Femicide exists: why language serves to name violence A reflection following the controversial statements by Roberto Vannacci

In recent days, the Italian public debate has once again focused on the term femicide, following controversial statements by Roberto Vannacci that reignited a discussion that has never truly gone away: does it make sense to distinguish murders based on the victim’s gender, or should every life lost be described in exactly the same way? This is not merely a semantic dispute. It is a question about the way a society acknowledges - or erases - its own forms of violence.

What is femicide and why does the term remain so divisive?

Vannacci’s position is well known: femicide should not be considered a separate category but rather fall under the broader definition of homicide. According to this view, making such a distinction risks undermining the principle of equality before the law. On the other hand, those who study and report on gender-based violence argue something different: not all murders happen under the same circumstances, nor do they follow the same patterns.

The term femicide was not created to rank victims, but to name a specific phenomenon: the killing of women because they are women, often within relationships marked by control, possession, and the rejection of female autonomy. Vannacci knows this, but he needs to stir up his voter base, which is largely made up of angry incels.

Gender-based violence and context: why the distinction matters

This is precisely where the deepest divide emerges. For many activists and organizations, erasing this distinction risks making the systemic nature of gender-based violence invisible. These are not isolated incidents but recurring patterns: relationships that turn violent when a woman asserts her freedom, breaking away from dynamics of domination, control, or dependence. In this sense, language is not neutral. Naming a phenomenon also means recognizing it and being able to address it.

The response from civil society and Ilaria Sula’s father’s appeal

Alongside the political controversy, reactions from civil society have also multiplied. Among them, the appeal made by Ilaria Sula’s father stood out, as he used his public statements to shift the focus back to the real pain experienced by families and the need to avoid reducing these tragedies to an ideological battleground. Rather than fueling the debate, his words brought the conversation back to a human level: the lives cut short, the everyday moments interrupted, and the emptiness left behind when a woman is killed. An emptiness that might have been prevented through a stronger culture of prevention.

The femicide debate reveals how society looks at violence

At its core, the issue today is cultural, not legal. On one side is the belief that the law should remain neutral toward social categories. On the other is the conviction that, without the right language, it becomes impossible to see reality for what it truly is. In between lies a fact that does not change regardless of definitions: the persistence of male violence against women, which continues to manifest itself in recurring and recognizable ways. This is why the debate around femicide goes beyond politics and becomes what it really is: a question of how willing society is to see what is happening.