The reader must be thinking that this question has no validity, since not born a woman chooses, is Morphological. Well, you are right my dear reader, but women are made, i mean, being a woman represents a huge amount of ideologies that have a little or nothing to do with the woman's morphology. Then, the gender identity that is given to woman is to be feminine and when this is not fullfilled as it should be, the designation of woman become diffuse. For example, I have deep voice, short hair, I wear wide clothes, I don't wear heels neather skirts, and I just carry on one earring. Morphologically, I am a woman, however when I am outside people use to name me as if I were a man, often at stores people say: what do you want sir? Being woman, Morphologically means to be born with vagina and sines, besides some characteristics that variates from woman to woman, like notorious hips, a small waist, small hands, facial hair and corporal hair, particularitities that in fact are not decisive when recognizing a Morphological woman, like are it the two that I enunciated at the beginning. I ask you: does the fact of has been borned with vagina and sines, determine me to give birth a son or marry a man? Actually no, this is a question based on a cultural twist. Being borned in this shape does not imply having a son neather marrying a man, nor having a relationship with him. However, in today's world, in the real world, specifically the world of Western culture, this reasoning is accepted as true by most people, claiming for example that God made us for such purposes, or anatomically agree with what nature gave us the way we designed it to term complement to the opposite sex and thus generate new specimens of the human race. "The sense is not the object or person or thing, or is in the word. We are the ones that put the sense so strongly that after a while seems like a natural and inevitable thing. The meaning is constructed by the system of representation. " "This is what children learn, and how they become, not merely biological but cultural subjects individuals. They learn the system and the conventions of representation codes of their languages and culture, to equip them with a 'know-how' culture that enables them to function as subjects culturally competent. " As subjects belonging to this culture, we learnt what a woman represents, therefore, learned to represent us as women, were not born with it within us biologically. Now you my dear reader can give me the reason that women are not born, we become women. Well, from my experience I can tell you that understand this clarifies and explains things a bit because in my lifetime I have never been able to feel comfortable with being a woman, not because I want to be a man, because for me the femininity as I have been describing to this point has not been characteristic, was formed more as an absence, in this way, each time I appointed to call me "woman" I never saw me like a "woman", I acquired the identity of the vampire, I looked into a mirror that was not my own , which does not represent me, this image was no meaningless , its silence is that perturbing discomfort. This makes no sense if my peers do not resonate; on the one hand, in one hand, i didnt look like the girly girls, i wasnt particulary delicate, never played with dolls, or used dress; on the other hand, and they did notice it and would exclude me from their games for the same reason. That dislocation on identity, not recognizing myself as being feminine became a conflict , it was not only the impresion i had of myself, but also how the girls felt about me not being as feminine as they where; when they legitimized me as different, there was not only an appearance, was a collective that classified me as different, and they noticed radically excluded; gesture that made me be aware that I was, that I meant difference. Simultaneously there was another voice uttering the same speech, my mom, she did not point at me for being different, she only pointed at me for what was "right",was the "ideal" representation of how should a woman be, basically i should be like her, if we think that she was my immediate identity (mirror), my adjacent authority. In essence, it had to seem like her. But it was not like that, which started to define a type of self-censorship, a self-recognition as different, which is within its limits, its boundaries, not reflection. ... Distinctness, the outline of a particular identity would be traced within the margin of the "others". That: "not fit", this divergence with the reflection, that opacity in the identity, this ambiguity, that non sense, that non sense, made it difucult and confusing to understand myself under that image i was - why do not I am like the rest? then why should i look like the rest?. - somehow i felt imcomplete and felt lots of anger for that reason, -censorship became self-censorsh

The aberration are the 3 green dots circled in red - the lights circled in blue, are the source of the aberration. What is this called? Lens flare? Sensor reflection? I had quite a few shots with this particular aberration - I've just posted two for feedback and help from the flickr community. Shot with my Nikon D50, 35mm f/2 lens (with screw on hood on the whole time) @ ISO 800. Hoya HMC UV(N) filter screwed on too.