Magnus Hirschfeld was not only a pioneering sexologist and advocate for homosexuals, he was also a physician who contributed a great deal to the history of psychology. Among his unique contributions was the creation of the first psychosexual history and a couples counseling clinic for sexual concerns. A German physician, he associated with Freud with whom he had an up and down relationship.

Hirschfeld: A Brief Biography

Hirschfeld (1868-1935) was born to a Jewish family in a small German resort town. His father was a physician, devoted to delivering medical care to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Magnus admired his father a great deal and emulated his devotion to social justice in his own career as a physician. He was also a homosexual. While he is best known for his early study of homosexuals and advocacy for their rights, Hirschfeld was by no means a one note scholar. Hirschfeld was also an advocate for women and racial minorities. He was a prime mover in a long tradition of 18^th and 19^th century humanism. Hirschfeld’s research interests included alcoholism and marriage.

Most germane here, Magnus Hirschfeld utilized a systematic approach to gathering and analyzing psychosocial self-report data in a systematic and large scale fashion uncharacteristic of the period. He also focused on the psychological impact of diverse sexualities and alcoholism and how to address them through counseling. As such, though his interests were highly specific, Hirschfeld was an important figure in the history of psychology. He deserves to me considered in discussions of Freud, another German physician and occasional friend.

Hirschfeld was a charismatic speaker, able to win over others to what was then an extremely controversial and, for many, unpleasant issue. Privately, he was equally charismatic but far more free in letting the feminine side of his personality shine. Friends and colleagues in his immediate circle lovingly nicknamed the large, bear-like figure Auntie Magnesia.

Magnus Hirschfeld on Homosexuality and Gender Variance

Magnus Hirschfeld first wrote about homosexuality in 1896, anonymously.   Hirschfeld did a fascinating early survey of sexuality. He sent postcards to 5721 Berlin male metal-workers asking them if their “sex instinct” was directed towards men, women or both. If both, they were asked to identify which attraction was the strongest. The return rate was 41%. Results:

            94.3 % women only

             1.9 % women and men (women stronger)

             .7 % both

             .6 %  men and women (men stronger)

            1.2 % men only

That adds up to 4.4% homosexual or bisexual.

Magnus Hirschfeld wrote Die Homosexualitat des Mannes und des Weibes (1914). In it, Hirschfeld suggested that roughly half of all homosexuals were somewhat effeminate. But that of all men who were effeminate, roughly only half of them were homosexual.

A Theory of “Sexual Intermediaries”

Hirschfeld rejected the idea of men and women being able to be categorized in a binary fashion. He believed categorizing people as gender normal heterosexuals or gender variant homosexuals was overly simplistic. However, Hirschfeld did believe that a gendered continuum from masculine to feminine was relevant to a large number of personal characteristics. Where people fell on the masculine and feminine dimension could vary according to what dimension of human behavior and nature you were talking about.

For example, a person might believe themselves to be biologically male, have male sexual organs, dress as a woman, have feminine mannerisms, have androgynous interests, and sexual interests in both men and women. There could be a nearly endless number of such variations–combinations that Hirschfeld labeled sexual intermediaries. It was possible that a man or woman might be conventionally gendered in all of these dimensions. That said, the number of different intermediate presentations of where an individual might fall was easily more than a hundred. In seeing the complex nature of gender as it manifested in humans, Hirschfeld was ahead of his time.

Suicide Risk and Homosexual Men

In a chapter in his book entitled “The results of the victimization and the prosecution,” Magnus Hirschfeld discussed the higher risk of suicide among homosexual men. He quoted a 1906 study evocatively entitled “Unprecedented Suffering” by a Dutch physician named  L. von Romer. Von Romer had examined some 216 homosexuals in his practice. He found found that 162 of these “felt deeply unhappy,” 100 of those felt “weary with life,” and of those 55 had thoughts of suicide “for a long time.” Sixteen of Von Romer’s homosexual patients had actually attempted suicide, some several times.

Hirschfeld himself kept a file of homosexual men and women who actually did commit suicide. Of 100 such suicides, Hirschfeld noted that he had known more than half of them personally. He determined that 51 committed suicide due to impending criminal prosecution, 14 due to blackmail which threatened exposure, 2 due to marital impotence, 8 due to conflict with their families or unhappiness with their orientation, and 7 due to unrequited love or the death of a loved one. A total of 10 men and 8 women had committed double suicides, because of obstacles to their relationship. Hirschfeld noted a disproportionate number of suicides among young people between the ages of 18 and 25, especially as they began to recognize their membership in “despised class of humanity” (p. 1011) and overestimate the degree to which they will be “disinherited of the happiness of love” (p. 1012). Hirschfeld went on to quote several wrenching suicide notes.

Magnus Hirschfeld was perhaps the first psychological practitioner to recognize the power of motion pictures to influence public sentiment. In May 1919, the film Anders als die Anderen/Different from the Others debuted, with noted German actor Conrad Veidt in a leading role. Hirschfeld appeared in the film, playing himself. Different from the Others told the story of a homosexual suffering from blackmail and the specter of suicide that threatened men in such circumstances. It elicited both sympathy and understanding and moral outrage in its audiences (Mancini, 115-116).

Hirschfeld on How to Counsel a Homosexual

Magnus Hirschfeld was a social advocate and expert witness. He also provided excellent advice on how to counsel homosexuals. He began with a chapter debunking the notion that marriage could cure homosexuality. Indeed, he felt that if a homosexual individual knew of their homosexuality, entering into such a marriage represented deceit. Hirschfeld concluded, “experience has proven a thousand time that there can be no question about reprogramming by means of habitual heterosexual intercourse in the case of homosexual persons” (Hirschfeld, thomaw, 476).

Methodically, Hirschfeld debunked various other approaches meant to cure the homosexual individual of their desires. Of hypnosis, Hirschfeld concluded, “based on the truly significant number of hypnotized homosexuals I had the occasion to see after longer or shorter periods following the cure, I, too, am also of the opinion that so-called cured homosexuals either were not cured or were not homosexual” (491).

So, then what did Hirschfeld recommend instead? If after a thorough assessment the physician determines an individual has “true, genuine homosexuality,” adaptation treatment is recommended:

“In this case, we will first have to put the homosexual personalities—    whether male or female—at ease. We will explain to them that it has to do   with an inborn orientation of the drive for which no one is to blame, which is not a misfortune in itself, but rather made so my the unjust prejudice it    experiences … Furthermore, we will explain that the misfortune of being    homosexual is very often overestimated, that there are many who in no     way feel themselves ill-fated, and that in itself homosexuality, even it at         present it is often very difficult, prevent no one from becoming a productive person and a useful member of society.” (506)

Hirschfeld suggested sharing some illustrative examples from history with clients. He suggested recommending sympathetic books on same-sex friendship, and encouraging contact with other homosexuals “of good character.” Efforts at having sexual relations with the opposite sex should cease, Hirschfeld advised. He also decried the use of any potency-increasing or emotionally calmative drugs.

As for what to advise regarding sexual relations with the same sex, Hirschfeld was still positive in tone.That said, he was perhaps understandably circuitous in language:

“If we were to base it solely on hygiene, uninfluenced by prejudice and       unencumbered by legal concerns, whose premises have been revealed to   be erroneous, then without a doubt we would make every effort to       establish the necessary minimum and allowed maximum on an individual   basis according to the elements in question as regards the persons            concerned.” (509)

One can imagine the possible concerns behind constructing such a labored recommendation!

Hirschfeld considered abstinence as an option. That said, he also noted the frequent disorders associated with that lifestyle in both homosexuals and heterosexuals. These included headaches, inability to sleep or work, and feeling sexually dissatisfied and/or depressed. Hirschfeld rather pointedly commented that “people who can satisfy themselves when they are sexually hungry should not be the ones to pass judgment over and dismiss this suffering” (p. 519). He reminded physicians that while they could not successfully treat homosexuality, they could indeed treat homosexuals. They could do so with understanding and compassion.

Love and Heterosexual Couples Counseling

Magnus Hirschfeld’s interest in women’s issues and sex naturally led to an interest in heterosexual marriage. In July 1919, Hirshfeld established what some consider the world’s first marriage guidance clinic. It was part of his Institute for Sexual Science, housed in a carpeted mansion that was purposely selected for its atypical homey medical setting (Wolff, 175). There Hirschfeld counseled both heterosexuals, as well as homosexuals, on practical relational matters. One example was a couple that was considering divorce. The husband said it was because she refused his advances. The wife said he was impotent when she agreed. The ever pragmatic Hirschfeld suggested they abstain from sex for a period of time, then try again. In another case, he addressed a wife’s pathological jealousy which he diagnosed as psychotic in nature.

Soon literally dozen of marital clinics sprung up around Germany and Austria in the 1920s. The notion only spread to the United States in the following decade. Hirschfeld and the other physicians on staff at the Institute also did pre-marital counseling, which often addressed sexual matters. While Hirschfeld and his colleagues didn’t condemn abortion as a choice, they were not willing to perform the procedure.

The Institute and its sister clinics often advised couples on birth control and sometimes discussed the option of sterilization if congenital disorders were involved. The birth control and eugenics movement were tied together in the minds of many progressive thinkers of the day. But it cannot be argued that the Nazi’s extreme notions of exterminating “inferior” strains of humanity were a natural outgrowth of this movement. The marriage clinics were generally shut down after the rise of the Nazis. And, as will be seen, Hirschfeld argued against the racial hatred inherent in Nazi philosophy in his final work.

Hirschfeld was interested in both love and sex, which he argued were not the same thing even if they sometimes coexisted. In 1912, in his The Natural Laws of Love, Hirschfeld wrote that there were three phases to sexual attraction, involving first the sense of sight, voice and smell. A second phase, accompanied by the emotional sense of falling in love, sees touch taking a central role, whether it be a stroking of the finger, or the brush of lips. The third face actually involves the physical union of the pair (Wolff, 113). Later, Hirschfeld observed that “sex tends to polygamy, while love tends to monogamy” (Wolff, 187).  Hirschfeld, for his part, loved a rather feminine young man named Karl Giese. Giese served as his personal secretary and emotional anchor for many years.

The First Congress for Sexual Reform (1921)

In addition to his research, Hirschfeld also strove to organize like minded individuals. He did so to further the research and interests of all involved. Hirschfeld formed his own Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin where he conducted interviews and counseling, as well as keeping all of his books and records and a considerable amount of memorabilia. Hirschfeld also organized the First Congress for Sexual Reform in 1921.

Hirschfeld on Women and War

A special interest of Magnus Hirschfeld was on the rights of women. Hirschfeld advocated for decriminalization of abortion, and for the repeal of a law that didn’t allow female teachers to marry or have children.

Hirschfeld was also interested on the impact of war on sex and on the sexual lives of women in particular. In his book, The Sexual History of the World War, he described a phenomena in which women urged their husbands to go off to war despite the cost to their relationships. He presented detailed case examples of both men and women’s infidelity during the war. Hirschfeld also provided examples of the economic reasons and subconscious anger that he believed sent some women into prostitution. He also detailed the sexual behavior of nurses on the front and women who cared for prisoners of war. It was the most wide-ranging work ever on the sexual impact of war.

While the book wa primarily descriptive in nature, Hirschfeld referenced Freud’s theory of eros and thanatos as it applied to wartime. He acknowledged that the circumstances of war might give license to aggressive and sexual instincts that lay just below the surface in all people. At the same time, Hirschfeld added his own particular emphases.

Hirschfeld challenged the notion that women’s altered sexual behavior during wartime was due to poor morals. Instead, he argued that the stress of wartime, the absence of marital sexual outlets and other psychological factors were the cause. In a similar fashion, Hirschfeld refused to accept that the sexual war crimes of soldiers were more frequent among the lower classes. The extraordinary stress and altered circumstances of war could change the behaviors of anyone of any class or ethnicity. At the time, Hirschfeld’s assertions went against more commonly accepted perspectives of the time.

Hirschfeld on Racism and Alcoholism

Though Hirschfeld’s research on sexuality was the primary focus of his life’s work, he was also interested in other social issues as well. Hirschfeld wrote about alcoholism in 1903. In his treatise, Berlin’s Throat, he detailed the risks of the disorder, which he considered a hereditary disease. Hirschfeld noted the psychological impact of excessive alcohol consumption, including pathological jealousy and infidelity. He recognized the conflicting impacts of alcohol, namely reduced inhibitions and weakened sex drive. Those who drank excessively were also at increased risk for venereal diseases, he explained. As a physician, Hirschfeld perceptively noted the dangers to the unborn child if its mother drank: namely epilepsy and damaged mental ability. (Wolff, 1986).

Hirschfeld did not entirely escape the biases of his time. His writings on women and rape are misguided by today’s standards.

Finally, the rise of the Nazis crystallized for Hirschfeld nascent views on race and prejudice. He wrote and published his book, Racism, in 1934, a book directly aimed at the practices and ideology of the Nazi regime. Despite his sympathy for eugenics, Hirschfeld nonetheless felt impelled to devote a chapter in his book debunking several related notions. He rejected the idea that mixing the races somehow weakened the human condition. Hirschfeld challenged if race as a concept was even useful. He also rather prophetically wrote, referring to the Jewish people, that “the last sentimental people on earth are going to experience mass annihilations by other nations” (Wolff, 403).

Magnus Hirschfeld, Freud and Psychoanalysis

In Charlotte Wolff’s biography of Magnus Hirschfeld, several mentions are made of the connections between the two men. Sigmund Freud and Hirschfeld corresponded with each other, and Freud sent articles to Hirschfeld’s journal to be published. In 1906, the first record we have of their correspondence, Hirschfeld responded to a letter from Freud requesting his academic assistance in dismissing a scurrilous claim by a rival scholar. In turn, while discussing the incidence of homosexuality in the general population, Freud made positive reference to Hirschfeld’s efforts in this area.

Hirschfeld, for his part, was an early follower of psychoanalysis. When the Berlin Psychoanalytical Society was formed in 1907, an analog to the society headed by Freud in Vienna, Hirschfeld was one of several founding physicians.

Four years later, in 1911, Hirschfeld was given a prominent role at the Weimar Congress of the Psychoanalytical Association, described there as an authority on homosexuality. But something that year prompted Hirschfeld to withdraw from the Berlin group, likely harsh criticism by Carl Jung.

Freud’s anger at Hirschfeld’s perceived betrayal by leaving his circle was not atypical for Freud. Freud now declared the sexologist “a flabby, unappetizing fellow, incapable of learning anything” (Wolff, 101-102). Hirschfeld was more circumspect.

There appears to have been at least a partial rapprochement. Freud invited Hirschfeld to his home for lunch when the sexologist visited Vienna in 1914. By 1928, in honor of Hirschfeld’s sixtieth birthday, Freud wrote “…the life and work of Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld against the cruel and unjustifiable interference of the law in human sexual life deserves general recognition and support” (Wolff, 256).

Hirschfeld’s Influence on Freud

Did Hirschfeld’s efforts at homosexual rights and freedom of behavior impact Freud? It was clear that he was very much aware of them. Indeed, Charlotte Wolff’s research uncovered a report that Freud and his fellow analysts in Vienna “had been fascinated by Hirschfeld’s psychobiological questionnaire which they examined in detail with critical eyes” (Wolff, 436).

It was Jung who bitterly rejected this methodology (Mancini, 72).

While Freud never surrendered his belief that an overly strong attachment to one’s mother could incline one to homosexuality, he also wrote in his Three Essays that “the nature of inversion is explained neither by the hypothesis that it is innate, nor by the alternative hypothesis that it is acquired … In the later case it may be questioned whether the various accidental influences could be sufficient to explain the acquisition of inversion without the cooperation of something in the subject himself ” (Wolff, 65). Wolff convincingly argued that Freud was influenced by Hirschfeld’s writing and terminology, especially in the first of these essays.

It may be that Freud believed that there were two types of individuals engaged in homosexual behavior. He referenced a distinction between “true sexual intermediaries  in Hirschfeld’s sense of the word” The second he describes less happily as obsessional neurotics” (Wolff, 65).

Whatever his theoretical beliefs, Freud’s responses to homosexual men were mixed. When Hirschfeld quit the Psychoanalytic Association due to Carl Jung’s personal animosity towards him, Freud expressed the same level of disdain for anyone who showed disloyalty towards him, prompting the “flabby , unappetizing fellow” reference (Mancini, 72).

On the other hand, when an openly homosexual physician sought to join the Dutch Psychoanalytic Association, its members sought advice. Most recommended denial of his petition, but Freud suggested admitting him, though said the final decision had to be up to the local association. When Ernst Jones wrote Freud a year later of his decision to deny training to a homosexual man, Freud again was in favor of measured tolerance. He wrote, “We cannot exclude such persons without other sufficient reasons, as we cannot agree to their legal persecution” (Zaretsky 2004, 179). Such decisions, Freud felt must depend on a wider judgment of the applicant’s attributes.

In any case, once established Freud felt a homosexual orientation was difficult to change. A somewhat sympathetic attitude is apparent in his letter to an American mother, written in 1935:

“I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you, why you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest in sexual development…By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it … What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy,        neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains homosexual or gets changed.”

That homosexuality was not an advantage was certainly clear to Freud, after the fate of Hirschfeld’s Institute at the hands of the Nazis certainly demonstrated. That story has been widely told elsewhere and seems a fitting, if sad place to end this article.

 Mark Carlson-Ghost 

References

Hirschfeld, Magnus (1991). Transvestites: The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress, translator Michael A. Lombardi-Nash. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Hirschfeld, Magnus (2000). The Homosexuality of Men and Women, translator Michael A Lombardi-Nash. Amhertst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Mancini, Elena (2010). Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement. New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Wolff, Charlotte (1986). Magnus Hirschfeld: A Portrait of a Pioneer of Sexology. London: Quarter Books, Ltd.