“4. Since as a predisposition (not as sexual instinct) homosexuality appears long before puberty and before the actual functioning of the respective genital glands, it suggests that in homosexuals some physiologic action pertaining to ‘sexuality’ but not necessarily related to the functioning of the genital glands undergoes some subtle change as the result of which the sexual instinct is turned from its goal. “5. The condition suggests chemical changes, alterations in the chemism of sexual tension, the latter being fairly independent of the activity of the sexual glands proper, as is shown by the fact that it may be preserved among eunuchs and others who undergo castration.” (_Bloch_, _loc. cit._ p. 589). Further he states: “In my opinion the anatomic contradiction, the biologic monstrosity of a womanly, or unmanly psyche in a typical male body or a womanly-unmanly sexual psyche in the presence of normally appearing and functioning male genitalia can be solved only if we take into consideration this intercurrent third factor. The latter may be traceable to some embryonal disturbance in the sexual chemism. That would also explain why homosexuality often appears in the midst of healthy families as a singular manifestation, having no relation to any possible hereditary transmission or degenerative taint. On the other hand, the contention of _v. Roemer_ that homosexuality is a regenerative process has hardly any points to support it. The root of the riddle of homosexuality lies here. At least I conceive it to be a riddle. With my theory I endeavor to cover merely the facts and the probable physiologic relationship of homosexuality with particular reference to the biologic aspect of the problem and to do it more closely than the previous theories have done it. But my theory does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of the relatively frequent condition known as homosexuality. “I do not claim to be able to penetrate into the last ultimate causes. This remains a riddle to be solved. But from the standpoint of culture and procreation homosexuality appears to be a meaningless and purposeless dysteleological manifestation, like many another natural appearance, such as, for instance, the vermiform appendix in man. In a former chapter I have already pointed out that the progress of culture has been in the direction of a sharper differentiation of sexes, that the antithesis male and female, becomes progressively sharper. Sexual indifference, genital transition-forms are of primitive character and _Eduard v. Mayer_ is correct when he holds that homosexuality was much more widespread during the prehistoric age than it is today and considers it as common, genetically, as heterosexual love. Through heredity, adjustment and differentiation, culture has progressively repressed the homosexual leanings.” (_Bloch_, _loc. cit._ p. 590.)