Therianthropy vs Otherkin

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*

I'm new to all this so correct me if I interpreted wrong:

Otherkins identify more with the animal/being they are kin to. It's more a "I am..." like with ethnicity? "I am Germanic."

Therian's are more an experience of the animal/being as in a "I have..." like with disorders? (Not calling it a disorder just it's talked about in the same way.) "I have anxiety."

That's just how I understood it, but could be wrong.
.
Another thing I caught was Therians are usually "real" animals that have been documented as existing like wolves, horses, foxes, etc.
While Otherkin don't have to be and can stem from mythology like dragons, unicorns, basilisk, etc.

I dunno, I would never call myself otherkin but a therian, mainly because I am more animalistic with my theriotype than I am sapient (which would be more in line with otherkin).

I don't believe that mythology or Earth-based animals have a thing to do with it but again, this is just my beliefs. The two things (therian and otherkin), to me, are separate but equal. If they were included in otherkin, why not just call everyone an otherkin rather than some people calling themselves therian?

I think that some people are not noticing that some words/meanings change over time, like with otherkin now only meaning sapient creatures and therians as more animalistic creatures. Just cause they existed back in the day doesn't necessarily mean that it's the same thing today.

I also think elitist is a bit far-fetched and insulting because a lot of people just don't feel the way that they identify as. It's like a defense mechanism provided by those who desperately want some reasoning behind the fact that some people just don't feel like they are otherkin.

When it comes to experiences described by "otherkin" and "therianthrope" we've come to feel there aren't many hard and fast rules. We've come to feel like there aren't clear boundaries between these labels, or there are until someone looks closer. These boundaries are often marked by gradients, not lines. There are exceptions, all the time.

Making things more confusing is that the two communities seemed to have had their own definitions for the label of the other community. Add to that different definitions of both of the terms existing somewhere in these communities. (Therians: earthly animal or just anything animalistic / otherkin: anything nonhuman / mythical creatures / sentient mythical creatures.) Depending on where and when you go the ratio of which definition is the more popular seems to slide around.

Which definition should be used, we don't have a strong opinion, honestly? Well more accurately, we've personally seen the debate on therians being earthly animals or anything animalistic be debated for the past 15 years in the therianthrope community. We've just started to feel like this will be something the community will exist with going on to some degree or another for the foreseeable future.

For us, we have enough trouble figuring out how there are people in our system who simultaneously are a single "mythical animal" yet are also 2-3 Earthly animals because lack of shifting and such. (Example, Quatz, feels like a amphithere but yet he is emerald tree boa and resplendent quetzal. He doesn't have three theriotypes, he either has 1 or 2 depending on how he looks at his experiences.) That or people who can't separate their animality from their humanity so they either see an Earthly animal or a mythical humanoid beast. (Example: me, yes to be a gray wolf but also... werewolf because humanity/animality.) We have enough trouble making sense of our own personal therianthropy, we don't feel we can adequately give our full 2 cents into the discourse. Because of our confusing perspectives all of it feels like a "no one is wrong, no one is right" opinion scenario because everyone is just finding what makes the most sense from within their own experiences, identity, state of being, what-have-you. Such a stance though is all very unhelpful in a discourse though.

(2020-05-03 14:08)elinox Wrote:  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.

Not exactly, always always? We've seen a number of outliers to the rule defining therianthropy and using "animal" to mean "animalistic beast, mythical or not."

For a few archived examples we've have on hand (maybe we should go hunting for stuff like this in archived websites sometime?):

On Swiftpaw's website Otherwonders included an essay written by SnowSpectre in December 2001 and titled "Unified Theory" included the sentences, "This theory (that weresides originate as archetypes from the collective unconscious) explains the following things: 1. how you can have a mythical wereside 2. the existence of "real" vampires 3. why wolves (and other predators) are so common in the were community 4. how you can have multiple weresides 5. why your wereside has nothing to do with where you live (the collective unconscious is not culture or region-specific) It also makes the following predictions: 1. if we were to invent a new mythical creature, let's call it the 'Fnup', define it well enough, and tell enough people about it, eventually werefnups will start being born.." - SnowSpectre, "Unified Theory," Otherwonders, 25th December 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20041224091156if_/http://www.otherwonders.com/swiftpaws/therian/old/unifiedtheory.html [accessed 20 December 2019].

On Therianthropy.org in the opening essay titled "Therianthropy - An Overview" written by Jakkal in 2002 includes the statement: "Polyweres are those that have more than one animal species for their wereside. This means they could have (for example) a complete canine mindset, and complete feline mindset or they could have a "spirit" that has taken the form of a hybrid creature (for example, a wolfcat). If you've been cruising around the therianthropic community, you'll also note a high amount of "Mythical" weresides such as dragons, gryphons and unicorns. Again, it's none of my business to say what is, and what is not truly "were". Mythical weresides are true weresides as far as I'm concerned. Many mythical weresides are actually just polyweresides all rolled into one creature. Many polyweres have a hard time expressing to others what they are, so they use the "term" that fits them the closest. For example, a "Gryphon" were could be one that feels a calling towards both feline and avian. A dragon could be any mix of large animal + winged animal, or larger reptiles. Just because a were calls them self "Gryphon" or "Dragon" doesn't necessarily mean they are truly that species, but that is how they can best portray themselves to others. This however does not mean to imply that those people that /do/ consider themselves mythical weres are confused, or a simple mixture of animals." - Jakkal, "Therianthropy - An Overview," Therianthropy.org, December 2002, http://web.archive.org/web/20031204040835/http://www.therianthropy.org:80/so/overview/therianthropy.asp [accessed 25 December 2018].

In Shifters.org's Encyclopedia for community terms, posted in 2004, includes this term and definition: "Mythics (Mythicals): Therians who believe their wereside is that of an mythological creature (Dragon, Unicorn, Gryphon, Etc). This is an accepted form of Therianthropy. Editor's Note: While mythical weresides have been accepted in the community, it was not always so. Some to this day still believe that a therian is limited to earth creatures, of the past and present." - [3] Jakkal, "M" Shifters.org, 2004,http://web.archive.org/web/20060517152901/http://www.therianthropy.org:80/SO/terms-m.htm [accessed 11 April 2019].

In Lupa's Field Guide to Otherkin, published in 2007, on page 124 she notes the existing debate within the therianthrope community over if "therianthropy should be limited only to those who identify as animals native to this plane of existence." She goes on to state she interviewed a number of dragons who referred to themselves as theriansthtopes. - Lupa. A Field Guide To Otherkin. Megalithica Books: Stafford, 2007.

On the website, Therians United, a website that was around in the mid-2000s, the distinction between therianthropes and otherkin is described as being: a majority of otherkin have most of their experienced focused around memories of past lives as, usually a sentient and mostly mythical, beings and as a whole tend to reject their humanity; whereas therainthropes describe their nature as being animistic and still recognize their humanity as being an integral part of their nature. - "Otherkin," Therians United, https://web.archive.org/web/20070703022407/http://www.therianthropes.com:80/otherkin.htm [accessed 2 April 2019].

On Therian Nation's post "Introduction to Modern Therianthrtopy as a Personal Identity" states, "There is not a hard distinction, however, and individuals with mythological or non-earth animal identities may have experiences that are best supported by the Therian community, such as individuals who identify as dragons." - "Introduction to Modern Therianthrtopy as a Personal Identity," Therna Nation, 9 June 2016, https://theriannation.tumblr.com/post/145669058657/03-introduction-to-modern-therianthropy-as-a [accessed July 9 2019].

A minority (though therianthropy.org and shifters.org used to be major websites in their day) for sure, but it is not likely the idea of "dragon therians" or whatnot is entirely unheard of. Rare and a bit controversial, but not unheard of.

(2020-05-03 14:08)elinox Wrote:  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'.

Actually, alterhuman means "A category of personal identity which encompasses identification that is alternative to the common societal idea of humanity” and includes groups other than just "otherkin" and "therian." The term also made to include: animal-hearted people, all kinds of fictionkin regardless of their kintype,vampires, plurals, transhumanists, and such.

So alterhuman isn't meant to mean the same thing as otherkin at all.

Source: https://phasmovore.tumblr.com/post/98482696958/this-will-probably-be-my-last-post-on-semantics

- Cavern-Risen (female, wolf/werewolf)