How do you know...?

[ctrlfreq]

Then to keep it simple would it be simpler to say that a "Het" carries one half the genetic code needed to created a visual mutation. Instead of trying to confuse people by pointing out that technically a het can be a visual mutation?

Sure, it's easier, and in addition to the confusion it causes, it also provides the benefit of allowing neophytes to be exploited on a regular basis by people passing off normals as het-for-random-co-dominant-trait for hundreds of dollars.

I say just teach it correctly the first time.