![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
citrakayahWhat do people think of this?
I haven’t included questions that I consider specious. What I consider specious is saying ‘that’s impossible’ without a reason why, or saying ‘you’re all delusional idiots’ without a reason why. You want to see those refuted, look up ‘list of logical fallacies’ and scroll down until you found whichever one you used.
General Questions
Q: What’s therianthropy?
A: Therianthropy is the condition of having abnormally strong and/or numerous animalistic behaviors or urges, usually ones which correspond to a specific species.
Aside from that, you really aren’t going to get a universally agreed on definition of therianthropy. Hell, not everybody agrees on my definition, though most therians I know agree that it’s at least a fairly accurate descriptor. Since there’s no official dictionary definition of the word ‘therian’, and no medical consensus either, arguing the definition is rather pointless. While it’s safe to assume that my definition holds true for most, it won’t for all. When in doubt, ask.
Because a lot of therians will go on at length about what therianthropy is to them. Or have pages written about it already.
Q: What are otherkin?
A: Otherkin are similar to therians (and, depending to who you ask, are basically a larger group—from a mental and philosophical perspective, not a historical one—to whom therians belong to), but they identify as a non-existent species.
Q: What are fictionkin?
A: Otherkin whose kintype takes after a fictional species. They are frequently (and rather unfairly) maligned, which has a certain irony to it given that myth is a sort of fiction, and that if one takes a psychological approach to therianthropy and otherkin there’s no particular reason why they can’t exist.
Of course, many otherkin/therians don’t take a psychological perspective to the matter, which is in my opinion a bad thing if and only if they refuse to consider the possibility of a psychological perspective. The otherkin/therians that do not believe in the existence of a psychological perspective usually either do not believe in fictionkin or believe in a varient of the many-worlds theory which states that every imagined universe exists as a separate universe; ergo somewhere there are orcs running around. According to this theory souls can migrate between univerii, so it’s perfectly possible for the soul of an orc to end up in a human body. While I don’t believe in this concept, I certainly can’t disprove it, and have better things to do than to run around telling everybody who believes in something unproveable that they are incorrect. What would be the point?
Also, I shudder to think of the implications of there being a Cthluhu-universe, of a Warhammer 40k-universe.
Or a Twilight-universe.
Q: Do therians and otherkin have any unifying religious/spiritual beliefs?
A: No. I myself am an atheist who seems to lack the capacity to believe in the supernatural. I know of many other atheistic therians and otherkin, including those who don’t believe in anything supernatural.
Among those who do believe in the supernatural, religion varies wildly. I know a Catholic therian, a fire worshipping feline, a bunch of neopagans, several Jews, and one or two Muslim therians.
Q: Why?
A: No one has any idea why we’re the way we are—or, at least, no one has any idea that isn’t simply speculation. Hypothesises range from imprinting to reincarnation to something related to autism. But ultimately, we don’t know. We may never know in our lifetimes, though I expect that won’t be the case. But even if we do know for some, we probably won’t know for all, and in a similar vein we can’t disprove the non-empirical explanations. We can prove that they aren’t necessary, but we can’t prove they aren’t true.
And if someone says they do know, absolutely know, and say that you should believe them, they are badly mistaken. Some individuals do hold bizarre creedal notions, where one has to have X metaphysical quality to be a therian or otherkin. I have never seen such individuals offer a shred of logic or reasoning behind this dogmatic exclusionary policy—and I expect that their reasoning is mostly circular.
On Theriotype/Kintype
Q: Many animals have similar behaviors. How does one differentiate between similar species?
A: The default answer is rather simple—one doesn’t. There are cladotherians (therians whose theriotype is a clade), and when you get into theriotypes such as ‘moth’… I’ve never seen someone say ‘moth’ and then say ‘Madagascan sunset moth’.
I attribute it to a rather simple fact: Some clades have more obvious behavioral diversity than others. For example, coyotes have different behaviors than wolves, which have different behaviors than dogs, which have different behaviors than maned wolves. But if one examines weevil species, scientists have to use their genitalia to tell them apart (and still can’t agree). A layperson is not going to be able to tell the difference behaviorally, or even accounting for phantom limbs, between two similar species of weevil.
Q: Why are most therians wolves? Wouldn’t this indicate some sort of wish-fulfillment?
A: This is actually two questions, and I’ll answer each in turn.
Firstly, we don’t know that there are actually more wolves (and the surveys I’ve seen done on the Werelist don’t indicate ‘most’ therians being wolves; about as many are felines of some sort, and there are a bunch of oddballs including dolphins, otters, a salamander, a sea slug, fruit bats, various assorted canines, a thylacine, and avians). We just know that there are more in the online communities we have access to; I highly suspect that the actual number of therians is far higher than the number of online therians, and has a more even distribution of species. The last part is fairly reasonable; while [I recall Laycock estimating the size of the community at about a few thousand], most therians/otherkin speak English, simply because the communities were started by English speakers. Who knows how many therians/otherkin there are that speak Chinese, Swahili, Arabic, Russian, or even Spanish? Most therians and otherkin would agree that one doesn’t have to know the term therian or otherkin to be a therian or otherkin.
Hell, they could even have parallel communities.
It’s also important to remember that wolves are fairly social beings. They may simply have a greater urge to be with those like them than some other theriotypes. Another possibility is that wolves are closer to humans in behavior, so it takes less of a deviation from the norm to be a wolf therian. And, of course, to some degree (though certainly not to an extreme degree) theriotype is subjective just like species is. Moreso, in fact, because there aren’t perfect little lines between behaviors of different species. Sometimes it’s distinct enough to draw a definitive conclusion about exact species (like it is in my case), sometimes it isn’t. Those it isn’t very exact for often refer to themselves as cladotherians.
Secondly… which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who’s to say that the reason a wolf therian was so obsessed with wolves wasn’t because, after all, they identified with them and shared some of their behavioral traits?
Q: Could therians have been influenced by pets?
A: Quite possibly. I myself have lived with cats my entire life, and I’m a cheetah therian. But this can’t completely explain therianthropy; I’ve met dolphin therians and I’m unaware of anyone who has pet dolphins. For that matter, cheetahs are noticeably different in behavior than domestic cats—for example, in prey selection and social structure. So something else is clearly going on. Doesn’t mean we aren’t influenced by pets, just means it isn’t the only thing making us therians.
Q: Do therians/otherkin want to alter their bodies?
A: Depends. I don’t particularly (though I wouldn’t mind having retractable claws), but some do, because they have some sort of body dysmorphia (and this comparison isn’t just made by me, it’s made by people who have gender dysmorphia), so they would see a value in altering their morphology. Obviously they wouldn’t be able to go all the way in all cases (for example, there’s really no way a sea slug therian is going to be able to shrink their body down to the size of a sea slug), and different therians/otherkin would have different levels of desire to change their body. Many have no urge to alter their body.
Since there’s no good rational reason not to allow this, and a clear benefit to be gained by allowing it, the rational thing is to allow it. The only arguments I’ve seen against morphological freedom are appeals to emotion and/or tradition, the belief that it is immoral to change one’s body once one has gotten it, and the belief that we would all turn into the Borg or Cthulhu if we allowed it. None of those I consider convincing. Obviously it would have to be a regulated field; that doesn’t mean it should be outright banned.
Q: To what extent do therians/otherkin act out their urges?
A: Depends. Even for a given therian/otherkin, level of control can vary—mine is much lower when I’m in pain (thankfully I don’t find most static electricity all that painful), or irritated, or exhausted. It also depends on personal preference and the surrounding environment. When we’re alone, or with those who understand and accept us for our therianthropy/otherkin-ness, we can let it out more. Because if I acted out my feline urges in public, I would most likely be ostracized and have little men in white lab coats show up.
That may change, eventually, and given that I refuse on ideological grounds to defend society’s norms if they don’t make rational sense, I would be quite delighted to see such a change. And the norms of society often do not make rational sense; a restriction on therianthropic/otherkin behavior is (in the vast majority of cases) simply unjustified in a rational argument, and lies on appeal to tradition and appeal to emotion. Both of these things are lousy arguments, each of which can be used to defend actions that a rational person would consider horrific.
My view isn’t universally popular, of course.
Q: Why do therians/otherkin remain in the shadows?
A: Two primary reasons, ignoring that many therian and otherkin symbols would only be obvious to people with prior knowledge.
First, because almost every single time we’ve ever tried to make ourselves more popularly known, it comes back to tweak our tail in some way. Most of this can firmly be blamed on the media sensationalizing us; they are relentless, and I know of people who truthfully decided that it would be best to strategically give in to the assholes. Our forums have repeatedly been stalked by ZigZag (after being told to buzz off multiple times), some idiots who were going to put us in the same category as BDSM practitioners for shock value, and various other individuals trying to interview us. Most of the time we’ve been able to at least mitigate the damage.
Second, because a lot of people actually do hate us. Given human predilections for going after that which is perceived as deviant, it really isn’t that much of a stretch to say that being outed as a therian (especially if one took a spiritual/religious view of it) would really suck. The experiences of some minors when their (fundamentalist Christian) parents found out tends to back this idea, as have the experiences of a few others who were outed to larger groups.
Eventually this may no longer be the case. I hope it is fairly soon.
On Science
Q: Can therianthropy be disproven?
A: Sort of.
It’s easy enough to disprove the notion that humans can have behaviors of other species that aren’t normally human behaviors, at least on a conceptual level. It isn’t going to happen, because it’s a completely ridiculous notion (taking into account everything we know about human psychology), but it could be done on a conceptual level. In a similar vein, you could show that therians have no more and/or no stronger animalistic behaviors than the general populace. But I don’t expect that to happen either.
It’s impossible, on the other hand, at least with current technology, to reach into someone’s brain and tell them that they aren’t experiencing things that they think they are (and that gets into the question of to what extent believing one is experiencing something can make one experience it).
On The Community
Q: Is it just me, or are most therians non-gender conforming, non-heterosexual, or both?
A: While I haven’t seen formal studies, I highly suspect it is not just you. A substantial minority are transgendered, far more than the percentage you’d normally expect. Same with bisexual, homosexual, asexual, pansexual, et cetera therians.
Why these unusual numbers? Well, it does seem to me to back the views of some therians that it’s related to some sort of abnormal ‘mental wiring’; the number of therians that are transgendered would seem to further this notion. As far as sexual orientation… that is difficult to say. It may be that sexual orientation is somehow influenced by therianthropy—most animals aren’t exclusively heterosexual.
Q: Why do so many therians write essays?
A: Can’t know for sure, but I think a variety of factors are at play here. Before getting into details, though, it’s important to recognize that not everybody does. I know many who haven’t; they simply haven’t felt any particular need to. That aside, it does seem like an unusual number do, even accounting for those (like me) who write a large amount of material.
First, as I mentioned in the first question, not all therians mean the same thing when they’re talking about therianthropy. I don’t mean the same thing as many other people I know. In part that’s because our explanations differ, but it’s also because our experiences differ. Take me, for instance. I have ironclad control over most of my behaviors. I have free will, and could theoretically choose to never express a therianthropic behavior again (with perhaps the exception of snarling when in pain). Now, this would suck. Cheetah behaviors feel right and natural to me; doing them makes me feel happy and fulfilled, and I have an urge to do some of them. Don’t know why, but I do.
Other therians don’t have the same control I do. So if we’re going to understand each other, we need to explain how our therianthropy expresses itself, and how we and it interact. Knowledge breeds understanding, at least in this instance. It also breeds peace and tranquility; how many arguments could be avoided if both parties truly understood what the other one was saying?
Second, it may well be a cultural norm. Most therian websites include such personal essays, and I know of many forums that have places set aside for posting them. And many of the more prominent therians and otherkin in the online community have written personal essays of some sort; one might consider it some sort of tradition.
I haven’t included questions that I consider specious. What I consider specious is saying ‘that’s impossible’ without a reason why, or saying ‘you’re all delusional idiots’ without a reason why. You want to see those refuted, look up ‘list of logical fallacies’ and scroll down until you found whichever one you used.
General Questions
Q: What’s therianthropy?
A: Therianthropy is the condition of having abnormally strong and/or numerous animalistic behaviors or urges, usually ones which correspond to a specific species.
Aside from that, you really aren’t going to get a universally agreed on definition of therianthropy. Hell, not everybody agrees on my definition, though most therians I know agree that it’s at least a fairly accurate descriptor. Since there’s no official dictionary definition of the word ‘therian’, and no medical consensus either, arguing the definition is rather pointless. While it’s safe to assume that my definition holds true for most, it won’t for all. When in doubt, ask.
Because a lot of therians will go on at length about what therianthropy is to them. Or have pages written about it already.
Q: What are otherkin?
A: Otherkin are similar to therians (and, depending to who you ask, are basically a larger group—from a mental and philosophical perspective, not a historical one—to whom therians belong to), but they identify as a non-existent species.
Q: What are fictionkin?
A: Otherkin whose kintype takes after a fictional species. They are frequently (and rather unfairly) maligned, which has a certain irony to it given that myth is a sort of fiction, and that if one takes a psychological approach to therianthropy and otherkin there’s no particular reason why they can’t exist.
Of course, many otherkin/therians don’t take a psychological perspective to the matter, which is in my opinion a bad thing if and only if they refuse to consider the possibility of a psychological perspective. The otherkin/therians that do not believe in the existence of a psychological perspective usually either do not believe in fictionkin or believe in a varient of the many-worlds theory which states that every imagined universe exists as a separate universe; ergo somewhere there are orcs running around. According to this theory souls can migrate between univerii, so it’s perfectly possible for the soul of an orc to end up in a human body. While I don’t believe in this concept, I certainly can’t disprove it, and have better things to do than to run around telling everybody who believes in something unproveable that they are incorrect. What would be the point?
Also, I shudder to think of the implications of there being a Cthluhu-universe, of a Warhammer 40k-universe.
Or a Twilight-universe.
Q: Do therians and otherkin have any unifying religious/spiritual beliefs?
A: No. I myself am an atheist who seems to lack the capacity to believe in the supernatural. I know of many other atheistic therians and otherkin, including those who don’t believe in anything supernatural.
Among those who do believe in the supernatural, religion varies wildly. I know a Catholic therian, a fire worshipping feline, a bunch of neopagans, several Jews, and one or two Muslim therians.
Q: Why?
A: No one has any idea why we’re the way we are—or, at least, no one has any idea that isn’t simply speculation. Hypothesises range from imprinting to reincarnation to something related to autism. But ultimately, we don’t know. We may never know in our lifetimes, though I expect that won’t be the case. But even if we do know for some, we probably won’t know for all, and in a similar vein we can’t disprove the non-empirical explanations. We can prove that they aren’t necessary, but we can’t prove they aren’t true.
And if someone says they do know, absolutely know, and say that you should believe them, they are badly mistaken. Some individuals do hold bizarre creedal notions, where one has to have X metaphysical quality to be a therian or otherkin. I have never seen such individuals offer a shred of logic or reasoning behind this dogmatic exclusionary policy—and I expect that their reasoning is mostly circular.
On Theriotype/Kintype
Q: Many animals have similar behaviors. How does one differentiate between similar species?
A: The default answer is rather simple—one doesn’t. There are cladotherians (therians whose theriotype is a clade), and when you get into theriotypes such as ‘moth’… I’ve never seen someone say ‘moth’ and then say ‘Madagascan sunset moth’.
I attribute it to a rather simple fact: Some clades have more obvious behavioral diversity than others. For example, coyotes have different behaviors than wolves, which have different behaviors than dogs, which have different behaviors than maned wolves. But if one examines weevil species, scientists have to use their genitalia to tell them apart (and still can’t agree). A layperson is not going to be able to tell the difference behaviorally, or even accounting for phantom limbs, between two similar species of weevil.
Q: Why are most therians wolves? Wouldn’t this indicate some sort of wish-fulfillment?
A: This is actually two questions, and I’ll answer each in turn.
Firstly, we don’t know that there are actually more wolves (and the surveys I’ve seen done on the Werelist don’t indicate ‘most’ therians being wolves; about as many are felines of some sort, and there are a bunch of oddballs including dolphins, otters, a salamander, a sea slug, fruit bats, various assorted canines, a thylacine, and avians). We just know that there are more in the online communities we have access to; I highly suspect that the actual number of therians is far higher than the number of online therians, and has a more even distribution of species. The last part is fairly reasonable; while [I recall Laycock estimating the size of the community at about a few thousand], most therians/otherkin speak English, simply because the communities were started by English speakers. Who knows how many therians/otherkin there are that speak Chinese, Swahili, Arabic, Russian, or even Spanish? Most therians and otherkin would agree that one doesn’t have to know the term therian or otherkin to be a therian or otherkin.
Hell, they could even have parallel communities.
It’s also important to remember that wolves are fairly social beings. They may simply have a greater urge to be with those like them than some other theriotypes. Another possibility is that wolves are closer to humans in behavior, so it takes less of a deviation from the norm to be a wolf therian. And, of course, to some degree (though certainly not to an extreme degree) theriotype is subjective just like species is. Moreso, in fact, because there aren’t perfect little lines between behaviors of different species. Sometimes it’s distinct enough to draw a definitive conclusion about exact species (like it is in my case), sometimes it isn’t. Those it isn’t very exact for often refer to themselves as cladotherians.
Secondly… which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who’s to say that the reason a wolf therian was so obsessed with wolves wasn’t because, after all, they identified with them and shared some of their behavioral traits?
Q: Could therians have been influenced by pets?
A: Quite possibly. I myself have lived with cats my entire life, and I’m a cheetah therian. But this can’t completely explain therianthropy; I’ve met dolphin therians and I’m unaware of anyone who has pet dolphins. For that matter, cheetahs are noticeably different in behavior than domestic cats—for example, in prey selection and social structure. So something else is clearly going on. Doesn’t mean we aren’t influenced by pets, just means it isn’t the only thing making us therians.
Q: Do therians/otherkin want to alter their bodies?
A: Depends. I don’t particularly (though I wouldn’t mind having retractable claws), but some do, because they have some sort of body dysmorphia (and this comparison isn’t just made by me, it’s made by people who have gender dysmorphia), so they would see a value in altering their morphology. Obviously they wouldn’t be able to go all the way in all cases (for example, there’s really no way a sea slug therian is going to be able to shrink their body down to the size of a sea slug), and different therians/otherkin would have different levels of desire to change their body. Many have no urge to alter their body.
Since there’s no good rational reason not to allow this, and a clear benefit to be gained by allowing it, the rational thing is to allow it. The only arguments I’ve seen against morphological freedom are appeals to emotion and/or tradition, the belief that it is immoral to change one’s body once one has gotten it, and the belief that we would all turn into the Borg or Cthulhu if we allowed it. None of those I consider convincing. Obviously it would have to be a regulated field; that doesn’t mean it should be outright banned.
Q: To what extent do therians/otherkin act out their urges?
A: Depends. Even for a given therian/otherkin, level of control can vary—mine is much lower when I’m in pain (thankfully I don’t find most static electricity all that painful), or irritated, or exhausted. It also depends on personal preference and the surrounding environment. When we’re alone, or with those who understand and accept us for our therianthropy/otherkin-ness, we can let it out more. Because if I acted out my feline urges in public, I would most likely be ostracized and have little men in white lab coats show up.
That may change, eventually, and given that I refuse on ideological grounds to defend society’s norms if they don’t make rational sense, I would be quite delighted to see such a change. And the norms of society often do not make rational sense; a restriction on therianthropic/otherkin behavior is (in the vast majority of cases) simply unjustified in a rational argument, and lies on appeal to tradition and appeal to emotion. Both of these things are lousy arguments, each of which can be used to defend actions that a rational person would consider horrific.
My view isn’t universally popular, of course.
Q: Why do therians/otherkin remain in the shadows?
A: Two primary reasons, ignoring that many therian and otherkin symbols would only be obvious to people with prior knowledge.
First, because almost every single time we’ve ever tried to make ourselves more popularly known, it comes back to tweak our tail in some way. Most of this can firmly be blamed on the media sensationalizing us; they are relentless, and I know of people who truthfully decided that it would be best to strategically give in to the assholes. Our forums have repeatedly been stalked by ZigZag (after being told to buzz off multiple times), some idiots who were going to put us in the same category as BDSM practitioners for shock value, and various other individuals trying to interview us. Most of the time we’ve been able to at least mitigate the damage.
Second, because a lot of people actually do hate us. Given human predilections for going after that which is perceived as deviant, it really isn’t that much of a stretch to say that being outed as a therian (especially if one took a spiritual/religious view of it) would really suck. The experiences of some minors when their (fundamentalist Christian) parents found out tends to back this idea, as have the experiences of a few others who were outed to larger groups.
Eventually this may no longer be the case. I hope it is fairly soon.
On Science
Q: Can therianthropy be disproven?
A: Sort of.
It’s easy enough to disprove the notion that humans can have behaviors of other species that aren’t normally human behaviors, at least on a conceptual level. It isn’t going to happen, because it’s a completely ridiculous notion (taking into account everything we know about human psychology), but it could be done on a conceptual level. In a similar vein, you could show that therians have no more and/or no stronger animalistic behaviors than the general populace. But I don’t expect that to happen either.
It’s impossible, on the other hand, at least with current technology, to reach into someone’s brain and tell them that they aren’t experiencing things that they think they are (and that gets into the question of to what extent believing one is experiencing something can make one experience it).
On The Community
Q: Is it just me, or are most therians non-gender conforming, non-heterosexual, or both?
A: While I haven’t seen formal studies, I highly suspect it is not just you. A substantial minority are transgendered, far more than the percentage you’d normally expect. Same with bisexual, homosexual, asexual, pansexual, et cetera therians.
Why these unusual numbers? Well, it does seem to me to back the views of some therians that it’s related to some sort of abnormal ‘mental wiring’; the number of therians that are transgendered would seem to further this notion. As far as sexual orientation… that is difficult to say. It may be that sexual orientation is somehow influenced by therianthropy—most animals aren’t exclusively heterosexual.
Q: Why do so many therians write essays?
A: Can’t know for sure, but I think a variety of factors are at play here. Before getting into details, though, it’s important to recognize that not everybody does. I know many who haven’t; they simply haven’t felt any particular need to. That aside, it does seem like an unusual number do, even accounting for those (like me) who write a large amount of material.
First, as I mentioned in the first question, not all therians mean the same thing when they’re talking about therianthropy. I don’t mean the same thing as many other people I know. In part that’s because our explanations differ, but it’s also because our experiences differ. Take me, for instance. I have ironclad control over most of my behaviors. I have free will, and could theoretically choose to never express a therianthropic behavior again (with perhaps the exception of snarling when in pain). Now, this would suck. Cheetah behaviors feel right and natural to me; doing them makes me feel happy and fulfilled, and I have an urge to do some of them. Don’t know why, but I do.
Other therians don’t have the same control I do. So if we’re going to understand each other, we need to explain how our therianthropy expresses itself, and how we and it interact. Knowledge breeds understanding, at least in this instance. It also breeds peace and tranquility; how many arguments could be avoided if both parties truly understood what the other one was saying?
Second, it may well be a cultural norm. Most therian websites include such personal essays, and I know of many forums that have places set aside for posting them. And many of the more prominent therians and otherkin in the online community have written personal essays of some sort; one might consider it some sort of tradition.
Objections
Q: Aren’t you delusional?
A: A delusion is a perception that is demonstratively wrong. While a very, very few otherkin hold to genetic causes for their status as such, the vast majority either hold to psychological or untestable spiritual hypothesises. For the most part, the psychological hypothesises given boil down to ‘we’re weird’.
So, to answer this with a question: Can you demonstrate that I am not weird in the way I have described? If not, I suggest you come up with another argument. If so, I eagerly await your explanation of how you are, from an Internet connection, able to psychoanalyze me, what your qualifications for doing so are, and what color shirt I am wearing.
Q: But you don’t have any proof…
A: Not in the scientific sense, no. But we aren’t asking for you to believe us so much as not harass us. There is a difference. I don’t particularly care what you think. I do care what you do, and what you say. No, we can’t prove scientifically that we exist, yet. No one’s done a survey of therians and otherkin and shown that we behave in the ways we say. But it isn’t that much of a stretch to say it’s possible (given that there are people who behave like animals and not at all like humans known as clinical lycanthropes, it’s fairly reasonable to say that perhaps there are people who behave in the way we do), and so we ask for your courtesy.
Q: But you’re dangerous to young people, right?
A: The general philosophy behind this question, near as I’ve been able to determine, is that therians/otherkin are basically engaged in some sort of fantasy delusion world, and also will give people bad advice. Let’s deal with each in turn.
Firstly, this is not a ‘fantasy’. We are saying that we are odd. Some individuals have complicated explanations for why we are odd, but these for the most part follow their own logic and also don’t wreck the lives of the people who believe them, so I don’t care. I have no reason to; I only care when they start arguing that other people should believe as they do, or when I find their explanations interesting enough. I see little reason anyone else should, unless they believe that any irrationality is bad, period.
Second, the episodes of bad advice. Yes, it sometimes happens. Someone in the therian/otherkin communities gives someone really fucking stupid advice. This also happens in literally every other subgroup of people, except the subgroup called ‘people who don’t give other people really fucking stupid advice, ever’, which is a ridiculously small group. We try to police our own, and make sure people don’t get away with telling vulnerable individuals to do bad things, just like every other community. I am also unaware of any actual evidence that the problem of bad advice is more widespread in the therian/otherkin communities than in any other community.
Q: What about all the ex-therians/otherkin?
A: When I’ve heard about these individuals, they were usually harassed until they renounced their identity; I recall one individual saying something along the lines that she knew someone who was ‘quite rightly’ harassed for their identity as otherkin until they renounced it. There’s a reasonable conclusion here, and it’s not that therians/otherkin are somehow ‘faking it’ (where, I must iterate again, ‘it’ is ‘being odd’), it’s that a few individuals were bullied to the point where they only felt safe by renouncing their identity.
Even if they are genuine, given something as diverse as therianthropy/otherkin, I don’t doubt that there’s more than one cause. Perhaps they were able to somehow train themselves out of therianthropic/otherkin behaviors (and it would be training—you don’t magically snap your fingers and eliminate behavioral trends), and somehow eliminate therianthropic/otherkin urges. Doesn’t mean all of us can—and given that rearranging your mind can be expected to have nasty side-effects, at least for a time, besides being a great amount of trouble, I see little point in doing so.
All the ex-therians/ex-otherkin I’ve seen are either claimed and not actually shown to exist or people both illogically and rudely suggesting that because they turned out to be wrong, all of us are wrong as a result. Same thing with ex-multiples. Generally these people seem to suggest that science and/or religion says that therianthropy/otherkin is impossible… despite the fact that I’m unaware of any compelling arguments in regards to science, and my response to the religious angle is the same as my response to any religious individual trying to force it on others.
I also like to note that there are therian scientists and (local) religious leaders. While this doesn’t by itself prove anything, it certainly does suggest that these individuals found no contradiction between therianthropy and science or religion, respectively. I’m aware, of course, of the ability of humans to hold two opinions on a matter at once, but consider the fact relevant enough to mention nonetheless.
Q: Aren’t you delusional?
A: A delusion is a perception that is demonstratively wrong. While a very, very few otherkin hold to genetic causes for their status as such, the vast majority either hold to psychological or untestable spiritual hypothesises. For the most part, the psychological hypothesises given boil down to ‘we’re weird’.
So, to answer this with a question: Can you demonstrate that I am not weird in the way I have described? If not, I suggest you come up with another argument. If so, I eagerly await your explanation of how you are, from an Internet connection, able to psychoanalyze me, what your qualifications for doing so are, and what color shirt I am wearing.
Q: But you don’t have any proof…
A: Not in the scientific sense, no. But we aren’t asking for you to believe us so much as not harass us. There is a difference. I don’t particularly care what you think. I do care what you do, and what you say. No, we can’t prove scientifically that we exist, yet. No one’s done a survey of therians and otherkin and shown that we behave in the ways we say. But it isn’t that much of a stretch to say it’s possible (given that there are people who behave like animals and not at all like humans known as clinical lycanthropes, it’s fairly reasonable to say that perhaps there are people who behave in the way we do), and so we ask for your courtesy.
Q: But you’re dangerous to young people, right?
A: The general philosophy behind this question, near as I’ve been able to determine, is that therians/otherkin are basically engaged in some sort of fantasy delusion world, and also will give people bad advice. Let’s deal with each in turn.
Firstly, this is not a ‘fantasy’. We are saying that we are odd. Some individuals have complicated explanations for why we are odd, but these for the most part follow their own logic and also don’t wreck the lives of the people who believe them, so I don’t care. I have no reason to; I only care when they start arguing that other people should believe as they do, or when I find their explanations interesting enough. I see little reason anyone else should, unless they believe that any irrationality is bad, period.
Second, the episodes of bad advice. Yes, it sometimes happens. Someone in the therian/otherkin communities gives someone really fucking stupid advice. This also happens in literally every other subgroup of people, except the subgroup called ‘people who don’t give other people really fucking stupid advice, ever’, which is a ridiculously small group. We try to police our own, and make sure people don’t get away with telling vulnerable individuals to do bad things, just like every other community. I am also unaware of any actual evidence that the problem of bad advice is more widespread in the therian/otherkin communities than in any other community.
Q: What about all the ex-therians/otherkin?
A: When I’ve heard about these individuals, they were usually harassed until they renounced their identity; I recall one individual saying something along the lines that she knew someone who was ‘quite rightly’ harassed for their identity as otherkin until they renounced it. There’s a reasonable conclusion here, and it’s not that therians/otherkin are somehow ‘faking it’ (where, I must iterate again, ‘it’ is ‘being odd’), it’s that a few individuals were bullied to the point where they only felt safe by renouncing their identity.
Even if they are genuine, given something as diverse as therianthropy/otherkin, I don’t doubt that there’s more than one cause. Perhaps they were able to somehow train themselves out of therianthropic/otherkin behaviors (and it would be training—you don’t magically snap your fingers and eliminate behavioral trends), and somehow eliminate therianthropic/otherkin urges. Doesn’t mean all of us can—and given that rearranging your mind can be expected to have nasty side-effects, at least for a time, besides being a great amount of trouble, I see little point in doing so.
All the ex-therians/ex-otherkin I’ve seen are either claimed and not actually shown to exist or people both illogically and rudely suggesting that because they turned out to be wrong, all of us are wrong as a result. Same thing with ex-multiples. Generally these people seem to suggest that science and/or religion says that therianthropy/otherkin is impossible… despite the fact that I’m unaware of any compelling arguments in regards to science, and my response to the religious angle is the same as my response to any religious individual trying to force it on others.
I also like to note that there are therian scientists and (local) religious leaders. While this doesn’t by itself prove anything, it certainly does suggest that these individuals found no contradiction between therianthropy and science or religion, respectively. I’m aware, of course, of the ability of humans to hold two opinions on a matter at once, but consider the fact relevant enough to mention nonetheless.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 12:37 am (UTC)The only thing I would disagree with is the beginning part, "Therianthropy is the condition of having abnormally strong and/or numerous animalistic behaviors or urges, usually ones which correspond to a specific species."
Even if that's true for most therians, I don't think it's very representative because it doesn't seem like what most therians would say if you asked them what therians are. Almost every description of therianthropy I've seen says something like "a strong identification with a non-human animal to the point that you identify as that animal" (or something like it).
I think this is important for three reasons: theoretically you could be really repressed therian who is so much repressed that they don't even feel the urges (or understand that they do), but feels like "something about this animal describes me anyway". You could also have someone who is emotionally numb/different/neurodiverse who doesn't experience "urge" in the same way, but feels internally that they are an animal. I think the identity is more important than the behavior or what you feel about it.
Second, it's easier to disprove that the behaviors are "really animal". But it's impossible to disprove an identity. It makes critics harder to attack us if we are not basing our point totally on behaviors.
Third, "the condition of having abnormally strong and/or numerous animalistic behaviors or urges, usually ones which correspond to a specific species" also describes clinical lycanthropes just as much as it describes therians. There's nothing wrong with being a clinical lycanthrope, and sometimes I feel that my own feelings are closer to that, but this is the important thing: not every clinical lycanthrope identifies as the species they act and feel as. According to the reports, a lot of them identify strongly as human and feel that the transformation into something other is very negative and against their identity. That doesn't describe most therians. It's possible to dislike being therian, of course, but usually therians don't feel they are "really human" but this animal thing is being forced on them outside their control. So it's important to show that therians identify with these behaviors as a part of the self.
I think behaviors and urges are very important, but I still think they're second to identity. I would put something like "someone who identifies in some way as a non-human animal, usually with urges/behaviors that match that animal" (rough words).
Of course, there might be a reason that you have done this different perspective, but I think it's a little risky to describe it just as that.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 01:26 am (UTC)In saying That doesn't describe most therians. It's possible to dislike being therian, of course, but usually therians don't feel they are "really human" but this animal thing is being forced on them outside their control., do you mean that "Therians do not think they are meant to be human, and the human animal is something they feel is forced onto them" or "Therians do not, unlike some clinical lycanthropes, feel that a non-human animal identity is forced on their human self," ?
I think it's probably the second one and I'm just struggling with quotation marks, but in the even that it is the first one, I'd dispute that usually therians don't feel they are "really human" bit - quite a few folks seem to feel equally in tune with their humanness as with their animalness as far as I understand. I just wanted to say that because as someone who does feel quite in tune with being human as well as being animal, it peeves me a bit when people assume I'm somehow unhappy or at odds with being human, or that I don't think I'm really human. I understand that for people who do not feel comfortable with being human, it can be very important to make that distinction, and I respect that. I also feel that it's important for people who are fine with their humanity to voice that as well, for the sake of perspective, so I am. Again, sorry if I'm disputing based on a misreading - just wanting to cover that point in case.
I do agree that the identity part might be worth emphasizing along with the behavior/urge part. As someone who doesn't have a great deal of urges that I feel are separate somehow from my humanity, and who doesn't "shift", I'd say that the "identity" part might be a bit more encompassing.
Ugh, sorry guys - I feel really clumsy about my writing at the moment so I apologize if this isn't the most coherent, but I do care about it, so I wanted to comment while it was fresh in my mind. Might need to come back again later. ^^
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 02:01 am (UTC)I think it's what most would answer if they were pressed about things that could be seen. There are also concepts that involve identifying as an animal that are not the same as therianthropy; for:
there's an even greater risk; people with power animals are not (automatically) therians, nor are people associated with animal archetypes. My knowledge of skeptic subculture leads me to conclude two things:
1. They are more interested in external relations and behaviors than identity.
2. They are heavily into behaviorism.
One of the central tenets of skepticism is that reality is knowable. My main concern is that if I set things up solely in the manner of identity, of something impossible to disprove, many individuals will not accept it--to them, impossible to disprove often seems to equal disproven.
This does say 'A Skeptic's Guide to Therianthropy' but I also aimed it in part at pseudoskeptics; partly because it might have some chance of success but also because it could be used to undercut them further.
That being said... your definition is probably better than mine.
Oh, and I do think of clinical lycanthropes as therians; just as the pathological version.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 02:09 am (UTC)Oh, I definitely would I agree with that. That's why I thought to mix the two: it's identity, but also often behavior.
Oh, and I do think of clinical lycanthropes as therians; just as the pathological version.
I agree, when it's the case that they identify as that animal or at least don't feel that what they experience is a horrible thing. (I know some therians who feel that their therian nature is often a difficult, frustrating and painful thing, and sometimes even think they would wish to give it up, but they don't feel completely alienated from it. In some way it is still an important part of their identity, even if it also causes pain.)
I personally have difficulty seeing how to put clinical lycanthropes who 100% identify as human (and not "human + animal" or "human with an animal side" etc.), and feel that the non-human animal experience is a demonic possession or an illness being forced on them, in the therianthrope box, though. It seems like in those cases it's more like the animal expression is a metaphor for something, not a deep inner part of their self.
But I guess you also could say they're just repressing their self. It's difficult to say, I guess, and I'm not a psychologist of course...
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 05:31 pm (UTC)This is my attitude to a lot in life so, grain of salt, but my stance is pretty much that that's their fucking problem. You can't change what something is just to make it more palatable or easy to discuss for another group of people. I mean, sure, you can rephrase or whatever in informal discussion, but changing it in a formal FAQ is not only misleading but has the potential to cause problems. Yay for the first person to say "But how are you a therian, you don't have urges and/or behaviours?"
(After writing, I realise that sounds like there's harshness directed at you. Not intended, at all. Not sure how to rephrase to fix it though.)
If saying that therians *often* experience behaviours and urges isn't enough for them then I'm not sure what else can be done without being inaccurate.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 02:05 am (UTC)That's the one I meant! Sorry if it was difficult to understand, I'm not the best writer. ^v^;; When I said "the animal thing being forced on them", I meant the non-human animal identity.
And of course I understand if you're clumsy with writing, like I said, I am a lot. ^v^;;;
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 05:50 pm (UTC)Thank you for letting me explain! ^v^
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 04:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 09:59 pm (UTC)2. Didn't think of it. This is only partly done.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 06:39 pm (UTC)“[…]which is in my opinion a bad thing if and only if they refuse to consider the possibility of a psychological perspective. […]”
Indeed! So much so. I mean, even those who can not concede that something could be going on in the brain as an effect of being therian/otherkin/etc worries me to a fair extent.
I find it interesting that you include the topic of why some many therians write essays. Is this something people actually ask a lot of? I agree that it very well might be a way for people to explain their experiences and thoughts and share them with a lot of people. Plus, for some people who have theriotypes that are not as common they can be a way to reach out to those who might not have ever met a cheetah or swan or so on therian. Plus I do agree that it is likely also a cultural norm do write down one’s thoughts.
- Mist Weaver
no subject
Date: 2012-11-09 09:58 pm (UTC)Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 01:08 am (UTC)There is nothing contradictory in a skeptic view of therianthropy and the existence of identities. However presenting therianthropy as a "condition" might be misleading because it hasn't been studied medically or otherwise. It's not even that there is no consensus, it's just barely known if at all. At most you can define it as a "constant state of being" in its most basic sense.
Another point regarding "Why so many therians essays": you might say it's a social norm, but not as a norm that people emulate like a trend. In fact, social reward would not be an explanation for isolated individuals who still write essays (because they don't get that reward, being withdrawn from others), and there is no punishment to enforce the writing of essays either; I've never seen anyone criticizing people on forums because so and so didn't write essays (in fact most of people don't write).
I feel that it is more of an internet widespread practice. Like other subcultures, we do like to keep records of our own history, tracks of what has happened or has been said. Moreover, there is a specific motivation to develop resources for self-help (hence the large number of FAQ and other guides). This is because we have specific needs that are unmet in the outside world (like, finding peers). And lastly, there may be a minority of individuals who want to establish themselves as important voices in the community (gain of social status). From what I've seen for the past decade, I think these are the main reasons for the establishment of personal websites in the therian community.
The rest of the FAQ is good. If you're okay with that, when you're done with it I'd be interested in translating it to French for the French section of my website (and any other place you'd like it to be submitted to).
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 02:40 am (UTC)Since I don't really consider it quite done, what else do you think it should cover?
And I'd like that very much.
no subject
Date: 2012-11-10 04:55 am (UTC)I can't think of anything else to cover that you didnt mention already.