Yes, and when somebody murders a woman because they’re a woman, now there’s a charge where the relevant jurors can take into account state of mind etc.

That’s why I used the wording I did. They both potentially carry life sentences. It should go without saying that femicide is a type of murder with a portion of the culpability “baked into it”.

The reason is because the genders aren’t the same. If there was (functionally) anyone being murdered because they were a man, then the law would also cover men. It’s curious you mention “other identity-based hate crime laws”, because Italy happens to not have categories for homosexual people like other jurisdictions might - for example.

Yes, I believe that gender-based crime is a different crime and it should be treated as such. Ideally there would be a category for the infinite potential culpabilities for murder, but that’s not realistic. I think femicide is realistic because the crime is relatively common.

Again, making the law non-gender specific would be trying to protect a category that functionally doesn’t exist…and it would remove specific protections for the very people it’s trying to protect. It would actually do what some opponents are incorrectly speculating this law does to existing murder laws.

Are you advocating that we protect men from gender-based physical violence? Is this important to you? Your argument appears to be semantic and performative…rooted in a so-called “men rights” argument. The logical argument wouldn’t be to remove a law that’s needed, but rather add a law that specifically protects men…because women and men aren’t the same and they require unique approaches.

My approach, the humanist approach, would be: yes this is forward movement, and we can look at other categories that are also at risk. For example, if you were concerned about the safety of men you wouldn’t spin your tires on something that figuratively doesn’t happen and advocate for, say, additional laws to protect men from sexual violence (a category that is often ignored and woefully under-reported).

Yes, I really don't understand why killing a woman is not murder, partly because you have failed to make any case for it. It makes sense to frame such murders in the context of a hate crime, to ensure severe sentencing, but saying it's a different crime from murder, but with the same sentence, makes no sense to me. The proposition that killing a woman is different from murder implies that women are somehow different from human beings, which is the kind of thinking that's causing femicide to be a significant trend in the first place.

To pick up on something you said eariler:

Yes, the system also should and is focusing on education.

The Italian government is indeed focusing on education. They are actively working to oppose sexual and emotional education in schools, proposing a law to require explicit parental consent for such education, while banning it altogether in elementary school, thus ensuring it does not reach the children who need it the most. The new crime of "femicide" provides a token gesture which accomplishes nothing, while effective and easily available measures to reduce violence against women are being obstructed.

Let's try it this way.

Hate crimes based on sexual orientation occur many times more often than those based on gender expression.

By your logic, we don't need hate crimes based on gender expression.

Hate crimes based on sexual identity are drastically higher for black people than Hispanic or white people.

By your logic we would only need to have hate crime legislation for sexual orientation of black people.

Does that make more sense to you as to why I say a hate crime is a hate crime?

You are saying that only the more frequent crimes require legislation.

I am saying the particulars (sexual identity, gender, race) aren't as relevant as the fact that its a hate-based crime. How often it happens doesnt matter. The fact that its based on hate is what matters.

you believe that a law that focuses on something that does happen regularly (in my country it's the leading cause of murder in women) should be expanded to something that happens rarely.

Yes.

Frequency isnt relevant.

And the reason is optics?

No.... And I don't understand how youre arriving at that in any way, shape, or form.

Am I misinterpreting your point?

It would seem you are completely, and I have no idea where you are misinterpreting things so wildly to suggest the reason is optics for me to even begin to clarify.

It's because nothing else you're saying is worth responding to.

The rates of which gender is killed more should have no bearing on whether killing the less targeted gender, just because of their gender, is a hate crime.

A hate crime is committed when someone targets a person because they belong to a specific group.

But I bet you also think it's impossible to be racist against white people.