The following first appeared at my original homesite, and was written in response to a transgendered friend who, though she did not want to be "outed" herself, had no compunction in outing me. At the time I was angry because all I could see was the hypocrisy of her stance. The following was the result, I outed myself on my own terms!

The following rambles on a lot, but it has to be said. Please take a seat while I rant at you.

The world is a funny place, and the internet a peculiar media at that. One can say and show things on the net that mightn't otherwise be said or shown in real life. And that's not because those things might be untrue, but because they can be unpopular with all sorts of consequences.

In general people don't like their world views disrupted by evidence to the contrary, even if such views are merely based on unproven assumption or ignorance. And there's a lot of both out there.

But explaining things on the net is a vastly different proposition. I can go into great and intimate detail on the issues and factors that affect my life. All I have to do is write it once (though I do tend to re-edit and refine things) and present it to the world. Or anyone who's interested. The process works differently from writing something in a newspaper or magazine, from appearing on television.

In those media what I'd have to say would appear as part of a package deal, bundled up with other articles on page three, or in a 30 second slot between a segment on Santa Claus and Serial Murderers. But here on the net, you're here because you're interested -- because of certain details of me that I've listed in different search engines, or because you've noticed my http: reference at the bottom of my emails, or you know (of) me and would like to know me better. And there's the difference!

Because of that single difference, I can put in the effort to write in greater depth about myself and the issues and factors that affect my life. Because of that difference (and the fact that really, I don't have to manually «repeat myself» hundreds of times) I can be honest with you, even when that honestly might be more complex or more simple than you expect.

There's immense variety in people's religions, creeds and cultures; in their social structures; their appearance; their sexual preferences and orientation, in their identity. But just think for a minute what the world would be like if there wasn't such variation -- it'd be a pretty boring place I should think!

You wont have got far in this HomeSite without realizing that I'm transgendered woman -- a male-female transsexual. I don't walk down the street with a banner saying Hi, I'm transsexual!. That's not how it works. Present yourself as a transsexual first, and that's how people will treat you. I present myself as me, and let people make their own conclusions. They always did before, so why should that change now?

I am not a transsexual, but a transsexual woman.

Spot the difference? The first transsexual is a noun, and the second an adjective.

"Big deal" you say, "so what?"

The Big Deal is that the first categorizes you and fixes an image of you to the other person. The second is just a part of who you are, like being a redhead, or a member of club, or the daughter of somebody in particular. So, I'm not just a transsexual woman, but also a: middle-aged woman; red-haired woman; myopic woman; tall woman; * pagan woman; bisexual woman; artistic woman; friendly woman; and loving woman, among other things...

Now woman is just another label that we use in describing someone. But it's one that I identify with and care about to have applied to me. Get the picture?

While Political Correctness might be a sheep in wolf's clothing, it did get something right. Words in our society are never neutral, they always have connotations one way or another. And hence, you should be careful about the words you use to communicate with others. Where I differ with the Political Correctness stand however, is that you should choose your words for your reasons, not others. If you choose to go along with others, well that's fine, but you ought to think about why, and think for yourself.

P. J. O'Rourke said in Modern Manners that good manners was not hurting or upsetting others unintentionally (my emphasis). By exercising your rights to be an individual, you allow yourself and others the right to disagree and also to be unpleasant. Otherwise you've gained nothing but an on-going power struggle between yourself and the world.

And intention is everything. The first Art Theory lecture I attended in 1997 showed slides of a sampling of modern art. There was so much variety, including contradictory examples ranging from the ridiculous (urine and canned excreta as an art form?) to the unexpected (and believe me, a lot was!). It was suggested that a good definition of Art was whatever the art world and the art establishments said it was.

I've heard an awfully similar argument about science fiction, and it's probably equally true. I saw however one additional distinction. That is, the intent of the artist. In most cases the artist was the direct creator of the art work. There were some cases however whereby the art work was not produced directly by the artist themselves, but by an intermediate creation. Other instances included "found" art, and art where chance played a major role. But the intent on the part of the artist was still there.

And this is what makes the difference. Years ago I wrote in Apocrypha that if one considered a creator such as God, then God was an artist and the universe was God's art work. Nowadays I think in terms of a variation on this.

Life is art!

I am the creator of my life. I was born from two other creators, but there on I was presented with choice and option throughout my life. Sometimes I made those choices boldly, other times I procrastinated or gave away my choices. But ever was I making decisions (even if it's to give away my decisions). The illusion is that it's all fixed. It isn't. It's up to any person to make what they can of their life, and to do the best job they can on their own terms.

And those terms, that critique of what's right and wrong, is the basis of the Art of Life. Everyone's an artist, and many critics.

In that first Art Theory lecture, I saw slides of Orlan. She has created an art form by having plastic surgery on her body, and documenting it. The lecturer related the anecdote of how, when at a conference in Rome, a transsexual stood up and abused her for mocking what was to "him" (lecturer's usage), a legitimate pursuit. It was perfect example of how that person'd been pigeon holed by the lecturer, and how art is misunderstood. Rather than abuse Ms Miscetti, I applaud her. By her actions she's focussed people on the very nature of plastic surgery.

Reassignment surgery is «plastic surgery». I don't plan on getting mine until after university, which will be the year «2000». Does the surgery legitimize a transsexual person? I think not. What it does is make one's body more to one's liking. Nothing else changes. What does legitimize a transsexual person (or anybody else for that matter) is themselves, in the effort and struggle they bring to their life, in pursuing their goals and dreams.

And that's what I'm about, and I hope «I never stop doing so until I die». And should I fail in this, then I look forward to having these words come back to haunt me, to spur me on to greater things, or greater efforts at least.

Got that?

Good, Enjoy.