Talk:Transgender people in Nazi Germany

Proposed merge of Persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany with Transgender people in Nazi Germany
No need to have two articles on this from a WP:NOPAGE perspective; the two article should be merged. I'm unsure which is the better title (the majority of sources I can find are on the persecution, but I also can't read German). —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say this article is a better merge target for a number of reasons
 * As the other article says, there was not a centrally directed persecution of trans people as there was of homosexual/bisexual men. There seems to be some dispute as to whether "persecution" is the right word to use. (cf Lesbians in Nazi Germany)
 * Aspects of the transgender experience in Nazi Germany may not all fit under the category of "persecution", so this article title is more broad and prevents potential issue of POVFORK
 * The other article's content is concerning. Have not checked thoroughly but:
 * "Nazi Occupation of Germany" there was no such thing
 * "Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code was legal justification to prosecute many sexual and gender minorities" no, only amab people suspected of having sex with men
 * I'm unable to check right now, but I doubt that Sutton suggests there was a genocide of trans people
 * "transgender people were at greater risk of becoming victims of state-sanctioned violence than Jews" is certainly false and not supported by the cited source
 * (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of this content is copied from (an apparently inaccurate version of) the transgender genocide article. I'd moved it to mainspace to preserve history and have it merged, so I'm fine with merging to this article (or WP:BLARing if the content is subpar). —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just coming here from my original thread at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_trans_people_in_Nazi_Germany#There_is_a_similar_article_already to say I also prefer using the title "Transgender people in Nazi Germany." Maivea (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Expanding the article
It's a stub right now, so I thought I'd start a thread about expanding this article.

There is already an Italian Wikipedia article, Lucy Salani, about the sole trans woman to survive Dachau, which could be used to expand this article. Salani was sent to Dachau as a political prisoner, but some of the sources covering her could give insight into the experiences of trans people in concentration camps.

If there are any other ideas, I'm open to them. Maivea (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The list of sources in further reading may also be helpful. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I’ll put aside time to read some of them. Maivea (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We should also definitely mention Magnus Hirschfeld. Maivea (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Liddy Bacroff was a "transvestite" and sex worker who died in a concentration camp. Maivea (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Another person of interest is Fritz Kitzing, a transvestite who is covered in Homosexuelle Männer im KZ Sachsenhausen (Homosexual Men in the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp) and Queer Identities and Politics in Germany: A History, 1880–1945. The two books give different accounts of Kitzing's gender identity. Maivea (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Trans Liminality and the Nazi State Maivea (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Curious about what people think of this one: The Eradication of “Talmudic Abstractions”: Anti-Semitism, Transmisogyny and the National Socialist Project. I see there's a list of sources the author provided at the bottom but they look pretty bare-bones and are usually secondary sources, mostly news articles, blog posts, and press releases as opposed to primary sources and articles in journals. At the very least, someone (probably me) will have to read them to make sure they support the claims they're tied to in the article. Maivea (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Transgender people in Nazi Germany → Trans people in Nazi Germany – Transgender isn't exactly the word that a large number of the sources use here, and it feels a bit anachronistic. "Transvestites in Nazi Germany" is also dated, but for a different reason entirely, but I think that simply shortening "Transgender" to "Trans" helps expand the umbrella to cover the notable topic while avoiding anachronisms and avoiding potentially offensive terminology in the article title. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree for the reasons you stated. The shortened term would work like “trans*” to include “transgender,” “transsexual,” and “transvestite.” There are also already other articles that use the shortened term in the title, like Trans woman and Trans man. Maivea (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with both Red-tailed hawk and Maivea. --Brunnaiz (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENT for consistency for the main article title which is at Transgender. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't understand the argument that Trans people is less offensive than transgender people. Trans is essentially a slang term for Transgender. It also doesn't change the umbrella becuase they mean the same thing. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment regarding offensiveness was because "trans" is less offensive than "transvestite", not "transgender". But a lot of sources do refer to "transvestites" in Nazi Germany, while people who cross-dress aren't necessarily transgender, and we're running into some issues with the terminology being anachronistic and not in the majority of sources. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. Current name is far more recognisable. Andrewa (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Opening sentence
The lead starts out with: In Nazi Germany, transgender people had a variety of experiences, depending on many factors including whether they were considered "Aryan" or capable of useful work. But at least the sources I'm seeing, and the page itself, seems to indicate that the experiences were, on the whole, pretty dismal. Even if individuals were not always individually targeted, as a group, trans people were persecuted. Some ended up in concentration camps, and the community support and institutions for trans people crumbled in pretty devastating ways during this time. (1) Is the opening sentence really telling us something meaningful and useful, and (2) does it reflect the article body, and what most reliable sources say about the matter? Hist9600 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I see that since my recent comments, the opening has been fixed up. Thanks for addressing this issue. Hist9600 (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Feminizing and masculinizing facial surgery
Hey ! Just wanted to ask and clarify something, it seems like you're from your messages that you're unable to verify about FTM sex reassignment surgery? But the source I'm trying to add is about facial feminization and/or masculinization surgery, which Beachy talks about on page 178? I may be missing something as I don't have full access to the book right now, please let me know if I am and thank you for your help on this page!! Wasianpower (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you quote the passage from the book? I tried to search the book, but I must not have been able to find the quote you're thinking of. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From page 178, "Levy-Lenz also introduced surgical procedures to feminize or masculinize facial features by altering noses, chins, lips and cheekbones. From other sources it is clear that Levy-Lenz and other Institute-affiliated surgeons performed hysterectomies, oophorectomies (removal of the ovaries) and breast-reduction surgeries." Wasianpower (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

edit warring over J.K Rowling's comment
I'm pretty new so I am not sure what the proper procedure should be but the recent clash about J.K Rowling has meant that this page has garnered a lot of people's interest (including myself honestly). The constant state of edits seems unproductive in it's current form and it'd probably be best to leave it for a few days before deciding what to submit. Is there a semi-protected edit or something like this for the page?

LunaHasArrived (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This has already been requested here
 * Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 15:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Fabricated stuff about german court rule
The whole paragraph was a badly cobbled-together false report in that form. It is right that following a twitter dispute Marie Vollbracht tried to sue people, who called her a holocaust denial because of her doubts about trans victims of the nazis. She lost the case. The court ruled that it was just barely admissible to call her that, because it was a pointed debate and she also used exaggerated arguments herself. There was no general classification of something like a trans holocaust or anything related. It was basically a libel suit. The literature cited was obviously not understood and misrepresented. That is really obvious for anybody speaking german (or is able to use some state of the art translator). The alleged prosecution for holocaust denial ist a total fake and the responsible user should be punished. Furthermore, it is highly doubtful that this case is relevant to this article at all. 79.228.76.85 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The court ruled that being called a Holocaust denier was not slander as she did indeed deny Nazi warcrimes. The sources linked confirm this. No one is saying the court confirmed a 'Trans holocaust' what it did was confirm a historical consensus that Trans people were victims of Nazism. Also, I really don't understand why you think a case detailing a clear example of someone being linked to Nazi war crime denial regarding Trans people isn't relevant to an entire article about trans people under Nazi Germany. In the future please do not revert edits before establishing a consensus in the talk pages. If you feel the cited source is incorrect then please provide some evidence to the contrary. Angryman120344 (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the section slightly to better reflect that the case was a civil suit, but in general fully agree with 's points. Wasianpower (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. The court did very clearly say that she did not deny the holocaust, because that would be a serious crime in germany. It says in the specific content her tweet could be interpreted in a way, that she in denying that there are trans persons under the victims of the nazis and that trans person were discriminated or pursued in nazi germany. This is not the same. Read it up here: . Much more serious and harmful was the blatant lie, that she was prosecuted for holocaust or nazi crime denial. Such obvious and ultimately unsourced lies need immediate action. The evidence for this is the cited source itself, which does not say anything like that. One year ago someone wrote something like this (nazi crime denial) in the german wiki article about Marie Vollbrecht. The admins did a RevisionDelete because that was a serious false accusation. Now similar stuff is written in this article and people blindly defending ist, because there are sources (they cannot read). --79.228.76.85 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? it now reads as if there were two court proceedings. One that somehow generally decided that the denial of transsexual victims of the Nazis is considered a denial of Nazi crimes. This judgement would then have been taken into account for Mrs Vollbrecht's trial. that is complete nonsense. From the beginning there was only Vollbrechts civil suit. This is really bad editing. --79.228.76.85 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording slightly to make it more clear. I didn't think this would confuse anyone into thinking there are two cases, but either way it should be better now. Remember to WP:Assume Good Faith :) Wasianpower (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should appologize for writing this misinformation in the article. people should take responsibility for their mistakes. 79.228.76.85 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * you are correct she was not prosecuted for Holocaust denial, but as I have clearly pointed out to you in the source you highlight and in the article itself, it explicitly states that 1. Trans people were prosecuted during the Holocaust, and 2. that the civil suit established that being labelled as a holocaust denier or nazi war crime denier was not inaccurate since she quite literally did deny Nazi war crimes. The article reflects this and is in this way, completely accurate. Angryman120344 (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Correct would be: In 2022, the Regional Court of Cologne ruled against German biologist Marie-Luise Vollbrecht, who alleged libel against the German Society for Trans Identity and Intersexuality. The twitter account of the German Society for Trans Identity and Intersexuality called Vollbrecht a nazi crime denier in response to comments she made calling transgender people not "true victims" of the Holocaust. According to the court Vollbrecht had to accept the statement spread by a hashtag as an expression of opinion protected by fundamental rights (sources including https://www.nzz.ch/international/nur-transaktivisten-duerfen-vollbrecht-leugnung-von-ns-verbrechen-vorwerfen-ld.1726045). --79.228.76.85 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Except the court also explicitly ruled in justification that the comments made constituted a denial of nazi war crimes. In the article you cite: 'the same court then repeated its decision and ruled in November that Vollbrecht had to accept the appearance, which is spread by the hashtag "MarieLeugnetNS crime," as a fundamentally protected expression. With her contrast, she had denied that transsexual people were victims of Nazi crimes.'
 * The other sources which are already included and the article you cite already confirm this. Disregarding the completely lack of neutrality present in the source, all its doing is regurgitating the same points, already made, just with slightly different wording. Angryman120344 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the part where the court says that her words or the denial of transgender victims of the nazis "qualifies" as "a denial of Nazi crimes" (which may be prosecuted as a crime in germany). In a lenghty justification of the ruling (https://openjur.de/u/2464580.html) the court clearly stated that Vollbrechts words were not anywhere near to what is usually prosecuted under the german laws about denial of Nazi crimes Why do we not just stick to the actual ruling, which says that in the specific context (twitter debates between trans activists and so called terfs) it was okay to call Vollbrecht a nazi crime denier. --79.228.76.85 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * > Can you point me to the part where the court says that her words or the denial of transgender victims of the nazis "qualifies" as "a denial of Nazi crimes"
 * From the inline sources cited:
 * A tweet by Marie-Luise Vollbrecht, a biologist doctoral student at Berlin's Humboldt University (HU), "can be seen as denying Nazi crimes." - https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/prozess-um-tweet-zu-ns-verbrechen-umstrittene-biologin-der-humboldt-uni-unterliegt-vor-gericht-8863906.html
 * The court took expert statements from historians before issuing an opinion that essentially acknowledges that trans people were victimized by the Nazi regime. - https://theconversation.com/historians-are-learning-more-about-how-the-nazis-targeted-trans-people-205622
 * A tweet by Berlin-based biology doctoral student Marie-Luise Vollbrecht "can be seen as denying Nazi crimes." - https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/bildung/marie-luise-vollbrecht-verliert-streit-um-meinungsaeusserung-a-fabb1812-5a5c-4b52-8982-590f5b0e6f2f
 * No offense, but for someone who claims we didn't read the sources, you seem to have skipped over the first paragraph of the sources. Wasianpower (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For me this is a misrepresentation of the newspaper article and the court justification (linked above). I already aknowledged that the court ruled that in this specific case her statement about trans people can be called nazi crime denial. It does not „qualify“ doubts of a (systematic) prosecution of trans people as nazi crime denial and this ruling is not a landmark decision for anything. The above linked justification by the court says clearly that until now there is not sufficient scientific proof for a systematic prosecution of trans people by nazi germany. The current wording in the article is therefore a bit misleading. I guess it is important for you to give the readers the impression that this court ruling has some big impact of establishing trans people as a new group of Nazi victims. But that is not the case. Therefore I doubt the relevance of the court ruling for this article topic. —22:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 79.228.76.85 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article quite literally already acknowledges this is not a 'Landmark decision'. The reason it's relevant and is in this article is it is an example of a ruling from a German court regarding denial of Nazi war crimes targeting Trans people. You also seem to be saying 'I already aknowledged that the court ruled that in this specific case her statement about trans people can be called nazi crime denial.'
 * - Which is what the article already says. Not only am I unsure what your actually complaining about. A disclaimer trans people were not as prosecuted as other minorities is just unnecessary and repeating information already stated in the article. Angryman120344 (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The 'specific context' that you keep bringing up makes no difference to the actual ruling. If the 'specific context' was that they were writing it on massive banners which they flew around Berlin it still wouldn't change the actual ruling. Angryman120344 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will try to explain it one more time. I'm obviously not a native speaker, so language barrier possibly adds to misunderstanding. I think the paragraph violates the NPOV principle. What bother me most is the word "qualifies", because it distorts the actual statement or judgement. The whole point of the court is that Vollbrecht has to accept others to call her tweet denial of nazi crimes because that interpretation ist protected by expression of opinion (laws). It does not say Vollbrechts words about transgender victims or the denial of trans victims in general qualifies as a form of denial of nazi crimes. It literally says it could be seen that way. We should stick to the actual ruling and not some misinterpretable paraphrase. The court also says that calling her a nazi crime denier, without making clear that this is about the trans victims only and not about general nazi crimes, wouldnt be allowed (check the linked justification by the judges above). That is what i called "special context".--87.154.45.190 (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that also Laurie Marhoefer formulated her sentence in the cited article far more cautiously: "It was the first time a court acknowledged the possibility that trans people were persecuted in Nazi Germany." Older versions of the cited article had the following sentence, which was changed by the editors: "It was the first time a court recognized the persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany." That should highlight that the present formulation is a problem and a misrepresentation of the cited literature. I therefore strongly argue for changing the paragraph to: "In 2022, the Regional Court of Cologne ruled against German biologist Marie-Luise Vollbrecht, who alleged libel against the German Society for Trans Identity and Intersexuality. The twitter account of the German Society for Trans Identity and Intersexuality called Vollbrecht a nazi crime denier in response to comments she made calling transgender people not "true victims" of the Holocaust. According to the court Vollbrecht had to accept the statement spread by a hashtag as an expression of opinion protected by fundamental rights. According to Laurie Marhoefer this was the first time a german court acknowledged the possibility that trans people were persecuted in Nazi Germany." That should be a fair consenus version. 87.154.45.190 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for the suggestions. I'll review the source provided again asap. I believe your provided paragraph is sound enough but i'll have to confirm what it says Angryman120344 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The order of the statements above does not make sense from a readability standpoint. In 2022, the Regional Court of Cologne ruled against German biologist Marie-Luise Vollbrecht, who alleged libel against the German Society for Trans Identity and Intersexuality. Having this passage first highlights the court ruling without even telling us what happened in the first place, or what the case was actually about. Hist9600 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That could be easily solved by switching the first and second sentence and some minor adjustments: "In 2022 the twitter account of the German Society for Trans Identity and Intersexuality (dgti) called a berlin based biologist and graduate student a nazi crime denier in response to comments she made calling transgender people not "true victims" of the Holocaust. In the following the Regional Court of Cologne ruled against the biologist, who alleged libel against the dgti. ..." --93.238.117.231 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think switching the first and second statements is necessary but after re-examining the source I think adding a clarification about the actual ruling after is sufficient. Angryman120344 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I want to say that the new section titles are more clear and overall better. Thank you for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.238.117.231 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024
Just a grammar error:

change “Even in cases where transgender individuals were not killed or imprisoned in concentration camps, they were barred from being transgender in public life, and there is at least one recorded case of a transgender German being driven to suicide by due to the stringent laws” to “Even in cases where transgender individuals were not killed or imprisoned in concentration camps, they were barred from being transgender in public life, and there is at least one recorded case of a transgender German being driven to suicide due to the stringent laws“ Timothythemuskrat (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

GA nomination
I wouldn't pass the article as it is. Almost equal amounts are devoted to the pre-Nazi period as the Nazi period. You should briefly summarize the former and move excess content to Transgender history or something. Compare Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany which has an appropriate ratio of background info to the topic itself. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Also worth checking this source for trans-specific content, you should be able to access it via WP:The Wikipedia Library. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * transgender people gained rights and freedoms previously unprecedented in Europe Is this true? Surely the medical advances were more unprecedented
 * though subsequent examinations of records have suggested it is possible she escaped and survived into the late 1930s. Is there a source for this besides the blog post, which is likely not considered WP:RS?
 * Books need page numbers, like Bauer 2017. Try either sfn or tq the former is preferable to many Wikipedians because it does not clutter the text.
 * opinion pieces are not WP:RS, especially when it concerns historical topics (exception if the author is a genuine subject matter expert, but it's still better to cite their published academic work). Likewise, do not cite sources such as tgdor.org for historical facts. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I'll retract the nomination until after I fix those things. I've never made a GA nomination before, so I appreciate it. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You've done a lot of good work on the article and getting it reviewed can only improve it further :) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That means a lot 😊. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate references
I think the article currently has an issue with WP:DUPCITES. For example, Transgender Life and Persecution under the Nazi State is used as a reference 3 separate times and also listed in the see also section. However, I think it has improved since I last read the article. It would probably improve the quality of the article and reduce clutter if somebody could merge the duplicates. I don't know how to myself. 13tez (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You can use the duplicate link detector, which you can find how to use here: WikiProject Birds/Tools
 * I'm not sure where else you can find it, strangely. CommissarDoggoTalk?  14:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to refactor the references, hopefully this weekend, to use sfn formats. Hopefully that will also take care of this issue.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for further expansion
I wanted to make a list of new sources (not already used in the article) that could provide further information for the article for editors to use. This will make it easier for editors to expand the article. Please edit this section to add any sources you find that aren't already used in the article. Take away sources when they're used in the article for the first time or if they don't actually provide any relevant further information for the article. Please just edit this section's Wikitext rather than replying to keep things more concise.

Books



Journal articles



News sources

13tez (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"One of the worst enemies of the state"
The article currently says "His image would be subsequently widely reproduced for use in Nazi propaganda as an example of one of the worst enemies of the state". That's a strong claim bc the Nazis had many enemies. I tried to find support for it in Dose, who mentions Hirschfeld's appearance in multiple places but never seems to suggest that the second part is true. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * did you see this comment? I'm concerned what source is supporting this claim. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha, I was in the middle of typing out my reply when I saw this. Hope that clarifies the source and we can find a better wording! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the quote from Dose: "During the Nazi period of 1933 to 1945 the daily press continued to use Hirschfeld as a bogeyman, even long after he had died. Many propaganda pieces, even including materials from institutions like the German Museum of Hygiene, cited Hirschfeld as a prime example of the “Jewish type.”" I'm fine with changing the verbiage from "worst enemies of the state" that was just chosen to parallel how it was framed in the Scientific American article. "His image would be subsequently widely reproduced for use in Nazi propaganda as a paradigm for the "Jewish type". (I don't love using the term Jewish type here without an article to link it to but I can't think of anything better. Maybe could use the term "un-German", but I'm a little hesitant as that verbiage isn't used in either cited source.) 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * why not just "Nazi propaganda cited Hirschfeld as a prototypical Jew" (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll go ahead and make that change. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

No citations for the entire introductory section
While reading this page, I became interested in finding out more about some of the topics touched on in the first four introductory paragraphs. However, the entire section lacks a single citation, including sources for the quotes attributed to individuals. I would like to request that editors better acquainted with the subject matter add citations, please. Thanks! Neugeou (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because the citations are in the body of the article, we frequently dispense with them in the lead. See the Donald Trump article for an example. If there is a very specific and controversial claim in the lead you believe absolutely must have a citation, then put it there or start a thread about the matter here and see what other editors think. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Specifically I had wondered where the two quotes at the end of the introduction were from. However, now that you point out the citations in the body, I see that the sources become obvious. Neugeou (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a minor correction
"Dornröschen" doesn't mean "sleeping rose" in German. It's the German name for Sleeping Beauty, literally means "thorn rose" (briar rose?) with a diminutive ending. 2001:4C4D:2193:3800:CCA7:5317:39B0:32D7 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Updated, thanks for noticing. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

German language again
, thanks for your work on this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_people_in_Nazi_Germany&curid=72652051&diff=1226989103&oldid=1226961927 does the source say it's a grammar error? Is "he worked as an actress" a grammar error in English? (I would say no) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The source does not directly say that, though it's part of a section which is pointing out contradictions in the language used by German authorities to describe Liddy. Calling it a grammatical error was part of trying to capture that contradiction as stated in the source, and since my German is not the best I did cross check whether it was an accurate description of German grammar with several friends who are native German speakers before I committed the edit; the universal response was that it was a grammatical error. My understanding is that it's not 1-1 with saying "he worked as an actress", since in English "actress" is an alternative form of "actor" and in German "Tänzerin" is the word for "dancer" with a feminine conjugation. So in terms of the error being made would be more akin to saying "he are an actor" than "he is an actress". If you think this verges into OR though there are other ways to word it, I didn't really think it was since it's just stating a fact about the language. Moot point, I went back and looked at the source and realized that quote was actually from one of her pre-nazi arrests rather than one of her Nazi era arrests, so I'm going to remove it entirely. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)