RE: Your opinions on microlabels?
Everyone has covered what I want to say in much better words than I could. x3 But in short-- I think microlabels just serve to divide the community and (ironically) set up barriers to understanding. More often, I see microlabels created because individuals want to 'coin' something to make them feel important, rather than because it's actually useful to the community.
(Clarification: when I say microlabels, I'm thinking of those that divide therianthropy or try to encompass a specific, sometimes contradictory, experience: such as cambitherian, otherpaw, holothere, faunalune, etc)
I understand that some find microlabels affirming, or that they assist in communicating an experience that is otherwise hard to describe concisely. I can relate to the latter reason. Especially in fast-moving conversations, it's hard to express myself without going into paragraphs of explanation, which isn't always possible or ideal. However, in these situations I think it's better to create a 'microlabel' that is self-explanatory, or just simplify your experience to a few words.
A good example is suntherian vs. vacillant therian. These terms are usually considered synonymous. But one of them is not understandable without googling the explanation, whereas the other is. (The sun- prefix isn't widely understood, whereas vacillant is a word used in other contexts, so the meaning can be inferred.)
This is also why I despise terms like those I described above... Holothere is not intelligible just by reading the word. Neither is otherpaw. Both make communicating your experiences more difficult than not using a specific label entirely. You'd get more mileage by using or combining existing words, like (for otherpaw) using quadrobist or cosplayer.
(Of course, some labels are also redundant or based on misinformation, such as holothere and cambitherian, so there is no good alternative-- but that's just another reason why they shouldn't be used, and why you should explain your experience instead.)
- Fern
|