BERGLER'S THEORY DID NOT EXPLAIN EVERYTHING; HE EVEN SUGGESTED THAT BERGLER'S PATIENTS (WHOM BERGLER CLAIMS GREAT SUCCESS IN CURING) MAY NOT BE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF HOMOSEXUALS. IT WAS CURIOUS TO NOTE THAT DR. BERGLER PERSISTED IN REFERRING TO "THE TYPICAL HOMOSEXUAL" AS THE ONE WHOM "WE SEE" IN OUR PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF THE KALLMAN TWIN STUDIES, INTRODUCED BY DR. STENGLE. AS READERS MAY KNOW, KALLMAN FOUND THAT FOR 90% OF IDENTICAL (ONE-EGG) TWINS REARED TOGETHER, AND FOR 75% OF THOSE REARED APART, BOTH TWINS WERE FOUND TO BE HOMOSEXUAL. THE PERCENTAGES WERE DISTINCTLY LOWER FOR NON-IDENT I CAL (TWO-EGG) TWINS. THIS IS USUALLY CITED AS EVIDENCE FOR A HEREDITARY BASIS FOR HOMOSEXUALITY. DR. SCOTT POINTED OUT, RIGHTLY,

THAT THESE RESULTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR. IDENTICAL TWINS MAY, BECAUSE OF THEIR VERY IDENTITY, HAVE A MORE CLOSELY SIMILAR ENVIRONMENT THAN NON-IDENTICAL TWINS. EVEN IF HEREDITY DOES PLAY A PART, DR. STENGLE MAINTAINED, HOMOSEXUALITY CAN STILL BE TREATED AND MODIFIED.

PERHAPS IT CAN. THERE SEEMS TO THIS WRITER TO BE NO NEED FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO RESIST THIS POSSIBILITY, AS MANY SEEM TO DO. (THEY WOULD BE RIGHT, THOUGH, IN ASKING FOR MORE CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAN IS OFTEN PRESENTED, AND THEY WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN INSISTING THAT THE NEED AND DESIRABILITY OF CHANGE NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED.) NOR DOES THERE SEEM ANY REASON FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO FIGHT THE POSSIBILITY, OR PROBABILITY, THAT THERE ARE IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS. WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO SAY, AND KEEP ON SAYING, IN THIS WRITER'S OPINION, ARE THE FOLLOWING THINGS:

1. ANY GENERALIZATION MADE ABOUT THE UNCONSCIOUS WISHES OF ANY GROUP IS SUSPECT UNLESS IT IS PLAIN THAT IT IS BASED ON ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE; FURTHERMORE, IT SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEORIES ABOUT UNCONSCIOUS WISHES ARE NOT EASILY CAPABLE OF PROOF.

う

2. A DEPARTURE FROM "NORMAL" SEXUALITY NEED NOT BE UNDESIRABLE PER SE, AND NEED NOT BE THOUGHT OF AS AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRING "CORRECTION", WITHOUT CLOSE CONSIDERATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INDIVIDUAL CASE.

FLORENCE CONRAD