in the former gender. These things are filed away much as knowledge and reports are filed away in books in the stacks of a large library to be brought out when occasion demands them. So I, as Virginia, have momentary access to all this part of Charles. But I do not have all the same attitudes he had, nor the same needs, some of the same abilities (but not those that would be inappropriate to the feminine gender), I do not handle "our" body the same way nor are my moment-to-moment emotional reactions the same as his would be. In short some of what made up Charles is one of the ingredients in me, Virginia, but much of the rest of him is not and still more of "me" is solely Virginia.

Yet the "instructions", or perhaps a better word would be the patterns or the rules for the interaction of all the factors which together consti- tute Charles are still intact and available under proper stimulus. But most of the time they are simply quiescent because I, Virginia am in command and am reacting and presenting myself according to my own patterns and rules. But the important thing is that the integrated, totally functional personality that was Chalres is in my head and intact at all times. That is, that in a very real and functional sense Charles is a "boy within". Yet when I intentionally (as when going out to dinner) or unintentionally (as when editing the story or assembling the Clipsheet) relinquish, temporarily, control over my (Virginia's) psychic functions and when the stimulus is appropriate, the Charles personality is ready and waiting to go. Two years of isolation did not destroy this integrated, functional unity. He was only in storage as it were, and when called upon to reappear did so adequately and completely - and comfort- ably I might say. The only inconsistent input to his "computer" during the 5 hours he was back in control was the constant awareness of the tick- ling of my long hair down over his ears. I had tried to slick it back a bit to make it stay but as it dried out it did not stay but fell over my ears. This Charles' hair never did, so "he" was not accustomed to that constant sensory input. This input was not significant but was the only thing noticeably different from the original Charles.

So the conclusion is (at least to me) inescapable that it IS possible to have two functional personalities and that Susanna was right in coining the term "Girl Within". I suspect that those who consider this to be poppycock are merely those who have for one reason or another never been able to be in the right circumstances for enough time for their feminine personality to begin to take form. When dressed they remain essentially men in dresses. "She" never gets born, as it were, in a psychic sense, so naturally she is never real enough in actuality to become a girl within the rest of the time. I further suspect that this type of person

83