I must say, it's incredibly disappointing to see people use AMAB/AFAB in this way. Some people are even buying into incredibly false "socialisation" theories that are used to bully trans people, particularly women, into believing they will never "escape" the way they started their lives. I highly encourage people to do some research into why this particular thing is completely inaccurate, as well as discourage people from the terms AFAB/AMAB unless absolutely, strictly necessary (a.k.a., discussions about being intersex specifically).

I believe what a good number of you are observing (along the lines of "women are more introspective/emotionally aware") is taught behaviour. You might be thinking, "didn't you just say socialisation isn't real?", but the reality is that there's a lot of nuance to the punishment/reinforcement cycle of gender roles and the socialisation argument tends to be made to deny or delegitimise a trans person's identity. But when someone transitions, they do tend to display more characteristics associated with their true gender than with what was (wrongly) assumed previously. Even before transition, this can very much be the case; often, this is what leads to someone understanding themselves as transgender. Additionally, there isn't actually any significant data that I'm aware of that states men's and women's brains are any different, and gender roles and expectations - therefore, behaviour - can change wildly depending on the individual, culture, generation, etc.

Based on my personal experience:

The people I've met in both communities have been a pretty even mix of men and women, primarily cisgender. However, the further you get into the ranks of popularity and authority, the less women there are and the more men there are. This is true in many other communities as well as careers/occupations. A good example I always give is in medicine; you'll often see a lot more female junior nurses, and a lot less female surgeons and specialised doctors. This sort of "filtering" occurs pretty much everywhere you look.

I do agree that certain organisms are assigned masculine/feminine. In my culture, cats are more "girly", dragons are definitely more "boyish". I was thinking about horses a bit ago, and it seems that their perception differs depending on the "seriousness" of their involvement in a given situation. For example, professional horse riders? A lot of men. But when we think of a child being interested in horses, we probably think of young girls. It makes me wonder if in other cultures aside from mine in Western Europe, there are unexpected associations that I'm not aware of.

I also agree that it's expected (at least in my culture) that women are more in touch with their emotions, a warped and more positive spin on "women are over-emotional" (which is entirely false). That may be part of the reason why there appear to be more women in the otherkin and therian communities. However, I don't think there is any one answer to this. Perhaps it's also worth considering how these communities first began and were built up, and by whom, if anyone with better knowledge of history could provide some insight!

Another thing that I wonder about: we're assuming an awful lot about people who may choose not to divulge the information that they are transgender. Have people been presuming that a woman who does not actively say she is trans is cis? What about the surveys? Even if they stated "sex" in these surveys (which many people falsely understand as "sex at birth"), some trans people may have put their current sex, no?

I do wonder how these surveys would look today, and how people would answer them.

So, Psychology. If you have ever looked into therapy or are a therapist, you've probably heard 'Thoghts Influence Emotions'

Okay so, does this include animalistic emotion/thoughts? We do say when we experience a shift its completely involuntary and such as our emotions. But have you ever thought of your mindset before you have a shift? Looked at your recordings and saw that you were thinking of how shifty you were prior to the shift, which influences that emotion.

Any thoughts?[/align]

Due to all this talk regarding faunalunes, holotheres etc. I feel less and less inclined to spend time within the therian community. These terms they came up with are really out there, you know. I can't and won't identify with any of such things. Due to these developments where individuals make up their own terms to help dispose themselves of the word therianthropy, I get a little aggravated to be honest. A broader terminology to help explain some others can help, but removing therianthropy from use and using faunalunes instead goes a bit too far for me. I just wished they kept it as plain and simple as possible. Another of my two cents and end of rant.

(2026-08-17 17:22)Remoniel Wrote:  Psychologically speaking, I think some significant level of alienation from typical human behavior predisposes people to have a nonhuman self-concept. This is inherently ugly-looking much of the time, and many of us carry shame around it, such as with my asociality and low emotionality, which I’ve been told by my parents at a young age made me cruel and a sociopath. I had always wanted to be a bird even as a super young kid, but I think the long process of growing up different, and being treated as different because of it, caused my nonhuman feelings to snowball and crystallize more than would have occurred if I was raised in a vacuum. Like the formation of any other identity, including those that fall under the “normal human” umbrella, there is a mix of influences that are voluntary and involuntary, external and internal. Maybe, as an example, a very skittish and anxious kid who’s constantly bullied by his family for this difference starts choosing to view himself as “rabbit-like” in a bid to understand himself and feel normal, and over time, the identity grows with him and becomes inextricable. I see this as no different from growing with the ‘normal’ identities, such as gender affiliation; no one is born with any gender conditioning, and yet most humans will eventually grow up to see “man” and “woman” as unalienable parts of themselves.

To the "involuntary" language at the heart of this thread, I put forward an identity that is "inextricable" is no longer voluntary.

I'm 38, yet I've just been looking into my otherkinity these past 2 months. Does this mean my draconity was never there previously when I wasn't looking for it? Or does that mean it was always there and only now being recognized? There are many parallels to the concept of gender in that fork in the road.

(2026-08-13 9:33)Hemlock Wrote:  My only dislike of the involuntary definition is that I have observed several individuals who’s nonhuman identity seemed to originate as intentional, only to then be a core part of themselves they cannot remove. I think this "I cannot stop this without feeling untrue to myself" feeling is the more important part to me compared to perhaps having at the start been intentional.

I heartily agree. I’m certain that the emphasis on it being “involuntary” is just to keep out younger folks drawn to the allure of being part animal, but hence why I take such issue with the common language of the community: that therianthropy is simply “identifying as an animal.” That sentence on its own is just too glamorous, of course it’ll attract kids curious about their identities. I understand why others don’t want to start pathologizing therianthropy and treating it like a disorder, but I still don’t think our discussions should gloss over the more disordered commonalities of it.

Psychologically speaking, I think some significant level of alienation from typical human behavior predisposes people to have a nonhuman self-concept. This is inherently ugly-looking much of the time, and many of us carry shame around it, such as with my asociality and low emotionality, which I’ve been told by my parents at a young age made me cruel and a sociopath. I had always wanted to be a bird even as a super young kid, but I think the long process of growing up different, and being treated as different because of it, caused my nonhuman feelings to snowball and crystallize more than would have occurred if I was raised in a vacuum. Like the formation of any other identity, including those that fall under the “normal human” umbrella, there is a mix of influences that are voluntary and involuntary, external and internal. Maybe, as an example, a very skittish and anxious kid who’s constantly bullied by his family for this difference starts choosing to view himself as “rabbit-like” in a bid to understand himself and feel normal, and over time, the identity grows with him and becomes inextricable. I see this as no different from growing with the ‘normal’ identities, such as gender affiliation; no one is born with any gender conditioning, and yet most humans will eventually grow up to see “man” and “woman” as unalienable parts of themselves.

So, tldr, I do find the “involuntary” language a bit confusing and misleading. It’s very easy for people to misinterpret, same as “I identify as an animal.” It’s why I always lead with my personal experiences rather than using any of this language in discussions with others.

-Rem

My only dislike of the involuntary definition is that I have observed several individuals who's nonhuman identity seemed to originate as intentional, only to then be a core part of themselves they cannot remove. I think this "I cannot stop this without feeling untrue to myself" feeling is the more important part to me compared to perhaps having at the start been intentional. But I am also someone who believes mostly in psychological happenstances, of which there are multitude of cases of things starting of intentional to then become a core part of someone that isn't "maintained" so to speak for it to happen. I don't really care about the inherent soul or what's what. I myself do believe in some way the fact I am specifically a roadrunner was circumstances and a bit of confirmation bias that crystallized a generally blurry birdish identity in this specific creature.

I cannot stop being a roadrunner however, and it was not intentional in my specific case to make this happen, i just think it aligned correctly for me to latch on. But I've seen other seemingly construct their identity, and it's hard at some points to tell if, for example, a fursona is made from deep feelings that weren't yet easy to recognize which then is understood as a theriotype (involuntary fragments of nonhumanity being brought to light by a hobby that encourages animality), or if associating something with yourself so hard made it part of who you are (voluntary association to nonhumanity becoming an involuntary part of who you are). Chicken and the egg.

All that to say, I think the voluntary vs involuntary debate takes the back seat for me compared to things like having actual unusual experiences, a deep genuine itch to be nonhuman, or other much more "in the moment" experiences. i don't really care how you got there, just what you experience now, personally.

(2026-08-12 12:50)DannyTheOkami Wrote:  Hi I had a question. If it's mostly involuntary then is it beyond control. As in I can't shift when I want too?

Imo, based off of experience, you can 'trigger' a shift by doing things that make you feel that certain way and trigger you but otherwise it is mostly involuntary. So if you are to say choosing and roleplaying as that animal, it would be otherpaw (I believe)

Hi I had a question. If it's mostly involuntary then is it beyond control. As in I can't shift when I want too?