g nature can be demonstrated,
which in earlier or later life led to a fixation of the inversion--among
which are exclusive relations with the same sex, companionship in war,
detention in prison, dangers of hetero-sexual intercourse, celibacy,
sexual weakness, etc. (3) Hypnotic suggestion may remove the inversion,
which would be surprising in that of a congenital character.

In view of all this, the existence of congenital inversion can certainly
be questioned. The objection may be made to it that a more accurate
examination of those claimed to be congenitally inverted will probably
show that the direction of the libido was determined by a definite
experience of early childhood, which has not been retained in the
conscious memory of the person, but which can be brought back to memory
by proper influences (Havelock Ellis). According to that author
inversion can be designated only as a frequent variation of the sexual
impulse which may be determined by a number of external circumstances of
life.

The apparent certainty thus reached is, however, overthrown by the
retort that manifestly there are many persons who have experienced even
in their early youth those very sexual influences, such as seduction,
mutual onanism, without becoming inverts, or without constantly
remaining so. Hence, one is forced to assume that the alternatives
congenital and acquired are either incomplete or do not cover the
circumstances present in inversions.

*Explanation of Inversion.*--The nature of inversion is explained
neither by the assumption that it is congenital nor that it is acquired.
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
characteristic