First of all, I want OP to understand that this is not meant as a personal attack on them. I recognize that they were likely taught that these statements were true by others, and I am not angry with them(or anyone else who adopted these ideas). Both they, and you, are of course welcome to rebutt my statements and/or disagree as long as the discussion remains civil. Critical analysis is important.
---------------------------------
This topic has started to concern me greatly, as I have seen this idea promoted in other spaces(primarily reddit and tumblr) in connection with what I view as a form of group-think (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) and the promotion of ideas that do not align with mainstream medical or psychological views. ...And before anyone thinks that I've missed the point, I haven't; I am aware that the majority of people who seem to have adopted these terms(including OP) are not actually claiming to perceive themselves as biologically being a nonhuman animal. However, this association is presented, or alluded to, in nearly all of the community writings about these terms.
These terms seem to have originated during the tumblr-era, and gained new traction during the past year from what I have been able to dig up about them. The oldest mention of "Physical Therianthropy" I am aware of is from 2016, and "Holothere" was coined a year ago. The technical arguments I've seen in-favor of them appear to be identical, and Holothere is stated as being an alternative term for "Physical Therianthropy" that was intended, at least in part, for those who perceive themselves as being physiologically/materially an animal (and yes, this includes p-shifters because many describe themselves as being animals, not just "transforming humans"..).
About the arguments in favor of these:
Most of the writings promoting the idea of physical therianthropy use a red-herring argument to confuse the reader about the meaning of the word "physical". The most prevalent is one that attempts to conflate the neurobiological theories of gender with the idea of attributing physicality to aspects of the sense-of-Self. This argument uses a logical fallacy to misrepresent the ideas presented by academics in order to make the reader feel uncertain they understand the meaning of the word "physical". Many of us in the community are transgender individuals (myself included), and these ideas were targeted at that fact to appeal to the widest audience.
A second popular logical fallacy is also often associated with these terms; and has served to promote them to the more general therian community:
The basic argument is that if you see yourself as an animal, then your body must also be that of an animal (i.e. because an animal "owns" it, it is an animal's body). Therefore, it should be accepted as physical (but not biological). This appears to be OP's stance.
I know this has confused a lot of us, because--while we may feel that emotionally--the idea doesn't track logically, so you might be wondering if you may have missed alternative meanings for the words "physical", "biological", "gender", or you might even be wondering if identity is expansive in this way..
However, you likely already know the meanings of these words, and those meanings have not changed; there is no new information about them being presented that differs from the dictionary. The reason why so many of the community writings describing "Physical Therianthropy" seem so confusing is because they're presenting "almost-correct, but not quite" statements intended to sound authoritative so that the reader will be swayed into agreeing with them. Most arguments are attempts to sway the reader to a certain conclusion(including my own), but this one provides false narratives that portray the definitions of words as subjectively-defined when they are not(i.e. "I reject your reality and substitute my own"), these words have clear, objectively-defined meanings (the definition of physical is here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/physical ). You likely didn't misunderstand anything, the idea is just being misrepresented.
You can view an example of these arguments being used together in a community writing here::
https://epochryphal.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/on-physically-nonhuman/ It begins by presenting relatable ideas regarding how gender is spoken of casually online, then slowly introduces arguments that degrade and confuse the concepts before finally conflating a version of "I don't mean biologically" with "Yes, also biologically" halfway through, and linking questioning of that logical disconnect to ableism. The issues I have with this are not just about the power dynamics related to p-shifting claims that the author describes, but about misrepresenting when an objectively untrue statement about reality is being made and then encouraging others to validate it; those power dynamics did not appear out of thin air, nor were they only confined to p-shifting claims (I discuss this later under "how we got here").
What I've been hearing/seeing people saying:
All of those I've talked to, or read statements from, described simply preferring the word "physical" and are using it in the same way as "visceral" to mean a deep-seated and all-permeating sense of their animality, but the substitution with "physical" is--as many have noted--an incorrect use of this word. Most have also mentioned that they adopted these terms to effectively "separate themselves from the fluff" (the non-serious people); they want their experiences to be acknowledged for having the same level of seriousness they regard them with.. I do get this, as I am one of those people myself; I am a wolf/fox with no qualifiers attached.
For the most part, this is commonly understood to fall under Therianthropy, which is why so many of us keep saying that.. Most here view ourselves as the animal, though much of the community now uses "I identify as.." to say it, which is fine as long as the meaning is still being understood. I imagine that the reason why people are using "physical" to describe themselves is similar to why I refuse to use "identity" to describe what I am; this is a full-time experience with significant effects on daily life for me, and not a label or a vague feeling. Everyone else can call it what they wish..
Why isn't much of the community describing a relatable experience?
Many explained that their experiences were not what was being described by a lot of other people in the community, and assumed they were experiencing something outside of the "Standard Therian Experience™". If you're wondering why your experiences seem to be so different than the more mild or human-centered ones others describe it's likely because the majority of therians turn out to "not be" therians at all; their stuff disappears within a short time and they leave. I know this because this has always been an aspect of the community, but we treat everyone the same because you never know who might be the one experiencing something serious that sticks with them for the rest of their lives, so we do this to not leave those glorious creatures behind. For the rest; they learn something valuable about themselves, even if it wasn't what they expected, and perhaps they made some friends along the way. These communities exist to support and educate for both of these situations, and is why minors are included in many of our spaces; it's more effective to see who's interested in learning what therianthropy is than to try to determine who's "real", as was done in the past.
This community is still about deep intrinsic animality, and no amount of fluff or watering-down will ever change that..
However, these terms do not appear to have been designed to cover just this experience, and that coverage has been more of a by-product of what they were defined to focus on, which can be glimpsed here:
https://holothere.carrd.co/#faq (the fact that it was placed in the FAQ and not the definition page should tell you something about the intent..). This term was specifically created to cater to those who perceived themselves as actually, physiologically/materially being a nonhuman animal, and they seem aware this is the basis of many p-shifting claims but are skirting around it. Delusion or not, this is what is being stated; their trying to avoid being ostracized for it. Which, not for nothing, I can understand..but let's continue..
You're probably wondering why the community got to the point where people felt the need to do this "wink wink, not p-shifting" bs..
How we got here:
Most in the community are likely aware that promoting the ideas of p-shifting has been widely banned both here and elsewhere, but some may not know the history of how this came about (A good thread where this was discussed in detail is available here:
https://forums.therian-guide.com/Thread-A-Concerning-Trend-p-shifting-mentions?pid=286956#pid286956). The short of it is that there were cults and financial scams centered around people claiming to have these abilities..members of the communities became lost following delusions that were normalized and promoted by the people around them. You can read about some of my own experience with this during the mid-90s here:
https://forums.therian-guide.com/Thread-Physical-therianthropy?pid=277731#pid277731; I was sent away as a teen over it and if friends from the Otherkin community had not showed me a more grounded path I would likely not be here to type this at all. The one thing that I want to impress upon those reading is that these are examples of how some types of delusions and cult-like behavior function "in the wild"; they are cautionary tales and should not be downplayed.
My arguments against these terms:
How is the "physical gender" argument a red-herring, and what actually is gender?
Here's a definition:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender (see 2b“sex sense” and “Are gender and sex the same? Usage Guide”)
(You may have noticed that the last link included: "gender expression refers to the physical and behavioral manifestations of one's gender identity." within the Usage Guide. This is referring to something happening within the physical world, such as behavior, mannerisms, actions, styles of dress and presentation...tangible things.)
Here's my own description of gender, as a trans person myself:
Gender is a sense of one's alignment(or non-alignment) with imposed sex-role stereotypes.. Gender is real in that it matters to those who are affected by those stereotypes, society's imposition of them, and the infringement of personal rights they represent.
In what way is gender related to biology?
The neurobiological view that I'm familiar with is where hormones and/or genetics are thought to influence the developing brain of a fetus in-utero. (This paper seems to support that hypothesis:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/).
Does this mean gender itself is physical?
No, gender is a social construct (an idea) which many people internalize and compare to their internal sense-of-Self in order to “see where they fit”within the sex-coded norms of society...it's a statement about conformity vs non-comformity, to a specific set of social expectations. Why we feel this way may be influenced by biology, but the point that we hold these views does not mean that the view itself is a physical phenomena...it is a sense, a belief, an emotion, a thing that exists only within headspace or "our very being"..whatever you want to call it, but it is not taking place in the world as a physical manifestation (though we often wish it did).
Some descriptions of "physical therianthropy" have used the neurobiological view of gender as a red-herring argument to try to get readers to question their own reality about whether they know the difference between something “experienced deeply” and something which is physical. Because we view ourselves as “wholly this”, it often leads to an internal struggle between our sense-of-Self and the direct experience of our physical bodies, and explaining that cognitive dissonance (2 seemingly-contradictory ideas being held), is easy to misinterpret. We may be "wholly" these things, but they are still not physical.
What is the difference between the sense-of-Self and physical phenomena?
Physical explicitly refers to something which is taking place in the material world/physical reality. This does not include the sense-of-Self. The sense-of-Self is referred to as a "psychical phenomena", meaning it is taking place ephemerally within the psyche. The brain supports this, but it is effectively part of the "software" running on it.
Are things that are physical necessarily biological?
Possibly, it depends on the context. OP has stated that they do not view themselves to be biologically a nonhuman animal, so in this context that should also logically mean that they do not view themselves as being physically one either, since in this context that statement refers to the same physical-in-reality body. This is a logical fallacy; in order to factually state that one is not biological it would also necessitate that one is also not physical. We do not have "physical, but not biological" bodies/states of existence in reality; it is the human condition. I despise acknowledging this as well, but to deny it would be to present myself inauthentically, and as a wolf, I refuse.
Side-topics that I feel are intrinsically linked to this discussion and should be mentioned:
Are all delusions "inherently safe" ?
No, because there is no universal answer to this. Because each individual is a unique case no generalizable statement about safety can be legitimately claimed, and the ones often floated on reddit do not represent how delusions are viewed by clinicians. Safety depends on the ability to reality-check and how grounded the individual can remain; sometimes that's the case and sometimes it isn't. The fact that we have a history of this happening within the communities that every space admits they acknowledge should be pretty good evidence that the latter does happen. Use your better judgement; if your instinct is telling you that something is bad, listen to it. If someone tells you to suspend your sense of safety to benefit another, get the heck out of there.
Do I personally think people with delusions and/or 'Shifters', etc should be ostracized?
No, I actually don't. I have always held the view that I don't care what people believe as long as they aren't hurting anyone, or themselves. That view was well-regarded when I first said it in the Otherkin community in '99, and I still believe it. Misrepresenting meanings and reality, however, leads to tangible forms of harm as we have seen in the past. As long as everyone is on the "up and up" about what they believe, are maintaining some level of objectivity/grounding in reality, and are not trying to get others to join in their delusions, I don't care what anyone is or why we are like this, and I don't view the communities as separated; just therians who lost their way in the past. I feel this is inline with what I remember from the earlier community when we were all still called Weres. Remain skeptical, look out for yourselves/each other, and don't be an a-hole; this is all I ask.
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
![[Image: therapy%20wolf.png]](https://pritisni.ctrl-alt-del.si/slikce/sig/therapy%20wolf.png)
