Imagine a bill whose first article reads like this: "By 'virus' we mean an infectious pathogen". Or like this: “By 'hand' we mean the extremity of the forelimb of a person with five fingers”. Or, again, like this: “By ice we mean water in a solid state”. Would you like to laugh? Well, know that there is nothing to laugh about. In fact, the Zan bill states: “By sex we mean biological or personal sex”. It's not funny because when the absurd takes the forms of the real and the grotesque those of positive law, then the time has really come to question ourselves.
Why have we gotten to the point where we need a law to tell us what sex is? That is, one of the most obvious and elementary notions? Answer: because sex must stop being an identity factor. And in fact the law takes care to "confine" it by labeling it with two adjectives: "biological" and "personal". Therefore, there is something other than sex which, however, is closely related to the latter: "gender". It is no coincidence that gender is defined in point b) of article 1 as “any (mind you:“ any ”) external manifestation of a person that conforms or conflicts with social expectations related to sex”.
Curious how – in an age obsessed with truth, science and fact-checking – a law based entirely on the changing, changeable, subjective concept of "perception" is licensed. Yet, point d) of article 1 tells us precisely this by finally explaining what gender is: "Gender identity means the perceived and manifested identification of oneself in relation to gender". In practice, this is the demolition, by legislation, of the "biological" truth about sex: from now on, the legislator tells us, you will be male or female not because of the genetic heritage decided by nature and ascertained by science, but so, head to head, based on how you "perceive" yourself.
And this by virtue of the semantic alchemy operation of a legislator who has decided that there is "sex" and there is "gender". A sociological subtlety translated into a norm. At least surprising, in a context in which those who do not tell the "truth" and do not adapt to "science" risk (for now) censorship and perhaps (tomorrow) jail. But this would also be the least. The most, and the worst, is that the bill in question carves out a small space of freedom, with article 4, without prejudice to the "free expression of convictions and expressions" (article 21 of the Supreme Charter thanks for the mention of honor) "provided they are not suitable for determining the concrete danger of discriminatory and violent acts".
Do you understand how "concrete" becomes the risk of ending up indicted with a salvation clause of such perfidious and ambiguous vagueness? Fortunately we are a people who "have faith in the judiciary". To conclude, wherever you look at it (even on the side of those who lead sacrosanct battles against homophobic discrimination), this text of law looks a lot like Orwell's 1984 philosophy of law. The one where Big Brother decides that "war is peace "And" slavery is freedom ".
Another step towards the destruction of individual identity factors (after national and religious). Another step towards the regimentation of thought in a penal key: even that conceived and revealed around elementary biological and natural truths. The triumph of the society of "emotion" over the civilization of "reason". The bad masters of yesteryear totalitarianism would celebrate with caviar and champagne. And they would also have a nice slogan ready: "You can 'feel' what you want, but you have to 'think' as we want".
The article Everything you wanted to say about sex (but you won't even dare to think) comes from ScenariEconomici.it .
This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/tutto-quello-che-avreste-voluto-dire-sul-sesso-ma-non-oserete-neanche-pensare/ on Sat, 08 May 2021 07:32:02 +0000.