In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

II Arrhenoplasm and Thelyplasm The first thing expected from a work designed to be a universal revision of all the relevant facts would be a new and complete representation of the anatomical and physiological qualities of the sexual types. However, since I have not undertaken any of the independent investigations required for that comprehensive task, and do not in any case regard the answers to those questions as necessary for the ultimate objectives of this book, I must renounce that enterprise right at the outset—quite apart from the question whether such an enterprise would not far transcend the powers of one individual. Compiling the results set out in the existing literature would be super®uous, as this has been excellently done by Havelock Ellis. A derivation of the sexual types by means of probable inferences from the results collected by him would remain hypothetical and would not spare science one single new labor. The discussions in this chapter will therefore be of a more formal and general nature. They will be concerned with biological principles, although they are also intended to recommend the consideration of certain speci¤c points in the course of the work that needs to be carried out in future, and thus to be bene¤cial to that work. The biological layman may skip this section without greatly impairing his understanding of the rest. So far the theory of different degrees of masculinity and femininity has been developed in purely anatomical terms. However, anatomy will ask not only in what forms but also in what places masculinity and femininity express themselves . The examples, given earlier, of sexual differences in other parts of the body make it clear that sexuality is not restricted to the reproductive organs and gonads. But where can one draw the line? Is sex con¤ned exclusively to the “primary ” and “secondary” sexual characteristics? Or is its range much wider? In other words, where is sex situated and where is it not? Many facts brought to light in recent decades now seem to force us to revive a theory which was ¤rst put forward in the 1840s but which acquired few adherents because, both to its founder and to its opponents, its consequences seemed to contradict a number of research results that the latter, albeit not the former, regarded as indisputable. The theory which, with some modi¤cation, experience once more compels us to face is that of the Copenhagen zoologist, J. J. S. Steenstrup, who maintained that sex is present everywhere in the body. The results, excerpted by Ellis, of numerous examinations of almost all the tissues of the organism demonstrate the ubiquity of sexual differences. I note that the typically male complexion is very different from the typically female, which allows us to assume sexual differences in the cells of the cutis and the blood vessels. However, such differences have also been discovered in the quantity of hemoglobin and in the number of red blood corpuscles per cubic centimeter of blood ®uid. Bischoff and Rüdinger have observed differences between the sexes in respect to the brain, and most recently Justus and Alice Gaule have also found such differences in the vegetative organs (liver, lungs, spleen). In fact everything about a woman, albeit more strongly in some zones and less in others, has an “erogenous” effect on a man, and similarly everything about a man has a sexually attractive and stimulating effect on a woman. We may thus arrive at the following notion, which is hypothetical from the point of view of formal logic, but which is raised almost to the level of certainty by the sum total of the facts: every cell of the organism (as we will provisionally say) has a sexual character, or a certain sexual emphasis. According to our principle of the generality of intermediate sexual forms we hasten to add that this sexual character can be of different degrees. The prompt assumption of different degrees in the development of the sexual characteristics would make it easy for us to incorporate in our system pseudo-hermaphroditism and even genuine hermaphroditism (the occurrence of which among many animals, albeit not with certainty among humans, has been established beyond doubt since Steenstrup’s time). Steenstrup said: “If the sex of an animal really only had its seat in the sexual organs one could imagine the presence of two sexes in one animal, of two such sexual organs side by side. But sex is not something that has its seat...

Share