I debated replying further, because it seems like most of my points were missed, but I wanted to at least attempt to clarify some things in the hopes people understand what I was trying to get across.
(2020-05-02 1:49)PinkDolphin Wrote: While I understand what you try to say. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. This is a New thing.
Up until 213/2015 ish (mind: the first 22 years!) any animalistic, instinct-driven 'animal' was seen as therian. Not 'earthen' or 'non-earthen' terms that make equally less sense than dividing fat from skinny or blonde from brown haired transgenders. Because the shape does not influence the experience, so should not be a factor to seperate two people, communities or experiences.
Actually, therians have always been seen as "earthly" animals. It goes without saying that therians are animals found on earth because it's a part of biology. Animals are found on Earth, hence, earthly animals.
PinkDolphin Wrote:But does that make therian the umbrella term of Kith? Hmmm, no?
As far as my undertstnading goes, kith is something entirely different than otherkin or therian. It's stronger than liking an animal, but not identifying as one. So no, it wouldn't be under therianthropy.
PinkDolphin Wrote:Some fictionkin identify as animalistic characters. The experiences are often the same as a therian. Simular experiences, simular kintypes.. Does that make fictionkin an umbrella term of therian? Hmm, no?
Again, no. Fictionkin fall under the otherkin umbrella. If it's an animal from fiction, it's still from fiction, despite similarities to an animal. It's a character first, then an animal.
PinkDolphin Wrote:I wonder truely why otherkin Has to be an umbrella term. When there is no need for it really.
Because that's how it has traditionally been. It's not something new, otherkin and that community actually came about BEFORE the online therian community. According to the Otherkin Timeline by Orion Scribner, the first otherkin group (calling themselves the Elf Queen's Daughters and then later the Silver Elves) came about in the early 70's, possibly even in the late 60's. The first recorded use of the term 'otherkind' was in 1990.
Here it is, verbatim, from the Otherkin Timeline:"1990-04-18: In the listserve Elfinkind Digest #16 was the first use of the word “otherkind,” with a D, referring to real people who identify as other than human
." - from Lupa's Field Guide to Otherkin book.
The famous alt.horror.werewolves group was created in 1992. So, as you can see, otherkin came first and was defined as 'other than human', which included therianthropy (animal people) before there even was a therian community. Logically, it makes sense to then use 'otherkin' as the umbrella term because it was first and included therianthropy from the beginning. This is not a new idea.
(2020-05-01 23:43)PinkDolphin Wrote:
elinox Wrote:Here’s a good example: I knew someone who identified as a chaotic being, a demon, in her words. And, to the best of her knowledge, she experienced what therians would call shifts; she would have mental shifts into a more chaotic mindset, and she experienced phantom limbs. Her experiences, from what she shared, were indistinguishable from someone who identified as an animal. The only difference is that demons don’t exist in this reality, whereas animals do.
So you.. mean a therian?
I mean, his experiences aka shifts are animalistic, wild, feral, instinct-driven and not controlled by a source of magic, myth, human like conciousness like talking etc?
That's a therian, by the first 22 years of the community.
No, I mean a demon. A demon is not an animal, despite her having animalistic experiences, they are fictional/mythological creatures. I could see the argument for calling her a theriomythic, however she also had a demon culture and memories of interacting, with language, with other demons.
It seems you're trying to make the argument to use therianthropy as the umbrella term for otherkin? Which makes no sense because otherkin were first, and included therianthropy from the beginning. Therians have never included otherkin under their label because there are otherkin who are not animalistic.
PinkDolphin Wrote:What Has to be different nowedays?
Nothing is different nowadays, that's part of my point. The otherkin community has ALWAYS included therians, it's therians who don't WANT to be included with them. Which is just elitist bullshit.
PinkDolphin Wrote:Which is highly highly confusing because whenever used no one knows if it is meant as umbrella term or 'non-earthen'/non-animalistic creature. It's not logical to have 1 term have 2 definitions.. I know of many new members who get very confused about this.
Accept there is no creature called an "otherkin". Otherkin is the umbrella term because it defines a group of people. Demons, therians, plantkin, fictionkin, vampires, dragons, etc.ad nauseum, are types of otherkin. Think of it like this: you are human, I am human. However, you are from Europe and I am from North America. We're similar in that we're both human, but we're from different places. Otherkin/Human = same. Types of Otherkin = different places. Does that help to clarify?
PinkDolphin Wrote:Alterhuman...It's a more free and inclusive term that sounds like the best and most peacefull option to me.
And if you don't like the sound of it: either get over your personal association with it, or make a suggestion for an alternative sound (I heard 'alterkin' by example once being used or 'alterhumanity' or anything you feel gives less of a 'robot vibe').
It's actually not my own personal opinion on 'alterhuman'. It's simple semantics; it's redundant and trying to change something that there was nothing wrong with. 'Otherkin' was already that term, as I've been trying to explain. 'Alterhuman' is duplicative and created by people who simply don't like the word 'otherkin'.
PinkDolphin Wrote:So let me give my reason as simple as I can put it:
Therians experience a certain animalisticness, that otherkin do not.
Never did, never were meant to include.
Accept I've known, personally, otherkin who DO. They would never call themselves therians though, because they are not animals.
PinkDolphin Wrote:maybe even more of a reason to just let people chose and be whatever they feel is right. Rather than removing the options and lumping all boxes together into one big box that no one can truely associate with?
In this whole discussion, I've never once told anyone to call themselves something specific. Personally, I don't care what someone insists on calling themselves. I've simply provided evidence as to why the labels are related.
It doesn't really matter what anyone wants, the fact of the matter is that the term 'otherkin' has always included therians. At least, since the word was first coined and used back in 1990.
If the community wants, or thinks it needs, something different now, fine, but that's erasing our shared history. Like it or not, agree with it or not, therians are a type of otherkin, that's just a fact. *shrug*