Then, most interesting of all, case 12: A man who during four years of married life has carried out coitus only once. This subject actually betrays an open inclination towards homosexuality, which _Hirschfeld_ declares is only apparent.... How is one to determine between an apparent and a real homosexual trend? In order to succeed in that one must purposely overlook the phenomenon of human bisexuality and be anxious to hold on at all costs to the notion that homosexuality is inborn and irreducible. The transvestite last mentioned relates concerning his homosexuality: “About homosexuality I learned for the first time through reading the book: _Die Enterbten des Liebesgluecks_. Some passages gripped me powerfully, even more so than the works on masochism, of which I also had read a large number. As I had to renounce my womanly ideal (for reasons mentioned previously), it occurred to me to seek a man as the complement to my yearnings. For even the strongest woman wants to be beneath man during love. But I felt I needed a partner who should overpower and conquer me with some display of force. So I said to myself that such a role can be filled properly only by a man. A great deal of what I read in books about homosexuality confirmed me in this view.” If this is not a tell-tale rationalization of homosexuality—what may we designate as homosexuality? Comments are hardly needed in this connection. On all sides and from all directions homosexuality is proven in the history of the case. But _Hirschfeld_ finds that the tendency to homosexuality is only apparent and that the whole foundation of the subject’s libido consists of transvestism. The homosexuality he looks upon as an incidental manifestation. But there are no ‘incidental’ manifestations in our vita sexualis. A dream, which has also been reported, shows conclusively that M., the subject, was all along actuated by the thought: I wish I were a woman. But there are passages in this case history showing how highly the subject esteems the male and proving that this wish is an infantile attitude and due to a feeling of inferiority. What else should we conclude from the statement: “For the genuine man, who belongs to the proudest specimens of his sex, sexual gratification is merely a hygienic requirement, a form of physical release; beyond that his wonderful creative spirit dwells in higher realms ... etc.” In the chapter devoted to masochism I explain the meaning of a case like the above more fully. The man wants to be a woman and to be overpowered. He is able to have relations with women, if they assume the aggressive role. His mind insists upon the fictive notion: I am a woman and I am forced to carry out this part. Naturally he shifts towards homosexual acts. The male trait in him tolerates no submissiveness. The female trait lends itself readily to coercion. The neurosis consists in this suppression of the male components of the sexual instinct.