Should we make a distinction between the different causes of therianthropy?

So, the impression I'm getting from you all is that because therianthropy is a community based around experiences, memories, and/or relationships that form our sense of who we are. Explaining your specific experience in detail is therefore more useful than a shortcut because nuance is valued over ease of access. Is that correct? If so, I understand why we don't need more terms, at least not in the way I was thinking.

Why would this be a bad idea? While I do not know a specific answer to what we should use after good introspective discussion here, the idea of having more specific words to describe the experience of spiritual and psychological therianthropy sounds appealing. What exactly does spiritual therianthropy entail? Or the other one? What can we derive from both instances? When we say we're psychological therians, for instance, we do have to talk about what it means to us to get our point across and to each, the response will differ. The problem I had with zoesthesia was that it'll eventually lead us into the same problem we've had before. It will eventually be ridiculed (or misused) anyway, same as with therianthropy nowadays. But I don't see that problem here, since we're talking about totally new terminology, not in exchange of already common terms. If we could have additional terms to help explain the more abstract ones better, then by all means, do. We could benefit from having a couple of terms extra if they are wisely and uniformly chosen. It's not like spiritual therianthropy is to disappear from existence all of a sudden. It's always going to have its users who stand by the idea.

I'm just thinking that broadening the terminology could lead to better acceptance/understanding of the ones already in use. Because saying you're a psychological therian doesn't make it easier necessarily to introduce yourself in front of people. You'll always have to elaborate on your stance if you want to be taken seriously. With newer terms, the advantage is we'll get shortcuts to describe that which takes so much time nowadays to describe. In the end, all new systems, ideas, initiatives have their advantages and disadvantages. Heck, even the ones already in existence do.

If this initiative's been thought out well, I would say give it a shot. There's no harm in trying.

As someone new to exploring therianthropy space, I will say adding a handful of labels seems a bit extra at this point. There are two main reasons I hold that view at this time.

1. Therianthropy is a fairly small space, so the subcategorization isn't that necessary. Imagine I have 30 files on my desktop, and I want to organize them. I don't make 30 folders, and I'd imagine it's very unlikely I'd even make 10. There is a point at which the amount of categories is more cumbersome than just sorting through the terms themselves, and without knowing an exhaustive list of the terms you seek to add, my instinct tells me it would feel like overcategorization to me.

2. As others have said, there is a benefit to discussing your experiences in a topic like therianthropy. I am still feeling myself out on the topic, and while contherian and suntherian are terms I have seen - and are perfectly fine under the surface - if I were to be forced to wade through them immediately upon entry here, it would be a lot to juggle. I'm someone who likes terminology - so long as its consistent. Given the personalized nature of this space though, it might be better to stick with the megacategories of psychological and spiritual, and even those still have some grey boundaries.

I think they wouldn't really be that useful, since we already have spiritual and psychological. You could say something like "I think my alterhumanity is a result of ____" but I don't think an entire word is needed. Also, from my understanding, they don't have much of an effect on the actual experience and are more of a self-description/belief that you get to choose.

Well, of course we can label more things, but why?
As many have said, Psychological/Spiritual connection encompass everything. Moreover, I think that our therianthropy connection cannot be explained through categorization, because many things that we're experiencing have more connected, yet chaotic nature. We cannot say that solely X or Y is caused my therianthropy, even when we feel that it is. Sticking to something easier to understand makes us attach to theories. And let's be honest, most of the theories doesn't go so smooth, so what's happening that we tend to be with label as long as we can or fluctuate between labels every season. Aren't we suppose to cling to something that is certain, to have as unbiased experience as we possibly can?
I don't know accurately why I am therian, but what's certain that this is due to psychological nature.
In the spiritual sense, people tend to make theories that connects to their beliefs, because this makes everything easier. Nevertheless, noone can certainly say that it's true, spiritual person can only believe that it works like that. It bring sense of understanding that many of us crave. It's okay to try rationalise everything. And yet we need to be careful not to confuse ourselves with the expectations that we impose on therianthropy.

Heyyy. I'm quite late to this topic, and so much has already said, but there are a spot that was only briefly touched upon that I'd like to voice my thought on.

I like to stress test things, so let's say this does happen and becomes well established. Especially younger ones, around my age (16) and younger will decide on an origin. My concern here is that, like theriotypes, there will be a strong sense and feeling of belonging to one origin. Similar to echo chamber, like prev. mentioned. It becomes very easy for newcomers to 'sort' themselves, and then confirm themselves over and over within that label.

It could create a barrier there, maybe similar to how many therians begin as eg. a wolf, only to figure out many years later that they're not a wolf. This maturity to figure out who you are comes with age and time, but making these splits between origins is similarly fickled. Without them, it compells individuals to read about longer descriptions of other beliefs and develop their own.

Of course it can make language within the community easier, but even so, it would likely be another label someone new flips through and chooses, based on their immediate thoughts regarding the topic.

Others on the other hand, might have not figured out what they believe in. Youngsters (defining it as around my age and younger) or others might fly in greeting those with (un)helpful thoughts on what you should or could believe in, again limiting the amount of introspection many might do.

Basically repeated myself here on one aspect, but it's difficult for me to keep my thoughts short haha.

~Greenleaf

---

Still thinking about it, I'd also like to add:

While some in the community have established their belief so often that it's tiresome to re-explain everything every time, many could use the opportunity to explain the beliefs they've established. This way, they can actively gain feedback and insight on aspects of it that make or don't make sense (stress testing <3). It also compells to further thought on whether this belief still holds true, or whether it has changed.
Could elaborate, but I believe it's clear enough what I mean.