Let me explain why I hope that the Zan bill will not be approved
"I hope that the Zan bill will not be approved if the rules that codify the gender theory are not removed, relegating sexual identity to a mere personal record despite the fact that it is the only irrefutable connotation both in terms of physical conformation and procreation"
The debate in the Senate on the Zan bill begins today. The vote on the measure (approved with great care in the Chamber) has turned into a challenge by Enrico Letta on a question that has become divisive within the majority.
Mario Draghi realized what was at stake, so much so that by intervening, marginally, in the Senate on the Vatican's position regarding the violation of the Concordat, despite having proffered assurances on the secular nature of the State and on the powers of Parliament, he wanted to clarify that he did not want to intervene on the merits, since it was not a matter for the government, but for the Chambers.
The writer hopes that the bill will not be approved if some rules that codify the gender theory are not removed, relegating sexual identity to a mere personal record despite the fact that it is the only irrefutable connotation recognized as such since the times of Neanderthal Man. as regards the physical conformation and procreation. Moreover, I cannot understand why the right to exercise one's sexuality (a crucial aspect of the same personality) should be kept together in the same law, introducing into the legal system – as if this were the recognition of a further civil right – a visionary theory (in the sense of giving rise to a vision) which has no scientific value.
The supporters of the Zan bill erroneously cite the jurisprudence of the Council, as if the judges of the laws had validated gender identity as defined by Article 1 of the bill: d) gender identity 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 ''.
In fact, there is no lack of references to some judgments, but crucial details are omitted to define their scope and content. Let's go briefly to the origins of the problem. Italy has adopted state-of-the-art legislation (the third in Europe) as regards the possibility of changing the anatomical and personal sex (law n.164 / 1982), in order to regularize the position of those who had undergone the surgical reassignment of sexual characteristics abroad, but which, due to the absence of a law, could not be recognized in the new identity.
Obviously, after thirty years from the approval of the law, new requests have been made, in particular regarding the mandatory nature of surgery to change one's name (and personal sex) and the type of surgery required. to conclude the path (must it concern the primary sexual characteristics, with a certainly more invasive impact on the health of the person, or is a modification of the secondary characteristics sufficient, also possible with hormonal treatment alone?).
The interpretation of law 164 and the practices in use in social and health structures, in fact, have for a long time considered surgery to be mandatory, even if the person concerned does not wish to. When questioned on this point, the relevant jurisprudence had required – in large majority, and with few exceptions – the carrying out of the surgical intervention on the primary sexual characteristics, as an indispensable requisite to conclude the process of sex change. Issues of constitutionality have been raised on this provision, because it is indeed questionable that a person should undergo complex and risky health treatments for their health for the sole purpose of certifying their sexual aptitude also on the legal level.
Someone might wonder if it is really necessary to change the name written in the registry office in order to have relations with a person of their own sex, but to this question the interested parties answer that legal problems may arise that it is good to deal with (in couples who contract civil unions, will he also be a husband and wife?). In Judgment No. 180 of 2017, the Court confirmed that <in the light of the principles affirmed in judgment No. 221 of 2015, it should be reiterated that the constitutionally adequate interpretation of law no. 164 of 1982 makes it possible to exclude the requirement of normoconformation surgery. And yet this does not at all exclude, but rather confirms, the need for a rigorous assessment not only of the seriousness and univocity of the intent, but also of the objective transition of gender identity, which emerged in the path followed by the person concerned; path that corroborates and strengthens the intent thus manifested.
Therefore, in line with the principles referred to in the aforementioned sentence, it must be excluded that the voluntary element alone may have priority or exclusive importance for the purposes of ascertaining the transition. Consistently with what is stated in the sentence cited – continues the text – it should once again be noted that the aspiration of the individual to the correspondence of the sex attributed to him in the personal registers, at the time of birth, with that subjectively perceived and experienced, certainly constitutes an expression right to recognition of gender identity. In the system of law n. 164 of 1982, this is achieved through a judicial procedure that guarantees, at the same time, both the right of the single individual and those requirements of certainty of legal relations, on which the importance of the personal registers is based>. It seems clear to me that the Zan bill neglects several conditions considered essential in judgment 180 of 2017 and in general in the Court's jurisprudence.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/ddl-zan-senato-legge/ on Tue, 13 Jul 2021 06:43:03 +0000.