Steinach

“Steinach argued that the generative cells of the testis produced spermatozoa alone and had nothing to do with the internal secretions responsible for sexual maturation. . . The interstitial cells (or Leydig cells) had, however, survived in the grafted glands and even proliferated beyond their usual numbers. It was these cells, according to Steinach, that were responsible for the internal secretory function of the testes. . . . the interstitial cells constituted the unquestionable source of the internal secretions that induced the somatic and psychobehavioral changes of puberty, he christened them collectively the ‘puberty-gland’ (Pubertäts-drüse)” (Sengoopta, 461). According to Steinach, “hermaphroditism and homosexuality were ultimately caused by the lack of sexual differentiation in the gonads, which led to the simultaneous production of male and female secretions. . . . Sexual identity and orientation, then, were produced largely by the glands and were not inherent to a person’s psyche” (464). Steinach moved from guinea pigs to men, enlisting urologist Robert Lichtenstern to remove testicles of a homosexual and replace them with “normal glands on five homosexuals in hope of “curing their homosexuality (465-67). Initial heterosexualization proved a “fleeting phenomenon and dissipated quite rapidly”: only Magnus Hirschfeld proved a “consistent supporter during this episode”(468). . . . “Rejuvenation came to be seen as Steinach’s greatest achievement (and, later, his greatest folly), while his ‘cure’ for homosexuality was relegated to obscurity in the company of his innovative animal experiments” (469). . . . What Steinach took away with one hand, however, he gave with the other. His research on rejuvenation . . . and his ‘cure’ of homosexuality had the same fundamental goal: the restitution of masculinity, as defined traditionally by science and society. True males were strong, energetic, active, courageous, creative, libidinous, and heterosexual. That these were glandular phenomena rather than immutable givens was, in the final analysis, no reason to cease believing in the categories of ‘male’ and ’female’ or in the normativeness of heterosexuality” (471-72).