Is Therianthropy the source of our experiences or a descriptor of them?

I wasn't sure whether this was agreed on in the community and I just wanted to ask for some clarity as I've seen the term 'Therianthropy' used in both contexts!

Basically, do you think that:

- "Therianthropy is a term which describes my set of experiences as my theriotype (such as shifts)"

or

- "Therianthropy is an innate quality that I have which is the source of my therian experiences (such as shifts)"

It's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" scenario. Do therian experiences make a therian? Or does therianthropy cause therian experiences? The way we discover our own theriotypes suggests the former - i.e. "I am a wolf therian because I experience wolf like qualities in shifts", but I've also heard it talked about as something innate too, as the mechanisms by which our experiences occur.

---

quick edit because apparently i didn't proofread lmao-

I personally see it as a descriptor. I am not spiritual, so i do not believe in an innate soul or something similar to this. I call myself a roadrunner because it is the closest animal that matches my experiences, and i did not start this journey even knowing i was specifically a bird.
To me, my experiences are what define me as a therianthrope. If i stopped completely having those experiences, i would most likely just start calling my theriotype a heart-type. This makes it hard to differenciate from cameos, but my cameos have always kinda been spurred by something in my environment while my therianthropic experiences just happens on their own.

@Hemlock I completely agree with you here; I feel the same about my being a crow. I think there's some interesting introspection to be done on if our experiences as a roadrunner and a crow have a definable source but, while we're unsure of that, therianthropy is in my view a useful term to say "I'm not sure what we're experiencing but its the same thing as this whole community is experiencing".

I lean a bit more towards my therianthropy being something more innate because it's very integrated in my life. My therianthropy has no traceable cause; not as the result of trauma, not imprinting, etc. My parents have videos of me acting animalistic before I could even form memories. I'm constantly shifted to some degree, and the way I see and understand the world is very much through a wolf lens and always has been. If you were to take my therianthropy away, I would lose the core of who I am.

(Yesterday 10:21)DyadDryad Wrote:  I wasn't sure whether this was agreed on in the community and I just wanted to ask for some clarity as I've seen the term 'Therianthropy' used in both contexts!

Basically, do you think that:

- "Therianthropy is a term which describes my set of experiences as my theriotype (such as shifts)"

or

- "Therianthropy is an innate quality that I have which is the source of my therian experiences (such as shifts)"

As far as the word itself and its context-based meanings:
The use of the word itself depends on it's word-sense, so its meaning may refer to different aspects of being a therian depending on the focus of the sentence.

Technically it's a descriptor, but depending on the word-sense it's being used in it can also be used to reference anything that's part of the state of being a therian (referring to the ontological state or referring individually to the source of the experience or its effects)

Use Examples:

Use 1: The top-level use as a Definition/description of the Ontological state:
"Therianthropy" as describing the ontological state of existing as an animal within a human body." Here, the word "Therianthropy" isn't individually referencing the source or what flows from it, just the state of being."


Use 2: To describe individual aspects of the whole experience of being an animal:
"Tell us about your therianthropy" would be referring to everything about your state of being an animal; it's source and experiences and they're usually asking for you to break it down into individual parts, experiences, etc

Quote:It's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" scenario. Do therian experiences make a therian? Or does therianthropy cause therian experiences? The way we discover our own theriotypes suggests the former - i.e. "I am a wolf therian because I experience wolf like qualities in shifts", but I've also heard it talked about as something innate too, as the mechanisms by which our experiences occur.

---

As for the actual definition of the state:
This differs from space to space because there's no central group defining it anymore..we're all like tiny nations with our own versions of the idea, which has been both a boon and a bane.
(We're currently discussing forming a cohesive definition TG will be using in another thread, since it often isn't described in a cohesive way and has led to confusion. See: https://forums.therian-guide.com/Thread-What-should-our-official-stance-be)

My personal definition is the following:
"Therianthropy is the condition of existing as an animal in the current day. It is the passive receipt and perception of what we consider to be animal experiences, and the knowledge of what one innately is. It can be a sense, perception, or 'knowing' that what one sees in the mirror is not what we truly are underneath. What can be covered under therianthropy is broad, but this core idea is one we all share: a distinct experience that we are not, or not entirely, human."

This was what I understood the concept to mean when we were posting on AHWw, so when I heard newer people saying that you didn't need to have animal nature already present to have the experience of being an animal it reads completely backwards and misfocused from most conversations I've had since I awakened.

(edit: corrected spelling of "led")

(Yesterday 19:19)Cygnus Wrote:  (We're currently discussing forming a cohesive definition TG will be using in another thread, since it often isn't described in a cohesive way and has lead to confusion. See: https://forums.therian-guide.com/Thread-What-should-our-official-stance-be)

This is actually why I asked this! Was originally going to be a reply but turned into a question when I realised I didn't exactly know the answer myself lol.

Quote:My personal definition is the following:
"Therianthropy is the condition of existing as an animal in the current day. It is the passive receipt and perception of what we consider to be animal experiences, and the knowledge of what one innately is. It can be a sense, perception, or 'knowing' that what one sees in the mirror is not what we truly are underneath. What can be covered under therianthropy is broad, but this core idea is one we all share: a distinct experience that we are not, or not entirely, human."

Yeah, I agree with this, and I certainly wouldn't count myself among the "people saying that you didn't need to have animal nature already present to have the experience of being an animal".

Thanks for the detail, very informative and well written!

There isn't a consensus, it's too individually varied. This often came up in different threads across kin communities way back when. A nature vs. nurture type inquiry. I've personally found that a great many who experience shifts and then later find therianthropy often begin to search deeper and lean towards the "it's always been there" camp, particularly those who experienced shifts in childhood or at a younger age and find the correct terms later in life. That can extend to many topics when it comes to self discovery. Rarely have I met therians who attributed their therianthropy to just solely experiences or a "this is what I do, so I am" perspective without having a prior framework of innate feeling. A lot of therians are in the "this is what I am therefore this is what I do" camp.

Those few that I have talked to in the past who are in the 'from experience only' group pointed towards a particular experience that changed their perspective- often psychological or spiritual in nature. It wasn’t innate for them, it "just happened." It's more common to see the experience or action only crowd for hearted/kith types. Sometimes a 'from experience only' kin is born from a traumatic experience as well.

As far as my own kin journey, I consider mine mostly innate, but the experiences and reactions that actively occur reinforce a deeper understanding that clicks things into place when innate feelings being me questions without proper answers. I've also discovered a lot of my personal preferences come from an inner compass.


On a more chicken or the egg thing and to speak a bit more on that.. it's a question you can ask yourself *and* answer when you are at a certain level of introspection. Sometimes relationships to things develop ironically. My main kintype is not from here. They look a little like horses. I'm an equestrian. Many would say zhuards, my kintype, looks horsey because I myself have a horse hobby. The innate answer is that I, as a zhuard, have sought out an animal that reminds me physically a little of what I looked like. And to add a further layer of complexity- me being horse-hearted/kith is a separate matter that would not have come about if I didn't have certain experiences.

So to answer your poll- a mix of both.