An Interview for Cosmos

A Freelance reporter for Cosmos Magazine interviewed me a little while ago. His article is on Intersex, and I'm sorta kinda the Australian National University's Ally Programme "Expert" on the issue. Scare quotes intended. I did tell him that "in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", but he went ahead anyway.

I'm bound to cop some flak for my views in Transsexuality being just a subset of Intersex: some Intersexed people argue passionately that it isn't. They argue, and with justification, that the evidence for this theory is by no means conclusive. Yet the trouble is, if it isn't biological, how can we explain, well, ME??? That's the trouble. Yes, I'm a "lusus naturae", a Freak if you like, but it's not as if I could do anything about that apart from play the best hand I could with the cards dealt to me. No Black Queens marked "Myeloma" or "Sarcoma". Ok, well, yes, I did have a few bad cards that landed me in Ward C3 West of Royal Prince Alfred (Thoracic Surgery and Oncology), but I survived. Many didn't, and getting to know people who didn't make it has given me a sense of perspective that has helped me throughout my life. It's difficult thinking "poor little me" because of some bureaucratic persecution when you've seen people whose kids are dying.

But I digress.

The point is, that unusual as I am, I'm a "boundary case" if you like that I think has lessons for us regarding Intersex and Transsex conditions. I'd like to think that I'm exaggerating the natural changes, that my intense desire to have a body that fitted my mind has caused me to ms-interpret (sic) the evidence, and I have yet to have any professional medic commit themselves in writing to anything other than a safe, standard diagnosis of Transsexuality.

Verbally is a different matter. And in some e-mails too, I've been described as "endocrinally weird" and more. This is by people used to dealing with "standard transsexuals" - standard Intersex cases too.

I wish someone would study my case more - even if it's to examine the hypothesis that I'm exaggerating things. (But what about the photos? The blood tests? The Eye Witnesses for Goodness' Sake? Hush, Zoe). There are lessons to be learnt, I just don't know for sure what they are, being too close to the situation to be objective.

Anyway, the article may end up in the cutting-room floor, and never see the light of day. The Editor may take to it with an Axe, removing my "words of wisdom" in whole or in part. But then again, they may not.