Congress for Sex Equality, postulate that it is the Bi-Sexual who is truly the socially sick phenomenon. If Mr. Winters would investigate further, the diversity of current European scholarship would disclose the deviant more often described as Homophile rather than as Homosexual, that the emphasis towards a constructive understanding of the phenomenon is placed on the cultural contribution of the "lover of like" rather than on the blue-printed deviance of his bed exercises. Mr. Winters would begin to discover that History is an analysis of the inter-play of the similarities and dissimilarities of social groups, and the consequent cumulative effect of this interplay on their mutual social (that is to say, cultural) contribution. History is not concerned with a census of whether they do it backwards or frontwards. He would discover that over an enormous period of historical time the Homophile was as accepted a force in society as he is a rejected force today. And the Homophile's acceptance was based solely upon the character and quality of a cultural contribution which could not be produced by any other category.

European languages, customs, and lores, are full of the fragments and remnants of that culture. The sexual characteristic, the elusive bogey of the frantic Bi-Sexual, was precisely the red herring used so successfully to destroy the Homophile's function as a useful social entity. Its present currency, despite the Torah and the Roman Codex, is of comparatively recent origin, certainly not much earlier than 1650 AD. So long as the Homophile, and his sympathizers, bark and halloo after the herring. . . just so long will his own dust blind him to the one "combination" which will open the door once again to his full and productive reintegration. And that combination is the vision and the beginning comprehensions of that invaluable cultural contribution, needed by today's community, which is produceable by no other category.

Fraternally yours,

Eann MacDonald

Gentlemen:

I am shocked at your giving space to the intolerant Mr. Winters in his jaundiced and cheap attack on Christine Jorgensen in your last issue. The fact that Mr. Winters and I completely disagree about the significance of the case is another matter, but if I understand anything of the aims of "ONE" and the Mattachine Foundation, these aims include a search for tolerance for the deviate. Maturity of thought and action is predicated on tolerance of others and an understanding of opposing points of view, and this article's childishness bristles with intolerance and prejudice.

Christine's account of her own life is modest, sincere, and in no way salacious. She cannot be blamed for the lubricity of certain publishers. She has not sought publicity; it has sought her, and she has tried to turn it to helping others. She has never urged similar treatment for all sexual deviates, nor has it been suggested in connection with her in public print except in Mr. Winters' angry article. In her story she quotes her doctor that there are many kinds of deviation she never claims hers is the only solution hers simply makes her a happier and better-functioning member of society.

Many homosexuals have been fascinated by her story, altho there is probably only a small minority who would or could relinquish their present status in her manner. But should those who wish to change to womanhood even a physically sterile one be condemned by those who deplore "society's refusing to adjust to them"? The violence of the author raises a question about his own defense mechanism, and I believe his fears are far from general.

I should like to read in "ONE" an article pointing out the positive aspects of the Jorgensen case for future research-medically, psychologically, and socially. Sincerely yours, P. E.

one

page 20