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
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.