'Subjective experiences fo gender non-conformity in Weimar and Nazi Germany.'

虽然近年来，包括“跨 *”人物在内的现代德国历史--比如海克·鲍尔（Heike Bauer）的《赫希菲尔德档案》（The Hirschfeld Archives）--蓬勃发展，但没有一部完整地讲述这些人的经历，或者他们是如何受到他们所生活的政治制度的影响的。魏玛时代的德国提供了一个进步的环境，向那些自称是“异装癖者”的人发放“异装癖通行证”，马格努斯·赫希菲尔德的性科学研究所进行了第一次变性手术。相比之下，纳粹将变装者称为性变态者和asozials，并于1933年摧毁了赫希菲尔德的研究所作为第一个停靠港。因此，我的博士研究计划尝试挖掘经历过魏玛和纳粹德国的性别差异个体的经历，以了解这些并列时期对那些不完全属于“男人”或“女人”类别的人的比较影响。跨性别主义作为一个概念、一种生活经历和一种身份认同，具有内在的现代性和历史性。因此，我遵循劳拉多安的预防措施，避免将现代身份不合时宜地强加于过去。因此，性别不一致的历史并不仅仅指跨性别历史，而是包括男性化的女性，女性化的男性和双性人。所有形式的性别不一致都可以而且应该被纳入这样的历史中，迄今为止，很少有研究专门关注魏玛和纳粹时期的性别差异民族。凯蒂萨顿已经转向了处理性别不一致的替代方法。她探讨了易装癖社区如何在魏玛共和国下蓬勃发展，即使这些社区的包容性受到中产阶级价值观和符合性别的期望的控制和规范。然而，大多数现有的研究分析性学或法律的案件。例如，简·卡普兰（Jane Caplan）在对第三赖希时期的性别管理进行了简短的探讨，她指出，纳粹司法机关有时（出乎意料地）容忍性别差异。因此，对性别不一致的分析是从“外部”-从这一时期接受的科学和体制审查的角度-而不是从“内部”-从性别不同的人自己的观点-进行的。虽然这反映了这两个时期之间和这两个时期内的政治、文化和医学的可能性和局限性，但我们仍然缺乏对生活经验的描述。目前缺乏对奖学金中性别差异的主观观点是有充分理由的：自我来源通常比法律的、医学和政治来源更少被记录在案，而那些来自“社会越轨者”的来源更是罕见。直到最近，其他德国的历史学家，如玛丽·福尔布鲁克和尼克·斯塔加特才开始使用这种方法;这不是一件容易的历史工作。然而，在魏玛和纳粹统治下，对性别不一致的人来说，从自由主义到压制性的制度转变必然会引起情感上的反应、生活方式的改变和对自我的理解。为了理解这两种制度的并列效应，我的研究处理的任务是挖掘经验，是独特的性别变异的个人，以及确定在何种程度上的变化，在文化和政治霸权影响的自我，特别是gendered-selfhood.Given难以捉摸的源基地，没有单一的缓存进行这项研究。我已经开始在柏林收集情报。这些包括来自Landesarchiv的警察档案，在国防军中性别不一致的个人的回忆录（大部分来自Lili Elbe档案馆），一位从Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft过渡到Hirschfeld研究所的病人的叙述，以及带有“异装癖媒体”插页的魏玛时代杂志，其中刊登了来自Schwules博物馆读者的信件。

While modern German histories that include 'trans*' figures - such as Heike Bauer's The Hirschfeld Archives - have boomed in recent years, none have fully addressed the experiences of such individuals, or how they were impacted by the political regime they lived under.Weimar-era Germany provided a progressive milieu, with 'transvestite passes' issued to those who self-identified as such, and Magnus Hirschfeld's Institute for Sexual Science performing the first sex-change surgeries. Contrastingly, the Nazis labelled crossdressers as sexual deviants and asozials, and destroyed Hirschfeld's Institute as a first port of call in 1933. My doctoral research therefore proposes to try and unearth the experiences of gender-variant individuals who lived through Weimar and Nazi Germany, in order to understand the comparative impact these juxtaposed periods had on those who did not fit neatly into the categories of 'man' or 'woman'.Trans*(gender)ism as a concept, a lived experience, and an identity is inherently modern andhistorically specific. I therefore follow Laura Doan's precaution in avoiding anachronistic impositions of modern identities on the past. A history of gender non-conformity, then, does not simply refer to trans* history, but rather includes masculine women, effeminate men, and intersex people. All forms of gender non-conformity can, and should, be included in such a history.To date, there are very few studies that focus solely on gender-variant peoples in the Weimar and Nazi periods. Katie Sutton has gestured towards alternative methods of approaching gender non-conformity. She explored how transvestite communities thrived under the Weimar Republic, even while inclusion in these communities was controlled and regulated by middle-class values and gender-conforming expectations. However, most existing studies analyse sexological or legal cases. For example, in a brief exploration into how gender was administered during the Third Reich, Jane Caplan has shown that gender-variance was (unexpectedly) sometimes tolerated by Nazi jurisdiction. Gender non-conformity has consequently been analysed myopically from 'without' - from the perspectives of scientific and institutional scrutiny it received in this period - rather than from 'within', from gender-variant people's own viewpoints. While this reflects the political, cultural and medical possibilities and limitations for such people between and within both periods, we are left wanting in accounts of lived experience.There is good reason for the current lack of subjective perspectives on gender-variance in thescholarship: ego sources are typically less well documented than legal, medical, and political ones, and those from 'social deviants' are rarer still. Only recently have other historians of Germany such as Mary Foulbrook and Nick Stargardt begun to utilise such an approach; it is no easy historical endeavour. However, the transition from a liberal to a repressive regime for gender non-conforming people under Weimar then Nazi rule must have elicited emotional responses, changes in lifestyle, and understandings of selfhood. To understand the juxtaposed effects of both regimes, my research tackles the task of unearthing experiences that are unique to the gender-variant individual, as well as determining the extent to which shifts in cultural and political hegemony affected selfhood, specifically gendered-selfhood.Given the elusive source base, there is no singular cache to conduct this research from. I have begun by harvesting sources in Berlin. These include police files from the Landesarchiv, memoirs of gender non-conforming individuals who were in the Wehrmacht (mostly supplied from the Lili Elbe Archive), an account from a patient who transitioned at Hirschfeld's Institute from the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft, and Weimar-era magazines with 'transvestite media' inserts, which published correspondence from readers from the Schwules Museum.These avenues for