Intersexual Variabilities and Phallic Restorations: Otto Weininger and Sigmund Freud as Detractors of Magnus Hirschfeld

Abstract

In 1903, young Viennese philosopher Otto Weininger (1880–1903) published Geschlecht und Charakter. Eine prinzipielle Untersuchung (literally: Sex and Character. A Principled Investigation), in which he maintained that the conception of “permanent bisexuality” he advanced was completely new. His claims were challenged in 1906 by physician Wilhelm Fließ (1858–1928), who referred to his elaborations on the issue in a treatise published in 1897. The accusation of plagiarism against the by then deceased Weininger were aggravated as Fließ blamed Sigmund Freud for having orchestrated an intrigue aiming at informing Weininger about the ideas on permanent bisexuality the physician had articulated. Despite the heated debate surrounding the primacy claims, none of those involved was prepared to admit that sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935) had been the first to conceptualize permanent bisexuality in connection with his 1896 discussion of the sexual intermediariness of all human beings. Hirschfeld’s Sappho und Sokrates—his first sexological treatise—aimed in the last resort at debunking closed distributional schemes of sexuality for the sake of a template of universal bisexuality modulated by the individual’s unique sexual intermediariness. On these assumptions, it is not surprising that Hirschfeld’s counterintuitive and profoundly deranging postulation of potentially infinite bisexual forms encompassing all existing sexed individuals was ignored by those partaking in the primacy debate. Irrespective of the disagreements the litigants may have had among themselves with respect to chronological or theoretical issues, they all sought to restore the full rights of the endangered phallicism subtending Western culture that Hirschfeld had set out to confute.