Translation from the link suggestionsplease posted (I've just copy-pasted, and I've not changed or corrected anything, any translation errors or oddities are likely down to the google translate function):
'Expression of the opinion is also based on a sufficient factual figure. One is one with the statement, “I hate this narrative. It ridges the true victims of the Nazi crimes in response to an article that deals with the topic of “Transdependence/Transsexuality in National Socialism”. The statement is to be understood as to the fact that transsexual people are not victims of Nazi crimes. Because if a group of people is faced with the group of “true victims”, this means that this group of people wrongly appropriates a victim status and is not a victim. The appellant does not simply express the fact that she denies a systematic persecution of transsexuals during the Nazi era, but that there was no Nazi crimes at the expense of transsexual people. For in the article preceding this post it is not claimed that a systematic persecution of trans persons in the Nazi era has taken place, but that during this time a state of mixing of ga and trans* as a perverse disease was to be found. Transpeople, especially trans women, who had also had sex with men or were suspected of having them, were exposed to stigmatisation, discrimination, persecution and murder in concentration camps, and transies who had no sex with men, but who had somehow conspicuously behaved in public, were classified as "asocial".
37
There is no fact that there is no fact that she had suffered from opinion and declared minutes at the oral hearing that she had never denied transsexual victims of the Nazi regime and declared records during the oral hearing that she had never denied the victim status of trans persons under National Socialism. These subsequent explanations change the understanding of the statement at the time when it was made, however, and do not allow it to be abolished as a basis.
38
The aforementioned statement by the appellant can be assessed as a denial of Nazi crimes. Because also from the private expert report of Dr. B1 A, a research assistant at the G-C Institute, it follows that it is not true that transsexuals were not victims during the Nazi era. This states, among other things, that the authorities could prosecute transvestites when their appearance aroused offense in the public, for example because crowds of people felt harassed or third parties felt harassed. Furthermore, it follows from his report that in a few individual cases concentration camp instructions are also documented on the basis of trans-vestiteism. Thus, even after the meeting of the plaintiff's own statements, transsexuals cannot be generally denied victim status in the Nazi era.'