Transvestia

and nurturing behaviour of lower animals is both in- correct, unscientific and confusing. The fact that eminent scientist misuse the term in this way gives it no status in this connection. Scientists are people too and the confusing of female and feminine in ordinary language is so commonplace that they don't give it a second thought. But it is an excell- ent example of the importance of the science of sem- antics in communication. The male rats described were simply made, through chemical or surgical inter- ference, to activate some of the characteristic fe- male behaviour patterns that were always present-- they were preprogrammed in the original hookups of the nervous system--but under ordinary circumstances were not "plugged in" so to speak.

I should point out in this connection that what we TVs do is not female in its nature. It happens to be what females do in this culture at this time but since cosmetics, adornment, skirts, girdles, heels, perfume, colors, you name it, have at one time and place or another been male prerogatives they can hardly be considered female. We all need to be aware of this distinction.

10) Most of what Sheila has to say about the work of Walinder is rebutted, I think, in my reply to paragraph #4. In addition, however, I'd like to point out that the "science" of electroencephalo- graphy is very much in its infancy. It is highly empirical. They don't know for sure what makes the observed wave patterns nor what deviations from the usual patterns indicate. Sheila herself points out that Walinder probably made no distinction be- tween TS and TV. This is undoubtedly true because the European school considers one just an extreme of the other. I had a considerable argument with one of the German authorities in N.Y. several years ago at the time I spoke before the "Society for the Scientific Study of Sex" seminar. I couldn't get him to acknowledge any difference of quality, only of degree. It would not surprise me in the least that medical science would someday find some sort