Redazione
We received a long letter from one of our readers which responds to a widespread, yet unexpressed feeling. The question our readers poses at the end of the letter is the following: is the Italian government also subject to the ideological colonization of Gender Theory? Happy reading.
“Gender theory is ideological colonization. Think of the Balilla (Italian Fascist Youth Organization, at the time of Mussolini, N.T), think of the Hitler Youth.” This appeal was launched by the Pope on the return flight of his pastoral visit to the Philippines. Without a doubt they are strong and direct words, spoken in no uncertain terms, which left many amazed while generating controversy, and in some cases, disappointment.
They represent a staunch “no” against any attempts by gender ideology to manipulate or destroy the family. This is in fact the true heart of the question, what is really being dealt with, when the Pope uses the expression “ideological colonization.”
The example that Francis used—of a Minister of Public Education’s corrupt attempt to finance the building of public schools in exchange for introducing pro gender theory textbooks—becomes even more appropriate and meaningful. What is more, citing an example involving schools was not random, because it is gender ideology’s main battleground and terrain for meddling. Behind the mask of freedom and equal rights, it tries to gain access to institutions involving children. It enters to disfigure the heart and foundation of the institution of the family, with the goal of redefining the very concept of marriage.
One could almost speak of an anthropological colonization, aimed at radically questioning the concept of human nature. It is happening in every country and woe to anyone who tries to object. Gender ideology does not allow opposition, it imposes one form of thought—which is why the Pope compared it to the dictatorships of the last century. Whoever does object is immediately accused of wanting to discriminate, without the possibility to appeal. But these are not just false feelings or perceptions. It is enough to leaf through the more than 40 pages of the document entitled “National Strategy for Preventing and Fighting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity for 2013-2015”
(In Italian, N.T) found on the website for the Department of Equal Opportunity, a department of the Presidential Council of Italian Ministers—that is to say, the Italian government. It isn’t text taken from a blog, a forum, or an association that is, so to speak, biased, but from an official document coming from a real and true government source. Not only this, but it is an explicit strategy with a clear, operational desire, with goals, a target, a method, and a plan of action. It is an long text which, after describing the context of LGBT people in Italy, Europe, and the rest of the world, immediately begins to list the four pillars on which to base an action strategy for change.
Strategy plan of action
Not surprisingly, the first among these pillars is precisely schools. Entering into the educational system, gaining leverage on the minds of children who are still incapable of autonomous, aware, critical analysis, is a necessary step for someone with manipulative intentions. The following are just two of their identified tools for action: the accreditation of LGBT associations as formative institutions with the MIUR (Ministry of Italian Education), and the enrichment of formation by preparing bibliographies about LGBT themes and new family realities. Among their goals, we highlight the promotion of LGBT empowerment in schools, both among teachers and students. What is frankly astonishing however is the document’s tone, keeping in mind that it is speaking about children with the explicit intention to raise them like battery-chickens. It is impersonal, yet lucid in its determination for change and imposing one will, just as in a marketing plan. Schools become the battleground par excellence, the ideal way to cross borders and pass on the ideology. It is not by chance. Convincing adults is, in fact, infinitely more difficult, since we are talking about people who are already formed with their own ideas, values, and experiences. If the process can start in kindergarten however, to explain that there are no sexes, but rather only genders that you may choose as you like, and perhaps even change, then certainly there is a greater possibility for success through manipulation. An effective barrier to this “ideological colonization”—to return to Pope Francis’ expression—is constituted by families themselves. In fact, in many cases, parents realize that their children are being attacked and threatened by this ideology at school. The desire that schools be reduced to re-education camps is real in this document. Even more, it is central for the very success of their strategy.
The other three pillars through which to address change are the following: the workplace, a natural meeting place for relationships and socialization; jails, a presumed locus of violence and abuse towards LGBT people; the media. This last point deserves a moment of reflection. It is essential for any dictatorship—another return to Pope Francis’ initial words which compared gender ideology to fascist regimes—in addition to their control over education and formation of young people, to have control of the media. Explaining the reason is almost redundant. If one has control of the media, he also controls its messages. In this analysis it is interesting to mention how this “national strategy” clearly seeks, without hiding, the favor and support of the media… assuming that it does not already have it.
This support—not to mention control—would find its legitimacy in a genuine system of governance, as the final section of the text itself suggests. It is an articulate model which, quoting the document, “foresees a synergy of action between institutions, civil society, social parties, and other involved associations.” This analytical list of an integrated system also expresses the desire for involvement form employers’ organizations and trade unions, public administration, FNSI (the National Federation of Italian Press) and the Order of Journalists. In short, it shows every major institution together with their opinion leaders.
At this point, the legitimate question to ask is the following: does this document go beyond the balance necessary for offering justified prevention and information concerning sexual discrimination, which should always be condemned? To what extent, on the other hand, does it go too far—becoming an imposition of other absolute truths, through an approach that aims to homogenize man and woman at a global level, responding to the dictates of global politics? (See our article The New Language of Power Speaks in the Name of Gender). What we are noting here is a lobby’s typical pattern of action and imposition. It begins with real needs and problems, such as violence and abuse, or discrimination due to sexual orientation. It goes beyond however, not seeking a solution with respect to cultural, social, natural, and anthropological identities, but rather the exploitation of the problem at all costs by a powerful group with personal interests that distorts reality according to its own vision and to achieve its own goals. Certainly, like every ideology, in order to be successful, gender theory needs to be totalitarian. It can never be questioned because ideologies are constantly contradicted by reality.
For this reason, let us examine more closely the reality that is condemned by the pro-gender theory document, along with the information it uses to support its thesis…
Ideological Priorities or Social Priorities?
Among the data presented concerning the phenomenon of discrimination relating to gender, the document explains that the cases of discrimination reported by the Contact Center grew from 43 in 2010 to 144 in
2012. How much money and energy should be invested to avoid these situations? These are certainly terrible numbers. In our opinion however, much more worrying are the 400,000 minors in Italy that were victims of witnessing so-called “inter-family violence” in 2011 (ISTAT and Save the Children). These children witnessed scenes of physical, psychological, or economic abuse suffered by their mother at the hands of her husband or companion. From that year onward, the various Italian governments, who curiously succeeded one another without changing their strategy towards gender discrimination, seemed to worry less and less about this state of affairs. Indeed, neither do they worry about the 342,000 students in Italy that are exposed to the risk of asbestos poisoning due to serious structural problems in 3,600 school buildings (CENSIS 2014). The same goes for the 20,214 minors that were followed by social-health services after delinquent episodes in 2013 (ISTAT 2014). Indeed, they are not alarmed that in 2014, 30% of Italian families considered the danger of crime to be a problem in the area they live (ISTAT 2014).
The Contact Center’s figures for the fight against gender discrimination are also very disparate from the number of young people at risk for drug addiction. In 2013, from a sample of 34,385 young people between the ages of 15 and 19, 21% had used marijuana once or repeatedly (2% more than the preceding year). 2% had used cocaine (1.86% in 2012), while .33% used heroin (.32% in 2013), 1.33% methamphetamine, also known as ecstasy (1.12% in 2012), and 2% used hallucinogenic drugs (1.72% in 2012).
What is more, in 2010 ISTAT indicated that 52% of women between the ages of 14 and 65 (over 10 million) have been the victim of at least one episode of violence during their lives.
Without a doubt it is important to avoid every form of discrimination. Yet it is even more important that the political agenda place priority on questions that have a greater social impact statistically. Without question each of the 144 cases mentioned deserves a response. It is perhaps necessary however, to begin by investing more money and energy into solving problems that affect hundreds of thousands of people that live in situations of extreme risk.
Reduce the Choir to One Voice
The document we are talking about only sees two positions on the issue. On one side, the one that favors gender theory and identifies attraction to people of the same sex with a specific sexual behavior. On the other side, there is so-called “homophobia.” In recent years however, the various nuances present in this area have emerged. Nowadays more and more people among homosexuals see the situation in ways that are different from the predominant self-proclaimed categories, who act as if they hold the exclusive mandate to represent everyone with a homosexual orientation. In this vein, Paul McHugh (former director of the Department of Psychiatry at the famous John Hopkins Hospital) along with other doctors, have seriously questioned sex change operations on the basis of scientific research carried out at important Swedish and American hospitals. What is more, certain groups do not agree with the idea of adoption by same sex parents.
Xavier Bongibault, atheist and homosexual, as well as the founder of “Plus gay sans marriage” in France, is one such example. Something similar happened in Italy when the famous designers Dolce&Gabana, who are openly homosexual, declared themselves against the adoption of children by gay couples. They also voiced surprise when faced with widespread intolerance of their legitimate opinion.
Other institutions like Courage (present in Europe and the USA) propose chastity as the true path to follow for personal fulfillment. Philippe Ariño, a French activist, also moves along this line. He is famous in Italy for having published Omosessualità concorrente (Countercultural Homosexuality).
Finally, in the context of Italian media, following the suggestions proposed in this document, the Minister of Equal Opportunities published a report to provide specific directions to the communication media. These “Guidelines for respectful information of LGBT people” were approved in December 2013 and aimed at communications professionals.
The document specifies what is considered adequate terminology for journalists to employ when faced with news related to such topics: Imagine a government instructing journalists what to say about its policy!
Imposition: For the People but Without the People
Is it possible to continue living in a pluralistic society and yet freely speak out views on gender issues? In reality, things keep getting more and more complicated on this subject. In April of 2014, Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla (the company owning Firefox) resigned following pressure over a 1,000 dollar donation he made six years earlier in 2008 towards the campaign promoting Proposition 8 in California. The Proposition, stating that “in California, the only form of valid and recognized marriage is between a man and a woman,” was accepted in a referendum, only to be questioned a few years later by the Court. In 2014, Barilla also had to yield to certain lobby boycotts, and change its advertising to include same sex couples. Not long after, in 2015, a District Court in the United States redefined marriage to include homosexual persons, effectively annulling a state amendment in Florida which had been approved by almost 62% of voters in the previous 2008 vote.
The same thing has happened in others states and countries.
In 2014 the Croatian Parliament approved a law allowing civil unions for same sex couples. It took place despite the fact that various associations, gathering over 700,000 signatures, had succeeded in promoting a referendum in favor of the family, in which 66% of voters supported “the introduction of a provision within the Croatian Republic’s Constitution that would define marriage as the union of lives between a man and a woman.”
So too was the case in the United Kingdom. Although he had not included,nor mentioned, homosexual marriage, Prime Minister James Cameron disregarded 500,000 signatures presented to him which aimed to convene a public consultation in 2012. One year later, without any type of public debate, he approved the equal treatment for both institutions.
These events do not only occur in the political sphere, but also in everyday life: a bakery that refuses to make a wedding cake for spouses of the same sex; a florist that does not wish to provide certain types of marriage decorations; a photographer that declines an event; homosexual couples who wish to pursue psychotherapy, denied by their therapist; pastors or priests who are thrown into court accused of citing the Bible…. The more that time passes, greater are the people stigmatized for not accepting the opinion of a minority group.
In the sector of education, behind the fight against homophobia are people who seek to re-educate young generations by imposing gender theory upon them. In Italy, a High School in the city of Modena was the stage for an ideological speech delivered by Vladimir Luxuria (a well-known Italian belligerent transsexual, N.T) without the possibility to hear other speakers suggested by parents. In various schools in many regions, other warmongering homosexual associations are freely distributing leaflets and advertising about becoming homosexual.
A new tendency to approve laws and initiatives for the people, but without the people is in full swing. It is all promoted by a minority rule that aspires to change the concept of marriage. A confirmation of this comes from initiatives promoted in Columbia, Uruguay, Paraguay, and in some African countries. Here is one such example: In February of 2015, the journalist and gay activist Bruno Bimbi declared that the protagonists of the first homosexual union recognized by Argentina in 2009 (between Alex Freyre and José María di Bello) were not really together, and that the whole ceremony was an orchestrated farce carried out ad hoc to force the approval of a law concerning homosexual unions. They adopted three children and their fictitious union, celebrated in 2009 in the media’s spotlight, ended five years later. How is it possible to pretend to have a life together and adopt three children for only five years?
The moment has already come to ask ourselves: what the meaning of freedom of expression and thought truly is, and how much is the majority opinion is really being taken into consideration.
