Minister Valditara's reactionary and repressive efforts in schools are
making rapid strides. In addition to the requirements contained in the
new National Guidelines, the disciplinary code for workers, the reform
of conduct grading, the hunt for cell phones, and sanctions for those
who decide to take a lackluster oral exam, the issue of sex education,
which has recently reached a heated stage of debate, has been added.
Last February, MPs Sasso (Lega) and Amorese (FdI) each introduced a
bill, both aimed at introducing informed consent from families for
school activities related to sexuality and affectivity. In practice,
conducting sex and affective education activities, and only of a
certain, strictly defined type, requires the consent of families.
In May, the proposed laws were incorporated into a comprehensive bill
presented by Education Minister Valditara, Bill 2423. The related
process began in the summer.
Let's try to put these legislative interventions into context.
The spread of sexual violence and femicides, and the particular media
coverage some of them have received in the last two years, has generated
a public debate in which the issue of sexual violence as a systemic
phenomenon of patriarchal society has gained prominence. This call,
rightly raised by the feminist and transfeminist world, has been poorly
addressed by the mainstream or, at any rate, by reformist groups. In
particular, the insistence on attributing the phenomenon of sexual
violence to young people (recall that the average age of perpetrators of
femicides is 54), emphasizing their inability to manage emotions and
relationships, has raised the need for adequate education on sexuality
and affectivity, starting in schools.
Beyond any legitimate considerations about the general meaning of
educating about sexuality in a sexist society through schools, we must
consider the specific implications of initiating this process in the
shadow of a ministry and a government like the current one, and the
enormous challenges it poses.
In fact, at the beginning of 2025, the Pro Vita & Famiglia association
is launching a campaign titled "Not My Child!", specifically aimed at
"putting pressure on the Government and Parliament to pass a Law on
Parental Educational Freedom." This is with the explicitly stated goal
of opposing sexuality and affective education in schools, which is seen
as a vehicle for indoctrination in gender ideology. Supporting the
initiative are the associations "Don't Touch the Family" and
"Generazione Famiglia," as well as prominent government officials such
as Sasso and Amorese, who, with perfect synchronicity, are incorporating
the initiative into specific legislative proposals. In June, the
campaign, now strongly supported by two proposals and a bill from
Education Minister Valditara, was relaunched at a public event, the
"Entire Human" Festival, supported by the "Ditelo sui tetti" network,
now in its second year and closely linked this year to the Jubilee.
Let's look at the content of the legislative acts in question.
Bill Amorese, emphasizing the absolute primacy of the family in deciding
whether or not to allow their children to participate in sex education
activities at school, specifies in its introduction the objective of
introducing informed consent for families: to curb and contain the
discussion of sexual and emotional education in schools, a vehicle for
the "spread of distorted cultural models and ideological contaminations
that appear intolerable (...) avoiding cultural impositions and
indoctrination on issues of such great and profound sensitivity."
Bill Sasso, also aimed at introducing informed consent for families,
explores the subject more broadly. All activities "in any way connected
to issues concerning gender identity or fluidity or sexual orientation,
or that may even implicitly promote sexual or gender transition," are
prohibited. A teacher-guard present in the classroom will monitor
compliance with this diktat, with sanctions for violators (suspension
from teaching for up to one month). As if that weren't enough, the
homophobic outburst extends to everyday practices and behaviors,
affecting some mildly inclusive experiences introduced by some schools.
Sasso's bill, in fact, calls for the abolition of Alias career paths,
except in cases where formal "sex assignment rectification" is
demonstrated. So-called "neutral bathrooms" are also abolished: a strict
distinction is made between male and female bathrooms and locker rooms,
with students required to "use only those of the sex assigned at birth."
A similar requirement applies to participation in sporting events in
both male and female categories.
Valditara has integrated these proposals into a bill that, while
reiterating the homophobic and sexist framework, indicates further
"blocking mechanisms," as he himself calls them.
First, it excludes preschool and primary school from sex education
activities. It then specifies that all teaching materials for these
activities must be delivered well in advance and made available to
families, who must review them and express their consent or otherwise at
least a week before the event. Strict guidelines are then followed for
the selection of external individuals who may be involved in the
activities, whose register will be drawn up and their qualifications
will be evaluated. Finally, the steps for implementing the mechanism of
prior informed consent from families have been defined.
It is clear that subjecting a teaching activity to family consent is an
unprecedented and burdensome operation, even from a regulatory
perspective alone. It entails a serious limitation on the
constitutionally protected freedom of teaching and on the powers of the
Teaching Staff, which is responsible for defining the Three-Year
Educational Offering Plan (PTOF). It also represents a serious
limitation on the right to education and training, subject to the veto
of families, resulting in discrimination among students.
Aware of this highly questionable approach, even on a formal level,
Valditara has therefore decided to secure the acquisition of family
consent by unilaterally reforming the PTOF and introducing a special
section entitled "Sensitive Activities Regarding the Personal Sphere,"
containing the mandatory form for consent.
The bill is currently proceeding through the Chamber of Deputies'
Culture Committee, chaired-it's worth noting-by Italy's brother Federico
Mollicone, who recently made headlines for his attacks on an episode of
the cartoon series Peppa Pig, which featured a same-sex family with a
polar bear with two mothers.
The gravity of the legislation under discussion is evident. Aside from
the simultaneous violation of a dozen legislative provisions that should
protect the rights of students, teachers, citizens, educational
institutions and their governing bodies, etc., what is odious and
extremely serious lies on a specifically political and repressive level.
For a bill to even tell us which bathroom to use isn't foolish, it's
violence. It is violence to deny young transgender people the
opportunity to try to understand, name, and define themselves, even at
school, in the daily interactions of a study and work environment,
outside of a process of medicalization. Subjecting sex education to the
ideological control of families, under the pressure of ultraconservative
and homophobic right-wing groups, is violent.
Familyism is also a recurring trait in other school policy contexts.
Suffice it to say that an annual substitute teacher appointment
procedure has just come into force that, in defiance of rankings,
provides for the confirmation of temporary support teachers from the
previous year based on requests from families of children with
disabilities: all of this in public schools.
This rampant and harmful family-centered rhetoric affects not only
schools and appears even more grotesque when compared to the 90% of
femicides that occur within families or, for example, the cases of
platforms or social media groups like "My Wife."
Of course, regarding the Valditara bill, its sexist, homophobic,
discriminatory, and reactionary nature is not surprising. However, we
must avoid trivializing or underestimating an extremely significant
issue. Some grassroots unions, school workers, collectives,
associations, and students have already taken a stand and loudly called
for the withdrawal of the Valditara Bill. It is essential to understand
the violent implications of this bill and its connections with broader
government policies. And it is essential to effectively oppose it, both
in the workplace and in the context of broader social struggle.
Patrizia Nesti
https://umanitanova.org/educazione-sessuale-un-affare-di-famiglia-ritiro-immediato-del-ddl-valditara/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
making rapid strides. In addition to the requirements contained in the
new National Guidelines, the disciplinary code for workers, the reform
of conduct grading, the hunt for cell phones, and sanctions for those
who decide to take a lackluster oral exam, the issue of sex education,
which has recently reached a heated stage of debate, has been added.
Last February, MPs Sasso (Lega) and Amorese (FdI) each introduced a
bill, both aimed at introducing informed consent from families for
school activities related to sexuality and affectivity. In practice,
conducting sex and affective education activities, and only of a
certain, strictly defined type, requires the consent of families.
In May, the proposed laws were incorporated into a comprehensive bill
presented by Education Minister Valditara, Bill 2423. The related
process began in the summer.
Let's try to put these legislative interventions into context.
The spread of sexual violence and femicides, and the particular media
coverage some of them have received in the last two years, has generated
a public debate in which the issue of sexual violence as a systemic
phenomenon of patriarchal society has gained prominence. This call,
rightly raised by the feminist and transfeminist world, has been poorly
addressed by the mainstream or, at any rate, by reformist groups. In
particular, the insistence on attributing the phenomenon of sexual
violence to young people (recall that the average age of perpetrators of
femicides is 54), emphasizing their inability to manage emotions and
relationships, has raised the need for adequate education on sexuality
and affectivity, starting in schools.
Beyond any legitimate considerations about the general meaning of
educating about sexuality in a sexist society through schools, we must
consider the specific implications of initiating this process in the
shadow of a ministry and a government like the current one, and the
enormous challenges it poses.
In fact, at the beginning of 2025, the Pro Vita & Famiglia association
is launching a campaign titled "Not My Child!", specifically aimed at
"putting pressure on the Government and Parliament to pass a Law on
Parental Educational Freedom." This is with the explicitly stated goal
of opposing sexuality and affective education in schools, which is seen
as a vehicle for indoctrination in gender ideology. Supporting the
initiative are the associations "Don't Touch the Family" and
"Generazione Famiglia," as well as prominent government officials such
as Sasso and Amorese, who, with perfect synchronicity, are incorporating
the initiative into specific legislative proposals. In June, the
campaign, now strongly supported by two proposals and a bill from
Education Minister Valditara, was relaunched at a public event, the
"Entire Human" Festival, supported by the "Ditelo sui tetti" network,
now in its second year and closely linked this year to the Jubilee.
Let's look at the content of the legislative acts in question.
Bill Amorese, emphasizing the absolute primacy of the family in deciding
whether or not to allow their children to participate in sex education
activities at school, specifies in its introduction the objective of
introducing informed consent for families: to curb and contain the
discussion of sexual and emotional education in schools, a vehicle for
the "spread of distorted cultural models and ideological contaminations
that appear intolerable (...) avoiding cultural impositions and
indoctrination on issues of such great and profound sensitivity."
Bill Sasso, also aimed at introducing informed consent for families,
explores the subject more broadly. All activities "in any way connected
to issues concerning gender identity or fluidity or sexual orientation,
or that may even implicitly promote sexual or gender transition," are
prohibited. A teacher-guard present in the classroom will monitor
compliance with this diktat, with sanctions for violators (suspension
from teaching for up to one month). As if that weren't enough, the
homophobic outburst extends to everyday practices and behaviors,
affecting some mildly inclusive experiences introduced by some schools.
Sasso's bill, in fact, calls for the abolition of Alias career paths,
except in cases where formal "sex assignment rectification" is
demonstrated. So-called "neutral bathrooms" are also abolished: a strict
distinction is made between male and female bathrooms and locker rooms,
with students required to "use only those of the sex assigned at birth."
A similar requirement applies to participation in sporting events in
both male and female categories.
Valditara has integrated these proposals into a bill that, while
reiterating the homophobic and sexist framework, indicates further
"blocking mechanisms," as he himself calls them.
First, it excludes preschool and primary school from sex education
activities. It then specifies that all teaching materials for these
activities must be delivered well in advance and made available to
families, who must review them and express their consent or otherwise at
least a week before the event. Strict guidelines are then followed for
the selection of external individuals who may be involved in the
activities, whose register will be drawn up and their qualifications
will be evaluated. Finally, the steps for implementing the mechanism of
prior informed consent from families have been defined.
It is clear that subjecting a teaching activity to family consent is an
unprecedented and burdensome operation, even from a regulatory
perspective alone. It entails a serious limitation on the
constitutionally protected freedom of teaching and on the powers of the
Teaching Staff, which is responsible for defining the Three-Year
Educational Offering Plan (PTOF). It also represents a serious
limitation on the right to education and training, subject to the veto
of families, resulting in discrimination among students.
Aware of this highly questionable approach, even on a formal level,
Valditara has therefore decided to secure the acquisition of family
consent by unilaterally reforming the PTOF and introducing a special
section entitled "Sensitive Activities Regarding the Personal Sphere,"
containing the mandatory form for consent.
The bill is currently proceeding through the Chamber of Deputies'
Culture Committee, chaired-it's worth noting-by Italy's brother Federico
Mollicone, who recently made headlines for his attacks on an episode of
the cartoon series Peppa Pig, which featured a same-sex family with a
polar bear with two mothers.
The gravity of the legislation under discussion is evident. Aside from
the simultaneous violation of a dozen legislative provisions that should
protect the rights of students, teachers, citizens, educational
institutions and their governing bodies, etc., what is odious and
extremely serious lies on a specifically political and repressive level.
For a bill to even tell us which bathroom to use isn't foolish, it's
violence. It is violence to deny young transgender people the
opportunity to try to understand, name, and define themselves, even at
school, in the daily interactions of a study and work environment,
outside of a process of medicalization. Subjecting sex education to the
ideological control of families, under the pressure of ultraconservative
and homophobic right-wing groups, is violent.
Familyism is also a recurring trait in other school policy contexts.
Suffice it to say that an annual substitute teacher appointment
procedure has just come into force that, in defiance of rankings,
provides for the confirmation of temporary support teachers from the
previous year based on requests from families of children with
disabilities: all of this in public schools.
This rampant and harmful family-centered rhetoric affects not only
schools and appears even more grotesque when compared to the 90% of
femicides that occur within families or, for example, the cases of
platforms or social media groups like "My Wife."
Of course, regarding the Valditara bill, its sexist, homophobic,
discriminatory, and reactionary nature is not surprising. However, we
must avoid trivializing or underestimating an extremely significant
issue. Some grassroots unions, school workers, collectives,
associations, and students have already taken a stand and loudly called
for the withdrawal of the Valditara Bill. It is essential to understand
the violent implications of this bill and its connections with broader
government policies. And it is essential to effectively oppose it, both
in the workplace and in the context of broader social struggle.
Patrizia Nesti
https://umanitanova.org/educazione-sessuale-un-affare-di-famiglia-ritiro-immediato-del-ddl-valditara/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten