Tag Archives: lesbian

That’s so I can recognize you filthy queer scum before you get close, he explained with a nasty smile. ― Heinz Heger

Homosexual prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp.
Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset and the Memorial to Persecuted Homosexuals under National Socialism.

The persecution of gay men in Germany goes back to the 1794 and 1851 Prussian legal codes. In 1871, Paragraph 175 of the German Empire’s criminal code was enacted, based on the Prussian legal codes.

The 1871 version of Paragraph 175 read:

Unnatural sexual acts (widernäturliche Unzucht) committed between persons of the male sex, or by humans with animals, is punishable with imprisonment; a loss of civil rights may also be sentenced. (Holocaust Encyclopedia)

Yes, it criminalized sex acts between men; it did not criminalize men for having a homosexual orientation. Also, it did not apply to lesbians. The law was enforced sparingly during the Imperial and Weimar eras, as a conviction required that two men be caught in the act of having sex. When the Nazi Party took power in Germany in 1933, Paragraph 175 was revised to read:

A man who commits sexual acts (Unzucht) with another man, or allows himself to be misused for sexual acts by a man, will be punished with prison. (Holocaust Encyclopedia)

There was opposition to Paragraph 175. Notably, it was a German physician and gay rights advocate, Magnus Hirschfeld, who first conducted experiments in hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries at his clinic, the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. No, there was nothing in German law that prohibited his experiments. It was Hirschfeld who coined the term, transvestite in 1910. He founded the clinic in 1919. Before his trials in hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries, he established the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee in 1897 with Max Spohr, Franz Josef von Bülow, and Eduard Oberg. Its primary aim was to fight for the abolition of Paragraph 175 of the German Imperial Penal Code, which criminalized sexual contact between men. Then as now, experiments in hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries carried risks, as Fara Naz Khan noted in 2016, In 1922, Hirschfeld performed castration on Dora Richter, one of the institute’s employees who later went on to complete her sex reassignment in 1931 with further surgeries at the institute. The institute’s most famous patient was arguably Danish painter Lili Elbe (born Einar Wegener) whose life story has been fictionalized in the popular film The Danish Girl. Starting in 1930, Elbe had five surgeries performed as part of her male-to-female transition. Unfortunately, Elbe died from infection-related complications of her final surgery in 1931. (Scientific American)

Hirschfeld’s trials stopped when the Nazis rose to power in Germany, as Hirschfeld was Jewish. He lived out the last years of his life in exile. The Nazis destroyed his papers–those in which he documented his research and experiments in hormone therapy and sex reassignment in the burning of “non-German” texts beginning in 1933. By 1936, it was Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS and the Criminal Police (Kripo), who founded the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion (Reichszentrale zur Bekämpfung der Homosexualität und der Abtreibung). In doing so, he called male homosexuality a “public scourge.” Interestingly, men who cross-dressed and were caught having sex with men were convicted under Paragraph 175. They were prosecuted for sexual offences, not for cross-dressing or pretending that they were women. So the treatment of some cross-dressers or transvestites by the Nazis was peripheral in relation to the stated aim of hunting down male homosexuals. The rate of convictions of homosexual men under Nazi rule increased significantly, as the following data show:

Additionally, two sections were added to Paragraph 175: Paragraph 175a and Paragraph 175b, which read:

coercing another man to have sex;

initiating sexual relations with a male subordinate or employee;

having sexual relations with a male minor (under the age of 21);

engaging in prostitution with another man. (Holocaust Museum)

In 1934, there were 948 convictions for violating Paragraph 175. This number is comparable to conviction rates during the Weimar Republic, albeit on the high end.

In 1936, there were 5,320 convictions.

In 1938, the number of convictions increased to approximately 8,500. (Holocaust Encyclopedia)

Also, of the homosexual men convicted under Paragraph 175, most received prison sentences and were not sent to concentration camps. Those who were sent to the concentration camps were made to wear the pink triangle on their clothing. They suffered extreme abuse and had a low chance of survival. By contrast, lesbianism was never criminalized under German law. That does not mean that lesbians did not suffer under Nazi rule. There were lesbians who were sent to the concentration camps, but it was because of membership in the following categories: Jews, Roma, asocials, political prisoners, and professional criminals. (Holocaust Encyclopedia) They never wore the pink triangle. There is the Memorial to the Persecuted Homosexuals under National Socialism in Berlin. The memorial was designed by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, a homosexual couple who live in Berlin. The memorial was dedicated in 2008. From the website Foundation Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, “the memorial is intended to honour the homosexual victims of National Socialism and at the same time ‘set a constant sign against intolerance, hostility and exclusion towards gays and lesbians’”. That is a noble sentiment and good that the record of the persecution of gay men and lesbians under Nazi rule is preserved for posterity.

Unfortunately, in the present, there is a concerted effort underway to overlay a narrative that what happened to gays and lesbians under the Nazi regime was a part of “queer history.” “Queer,” meaning the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Recently, I viewed a video produced by Amanda W. Timpson, a “queer public historian,” who runs the website Yesterqueers. I stumbled upon a video she produced about the Memorial to the Persecuted Homosexuals under National Socialism, where she called it a “queer” monument. No, gay men were the primary target of the Nazis, who persecuted them in line with existing German law. Lesbians were affected, too, but not directly targeted by the Nazis or in German law for being lesbians. Experiments in sex reassignment got underway before the rise of Nazism, and there was nothing in German law that prohibited it. As noted above, there were cross-dressing men who were prosecuted under German law for homosexual offences. They were singled out for being homosexuals, not cross-dressers. Absolutely, many people suffered at the hands of the Nazis, but this insipid effort to rewrite gay and lesbian history, diluting it with “queer” gender identity politics, is beyond the pale.

Posted by Geoffrey

In the acronym LGBTQ+, “queer” is one of the multiple meanings for the Q. But that general acceptability does not erase queer’s treacherous and hateful history. — A. Pallas Gutierrez

I remember submitting an essay for grading in a course on the sociology of religion I took at Queen’s University in 1983. When the essay was returned to me with the grade and the professor’s comments, he noted that I used the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably. He pointed out that while Catholics are Christians, so are Protestants. By using the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably, I blurred the distinction between the two and risked giving the reader the impression that Protestants were somehow not Christians. Naturally, I understand that there are several denominations and sects in Christendom that profess different beliefs concerning Christian doctrine. However, I took the professor’s point that a little clarity goes a long way. What prompted the memory of my essay and the comment is how I noticed that so many people use the terms gay and queer interchangeably. I see this in news articles and discussions on online forums. Occasionally, someone refers to me as queer or a member of the queer community. I politely correct them, telling them that I am gay, not queer, and no, I am not a member of the queer community. I ask that they respectfully not refer to me as a queer, as I do not like it. The term is a slur, a derogatory term used historically to describe a gay man. It is like calling a black man a coon or a Jewish man a Hebe. Yes, I know that there is a countercultural constituency that claimed to have “reclaimed” the term. They are free to call themselves what they want, but it is objectionable when they use the terms gay and queer interchangeably when referring to gay men. In short, a gay man is a male homosexual, a man who experiences same-sex romantic and sexual attraction. Gay men are represented in all races and ethnicities. They are individuals, and the only thing they have in common is their sex and orientation.

Sadly, countercultural thinking in gay rights activism emerged in 1990 with the introduction of Queer theory; this is an ideological position, as Renee Janiak notes, the Queer theory holds:

To be queer means, “fighting about social injustice issues all the time, due to the structure of sexual order that is still deeply embedded in society” (Warner: 1993). Queer people are not assigned into a specific group or category, which would be comparable with any other type of grouping such as “class” or “race” (Warner: 1993). Queer people have made a change with how they identify themselves, they went from “gay” to “queer”. The self- identification change is due to that fact that “queer” represents the struggle of not wanting to fit into the systems of being “normal”. Queer theory has allowed for new political gender identities (Butler: 1990). (Queer Theory)

By 2016, Noah Michaelson, editorial director of HuffPost Gay Voices, rebranded the blog as HuffPost Queer Voices. In doing so, he claimed, “We, like many others before us, have chosen to reclaim ‘queer’ and to rename the section HuffPost Queer Voices because we believe that word is the most inclusive and empowering one available to us to speak to and about the community — and because we are inspired by all of the profound possibilities it holds for self-discovery, self-realization and self-affirmation,” […]. “We also revere its emphasis on intersectionality, which aids in creating, building and sustaining community while striving to bring about the liberation of all marginalized people, queer or not.” (Advocate) He added, “For a lot of people, intersectionality is difficult,” […]. “I think that a lot of groups who are marginalized or disenfranchised have their sights set on trying to bring about liberation for that particular group. It’s only been recently that people understand that most oppressions are all tied together. We’re not going to really get very far if we’re just trying to work in our own lane. We actually have to be working with each other because at the end of the day we’re all trying to get the same thing, I hope. And that is liberation for all marginalized people and for all people.” (Advocate)

Queer or 2SLGBTQQIA+ replaced gay and lesbian, meaning gay and lesbian people not wanting to fit in “existing social institutions,” defined by the queer theory as “heteronormativity.” Queer activists strive to organize a community composed of “the more socially conscious” gays and lesbians “to provide leadership to the whole mass of social variants” in developing a parallel “queer culture.” Yes, they are free to promote this narrative and pursue their desired goal. That said, in reality, gay remains gay, a demographic, not a community, and increasingly, many gay men, myself included, have actively rejected that narrative. When I mention in passing that I am gay, I typically mention my husband, Mika, with whom I have been for twenty-seven years. We are a conventional gay couple who are not at odds with heterosexuality or “heteronormativity.” Others understand that we are gay, male homosexuals, in a loving and committed relationship. We are assuredly not queer; what does that even mean? What we think of the “marginalized and disenfranchised” has nothing to do with your sex, race, orientation, or anything else. When it comes to the queer community, we ask that they stay in their own lane and kindly stop using the terms gay and queer interchangeably in referring to gay men. Yes, a little clarity goes a long way.

Posted by Geoffrey

Being gay is like being left-handed. Some people are, most people aren’t and nobody really knows why. It’s not right or wrong, it’s just the way things are. — Unknown

I watched a documentary in the 1990s. It was about the investigation into the molestation and murder of a prepubescent boy in England in the 1970s. It was in the 1970s, so suspicion immediately fell on gay men. The police opened an investigation and right away approached known homosexuals and entered gay bars, asking men to come to the station for questioning. The men were photographed, and detailed notes were taken of the interviews. At one point, a gay man was accused by another of the crime. Once the accused realized that he was under suspicion, he told the detectives interviewing him that he was saying nothing without his solicitor present. It turned out that the accusation was wrongful and levelled against him by another man who had a grudge. Eventually, the culprit was found and confessed when presented with evidence against him. He was not a gay man and had no previous suspicion of sexual interference with boys. He said that the boy struggled during and after the assault and that he had not meant to kill him. The man was convicted of the crimes of manslaughter and sexually assaulting the boy. He was imprisoned for his crimes. With the case closed, the police destroyed the evidence they collected in their investigation: the photos and notes from the interviews of the gay men.

Continue reading

We can always call them Bulgarians. — Samuel Goldwyn (Attributed)

Plamen

Dining with my friend Plamen at a restaurant in Sofia.

sofia pride-960x600

“We can always call them Bulgarians,” is a quotation attributed by Wilella Waldorf to “Samuel Goldwyn or somebody” in the New York Post, September 17, 1937. (as cited in The origin of “Bulgarian” as a euphemism for sexual minorities.) The euphemism was used in American cinema and theatre when referring to gay and lesbian characters on screen and stage starting in the first half of the 20th century. What made me think of this is my recent trip to Bulgaria. I left Ottawa, bound for Bulgaria, on July 14 and returned on July 25. I met up with my friend Plamen in Sofia, the capital city of Bulgaria, and embarked on a whirlwind tour with him as my guide and interpreter. We had a great time. Bulgaria has a rich history and culture going back to antiquity, and today Bulgaria is a peaceful and prosperous society. During the tour, we did not visit any gay bars or clubs in Bulgaria as it was not on the itinerary; still, in the back of my mind, I wondered what life is like for gay people in Bulgaria. Do gay people live openly in Bulgarian society, or do they remain closeted and if so, why? Continue reading

There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. — Alexis de Tocqueville

WALLACERoy-Moore-Quote-Seperation-of-church-and-state

Despite gains in the movement for marriage equality in the United States, such as the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Proposition 8 by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2013 and the repeal of Amendment 1 in North Carolina by a U.S. District Court in 2014, resistance rooted in cynical appeals to populism and the tyranny of the majority rears its head in Alabama. This is manifest in the looming showdown between Judge Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) following the repeal of the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, in a ruling handed down by Justice Callie V. Granade  of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on January 23, 2015. This is not unlike the showdown that took place between Governor George C. Wallace and President John F. Kennedy in 1963 when Governor Wallace defied the SCOTUS ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, handed down in 1954 that declared segregation unconstitutional. In both cases, support for segregation and for a ban on same sex marriage was overwhelming and Wallace and Moore insisted their respective stands on the issues was justified in that they represented the opinion of the majority of voters in Alabama. Continue reading