I absolutely agree. In my mind this is an example where people could be “yes-and”ing the law: Yes, female victims absolutely need more nuanced protection, and male sexual assault victims need more nuanced protection (for example).

The reason you don’t see a lot of these folks arguing for a men’s equivalent…is they know that it’s functionally not a problem…which also undercuts their own argument.

I can imagine…I work in poverty outreach and with at risk youth…I hear some grotesque things from across the spectrum.

I’m a full Reddit refugee…a few months ago I got a 3 day auto ban for directly quoting Worf from Star Trek. Not going back, this time…the time I was away from it made me realize what an enshitified mess it has become.

It’s not “more than murder”, no. It’s a type of murder.

No there shouldn’t, the vast majority of cases of rapes are committed by men. If you were being logically consistent, you’d advocate for a different word/charge for cases of rape against men - because that’s one of the largest category of unreported sexual crime.

Appropriate culpability and awareness. The law is designed to both serve as a mechanism for appropriate justice, as well as a way to highlight and ongoing problem in Italian culture.

“Triggered” is really good way to categorize these responses.

The topic makes them project concepts onto it, like the perpetrators must be male - which is basically telling on themselves.

At no point does this law say femicide is more or less important than other murder.

You didn’t understand the link you posted to me correctly and I’d expect you’d misunderstand anything I pasted to you as well.

Nowhere in that quote does it mention the gender or orientation of the perpetrator. You seem to fundamentally project your own biases.

Yes.

You can just look these words up instead of making unforced errors.

that was a lot of words to write when you just misunderstood what I wrote.

…which is atrocious, and we should celebrate the various pillars erected to deal with issues, rather than tear them down (not that that’s what I’m saying you’re doing).

You could also read the law if you used the internet, instead of writing a half-cocked message to me. I know you have it.

The difference is culpability. We don’t treat the murder of an infant, assisting a suicide, or indirect killing the same way as a “standard” murder charge…and femicide is no different. It’s just another tool in the toolbox so justice can be more accurately delivered.

The point is culpability. It’s the same reason there’s separate charges for infanticide, assistance a suicide, manslaughter, etc. It a class of charges so culpability, and therefore justice, can be more accurately meted.

I don’t disagree with what you wrote in bold.

But we both know that femicide isn’t the only mechanism they’re using to combat the issue.

Oh, I definitely get your point. You believe, when assessing culpability, the system should be “one size fits all”. You’re arguing that the added classes of infanticide, assisting a suicide, etc shouldn’t exist. I disagree…and so does every legal system. Trials are always about culpability, and defining crimes help the system accurately assess culpability.

There are already (generally) no special classifications for the killing of teenagers or the elderly.

You’re incorrect: murder is homicide with culpability. Homicide is the killing of one person by another (“homi” is right there in the word). Homicide is the appropriate term for this conversation, because we’re discussing culpability when people kill other people - although both are appropriate because we’re not making a distinction between pre and post trial. “Any unnatural death” is a category so broad it doesn’t carry a definition, or rather…your phrase best defines your concept.

The “confusion” seems intentional…or rather a symptom of the very problem the new class is attempting to address.

Many people seem to believe that a femicide charge is automatically a more serious charge than murder. It isn’t.

Many people believe that the law explicitly targets men. It doesn’t (No more than a “standard murder charge or an assault charge “target” men, they just commit murder and assault more often).

Many people believe that the very existence of a femicide charge diminishes the importance of a murder charge. It doesn’t, they carry the same sentence.

No. The law has nothing to do with skipping trials or mandatory minimums.

It’s just a new way to charge somebody, and the sentence is the same as murder.

Nope. Just a more a more precise charging class so culpability can be more accurately assessed, like when somebody is charged with infanticide.

That would be mass femicide.

At no point didn’t anyone ever say that it was “criminally worse” it has the same sentence…it’s just a different charging mechanism like infanticide.

What’s absurd (but not surprising) is this notion that adding a class somehow diminished the existing classes.

Nowhere in the law does it say “by a man”.

It’s only “sexist” insofar as it’s “sexist” that men are by far the most likely gender who commit murder.

Do you believe charging a person for the crime they commit is wrong, somehow? Like in the case of infanticide. Should that motivation be ignored and the person charged with homicide?

The legal system has always added classes of murder to address real life issues, not issues imagined in a thought experiment for the purposes of perpetuating the very problem the laws try to address.