#i can't fucking stand Jan Morris but I also applaud her autobiography for being one of the first transition narratives in history

[endusviolence]

Magnus Hirschfeld was a eugenicist. I suggest you read Racism and the Making of Gay Rights by Laurie Marhoefer, a historian of queer and trans people in Nazi Germany, before you go writing posts praising him. He literally advocated for the sterilizing of the "feeble-minded", but oh, he has such a "fabulous mustache"!

Yes, he was. I really should have addressed this in my previous post. In my defense, this is a side topic that requires a lot of elaboration and to do so in that post would've derailed the point. Let's have that elaboration now, shall we?

For those who are unaware, eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices created with the goal of improving the genetic quality of a population. Versions of its practices have kind of always existed, but the term itself was coined by a British polymath named Francis Galton. The problem with it is it's scientific racism. From its start, it was meant as a method of "racial improvement" in society. Galton genuinely believed that all people with African roots were "two grades below Anglo-Saxtons in intelligence and ability." I've not even mentioned yet that Galton created eugenics under the belief that we didn't need to know how the mechanism of hereditary work to see its results. The entire practice was and is an uninformed pseudoscience that always focused more on racial traits than trying to find any truth based in reality.

Eugenics is often considered a Nazi thing because they really loved using it (see the mass sterilization and the Lebensborn program), but reality is that most nations (especially Western nations) have utilized eugenics in one way or another since its inception. In the US, for example, hundreds of thousands underwent compulsory sterilization during the 20th century to prevent socially undesirable traits, disproportionately affecting non-white populations. Eugenics was also used to help ban most Asian immigrants (except for those from the US's ally Japan or the then-colonized Philippines) from entering the country in the Immigration Act of 1924. Counter movements protesting eugenics made serious waves to dismantle some systems in the 70s and 80s, but prisons and other public institutions will still sterilize especially unruly people.

Magnus Hirschfeld, like many scientists of his time, was influenced by the ideas of eugenics. It's not entirely clear cut as it may seem. For one thing, Hirschfeld mostly rejected the racial hierarchy aspect (part of what made him controversial in his time, actually). He did, however, believe that those with disabilities or other undesirable traits should not reproduce. Sterilization was performed at the Institute (often with transgender patients). I also don't deny that he had his own racist beliefs, and I'll be delighted to read the recommended literature for better insight on this topic. I do not praise him for any of this behavior. In fact, I personally find it absolutely horrifying.

Then, why don't I hold it against him? Simply put, I don't find it productive to completely throw away and forget about important historical figures over controversial beliefs. I think Kaz Rowe put it perfectly in their video on Chevalier d'Eon (another controversial figure in trans history). You don't need to like a historical figure to find them interesting and worthy of study, and a historical figure don't need to be a good person to be queer. Without Hirschfeld and the Institute of Sexology, the early practice of sex reassignment surgery wouldn't have nearly as big, and the transgender people who did receive care from the Institute likely wouldn't have been able to transition. You're allowed to feel complicated things about figures of our past and even hate them for some of their beliefs. But you cannot deny that they do deserve at least a golf clap for the foundations they laid.