Hi have a read of this for trans in Germany 1930s
www.quora.com/What-were-the-views-of-the-nazis-on-transgender-people-and-transsexual-people

I have tried quickly to find out about the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft online. The problem I have come up against is that the Nazis exterminated a huge number of gay people and burned many books about homosexuality, but it's quite hard to find anything contemporary specifically about trans people. There seem to be plenty of modern rewriting- for example, the Wiki entry talks about "gender assigned at birth" which I assume was not an expression used in 1933. I know from literature that "sex changes" happened -often in North Africa. I do worry about attempts to appropriate gay as well as female culture. Gender non conforming people of both sexes and sexualities must not be re written as trans......

Coming late to this, but I've just been finding out. a little more about Natacha/Mark (MNHQ this person switches between these two identities)

Here's Mark's page on Goldsmiths

Have a look at his publication history, especially the last item

www.gold.ac.uk/educational-studies/staff/hellen/

Well if you want to be flipent about the mass extermination of a people then that's your choice but I think it looks crass. This occured in 1933 the institute was the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft and it supported the lgbt community in burlin

They could have called it 'sick'. They said maternity.

It's not a misunderstanding. That's how it was described at a trans conference.

"They are infact burning the books of the worlds leading centre for sexuality and gender"
Well, among others! What was the name of the Centre, by the way?

Argh, if only those six million Jewish people (and of course others) hadn't been gender scholars...

Also before you go Down the whole maternity thing I think. Again this is a misunderstanding people just want time off for medical purposes as some companies don't allow this as its is classed as elective like a boob job. We feel that gender dysphoria is not something you elect to have

For those of you that think that this is even only the last 50 years and think that is as far back as it goes and that it's funny cos I said 100 I refer you to the picutre of the nazis's burning books in the 1930s you know the one it's quite famous. They are infact burning the books of the worlds leading centre for sexuality and gender and the work that they were doing was far ahead of the things that happened even upto the 1970s this was lost. Society as been at a level of exceptance before this modern time in the west and in other world cultures as worked these issues out centuries ago. And there are a number of concepts of gender within them. Again reading around this subject will help while I disagree with the transexual empire and encourage you to read whipping girl by Julia Serano as a responce to that book I would still encourage you to read it and anything else you can to give you a balanced view of the current issues.

The book trans Britain is not about historical characters neather is pressing matters, pressing matters will. Tell you how we got to the point we are now as it's written by the people who got us there.

Love that Pratchet and totally agree re reification....

Though it is of course the MOTHERS who get MATERNITY LEAVE, not the babies..... I would have no problem with the MOTHERS getting compassionate leave to grieve the lose of a son or daughter....

I'm totally with loveyoursdvice. No need for maternity leave. I think the suggestion is part of the psychological training for society. Trying to reify this 'rebirth' narrative.

That came out more extreme than I meant... I have huge compassion for those with genuine gender dysphoria, who I understand are a tiny number of those now declared trans..... It is this larger group that I have a problem with, particularly since so many seem to be middle-class, educated people born as men i.e. privileged, but only now screaming about their lack of privilege from a very privileged position

I certainly wouldn’t have an objection to transfolk having a defined in law statutory period similar to sick pay/maternity pay to cover their recovery from medical transition, nor a shorter period (a couple of weeks similar to paternity leave) for a social transition.

Surely they already have the first as part of their sick leave entitlement - in the same way as if I have a hysterectomy, etc.... IT DOES NOT EQUATE TO BRINGING A CHILD INTO THIS WORLD......and I cannot see why they would need time of for social transition, since this is an ongoing process which one integrates into ones life - in the same way that we integrate other huge issues outside work....

Although they are not taking rights away from other people, it is a question of "parity" and being perceived to be just and fair.....

I feel very strongly that we have a bizarre situation where transpeople are declaring themselves the most disadvantaged and discriminated group and others are buying into this narrative.... I cannot agree. Having seen the pain and suffering caused by Domestic Violence, children with severe disabilities not being able to access the care they need and those in real poverty, I just do not understand why everyone is pandering to this movement - including the Labour Party, who really should be standing up for the most disadvantaged.

Does anyone feel that reading this feels like being in an abusive relationship with a man who is never happy and no matter what you do it will never be enough and always your fault?

Spot on.

I'd guess Jeanne d'Arc would be less concerned about pronouns than being featured in a book 'Trans Britain'.

I just finished the Transsexual Empire and would recommend it for background knowledge, especially of how the medical side of things has developed. It was slightly depressing to realise that women have basically been fighting these same particular battles against gender, against appropriation and to retain our spaces since at least the early 70's.

Sheila Jeffreys' recent talk on the Yogyakarta Principles at WNTT was very informative too.

“But if a book openly states that it discusses whether/suggests that certain historical women were trans, then it isn't a book I would wish to read.”

Frankly, I am so desperate for information that I am prepared to hold my nose. I’m not used to not being able to find out what I need to know from books, sweet old fashioned soul that I am.

I prefer to read a book before I decide whether it was worth reading it or not!

I agree! But if a book openly states that it discusses whether/suggests that certain historical women were trans, then it isn't a book I would wish to read. I'm a historian, I find that kind of anachronism offensive to my discipline even without the more overt insult to individual women and women as a class.

A history of the trans movement without this element would be very interesting - I haven't come across such a book (although I'm sure they exist), but there are some interesting academic papers about the subject that do not indulge in populist anachronism.

Whoops, five decades does not a century make.

They identify as a century.

Yes, cultural appropriation seems to be a trans “thing” . Fortunately some of us were around in the 70s and have long memories for the good and the bad. The bad including many women diverting their attention from the ongoing fight for women’s rights to the new and shiny gay rights movement. Men always seem to get what they want, including women to do the typing and make the tea.

I certainly wouldn’t have an objection to transfolk having a defined in law statutory period similar to sick pay/maternity pay to cover their recovery from medical transition, nor a shorter period (a couple of weeks similar to paternity leave) for a social transition.

Those rights wouldn’t be in conflict with women’s sex based rights at all. It’s only when the conflict occurs that I object.

Hence the need for rigorous impact assessments before changes are made.

May I suggest you read trans Britain or pressing matters for a history of the trans movement and realising that this is not something we have just done but have been fighting for over the last 100 years.

I looked that up Bespin, the description says:
'A comprehensive account of the milestone events which shaped the transgender community over the last five decades...'

Whoops, five decades does not a century make. Or is that a 'transcentury', fifty years that feels like it is a century?

Sorry, but no dice. Trans have a very long habit of re-writing history (and transing the dead). You would have had more credibility citing a book written mid-20th century, than one written last week (figuratively, January 2018 has barely had time for the ink to dry).

And the reason I am challenging your claim of transgenderism doing this fight over 100 years - it was barely even a thing a couple of decades ago. Transsexualism was, for written history, but not transgenderism. Huge difference, seeings many transsexuals now don't want any longer to be under your newly formed 'trans umbrella'.

I'm with you there, Bertrand There's a phrase for that, isn't there?

Don't judge a book by its cover

I prefer to read a book before I decide whether it was worth reading it or not!