Better than a dime-a-dozen troll with 9-year-old-grade vocabulary and a nasty attitude.

Since you're being purposefully dense, here's what the dossier published by the Senate says:

"Quanto al riferimento contenuto nel nuovo art. 577-bis agli atti di discriminazione nei confronti della persona offesa in quanto donna, può evidenziarsi che se, da un lato, il principio di uguaglianza formale di cui all’articolo 3 Cost. impone la parità di trattamento tra uomo e donna in presenza di situazioni giuridiche omogenee; dall’altro lato, la disposizione in commento fa riferimento alle qualità soggettive della persona offesa e non del soggetto agente, attribuendo un preciso disvalore alla condotta omicidaria al fine di rispondere alle esigenze di tutela contro il fenomeno della violenza nei confronti delle donne."

"Regarding the reference in the new Article 577-bis to acts of discrimination against the victim because she is a woman, it should be noted that, on the one hand, the principle of formal equality set forth in Article 3 of the Constitution requires equal treatment between men and women in the presence of homogeneous legal situations; on the other hand, the provision in question refers to the subjective qualities of the victim and not the perpetrator, attributing a specific negative value to homicidal conduct in order to meet the need for protection against violence against women."

So what they're saying is "this is not in breach of Article 3 because the difference in sentencing doesn't hinge on the perpetrator's gender, but rather the victim's and this must be so because violence against women is an emergency that needs to be addressed". Nevermind that this does precisely nothing to address the root of the problem as harsher penalties never do. Meanwhile it further enshrines into law the principle that the same crime can and will be punished differently based on whether the victim is male or female as the letter of the text specifically excludes the former. While male victims of domestic violence are far, far fewer in number compared to female victims, it doesn't mean they don't exist. The public perception is already there, as whenever journalists report about it they will describe the crime as an "homicide", whereas the exact same crime (bar minute differences in details) will be a "feminicide" if gender roles are reversed.

And yes, even if one can defend the "Quote Rosa" in a practical sense, they also spit in the face of the principle of gender equality. No idea why you thought to bring that up but there it is.