Sexualis, p. 227).  Krafft-Ebing himself at first simply asserted that, whether congenital or acquired, there must be Belastung; inversion is a “degenerate phenomenon,” a functional sign of degeneration (Krafft-Ebing, “Zur Erklaerung der contraeren Sexualempfindung,” Jahrbuch fuer Psychiatrie, 1894).  In the later editions of Psychopathia Sexualis, however (1896 and onward and notably in Jahrbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen, vol. iii, 1901), he went farther, adopting the explanation on the lines of original bisexuality (English translation of tenth edition, pp. 336-7).  In much the same language as I have used he argued that there has been a struggle in the centers, homosexuality resulting when the center antagonistic to that represented by the sexual gland conquers, and psycho-sexual hermaphroditism resulting when both centers are too weak to obtain victory, in either case such disturbance not being a psychic degeneration or disease, but simply an anomaly comparable to a malformation and quite consonant with psychic health.  This is the view now widely accepted by investigators of sexual inversion. (Much material bearing on the history of this conception has been brought together by Hirschfeld, in Die Homosexualitaet, ch. xix, and previously in “Vom Wesen der Liebe,” Jahrbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen, vol. viii, 1906, pp. 111-133.)

A similar or allied view is now constantly met with in writers of scientific authority who are only incidentally concerned with the study of sexual inversion.  Thus Halban ("Die Entstehung des Geschlechtscharaktere,” Archiv fuer Gynaekologie, 1903) regards hermaphroditism, which he would extend to the psychic sphere, as a state in which a double sexual impulse determines the course of fetal and later development.  Shattock and Seligmann ("True Hermaphroditism in the Domestic Fowl, with Remarks on Allopterotism,” Transactions of Pathological Society of London, vol. lvii, part i, 1906), pointing out that mere atrophy of the ovary cannot account for the appearance in the hen bird of male characters which are not retrogressive but progressive, argues that such birds are really bisexual or hermaphrodite, either by the single “ovary” being really bisexual, as was the case with a fowl they examined, or that the sexual glands are paired, one being male and the other female, or else that there is misplaced male tissue in a neighboring viscus like the adrenal or kidney, the male elements asserting themselves when the female elements degenerate.  “Hermaphroditism,” they conclude, “far from being a phenomenon altogether abnormal amongst the higher vertebrates, should be viewed rather as a reversion to the primitive ancestral phase in which bisexualism was the normal disposition....  True hermaphroditism in man being established, the question arises whether lesser grades do not occur....  Remote evidence of bisexuality in the human subject may, perhaps,