We see clearly that this young woman identified herself with her father. She wanted to be a man like her father.
The remarks of Ulrichs (vid. Inclusa, p. 27 ffl.) may be understood in the same sense: “As a child the urning shows an unmistakable predisposition towards girlish occupations, intercourse with girls, girlish games, and playing with dolls. Such a child is very sorry that it is not ‘boy-like’ to play with dolls, that Santa Claus does not bring him also dolls and that he is not allowed to play with his sister’s dolls. Such a child shows interest in sewing, knitting and cutting, in the soft and delicate texture of girls’ clothes, such as he, too, would like to wear, and in the colored silks and ribbons of which he delights to abstract some specimens as keepsakes. He avoids contact with boys, he avoids their plays and games. The play horse leaves him indifferent. Soldier games, so much in favor with boys do not attract him. He avoids all boyish rough plays, such as snow-balling. He likes ordinary ball games but only with girls. He throws the ball with the girl’s light and stilted arm movement not with a boy’s free and powerful arm swing. Any one who has occasion to observe a boy urning and does it carefully may verify these or similar peculiarities. Is that all only imagination? I had observed in myself long ago the peculiarities mentioned above and, moreover, they always impressed me, although I did not at first recognize their female character. In 1854 I related the facts to a relative of mine, intimating that they must have some bearing on my sexuality. He scorned the idea and I yielded to his opinion at the time. But in 1862 I took up that matter again with him: meanwhile I had had opportunity to observe other urnings and I noted that the female habitus recurred in every one, although not precisely with the same particular features. But the female habitus differs also among women with regard to certain details. In my case, as a boy of 10 or 12 years of age, how often my dear mother sighed as she exclaimed: ‘Karl, you are not like other boys.’ How often she warned me: ‘You will grow up a queer fellow, if nothing worse!’” (Hirschfeld, l. c. p. 117).
What do these fine observations prove? Any one who understands the playful character of children, their early directed psyche, must recognise that such conduct results through the influence of a wish.
No—these observations do not prove at all that the contrary sexual feeling is innate. Hirschfeld contends: “these accounts (referring to previous statements) show a remarkable absence of tenderness among the urning girls. An expert thoroughly familiar with their psyche, not without reason states that we must watch the girl who passes carelessly by a looking glass without stopping in front of it when dressing and we must watch the boy who clings with pleasure to the looking glass returning to it again and again, for thereby both betray early their homosexual nature.” (Hirschfeld, loc. cit. p. 119). I see nothing in these statements but an attempt on his part to differ from the other colleagues.
Finally I turn to my own conception of homosexuality, formulated, on the basis of psychoanalytic data and as an outgrowth of the teachings of Freud.
All persons originally are bisexual in their predisposition. There is no exception to this rule. Normal persons show a distinct bisexual period up to the age of puberty. The heterosexual then represses his homosexuality. He also sublimates a portion of his homosexual cravings in friendship, nationalism, social endeavors, gatherings, etc. If this sublimation fails him he becomes neurotic. Since no person overcomes completely his homosexual tendencies, every one carries within himself the predisposition to neurosis. The stronger the repression, the stronger is also the neurotic reaction which may be powerful enough in its extreme form to lead to paranoia (Freud’s theory of paranoia). If the heterosexuality is repressed, homosexuality comes to the forefront. In the case of the homosexual the repressed and incompletely conquered heterosexuality furnishes the disposition towards neurosis. The more thoroughly his heterosexuality is sublimated the more completely the homosexual presents the picture of a normal healthy person. He then resembles the normal heterosexual. But like the normal heterosexual individual, even the “male hero” type displays a permanent latent disposition to neurosis.
The process of sublimation is more difficult in the case of the normal homosexual than in the case of the normal heterosexual. That is why this type is extremely rare and why a thorough analysis always discloses typical neurotic reactions. The neurotic reactions of repression (Abwehr, Freud) are anxiety, shame, disgust and hatred (or scorn). The heterosexual is inspired with disgust at any homosexual acts. That proves his affectively determined negative attitude. For disgust is but the obverse of attraction. The homosexual manifests the same feeling of disgust for woman, showing him to be a neurotic. (Or else he hates woman.) For the normal homosexual—if there be such a type—would be indifferent towards woman. These generalisations already show that the healthy person must act as a bisexual being.
We know only one race of people who recognised formally the bisexual nature of man: the Greeks. But we must recognise also that the Greeks had attained the highest level of physical and cultural development. We shall have to inquire into the reasons why homosexuality fell into such disrepute and why the example of the Greeks found no imitation among the moderns, despite the recognition accorded the tremendous cultural achievements of the ancient Greeks. That will be done later. We conclude: There is no inborn homosexuality and no inborn heterosexuality. There is only bisexuality.[10] Monosexuality already involves a predisposition to neurosis, in many cases stands for the neurosis proper.
The theory is not a novel one. New is only its association with neurosis. The merit to have been the first to express it belongs to Kiernan (Medical Standard, 1888). Kiernan started with the fact that all lower animals are bisexual and conceived homosexuality as a retrogression to the primitive hermaphroditic form of animal existence. We must note this theory as we shall have occasion to revert to it when discussing the predisposition to neurosis. Chevalier (Inversion Sexuelle, 1893) also begins his inquiry with a consideration of the aboriginal bisexuality of the fœtus. Two other investigators may be mentioned in this connection: Lombroso, to whom belongs the credit of having called attention to the manifestations of retrogression (atavism) and Binet, who maintains that homosexuality arises when the aboriginal undifferentiated sexual instinct (consequently the bisexual instinct) is aroused through some early experience in association with a person of the same sex. Here we have an adumbration of the theory of infantile trauma which plays such a tremendous role in Freud’s work. In the following chapters a number of cases will be recorded clearly illustrating the latent influence of infantile experiences.
But we must guard against assuming as true all the traumas which are reported to us. Some of the incidents are interpolated into the life history and only subsequently assume significance. But nothing is so dangerous in psychology as one-sidedness. The etiology of homosexuality is a particularly fruitful field in which to prove, here and there, the role of infantile traumatic experiences. Krafft-Ebing holds that Binet’s theory will not stand close critical analysis but expresses himself very unfavorably regarding the importance of psychologic relations as a whole. He states: “Psychic forces are not sufficient to explain so serious a degenerative process.” This depreciation of psychic influences was not very surprising at a time when the prevalent tendency was to explain nearly everything through heredity or taint.