Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex | Page 6

which may be determined by a number of external
circumstances of life.

The apparent certainty thus reached is, however, overthrown by the retort that manifestly
there are many persons who have experienced even in their early youth those very sexual
influences, such as seduction, mutual onanism, without becoming inverts, or without
constantly remaining so. Hence, one is forced to assume that the alternatives congenital
and acquired are either incomplete or do not cover the circumstances present in
inversions.
*Explanation of Inversion.*--The nature of inversion is explained neither by the
assumption that it is congenital nor that it is acquired. In the first case, we need to be told
what there is in it of the congenital, unless we are satisfied with the roughest explanation,
namely, that a person brings along a congenital sexual impulse connected with a definite
sexual object. In the second case it is a question whether the manifold accidental
influences suffice to explain the acquisition unless there is something in the individual to
meet them half way. The negation of this last factor is inadmissible according to our
former conclusions.
*The Relation of Bisexuality.*--Since the time of Frank Lydston, Kiernan, and Chevalier,
a new series of ideas has been introduced for the explanation of the possibility of sexual
inversion. This contains a new contradiction to the popular belief which assumes that a
human being is either a man or a woman. Science shows cases in which the sexual
characteristics appear blurred and thus the sexual distinction is made difficult, especially
on an anatomical basis. The genitals of such persons unite the male and female
characteristics (hermaphroditism). In rare cases both parts of the sexual apparatus are
well developed (true hermaphroditism), but usually both are stunted.[9]
The importance of these abnormalities lies in the fact that they unexpectedly facilitate the
understanding of the normal formation. A certain degree of anatomical hermaphroditism
really belongs to the normal. In no normally formed male or female are traces of the
apparatus of the other sex lacking; these either continue functionless as rudimentary
organs, or they are transformed for the purpose of assuming other functions.
The conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original
predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to
monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex.
It was natural to transfer this conception to the psychic sphere and to conceive the
inversion in its aberrations as an expression of psychic hermaphroditism. In order to bring
the question to a decision, it was only necessary to have one other circumstance, viz., a
regular concurrence of the inversion with the psychic and somatic signs of
hermaphroditism.
But this second expectation was not realized. The relations between the assumed
psychical and the demonstrable anatomical androgyny should never be conceived as
being so close. There is frequently found in the inverted a diminution of the sexual
impulse (H. Ellis) and a slight anatomical stunting of the organs. This, however, is found
frequently but by no means regularly or preponderately. Thus we must recognize that
inversion and somatic hermaphroditism are totally independent of each other.
Great importance has also been attached to the so-called secondary and tertiary sex
characters and their aggregate occurrence in the inverted has been emphasized (H. Ellis).
There is much truth in this but it should not be forgotten that the secondary and tertiary
sex characteristics very frequently manifest themselves in the other sex, thus indicating
androgyny without, however, involving changes in the sexual object in the sense of an

inversion.
Psychic hermaphroditism would gain in substantiality if parallel with the inversion of the
sexual object there should be at least a change in the other psychic qualities, such as in
the impulses and distinguishing traits characteristic of the other sex. But such inversion of
character can be expected with some regularity only in inverted women; in men the most
perfect psychic manliness may be united with the inversion. If one firmly adheres to the
hypothesis of a psychic hermaphroditism, one must add that in certain spheres its
manifestations allow the recognition of only a very slight contrary determination. The
same also holds true in the somatic androgyny. According to Halban, the appearance of
individual stunted organs and secondary sex characters are quite independent of each
other.[10]
A spokesman of the masculine inverts stated the bisexual theory in its crudest form in the
following words: "It is a female brain in a male body." But we do not know the
characteristics of a "female brain." The substitution of the anatomical for the
psychological is as frivolous as it is unjustified. The tentative explanation by v.
Krafft-Ebing seems to be more precisely formulated than that of Ulrich but does not
essentially differ from it. v. Krafft-Ebing thinks that the bisexual predisposition gives to