ing in that part of the self which Susanna recognises is never shown to the GG? I don't think so; certainly it wasn't the impression I had. When Susanna says "Sex. . . phooey. It's femininity I want" I am sure I under- stand what she means but I have to retort that I want both, that to enjoy fully both roles is my ideal. I know that in the context of her column Susanna used "sex" to mean "sex as experienced by a converted TS", but I want to focus on heterosexual TVs, after all that's how we define ourselves. Now Virginia has written of a point after which sex is no longer a big deal. If Susanna sees it that way she should tell us; but I feel that even with a declining heterosexual urge on both sides a GG still needs the support of the masculine being she married, may even need it more. Perhaps I'm agonising so much over this because of the quietly anxious remark of my own GG, “I suppose that's the way you will go", and because too I see a kind of morality play opposition here: on my right Sheila, sturdy and sensible, pointing to the straight and narrow; on my left Susanna, sinister and witchlike, herself an unwitting lure and temptress. And Marie-Therese? Like all humans, frail and tempted.

Now for us to protest (sometimes methinks the lady doth protest too much) that we want and as FPs can have the best of both gender worlds is clearly a necessary rationalisation. We get the mirror pleasures, the esthetic pleasures, the physical ones promoted by make-up and clothing, and the psychological pleasures of acting out a chosen role but we miss periods, childbirth, the whole gynecological world. If we are lucky and work for it, and this too needs working for I think, we retain the full masculine range of pleasures. Certainly my brother does, tho' it's only fair to say that he has never been one for the rugged life: a city boy, and an indoor boy, but nevertheless, he wants to enjoy his own life as well as contributing to mine. And though we struggle at times I want him to do this, for the love is reciprocal, and I now know with absolute certainly that there is no happiness for me based on unhappiness for him. Best of both worlds or not, there are still plenty of kicks being administered: I am myself very sceptical of public acceptance ever going very far; the best we can hope for is to avoid misinterpretation and injustice; anything else will be the reward of our own skill and luck in passing.

And this brings Marie-Therese to her obsession in the world of FP definition: that the girl within is after all only a metaphor, and that what we must do is make the two into one, achieve this unity of the diverse, ensure that that which is complex becomes harmonious. It is a lifelong struggle for in its very nature we can win a single battle, but never the whole campaign. Just how much do we identify wholly with the girl within? Marie-Therese reads Elle and Arianna and Modas and Vogue

10