Further he states: “In my opinion the anatomic contradiction, the biologic monstrosity of a womanly, or unmanly psyche in a typical male body or a womanly-unmanly sexual psyche in the presence of normally appearing and functioning male genitalia can be solved only if we take into consideration this intercurrent third factor. The latter may be traceable to some embryonal disturbance in the sexual chemism. That would also explain why homosexuality often appears in the midst of healthy families as a singular manifestation, having no relation to any possible hereditary transmission or degenerative taint. On the other hand, the contention of v. Roemer that homosexuality is a regenerative process has hardly any points to support it. The root of the riddle of homosexuality lies here. At least I conceive it to be a riddle. With my theory I endeavor to cover merely the facts and the probable physiologic relationship of homosexuality with particular reference to the biologic aspect of the problem and to do it more closely than the previous theories have done it. But my theory does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of the relatively frequent condition known as homosexuality.
“I do not claim to be able to penetrate into the last ultimate causes. This remains a riddle to be solved. But from the standpoint of culture and procreation homosexuality appears to be a meaningless and purposeless dysteleological manifestation, like many another natural appearance, such as, for instance, the vermiform appendix in man. In a former chapter I have already pointed out that the progress of culture has been in the direction of a sharper differentiation of sexes, that the antithesis male and female, becomes progressively sharper. Sexual indifference, genital transition-forms are of primitive character and Eduard v. Mayer is correct when he holds that homosexuality was much more widespread during the prehistoric age than it is today and considers it as common, genetically, as heterosexual love. Through heredity, adjustment and differentiation, culture has progressively repressed the homosexual leanings.” (Bloch, loc. cit. p. 590.)
Concerning these novel theories of homosexuality I must remark: It is not correct that the homosexuals before puberty show an exclusive definite inclination towards their own sex and only towards their own. The truth is that like all other persons, the homosexuals show a bisexual period (the undifferentiated stage of Max Dessoir) before puberty. Only they forget their heterosexual experiences. The truth is that a comprehensive theory of homosexuality ought to explain also the extreme cases, specifically male homosexuality coupled with complete preservation of vitality and female homosexuality with the preservation of all feminine characters. Such cases are covered neither by Hirschfeld’s theory nor by that of Bloch. The third point is equally pertinent. It cannot be a question of brain and genital gland. Chemical influences are likely, but difficult to prove.
The baffling feature of the problem is due to the fact that the attempt has been made to explain all cases of homosexuality on the basis of a single plan.
As a matter of fact homosexuality may develop in a number of ways and each one must be taken into consideration. That the genital glands play a role in homosexuality seems to me very likely. But while these influences may be suspected they cannot be proven. What I am able to prove on the basis of my data are the psychic factors.
Nor must we forget that not only does the body influence the mind, but that the reverse is also true: the psyche builds up the body in accordance with its predispositions. We find that the artist’s physiognomy differs from that of the artisan, and the physician’s differs from that of the attorney. The mind also models the body. A man who feels himself woman-like and who longs to be a woman will unconsciously adopt woman’s ways and imitate woman. In the course of time even his appearance will be womanly. Possibly—that agrees with my view—the transformation is conditioned by glandular changes. We may presuppose that, but the notion appertains to the realm of hypothesis, which I prefer to avoid.
All writers seem to neglect the powerful role of the psychic factors. These factors may seem unreal to the upholder of mechanistic theories. Unfortunately most physicians underestimate the power of the unconscious wish as a plastic and synthesising energy within the human organism. The wish to be a man may raise boys to manliness; the wish to remain a child hinders development towards adulthood; the wish to be a woman makes for femininity. Any one familiar with Pawlow’s investigations of the ‘conditioned reflex’ will readily see that certain particular wishes may exert a definite influence upon the activity of the genital glands. The wishes are certainly capable of influencing the appearance, action, activity and features of the individual.
When a boy acts like a girl, it does not necessarily mean that he has that kind of a predisposition. It may only signify his identification with his mother or with a sister.
Very clearly on this point is the testimony of a case of which I find an account in Hirschfeld’s book.
A homosexual woman writes: “I was born in the country, where my father owned a large estate, and there I was brought up till my 14th year. I was the youngest. My oldest brother had girlish ways about him and was mother’s pet rather than father’s, whose favorite child, in turn, was my eldest sister. On my part I am the thorough image of my father in all character traits and in my sensuous predisposition as well. In later years father had often said: ‘With you and Ludwig (the elder brother) nature made a mistake; you should have been a boy and Ludwig a girl.’ Nevertheless I am certain that father knew nothing about homosexuality, also that my brother was not homosexual. My peculiar predisposition showed itself already while I was a child, for it was always my greatest desire to be a boy. As a child two or three years of age, I put on some of father’s clothes, played with his cap and promenaded around the yard with his walking stick.” (Hirschfeld, loc. cit., p. 43).