I do not admit my third theory because it is ultra-nominalism nominalism; if it is really true that all the individuals of both sexes differ among themselves in a far more remarkable manner than those of the other species, it is none the less true that a classification, founded upon a constant anatomical characteristic, is legitimate, and that the principle of classification lies in the nature of things, for if things appear to us classified, it is because they are so; the laws of the mind are the same as those of Nature so far as knowledge is concerned; we must admit this, unless we are sceptics or idealists, and I am neither the one nor the other; neither am I a realist in the philosophic acceptation of the word, for I do not believe that the species is something apart from the individuals in which it is manifested; it is in them and through them; this repeats the affirmation that there are individuals identical in one or several respects, although different in all others.
Lastly, I do not admit the fourth theory, although it may be true in principle, because the numerous facts that contradict the distinguishing characteristics, do not permit me to believe that these characteristics are laws established by sexuality.
In fact, there are brains of men in heads of women, and vice versa.
Men mobile and impressionable; women firm and insensible.
Women large, strong and muscular, lifting a man like a feather; men small, frail, and of extreme delicacy of constitution.
Women with a stentorian voice and abrupt manners; men with a soft voice and graceful manners.
Women with short, harsh hair, bearded, with rough skin and angular figures; men with long, silky hair without beard, round and portly.
Women with an energetic circulation of blood; men in whose veins it courses feebly and slowly.
Women frank, inconsiderate and daring; men strategic, dissembling and timid.
Women violent, loving strife, war and contention, and wont to storm on every occasion; men gentle, patient, dreading strife, and exceedingly timid.