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

虽然包括“跨性别”人物在内的现代德国历史——比如Heike Bauer的《赫希菲尔德档案》——近年来蓬勃发展，但没有一本完整地讲述了这些人的经历，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，“异装癖通行证”发给那些自认为是异装癖的人，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，纳粹将异装癖者贴上了性变态者和反社会者的标签，并在1933年摧毁了赫希菲尔德研究所，作为第一个停靠港。因此，我的博士研究建议尝试发掘那些经历过魏玛和纳粹德国的性别变异个体的经历，以便了解这些并列的时期对那些不完全符合“男人”或“女人”类别的人的比较影响。跨性别主义作为一种概念、一种生活经历和一种身份，本质上是现代的、历史上特定的。因此，我遵循劳拉·多恩（Laura Doan）的预防措施，避免将现代身份不合时宜地强加于过去。因此，不符合性别的历史不仅仅是指跨性别者的历史，还包括男性化的女性、女性化的男性和双性人。所有形式的性别不一致都可以，也应该包括在这样的历史中。迄今为止，很少有研究只关注魏玛和纳粹时期性别变异的人。凯蒂·萨顿（Katie Sutton）提出了解决性别不一致问题的其他方法。她探讨了在魏玛共和国（Weimar Republic）时期，异装癖群体是如何蓬勃发展的，尽管这些群体的包容性受到中产阶级价值观和性别一致性期望的控制和规范。然而，大多数现有的研究都是分析性学或法律案例。例如，简·卡普兰（Jane Caplan）在对第三帝国（Third Reich）时期如何管理性别的简要探讨中表明，性别差异有时（出乎意料地）被纳粹司法部门所容忍。因此，人们从“外部”——从这一时期受到的科学和制度审查的角度——而不是从“内部”——从性别变异者自己的观点——来短视地分析性别不一致性。虽然这反映了这两个时期之间和这两个时期内这些人在政治、文化和医疗方面的可能性和局限性，但我们对生活经历的描述仍然不足。目前学术界缺乏对性别差异的主观观点是有充分理由的：自我来源通常不如法律、医学和政治来源得到充分记录，而来自“社会偏差”的来源则更为罕见。直到最近，玛丽·福布鲁克（Mary Foulbrook）和尼克·斯塔加特（Nick Stargardt）等其他德国历史学家才开始采用这种方法；这不是一项简单的历史努力。然而，在魏玛（Weimar）和纳粹（Nazi）统治下，从一个对性别不一致的人的自由主义政权过渡到一个压制性政权，肯定引发了情绪反应、生活方式的改变和对自我的理解。为了理解这两种制度并存的影响，我的研究解决了挖掘性别变异个体特有的经历的任务，以及确定文化和政治霸权的转变在多大程度上影响了自我，特别是性别自我。考虑到难以捉摸的资源基础，没有单一的缓存来进行这项研究。我已经开始收集柏林的线人了。这些文件包括来自国家档案馆的警察档案、国防军性别不符合标准的人的回忆录（大部分来自莉莉易北档案馆）、一位从马格努斯-赫希菲尔德协会（Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft）在赫希菲尔德研究所（Hirschfeld's Institute）变性的病人的描述，以及魏玛时代的杂志上刊登的“异装癖媒体”的插入，这些杂志刊登了来自许尔斯博物馆（Schwules Museum）读者的信件。这些途径

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