Transvestia

ly shape his ultimate personality is the Freudian position--well count me in. Count most of us in as а matter of fact. There is just too much evidence of this in everyday life and everybody (I don't even exclude Sheila) knows it, for this to be dismissed on the grounds that it is "Freudian". So what?

If Sheila thinks she has destroyed the state- ment of mine that she quoted I'm afraid she is wrong. What she did do with her "whole and parts" axiom is to throw more sand at me and at you, the reader. Personally I don't see the connection. Certainly there is much current work tending to support the statement particularly as regards gender differences. I refer her to the work of Dr. John Money at Johns Hopkins showing that gender roles are learned res- ponses not biologically determined and thus foreor- dained. He showed that under certain circumstances where the true sex was not evident at birth and the child was mistakenly assigned to the wrong sex that it learned and grew up to be of the gender appropri- ate to its sex of assignment in contrast to the chro- mosomal sex.

2) One is in no position to shout "dogmatic" at an- other when one comes up with the comment about the opposition that "your statement says exactly nothing relevant...." What is this but dogmatism. She may not agree but whether the statement says nothing de- pends on where you start. The reader threading her way between our two points of view probably sees something possible and relevant in both. Sheila's suggestion of changing "cerebro-neural" to "bio-cy- bernetic" helps not at all. Most people will under- stand the second term even less than the first and in either case it is not the term but the concepts to which I take exception and which she refrained from commenting on.

Finally, the cute little dig that my statement tells more about my limitations than about her hypo- thesis would at first reading appear to be a telling

73