RANSVESTIA

very clear communication, and quoting others who make that mis- take doesn't make it any less confusing. I expect that the sociolo- gists among our readers will fire back a bunch of letters informing me about the sociological uses of these terms, but the fact that a whole "science" uses terms in confusing and unclear ways neither justifies the error nor amelorates the resulting non-communica- tion. Personally, I believe that it is the non-understanding of the difference between and the absolute of "sex" and "gender" that brings many people to surgery in the first place. They want gender and think that sexual surgery is the way to achieve it, since the real nature of the two is not clear to them. For example, she quotes Dr. Henry Guz: "Since the TV feels that he does not real- ly fit the cultural concept of a male . . . he must be a female." Please note that maleness is not a cultural concept - it is a biologi- cal fact. This quote exemplifies all three of my complaints: (1) the authority, Dr. Guze, makes a misstatement; (2) the author of the book quotes it to make a point and doesn't perceive the error of the statement; and (3) since it presumes to epitomize the feel- ings of the TS it illustrates the confusion that is in the TS's mind. The correct statement would be, "since he feels he does not really fit the cultural concept of a man .. he must be a woman.” That he could do without a surgical change of sex.

In a chapter on Androngyny, she again evidences her confu- sion of sex and gender: ". . . androgyny symbolizes primal per- sonhood or original humanity in its bixexual or asexual condi- tion." Androgyny does not, in fact, refer to anything sexual at all, either in anatomy or in object choice, but is a word for bi- or ambi-genderal (i.e., both gender manifestations in one individual at the same time). In the chapter where androgyny is discussed, she constantly equates it with maleness plus femaleness.

The book as a whole, however, should be read by anyone thinking about surgery and would prove interesting and informa- tive to most TVs too, since it puts the whole area in an entirely new light that no one has bothered to consider before. While I have indicated some of my criticisms and reservations about the

-37-