Mario Draghi outlined the formal perimeter, the freedom of Parliament, the secular state, but the substantial knots of the story all remain. Let no one think of comparing the mess created around the Zan bill with the great civil rights battles of the 1970s. Back then the line was clear between those who wanted to defend the laws on divorce and abortion and those who wanted to cancel them. Then the best of secular and Catholic culture marched side by side fighting the clerical-fascist front. Then a great mass of people opposed the attempt of Vatican and of the CEI to impose their conservative and repressive vision of religion on Italian society.
Today the picture is different. The Zan bill got bogged down and provoked the unpleasant intervention of the Vatican for reasons of internal weakness. For the superimposition of the very right objective of targeting homophobia and transphobia with the attempt to impose a doctrine – the so-called gender theory – as a state ideology.
TV talk shows this season don’t help shed some light. They re-propose in a monotonous way who is totally in favor and who is totally against the bill. There is never room for another component of thought, which also has its roots in secularism and in the reflection on feminism and homosexuality. How come personalities like Cristina Gramolini, Cristina Comencini, Aurelio Mancuso are overshadowed?
The Zan bill cannot become a fetish. It is not clear why the position of those who want a law that combats violence and incitement to violence against homosexuals and transsexuals is censored, but asks for a different formulation of the legislative text. We voted in the millions to prevent family life and procreation from being subjected to the dictatorship of a religious doctrine and we did not do it to submit to a state ideology.
In my opinion, it is not just a question of unequivocally protecting freedom of speech. The crux of the political tangle that has been created for me consists in the formulation of Article 1 where it states that “… for gender identity it means the perceived and manifested identification of oneself in relation to gender, even if not corresponding to sex, regardless of having completed a transition path “. This is the point under discussion. The claim of the bill to establish that gender identity – beyond its social and biological content – is totally entrusted to a demonstration subjective. So the complex relationship between a person’s body and psyche and his sex is left to the pure arbitrariness of the individual and to the relativization of the moment.
Not only. This “perceived identification” brings with it an obsessive one categorization of identities and protections. The free choice of their way of living there is not exalted – as transversally desired by a large mass of citizens sexuality, but a barcode is applied to each. Gay, lesbian, trans, queer, transgender, cisgender. And the “categories” are growing all the time, listing who is not interested in sex or who switches from one identity to another.
In a glossy article in the magazine MicroMega Cinzia Sciuto rightly exclaimed “Cisgender will be her!”, Explaining that it is one thing to say that the kind it is also a socio-cultural construction, it is another thing to say that it is a completely irrelevant fact. More. If the traditional concept that men or women behave in a certain way because of their sex is stereotyped, the categorization of gender “perceptions” is even more stereotyped. This is why a part of feminism bowl some passages of the Zan bill. And that is why, without going into a tangle of social, psychological, cultural, philosophical arguments, it would be better if the law on homophobia and transphobia simply hit every attack on “free sexual orientation”.
There is a second observation to make, in my opinion. All politics. In the years of the great battles for civil rights, the Vatican and the episcopate were on one side, the secular feeling of Italian society was on the other. Today the situation is completely different. Francis is the first pontiff who clearly took the side of the full respect sexual orientation of the individual. “Who am I to judge a homosexual …?” He exclaimed from the start. Francis has publicly received homosexual couples. He received a Spanish trans with his fiancée and his bishop in the Vatican to emphasize his dignity. He explicitly stated that gays have the right to live in a family.
The CEI in turn, with Cardinal Bassetti, declared that it shared the need to protect gay and trans people from violence and aggression. Bassetti only asked for one remodeling of the text in the most controversial points.
How can we fail to notice that this was – compared to the frontal oppositions of the 1970s – a historic step forward? It is known that for this attitude the president of the CEI was accused behind the scenes by conservative hawks of being “too soft”.
A cold political analysis leads to only one result. Insist on the part of the promoters of the law in the intransigence on controversial and completely useless formulations for the purpose of contrasting thehomophobia and transphobia will have only one outcome: to push parts of the Catholic world into the arms of Salvini and Meloni. I don’t think that’s what Italy needs.