TRANSlation
Oh so that’s how they get there – simple – just claim that “transvestite”=”transgender” and breeze right past all the differences.
New Research Reveals How the Nazis Targeted Transgender People
The author is Laurie Marhoefer, a historian at the University of Washington.
In the fall of 2022, a German court heard an unusual case.
It was a civil lawsuit that grew out of a feud on Twitter about whether transgender people were victims of the Holocaust. Though there is no longer much debate about whether gay men and lesbians were persecuted by the Nazis, there’s been very little scholarship on trans people during this period.
The court took expert statements from historians, including myself, before finding that the historical evidence shows that trans people were, indeed, persecuted by the Nazi regime.
This is an important case. It was the first time a court recognized the persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany. It was followed a few months later by the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, formally releasing a statement recognizing trans and cisgender queer people as victims of fascism.
Wtf are “cisgender queer people”? What’s the German for that?
In 1933, the year that Adolf Hitler took power, the police in Essen, Germany, revoked [Toni] Simon’s permit to dress as a woman in public. Simon, who was in her mid-40s, had been living as a woman for many years.
The Weimar Republic, the more tolerant democratic government that existed before Hitler, recognized the rights of trans people, though in a begrudging, limited way. Under the republic, police granted trans people permits like the one Simon had.
In the 1930s, transgender people were called “transvestites,” which is rarely a preferred term for trans people today, but at the time approximated what’s now meant by “transgender.”
Ahhhhh there it is. It’s a simple trick. Just pretend that what was meant by “transvestite” then is exactly what is meant by “transgender” now and go on your way rejoicing.
But it isn’t the same. It isn’t remotely the same. Transvestites, however deeply they felt “like” the other sex internally, didn’t run all over the landscape trying to force the rest of the world to agree that they were indeed the sex that matched their clothes.
Hey I have an idea, why don’t we all just go the Maoist route and make everyone wear drab uniforms with no sex/gender differentiation. Problem solved.
The police permits were called “transvestite certificates,” and they exempted a person from the laws against cross-dressing.
Clothes clothes clothes, it’s all about the clothes.
I was thinking about this today, nudged by that nonsense from Neil Tyson about How We Know What Sex People Are and the fact that I said “not me” to every single one of his cues for Who Is Woman. I don’t generally have to think about it much because I don’t generally have to get dressed up or put on Appropriate Business Attire or anything like that…but if I did have to it would be awkward. I worried about that a little back when I was invited to speak at conferences now and then. Did I look too casual or sloppy in my non-feminine “presentation”? The thing is, and was, I couldn’t do anything about it. I couldn’t dress in the approved-for-women way. In that sense I maybe understand what is meant by gender dysphoria. If I were somehow forced to put on the woman-appropriate glad rags it would feel profoundly uncomfortable…which is quite irrational. It should be no big deal, but it isn’t. And the only reason it would feel so creepy is the This Is Not Me feeling, which is such a narcissistic thing to worry about in the first place. Who cares? No one. But it would feel ooky anyway. So in that sense…I don’t know, maybe I can grok what people are so worked up about.
H/t Mostly Cloudy
BTW somewhat related.
A webcomic in which a major character is very definitely transvestite and very definitely not transgender.
https://skin-horse.com/
He shows up in the 1st episode.
I can’t dress in the “approved for women” way, either. With me, it starts with the shoes. I simply can’t wear the foot-binding torture devices that are assigned to women. I haven’t always had bilateral plantar fasciitis, but I’ve had the condition for several decades. In my 20’s, I could wear soft-soled oxfords; now I need all-black cushioned athletic shoes. Starting from that foundation, pants suit or pants and blazer are as close as I can get to appropriate business wear. Luckily, I didn’t have to actually go to court very often.
But it’s not irrational at all. First, there is actual, physical discomfort. Women’s clothes are designed for looks (in the male gaze kind of way) rather than for the comfort of the wearer. They put scratchy lace in undergarments. It’s torture. The designs are often restrictive of movement. I’ve worn puffy sleeves and cuffs that literally prevented me from moving my arms freely. Pencil skirts hobble the stride. There aren’t any damn pockets. The clothes are objectively un-comfortable. It’s not a bit irrational to feel uncomfortable in them.
There are other ways in which women’s clothes are uncomfortable, and that’s not irrational either. I’ve known since I was old enough to talk that the clothes assigned to women and girls are ooky. Girls’ skirts exist for boys to look under or flip up. Girls are sitting duck targets for male sexualized aggression. When girls hit puberty, the footwear for girls changes to articles designed to prevent girls from running away, even if their life depended on it. Girls are trapped. Of course it feels ooky. Clothing for women and girls is designed to keep females vulnerable, subordinate, compliant — and fearful. The clothing carries an inherent, and perhaps not-so-subtle, rape threat. No wonder many girls and women hate female clothing. No wonder many suffer something very like gender dysphoria. It really does something to your psyche to be under siege and in danger 100% of the time, because of your sex. And the danger is itself sexual. Women and girls are vulnerable to a particular risk of male violence that males just simply aren’t. Yes, male bodies can be sexually violated, but they never suffer the added risk of parasitic takeover.
So, yeah, I (and many other women) know all about gender dysphoria. It sucks to be the subordinate sex, the unfree sex.
Just an additional thought about Maoist communist workers’ uniforms: were the uniforms identical? Did they, for example, all button up the same way, or did they keep the clothing industry standard of buttoning men’s shirts and jackets one way, and buttoning the women’s shirts and jackets the other way?
I would put money on the German for “cisgender queer people” being… “cisgender queer Leute”. It’s so new, they will have just kept the words that came with the concept.
Traditional Chinese clothing laps left over right for everyone, so did the Mao suit.
Thank you, chigau.
How can anyone claim that the withdrawal of a privilege (a licence to cross-dress withdrawn? Oh no!) is remotely the same as the targetting of ethnic minorities, homosexuals, and those with physical and mental disabilities, for mass murder, and not be severely embarrassed?
Besides, there’s photographic evidence (hundreds of photos) that the Nazis were perfectly happy with cross-dressing, themselves. If members of a twenty-first century cult want to wallow in fake victimhood, they need to find a better historical example.
Great reply, maddog. Yes. Part of my musing on this today and many times in the past is indeed that womany clothes are inherently ooky, especially skirts, which are extraordinarily offensive. Might as well mark them “For ease of access.” But there’s another aspect to it for me, which feels kind of separate – I’d feel like an imposter, and slightly freakish – like a giant in baby clothes. Others wouldn’t see me that way but I would. It’s odd.
On the other hand, it occurs to me to remember, there are some conventions I’m fine with. Women are much freer to wear colors of all sorts, and I love colors. I don’t feel a bit ooky about my red sweatshirt or the lavender one or even the pink one. Lots of colors are marked girly and I don’t care at all. Same with patterns and flowery stuff, not so much as clothes but sheets and curtains and that kind of thing.
Maybe a little ooky about the pink one. I don’t wear it as often as the others…
[…] a comment by maddog1129 on […]
Not just under the Republic. According to the linked article:
Emphasis added.
So, yeah, no. “Trans people” weren’t particularly targeted. Sorry to disappoint you, dipshits.
I still swear I remember, back in the day before ‘transgender’ was a common term, a very strong attempt by transsexuals to draw a hard line between themselves and either drag queens or transvestites. The former were considered merely performers, and the latter were sexual deviants; transsexuals felt that they were attempting to live their lives as best they could in their adopted sex-role. (I’m pretty sure I even saw folks make a distinction between transvestism, which was an actual paraphilia, and ‘mere’ cross-dressing, which was just a dude having a laugh by putting on a wig and dress.)
But once ‘transsexual’ became ‘transgender’, they then pushed for this to be considered an umbrella term for all those groups. And then they pushed some of the more suspect terms out from under the umbrella, but kept those people, which of course led to the current impossible-to-define state of ‘transgender’.
Regarding skirts as ease-of-access, on the way home from the post office the other day, I passed a young woman who was wearing a skirt that appeared to be sized for someone half her height. It was so short in the rear that even from the front I could see flashes of cheek. As a kid, I often used to have the typical nightmare of finding yourself at school somehow only wearing an oversized shirt barely long enough for coverage. Just seeing that skirt brought those bad dreams flashing back.
I read occasionally the twitter account of the woman that was opposite party in that court case
(Frollein_VogelV (twitter), maybe known from)
there might be a case of “stolen valor” (via implicature) going on?
thead about it
apparently the statement wasn’t ever “entered” or “used in the case”, it had been requested though