society assigns him a gender. (what the assignment corresponds in practice, also linguistic, the company decides once again).
Clarified that the controversy on "gender" should not come out of the Anglo-Saxon sphere if we were people with brains, now let's return to the issue of TERF.
Imagine you are a woman. You are raised all your life with the idea of being precious because you have ovaries, uterus and menstruation. This specificity, typical of patriarchal societies, is the only fun thing about living in a male chauvinist society: first women and children (and women with children because there is a uterine bond), etc.
Now become feminists, you want to unhook the value you have as people from the value you have between your legs. What are you doing? If you are intelligent people, minimize that value by moving it outside the biological sphere. And so you can start talking about equality.
BUT let's say it as it should be said: giving up the power of negotiation due to having a uterus and a vagina is not easy, just as it is not easy to give up anything that is considered precious .
In this way you build an inconsistent, illogical and catastrophically doomed ideology, in which you say that in order to have equality with men and get out of the patriarchal paradigm that wants women as a reproductive object, it is necessary to define your identity starting from the reproductive organs .
In short, we must shout "besides the body there is more", but at the same time we must shout "but especially the body". We must emancipate ourselves from a condition that derives from belonging to reproductive sex, defining one's identity starting from reproductive sex.
But what if by chance your faction of feminists who leave the body defining themselves starting from the body meet someone who says "hey, then I who am male have every right to define myself starting from my body"? To understand the implications:
Mrs Rowling, who writes books in the hideous idiom of Albion's fishermen, seems to think that the source of her emotions are the ovaries. But she'll be pissed off a lot if they call her "hysterical" like Charcot did. 200 years of science thrown away, I suppose. But science is muggle stuff.
But let's ask myself what I could write if I decided to assign my "emotional intelligence" starting from my genitals. I should say something like: “ true, without my testicles I would lack a sense of honor and integrity. I would be like my wife, who feels no urge to wash offended injuries in her blood, an inflatable doll without violence, aggression or a sense of possession. On the contrary, thanks to my testicles I can be a violent, aggressive warrior, looking for troubles and throwing myself into physical undertakings that are greater than my possibilities, and let's not forget all the self-esteem and epic that testosterone gives us ".
How do TERF feminists solve the problem? They simply shut themselves in a room with the more extreme groups of lesbians, and having the feeling of having erased the male gender from the horizon, they are not able to understand that, to tell the truth, they don't seem so different from those men who say "the man addapuzza".
In this way, in the Italian GLBT world there was a real split, since Arcilesbica became the Soviet Menstruating Dictatorship, up to the inevitable conflict with ArciGay, which strives to protect everyone, even the trans:
But the malaise was already perceived from before, so many that some people had already escaped from Arcilesbica for this reason:
This is to clarify what the “GLBT” panorama is like today: in practice it should be written G
LBT , since the transs begin to feel uncomfortable, the Bisexuals feel uncomfortable at all, and the lesbians have decided to hate each other.
And now let's get to the point: in the USA it has happened that M2F transsexuals have started attending feminist meetings, which makes sense because they have (in addition to their problems) also many problems in common with women. And they are pissed abbestia: "_questi white males want to colonize the female space !!! Achtung !!! Achtung !!! _ ".
Apart from the fact that not all trans are white (to be honest the opposite, considering the presence of Latin America), to hear them it would be said that the trans are taking a path that brings the post suicide rate -op at 22%, to march with their divisions in the female bathroom .
This theory is even more ridiculous than defining women regardless of the body but starting from the ovaries , and poses some interesting questions. First of all, I would say this.
- Nobody defends something that is not a privilege. No American slave has ever asked for a law that would prevent whites from being slaves. When you are discriminated against, you do not ask yourself the problem that the privileged want to be in their place. Why fear that someone wants to move from a privileged position to an oppressive one?
And here comes the first point: if male privilege exists and oppression of patriarchy exists, why is female specificity defended as if it were a privilege? Who would be crazy enough to go all the way of M2F transsexuality just to "invade spaces" of feminist lesbians? Well, of course: those white males who want to walk in stilettos in the women's bathroom. And be patient if women are 50% of the population, while trans are 28 for ten thousand.
So we find out that TERF Feminist Lesbians have decided to put the wheels on the law against hate propaganda against, with the excuse that if there is written gender identity in the law, someone could doubt how precious it is to be an oppressed woman. Or something like that.
My personal opinion is that these are NOT the real reasons for this opposition.
The truth is that much of the hate propaganda against transsexual women comes from feminist lesbian circles.
And with this excuse they are trying to get in the way of a law that, in addition to the fascists, would also end up on the defendants' bench.
That's all. Nothing but a fascist in a skirt .
Because fascists come in two genders: male and female. And they also come in two sexes: male and female.
And some fascists have a name: TERF.