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