diary were read at the inquest, and appeared in some English journals.
Does Marriage
Ever "Cure"?
As a general conclusion of the relations of the similisexual instincts and normal matrimony, it is plain that favourable chances of the experiment are not to be lightly dismissed if the physician or the patient traces a considerable measure of fluctuant dionism in the individual nature; if the intersexualism is not distinctly inborn and increasing; and if.there be strongly awakened (by individual and personal attraction) the heterosexual passion, Otherwise there is danger of worse personal misery; and of its inextricably involving other lives. Obvious is the danger to prescribe a marriage in the case of distinctly intersexual men and women. To too many medical men, similisexualism seems "wholly a pathologic affair," a disease, a "morbid" abnormalism. They do not accept, or admit, similisexualism as the eternal manifestation of any distinct—or indistinct—Intersexes. Yet this theory alone is in full logical accord with every-day facts before intelligent minds; explains all, justifies all that puzzles in the topic. We have ever with us the physicians inclined to treat as a nervous disease the homosexual instinct; to urge 'curative' processes, by prayers, resolutions, medicines, hypnotism, brothels, mistresses. Uranian fire too often will not be so extinguished. It will keep on smouldering; or will—break out. For the inborn Uranian, better than any "apostolic counsel" is Hamlet's—"Nay, we'll have no more marriages! Those that are married already shall stay so. The rest shall keep as they are!"
The "Impossible
Wedlock."
Only one tie could ever satisfy the philarrene of inborn, passionate, mature and enduring similisexualism; the union of body and soul with those other human beings, whose sexes they approach, and resemble but are not; who bring a psychic, magnetic,
— 553 —
