Beginning in 1871, Germany had a law known as Paragraph 175 that criminalized male homosexual behavior with six months in prison. The law was widely ignored in Weimar Germany, especially in Berlin, during the liberal inter-war period from 1919 to 1933.
During this time, sexologist Magnus Hirschfield, a gay Berlin Jew, led efforts to abolish Paragraph 175; helped to establish the world’s first gay-rights organizations; coined the word ‘transvestite;’ set up facilities for surgical gender transition; and was a leader in a vibrant LGBTQ social and intellectual scene.
Transvestites, the term used then to refer to transgender people, could apply for government documents to appear in public dressed as they chose, without fear of political or criminal reprisals. Before these “transvestite passes,” they could be arrested for appearing in a manner that would “disturb the peace.”
However, during the Nazis’ 12-year regime, 1933-1945, as many as 5,000 to 10,000 gay men were rounded up and incarcerated in concentration camps. An estimated 60 percent of them died of torture, including castration, starvation, and disease.
Shortly after coming to power, the Nazis almost immediately toughened Paragraph 175. The law originally forbade behavior. The new version made it a crime if a man even looked at another man with “sexual intent.” Punishment for violating 175 went from six months in prison to five years.
Although Paragraph 175 focused on men, gender-nonconforming people were often labeled as spies and saboteurs and they, too, were arrested and imprisoned. Lesbians suffered as well; lesbian bars were shut down, lesbian communities were disrupted, and lesbian book clubs and social groups were forbidden. Some lesbians were imprisoned as “asocials,” political dissidents, and members of other outlawed groups.
What happened after the war
Paragraph 175 remained on the books throughout the war – and after. Research shows that from 1949 to 1969, an additional 50,000 people were arrested for violating the law.
Paragraph 175 wasn’t repealed until 1994, nearly half a century after the war ended. And although restitution had been made to Holocaust survivors and their descendants, persecuted people from the LGBTQ community were among the many “forgotten” victim groups.
[image_caption]Ellen Kennedy[/image_caption]
It took 150 years to redress, at least financially, the wrongs of Paragraph 175. But the harm of the labeling, the persecution, the trauma, and the stigma cannot be undone.
America today: a shadow of Paragraph 175?
More than 80 laws against transgender people have been passed so far in 2021 or are pending in state legislatures across the country. These bills have not been initiated by concerned constituents. They are initiated and supported by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has been listed as an LGBTQ hate group since 2016.
The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization that, “based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities, has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” Sexual orientation and gender identity are, indeed, immutable characteristics.
The ADF asserts that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy society. The ADF seeks to dehumanize LGBTQ+ people and to restrict their rights for being who they are.
For the past several years, there has been a shocking spike in incitement and in acts of direct violence, including murder, of LGBTQ people.
June is Pride Month. It is time to reflect on people like Magnus Hirschfield, who eventually fled from Germany and Nazi persecution, and on the many thousands who suffered then and those who are suffering now, because of their “immutable characteristics.” Are today’s state laws leading us down the path of a Paragraph 175?
***
World Without Genocide, a human rights organization located at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, is hosting a webinar on June 9, 7 to 9 p.m. CDT, “The Pendulum of LGBTQ Rights in the Public and in the Courts.” Registration is required by June 8. $10 general public; $5 seniors, students; $25 Minnesota lawyers for 2 Elimination of Bias CLE credits. Continuing education certificates for all teachers, nurses, and social workers.
Ellen J. Kennedy, Ph.D., is the executive director of World Without Genocide at Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
“Sexual orientation and gender identity are, indeed, immutable characteristics.”
Is this science?
Ron, you are right, in fact things aren’t always so clear-cut. I could cite examples of specific individuals. (But I certainly do not favor “conversion therapy.”)
The author uses the historical example of the Nazis in striving for a strong effect. But there are many current examples: various regimes in power throughout the world, and various important religious organizations.
Could you give me some examples of religious organizations and their objections?
My original quote was from the author of the article and if that statement was factually -scientifically based.
The Southern Baptist Convention opposes steadfastly “all efforts by any governing official or body to validate transgender identity as morally praiseworthy,” as well as “all cultural efforts to validate claims to transgender identity.”
The Missouri Synod “recognizes homophile behavior as intrinsically sinful.”
The Wisconsin Synod believes that “that homosexuality is a sin, which is contrary to God’s intention in creating man and woman.”
You don’t have to be either gay or straight for it to be an immutable characteristic. Some people are bisexual.
There are also people who entered opposite-sex relationships because it was culturally and socially unacceptable to be gay. And then later in life they came out. Now that gay rights are more widely accepted that happens less frequently, with the exception of people with conservative religious beliefs.
Yes, it is, and I could cite a bunch of sources to support that claim. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association have held this for a long time.
But I’ll just ask this instead – could you choose to be gay? Or if you are gay (I should not assume you are straight) could you choose to be straight?
Q: Have any blue states written or enacted any of these reprehensible laws now in 2021??? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe so. The fear of anything or anyone different..the absolute intolerance of others’ beliefs…the shunning of science, data, math, logic, truth…are the sole embrace of the faux ‘Christians’ and of red state constituents and their current REP ‘leadership’ & ‘ideology’.
The author really needed to elaborate on the current politics (and party) involved in these efforts, not just identify the lobbying hate group and deploy the (somewhat inapt) analogy to criminalizing homosexuality, which was done by many more nations than just Nazi Germany. Most US states also had similar criminal laws on the books until the Supreme Court struck them down as unconstitutional in 2003, setting off the current “conservative” rage against a “homosexual agenda”, etc. (Of course, it goes without saying that the Nazi attempt to actually annihilate gays in the Thousand Year Reich is one of the most extreme examples of societal hatred.)
Anyway, here in 2021 it appears (from a cursory search) that (so far) every state which has enacted one of these “anti-transgender” laws is indeed wholly Repub-controlled, and that this is just another spiteful front in the dyspeptic “conservative” culture war. They makes the lives of a few (hated) individuals more difficult, for precious little reason other than bitterness and longing for the Good Ol’ Days, when outsiders and outliers were excluded from society and one was permitted to more openly express extreme dislike of helpless and tiny minority groups.
But others very likely have a much better understanding of this front than me.
Anyone who has a daughter in high school or college sports wants their daughter to be able to compete against other girls. Especially when performance-based scholarships are on the line. It’s only fair.
Some state girls’ track and field records are now held by transgenders … competitors who were born as boys and who still have a boy’s size and muscle structure. Since 2017, two males have been allowed to compete in girls’ high-school track events in Connecticut. They have collectively taken 15 women’s state championship titles, all of which were previously held by females.
These males have taken 85 advancement opportunities from female athletes in the last three seasons. That’s not fair. If you’re a feminist or simply want girls to have a fair shot at winning their competitions, you would be advocating for passage of these “anti-transgender” laws which simply state that people born as males must compete against males in school athletic competitions.
I have to say that I am really touched by the sudden concern from conservatives about girls and womens sports.
So let’s continue to stigmatize and belittle LGBTQ people, because a couple of transgender athletes have won prizes.
This looks like the search for a reason to condone bullying and hatred.
My wife and I are both very in support of LGBTQ rights and have close friends and family who are LGBTQ. The goal is to protect peoples’ rights and in this case, that includes the rights of the non transgender girls as well as the transgender girls. That being said, I don’t think asking people who are born males to compete with the same is belittling them. There is no question that male and female bodies are different and to me it’s like saying a heavyweight boxer can suddenly compete in the flyweight division. Some things aren’t always black and white but for me it ultimately comes down to what is the MOST fair for ALL the parties involved. I would also say that transgender boys should be able to compete with the non-transgender girls at the same token as that seems much more fair than expecting transgender boys to compete with non-transgender boys.
This is a very small issue that is being inflated and use as an excuse to continue the stigmatization of LGBTQ kids. The question of which basketball team Holly and Lola play on is pretty small compared to preventing bullying and letting them lead their own lives.
I also think the number of times it has happened that transgender athletes have won big is pretty miniscule. It comes down to two kids in Connecticut.
Excuse me? It took a republican president (Nixon) to create it. Turns out most liberals aren’t the feminists they pretend to be.
Well, perhaps you can direct us to an actual feminist that supports these new anti-trans Repub laws. We’ll wait.
As for Nixon “creating” Title IX, please. That was a statute passed by a Dem Congress that Nixon opted not to oppose,
Next you’ll tell us Nixon “created” the Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act, all statutes drafted, debated and passed by Dem Congresses. It is true that Nixon did not think it politically prudent to veto them, and even worked to enforce them in good faith, unlike all of today’s “conservatives”, including St Reagan.
And the Repub party that went along with any of these Acts is dead and gone, never to return.
Nixon signed the law authored by Patsy Mink. From his signing remarks on the bill, it looks like he was concerned mostly with limiting busing for desegregation and coordinating federal policy for higher education.
I doubt he cared too much about women’s athletics.
Martina Navratilova (sp) has an interesting take on this issue for you in the NYT
Didn’t she play women’s doubles with Dr. Renee Richards for a short time?