of being a TV, so the monicker did not bother me. Moreover, since I used it only when talking with my girl friends, it did not pres- ent a problem. Besides, it was fun to use it as a verb when other people were within earshot. Most of them thought we were talking about television. I believe that, up to this point, I am speaking for a good many of the girls East of the Mississippi. However-- and this is vital--we discover that our group has grown, and is growing and will continue to grow through the years despite the objections of Pegie who swears this form of behaviour is dying out and is doomed to extinction. We find now that--as we grow in num- bers--we are beginning to make a teeny weeny impact upon the world around us. True, it's awfully teensy yet..our voice is less than a whisper but it will inevitably acquire a bit more strength. Just picture this faint outline...TVia in the stands...more art- icles in Sexology...more ads in various publications...Virginia's lectures...the resort...a friend here, a stranger there, they all begin to hear about this strange form of life which is unconven- tional...just a drop of water in a big ocean, some may say, but still it's a bigger drop than it was before--say, some two or three years ago.

There are two attitudes one could assume at this point. On e would be society will never understand us. It's useless. We will always be condemned, So why bother trying to make others under- stand, accept or tolerate us. Let's just shut up...enjoy our pri- vate get-togethers..be discreet..and the heck with everybody else. If they find out, they will most certainly tag us as queers. This I'm willing to bet is the attitude of a large percentage of girls. But there's a second attitude, one with a more optimistic view- point. The thinking would run like this: It would be nice if we could do something to influence the rest of society into at least taking a second look at us. So far, most everybody experiences a negative, thumbs down, emotional reaction when they are brought face to face with us. This impulse-to-reject-on-sight is intim- ately connected with a popular formula that reads MAN-IN-DRESS= HOMO. Since most people have been brought up to believe that HOMO- EVIL, the tragic conclusion that most people draw is: MAN-IN- DRESS=EVIL. Needless to say this entire sequence of thought is based on ignorance or at best a very limited and partial knowledge of the facts. So, how do WE go about making the distinction clear to others? Do we try to show the error of the HOMO-EVIL concept? Perhaps it might help, but it is not OUR job primarily. We would

66.

: