factors must therefore proceed in other directions.

The STOLLER review deals specifically with the extremes of transvestism and transsexualism, and includes case histories illustrative of the points raised. In some ways, it is closely related to and supportive of the biological survey constituting the first portion of Sexual Inversion, as well as of the conclusions reached by RADO in the article just preceding. This is because it illustrates the absence of any absolute and "natural" etiological relation between genetic sex and later psychosexual development, or even between genetic sex and biological sex. Further, it clearly draws the important distinction between sex and gender, the former being organically established, the latter involving both an "identity" and a "role," which may be quite different from each other, and which are, respectively, felt and acted out in consequence of elaborate, culturally-induced responses. According to STOLLER, the graduations of gender-identity are imperceptible, ranging in a continuum along both the sociosexual and psychosexual spectra, producing at the extreme the transvestite or transsexual.

Along this continuum, cross-gender impulses are always experienced to some degree, or, as STOLLER expresses it, "Identification with aspects of the opposite sex, which expresses itself in cross-gender impulses, is found in everyone.'

New theories have arisen to substitute for biological bisexuality and its Freudian corollary of latent homosexuality. In what resembles a hybrid between Freud and Adler, OVESEY theorizes about the motives underlying homosexual orientation, which he describes as homosexuality, dependency, and power. The first has sexual satisfaction as its end, while the latter two have "completely different non-sexual goals, although the genital organs may be used to achieve them." These latter two are termed "pseudohomosex-

ual" motivations. However, instead of applying this formulation to the specific area of homosexuality, OVESEY uses it to "facilitate understanding of homosexual anxieties in heterosexual

males" (and to) "reconstruct the psychodynamics of homosexuality in the treatment of male homosexuals."

A

number of case histories are commented upon within the neo-classical Freudian framework, thus raising as many questions as are answered. It is stated, for example, that "homosexual motivation does not exist in isolation, but always in association with the pseudohomosexual motivations of dependency and power." But, we are told, the latter two motivations are also present in connection with heterosexual motivation. If all this is true, then scientific consistency suggests the parallel principle-not stated by OVESEY-that dependency and power as dynamic factors in heterosexual behavior are in-

dicative of pseudoheterosexuality. This would take the OVESEY formulation back to something which appears very much akin to the latent homosexuality originally discarded. As will be commented upon in more detail later, clinical evaluations of homosexuality suffer seriously from inadequate terminology, and in this case, there appears also to be an erroneous or incomplete conceptual basis.

SALZMAN attacks the concept of latent homosexuality from a slightly different angle, rejecting it because of its implication that dormant homosexual instincts exist to the same extent or to the same degree of potency in all individuals-a theory which is not only undemonstrable, but in actual conflict with scientific findings. SALZMAN seems to view sex as playing a general, interpersonal role in human experience as well as a procreative role, and persons "actively use the dramatic integrating power of sex for establishing contact with other human beings, even of the same sex." But right alongside of this reasonable and

11