(2026-03-22 6:32)Baumarius Wrote:  Respectfully, I'm dropping this for the time being. It's what everyone wants, anyway - but honestly, I'm already in a bit of a rush to prepare the materials for a grant application for my synesthesia simulator (April 2 deadline), and I need to drive like hell for the next two weeks to make ends meet. I appreciate all of your input on this subject. It's been a long time since I've been active on TG, but maybe you'll see more of me soon. If you respond again, I will read when I am able. Thank you.

No hard feelings, okay? This is just a discussion and that's what the forums are for.

I know I communicate a bit harshly but my purpose is to present my case just as you have yours and let the people who read this make up their own minds regarding what to believe. That's what they're going to do either way. Thing is, there have been other people who tried to come up with a new term, but ultimately this can only work if people who read this material see things your way and choose to use the new term.

I know TG has some authority in this regard because not everyone can edit the main site. I know we probably were the ones who seeded the community with the idea to split therianthropy into spiritual and psychological, but it was the people reading it who in the end decided to adopt this division and actually made it a thing.

The same thing goes for definitions and stuff and while the purpose of TG is to help educate people about therianthropy as actual therians experience it, I feel that this goal can only be achieved through the help of the community and that means conversations such as this one. You are an important part of this therian community as well.

LP,
Dusty

(2026-03-22 5:19)Cygnus Wrote:  We're not discussing scientific measurements or having a legitimacy debate.. You said you were grouping *all* of Alterhumanity(there are numerous unrelated groups under this), not just Otherkin. Otherkin is the only other community we share a similar basic concept with, which is why there's theriomythic to straddle between them. Anyway, there's no need to do the thing you're describing, nobody is having trouble simply referring to their experiences as what they are; experiences--and hopefully they're explaining them, which is way more important.

I see what you're saying. In that regard, perhaps I went too far.

I stand by what I said about spirituality, though. Even saying that therians and otherkin have "different homes in the spirit world" is a belief that can't currently be tested. Judging from your response, I'm not sure if you understood my point about dogma vs spirituality. Though what you've said may be based on firsthand experiences, they're not my firsthand experiences or those of an interested researcher - and therefore, whether or not they are "true" is something that external observers have the choice to believe, and should keep a healthy dose of skepticism about.

It's been said that magic is science we just don't understand yet or have the tools to measure - I agree with that. The way I tend to process reality is not through the lens of "most metaphysics," but through methodological solipsism, which is what I'm getting at. I am agnostic - on most things, I decline to believe and not believe. I do think that scientists should approach their research, as well as their understanding of concepts such as therianthropy and otherkinity, from this framework - and I think that zoesthesia would serve that purpose well. I also think the international community would benefit from a more experience-focused discourse, and whatever these concepts are translated to will often be in a different form than the terms we know. Examining the differences between the related communities is probably more of a sociological thing than a psychological one.

If any of this is not meshing with things I have previously stated, it is likely because it is complex enough to try to logically group these experiences into one basal phenomenon, and I have been thinking through these things and expanding/adjusting my views as we go along. What I communicate is often a fraction of what I perceive. That doesn't mean I think it can't be done, but there's more research I need to do and more voices I need to hear from.

Respectfully, I'm dropping this for the time being. It's what everyone wants, anyway - but honestly, I'm already in a bit of a rush to prepare the materials for a grant application for my synesthesia simulator (April 2 deadline), and I need to drive like hell for the next two weeks to make ends meet. I appreciate all of your input on this subject. It's been a long time since I've been active on TG, but maybe you'll see more of me soon. If you respond again, I will read when I am able. Thank you.

(2026-03-21 20:46)Baumarius Wrote:  WIth my own theory of consciousness, I struggle to see a scientifically measurable difference in what might be occurring under the hood - at least between therianthropy and otherkinity, even if the difference is "spiritual" vs psychological. It feels like otherkinity might take more steps, perhaps? But if the difference is "this feels more real and this feels less real," that means nothing. We do not have, and it is impossible to create, a "realometer." Interpretation of one's experiences is based on knowledge of the external world and one's previous experiences, which can include knowledge of how a particular earthly species behaves just as much as knowledge of how some mythical thing is described. How does anyone infer with certainty which thing they seem to be most like? There's millions of species on this planet and we've discovered a mere fraction of them. I'd wager that heuristics plays a big part in this process, regardless of which camp you're in.

We're not discussing scientific measurements or having a legitimacy debate.. You said you were grouping *all* of Alterhumanity(there are numerous unrelated groups under this), not just Otherkin. Otherkin is the only other community we share a similar basic concept with, which is why there's theriomythic to straddle between them. Anyway, there's no need to do the thing you're describing, nobody is having trouble simply referring to their experiences as what they are; experiences--and hopefully they're explaining them, which is way more important.

Quote:My understanding of spirituality comes into play here too. If you take into account how your brain is recreating an inaccurate representation of the external world in its neurons, spirituality is literally just firsthand experience and however you interpret it. Dogma is its polar opposite, which has to do with believing someone else's word. It could be said that everything that isn't dogma is spiritual, and everything that isn't your raw awareness is made up with some measure of belief. If you don't believe me, think about that for a minute. Even the things you "know" - how do you "know" them? To "know" is to believe that you do. This may seem pedantic for everyday conversation, but in the context of psychology - which seeks to understand the world through empiricism, the underlying mechanisms that drive us to interpret our feelings and perceptions as "animal/other" are quite likely not all that different from each other.

You are drawing false equivalencies again.. Those from the Therian and Otherkin communities are unique from both a principle and metaphysical perspective; they reach into different places, source from their own wells, and have homes in their own places in existence and the spirit world. I'm unsure why you switched mid-argument to purely philosophical and then psychological explanations..but they are not necessarily separate; the brain can be viewed as a filter for objective reality (at least, in some philosophical views).

However, your arguing from two opposing views here: that knowing is dogma and empiricism is truth...but knowing is only dogma if it is held without seeking evidence, and most metaphysics deals with attempts to derive truths empirically by seeking that evidence or through testing--like in magick or with many of us during awakening when we seek to understand the things we learn about ourselves. Regardless, none of this is the primary point of why you shouldn't just bunch together therian and otherkin experiences and call them the same; even if you don't understand the myriad of differences you should respect that we are not identical. It is, in fact, the principle of the matter.

Quote:Also, in my definition, there is no mention of alterhumanity or any of the other identifying terms. It's supposed to avoid them all. That's the point.

You explicitly stated the purpose of this term several times throughout this thread and in your previous post.
This was your previous quote:
"I've since refined the definition of zoesthesia for clarity - as something that applies to every form of alterhumanity and can be translated clearly to other languages with just a single term."

(2026-03-21 16:11)Cygnus Wrote:  

(2026-03-21 7:56)Baumarius Wrote:  You're right in that there should be an emphasis on the embodied experience of feeling "animal." I've since refined the definition of zoesthesia for clarity - as something that applies to every form of alterhumanity and can be translated clearly to other languages with just a single term.

That is not what I was talking about at all..

I was not suggesting that you expand that term to try to generalize the experiences described by therians or any other group to apply to everyone else under the Alterhuman umbrella; these groups have their own views and understandings that should not be broadly juxtaposed and presented as interchangeable. I am suggesting you drop this term completely because it has the potential to degrade our ability to communicate effectively and will further confuse the distinctions between these groups if you promote this. You're descriptions present this as if all the communities grouped under the Alterhuman umbrella share broadly comparable and similar ideas when they really don't.. If you present the experiences of multiple groups--some of which are describing ideas that are in direct opposition to each other--as if they are one homogenized shared concept, that will be interpreted as your term suggesting broad equivalencies between everything people use it to describe, as well as the communities those things derived from. That will neither help laypersons nor researchers understand what anyone is saying.

People drawing false-equivalencies are a frequent problem in these communities and I think we need to avoid creating them to the best of our ability...

WIth my own theory of consciousness, I struggle to see a scientifically measurable difference in what might be occurring under the hood - at least between therianthropy and otherkinity, even if the difference is "spiritual" vs psychological. It feels like otherkinity might take more steps, perhaps? But if the difference is "this feels more real and this feels less real," that means nothing. We do not have, and it is impossible to create, a "realometer." Interpretation of one's experiences is based on knowledge of the external world and one's previous experiences, which can include knowledge of how a particular earthly species behaves just as much as knowledge of how some mythical thing is described. How does anyone infer with certainty which thing they seem to be most like? There's millions of species on this planet and we've discovered a mere fraction of them. I'd wager that heuristics plays a big part in this process, regardless of which camp you're in.

My understanding of spirituality comes into play here too. If you take into account how your brain is recreating an inaccurate representation of the external world in its neurons, spirituality is literally just firsthand experience and however you interpret it. Dogma is its polar opposite, which has to do with believing someone else's word. It could be said that everything that isn't dogma is spiritual, and everything that isn't your raw awareness is made up with some measure of belief. If you don't believe me, think about that for a minute. Even the things you "know" - how do you "know" them? To "know" is to believe that you do. This may seem pedantic for everyday conversation, but in the context of psychology - which seeks to understand the world through empiricism, the underlying mechanisms that drive us to interpret our feelings and perceptions as "animal/other" are quite likely not all that different from each other.

Also, in my definition, there is no mention of alterhumanity or any of the other identifying terms. It's supposed to avoid them all. That's the point.

(2026-03-21 7:56)Baumarius Wrote:  You're right in that there should be an emphasis on the embodied experience of feeling "animal." I've since refined the definition of zoesthesia for clarity - as something that applies to every form of alterhumanity and can be translated clearly to other languages with just a single term.

That is not what I was talking about at all..

I was not suggesting that you expand that term to try to generalize the experiences described by therians or any other group to apply to everyone else under the Alterhuman umbrella; these groups have their own views and understandings that should not be broadly juxtaposed and presented as interchangeable. I am suggesting you drop this term completely because it has the potential to degrade our ability to communicate effectively and will further confuse the distinctions between these groups if you promote this. You're descriptions present this as if all the communities grouped under the Alterhuman umbrella share broadly comparable and similar ideas when they really don't.. If you present the experiences of multiple groups--some of which are describing ideas that are in direct opposition to each other--as if they are one homogenized shared concept, that will be interpreted as your term suggesting broad equivalencies between everything people use it to describe, as well as the communities those things derived from. That will neither help laypersons nor researchers understand what anyone is saying.

People drawing false-equivalencies are a frequent problem in these communities and I think we need to avoid creating them to the best of our ability...

(2026-03-21 10:25)DustWolf Wrote:  I'm curious why synesthesia doesn't have this problem though? Maybe it does, maybe there's a population of kids out there who wear it like a cool label, the way it's modern to wear therianthropy these days, and to them synesthesia is a choice that you show off in public by wearing colorful clothing or something.

LP,
Dusty

The majority of the time, they say "I wish I had your kind of synesthesia, I just see letters in color" or "Wow, that looks very close to what I experience." There is often a combination of profound amazement and disappointment when they watch my simulations, and only rarely do I see anyone claiming that it's a spiritual thing. When they do, everyone groans.

(2026-03-20 8:26)Baumarius Wrote:  This stack of quotes is one of the biggest problems in the therian community. Therianthropy nowadays is whatever anyone wants it to mean. Every site has its own definition and it's often described in a way that is unnecessarily obtuse or backwards. The structure of therianthropy's Wikipedia page might as well be a dumpster fire, and - correct me if I'm wrong, Wikipedia is probably what most will gravitate towards when trying to learn about something like this.

I think therianthropy should mean the animalistic experience, but on whose authority do we rely on? There is no centralized source of fact, and it often seems like there can't be - create one, and half the community will disown it because it doesn't fit their view. I've even seen some take issue with the researchers at FurScience for "interfering" with a community that "doesn't belong to them" because they called shifts "embodied shifts" in their 2025 study.

Now, the line between identity and experience has blurred to the point where I can't tell what any particular person means by "therianthropy." If you look at it from a societal standpoint and across multiple countries, it almost seems as if its definition is passively being destroyed. In countries like China, it's becoming a fandom. How much cleaning up and education on the current terminology would it take to finally solve this? Is it necessary to cling to "therianthropy" simply because it's the thing that won and it's now "too big to fail?"

First of all, there is no central authority and that's a good thing, because it prevents someone from taking over and redefining things their way. Places like this forum exist for the purpose of people sharing their own views in this regard, and the fact that there is more than one explanation is not a failing, it's reality. Even AHWw from 30 years ago had a saying "If you ask 10 weres what the definition of something is, you'll get 11 different answers".

Second of all, you have to understand that even if there was a central authority, this wouldn't solve anything. The problem is not that there is more than one definition of something, the problem is that people understand words in different ways. People who never experienced therianthropy have no way to know if their understanding of the word is correct or not.

This second reason is why it is ultimately unwise to use any special terminology in place of simply spelling out what exactly you mean when you talk about a certain experience. Because, as I have explained innumerable times, no matter what word you come up with, the young people learning about therianthropy will not understand what it means and will wear it like a badge of belonging, rather than trying to understand what it's supposed to represent, and actually trying to see if it applies to them.

For example even the clearly defined and widely accepted word "identity" is only vaguely understood and misused in almost 100% of the cases. It is widely understood as an affiliation, but it is actually what you actually are. Young people cannot tell the difference because they cannot tell we are not just all pretending like they are.

The only thing that does help, is to explain the experiences and interact with people so that they can interrogate you regarding it, and gain a proper understanding.

(2026-03-20 8:26)Baumarius Wrote:  Synesthesia does not have this problem, and for good reason. Would something like zoesthesia? I don't know. I feel like there's a chance it wouldn't. Sure, it means the same thing, but as of yet, it is untainted. What if we started over?

There's no denying that something is broken. I want this to be solved, but I don't know if this is a problem that can. It's one hell of a thing to think through.

I think the chance of yet another word being invented solving this issue is somewhere between fairly remote and bordering on insanity (aka doing the same thing and expecting different results).

I'm curious why synesthesia doesn't have this problem though? Maybe it does, maybe there's a population of kids out there who wear it like a cool label, the way it's modern to wear therianthropy these days, and to them synesthesia is a choice that you show off in public by wearing colorful clothing or something.

LP,
Dusty

BTW I've seen a proposed Chinese word for "therianthropy" which glosses back to English as "beast self-awareness", therian is "have beast-self person". I believe that's coming from Chinese speakers themselves too.

The words themselves.

(2026-03-21 6:41)Cygnus Wrote:  Firstly, I don't agree that these are the things that give rise to therianthropy, or that shifts alone are directly the therianthropic experience (this is backwards from how I remember things originally being understood). There is a focus issue with arguments like this where people conflate secondary signs and symptoms with the phenomena thought to be originating them; a purely-syndromal view that I feel displaces the core idea these communities formed around. This has led to therianthropy being described directly as behaviors, urges, sensations and indistinct feelings alone--as well as it sometimes being described as nothing more than an action of identification, rather than the possession of intrinsic animal nature by the experiencer that subsequently gives rise to those shifts.

You're right in that there should be an emphasis on the embodied experience of feeling "animal." I've since refined the definition of zoesthesia for clarity - as something that applies to every form of alterhumanity and can be translated clearly to other languages with just a single term. Observe:

"Zoesthesia ("zo-esthesia") is the experience of sensations, perceptions, and behaviors belonging to a species, form of consciousness, or concept not typical of one's own biological species. Interpretations and identities arising from these experiences are subjective and personal; zoesthesia can be present without either, especially at early ages, but is often experienced as an embodied identity.

Zoesthetes have a wide spectrum of experiences, often leading to unique endeavors and forms of expression in social, artistic, literary, and professional contexts.

The experience of zoesthesia involves:

- Sensations, perceptions, behaviors, social cues, and/or involuntary urges not typically seen in one's own biological species,
- A state of consciousness akin to that of a non-human animal, mythological creature, fictional character, or concept (such as the internal state of an operating system or characteristics of an environment),
- Presence of experiences before adulthood, which may become stronger after one becomes conscious of them (what some might call a "spiritual awakening"),
- Persistence in a lifelong way,

And can involve any number of the following:

- The feeling of phantom limbs or sensations belonging to something other than one's own biological species,
- Feelings, urges, and sensations that may vary in form and intensity, remain at a stable baseline, or become triggered by internal or external stimuli,
- An identity or overarching sensation that embodies these experiences,
- Dysphoria regarding the incongruence between one's physical body and perceived embodied experience,
- Altered states of consciousness (such as dreams and trance-like states) that are experienced through the lens of something incongruent to one's biology,
- And/or a personal interpretation of these experiences through psychological or spiritual means."

---

As a side note, the "Feelings, urges, and sensations that may vary in form and intensity, remain at a stable baseline, or become triggered by internal or external stimuli" part could replace several paragraphs describing contherianthropy, suntherianthropy, non-shifting therianthropy, and etc. on TG's own website. All of these extra terms are cumbersome and will lead to fatigue to laypeople and researchers alike. It's not intuitive.

If y'all think that's fine but aren't cool with the term itself, consider that the point of this is to translate it into languages in which "therianthropy," "otherkin," alterhuman," and etc. are not usable terms. "Zoesthesia" probably won't even be on the menu. What we see as "the way things are" in our culture is very centered on English. Unless you'd like to advocate for English as the master language, there needs to be some consensus on what makes up our embodied identities as alterhumans so that the community's extremities aren't left behind.

(2026-03-20 0:08)Baumarius Wrote:  There is currently no word for "the experiences that give rise to therianthropy." The therian community has a million different terms for pieces of it - mental shifts, phantom shifts, sensory shifts, etc. I propose a new term. Hear me out:

Zoesthesia ("zo-esthesia", from the Greek "zōion" [life/animal] and "aisthesis" [perception]): "The subjective inner non-human animal experiences that give rise to therianthropy."

Therianthropy is an identity. Zoesthesia is the root of that identity, and can include all forms of shifts therians have previously described. Zoesthesia can be experienced from a young age and can occur before one's identity forms, before one knows the words for what they're experiencing. It is the "happening" behind the curtain - instinct. Consider:

1. It's neutral, even if it sounds like it implies a neurological bias.
2. It doesn't replace "therianthropy" as a term.
3. It sounds similar to synesthesia - the crossing of the senses in the brain, which is not seen as a disorder.
4. It's a spectrum, just like synesthesia - everyone's experiences are different.
5. Using "zoesthete" instead of "therian" is possible, though it does not imply any sort of identity, nor does it imply that one interprets these experiences as belonging to any specific non-human animal. This is primarily to describe "therianthropy underneath the hood." You could even say that therians are individuals who experience zoesthesia.
6. It is not exclusive. We could use it to account for spiritual experiences as well - past life memories, "auras," the whole nine yards. If you think about it, all of those things also occur in your brain. Literally everything does. Your brain is hallucinating its own version of reality right now, and everything "spiritual" that you believe is just based on something your brain experienced. And everything that appears to be "external" is a recreation of it by your neurons.

I suggest this because of the latest happenings within the global therian community. A lot of young people in China, for example, think that "therian" is a fandom they can join. Younger folks globally should know that becoming more aware of the happenings in their consciousness is the point - not joining a fandom or getting likes on TikTok.

I believe that the way we do that is by turning the focus beyond identity, toward the inner experiences that lead to that identity. Time and time again, I've heard non-therians say "You can't identify as an animal, that's just not possible." There are significantly more convincing ways to talk about the experiences we have. Zoesthesia has my vote.

A more general, similarly neutral version of this that would apply to all alterhumans would be "allosthesia," from the Greek "allos" (other) and "aisthesis."

What are your thoughts?

There seems to be a misunderstanding in what you're describing as the foundation for this term, so I'll offer my thoughts and a definition at the end to try to clarify..

Firstly, I don't agree that these are the things that give rise to therianthropy, or that shifts alone are directly the therianthropic experience (this is backwards from how I remember things originally being understood). There is a focus issue with arguments like this where people conflate secondary signs and symptoms with the phenomena thought to be originating them; a purely-syndromal view that I feel displaces the core idea these communities formed around. This has led to therianthropy being described directly as behaviors, urges, sensations and indistinct feelings alone--as well as it sometimes being described as nothing more than an action of identification, rather than the possession of intrinsic animal nature by the experiencer that subsequently gives rise to those shifts.

Everything that the Therian Community has drawn its basic knowledge from talked about these things in the context that they resulted from one's animal nature, with that nature as the source and focus. Even things that were once discussed but no longer commonly viewed as therianthropy adhered to this overarching theme: This can be seen in descriptions where people ritually invoked animal spirits into themselves as part of shamanic practices, and that animal spirit imbuing the practitioner with parts of its nature that subsequently became part of the practitioner. Having animal nature was the one thing we all shared regardless of how different our experiences were, and I think that trying to recognize and distinguish between mundane human experiences and those that may derive from a place that is inherently not human should be part of everyone's journey.

However, I do agree that we should make attempts to move the conversation away from identity descriptions, as much of the community's demographic has difficulty in understanding what the Self is as a philosophical and psychical entity that is not directly referring to their bodily-self. Most of the younger teens are still developing the ability to perceive and differentiate this in the way that most neurotypical adults do, and many neurodiverse adults have conditions that involve difficulties in understanding and defining various forms of self-identity. This means that the community has a need for its definitions to leave no grey areas about what is being described, and that we should use clear, uncomplicated language that all age groups can understand even if they've never been exposed to the concepts of ontology or psychology that a lot of us adults take for granted.

I also agree that every individual and every community space describing different definitions is a serious problem. I think we should be making an effort to describe the same basic ideas with some level of cohesion..or defining anything will be a pointless endeavor. I do think most of us understand that we are supposed to be describing the experiance of ourselves being animals in some way, and that the points of contention focus mainly on what we each think that means..

A simplified version of what I consider therianthropy to be:
"Therianthropy is the condition of existing as an animal in the current day. It is the passive receipt and perception of what we consider to be animal experiences, and the knowledge of what one innately is. It can be a sense, perception, or 'knowing' that what one sees in the mirror is not what we truly are underneath. What can be covered under therianthropy is broad, but this core idea is one we all share: a distinct experience that we are not, or not entirely, human."

It centers the description on being the animal, avoids presenting therianthropy as two diametrically opposed spiritual vs psychological camps, and avoids the confusion and conflation of the arguments encountered when referring to it as identity/identification by using simple language that is less likely to be misunderstood or confused for the descriptions of other communities. Most of these ideas were not part of the way these things were originally described and I think there is a need to return how we talk about therianthropy to a universal core experience everyone shares rather than portraying the whole of therianthropy as lists of shifts that are not actually part of everyone's therianthropic experience.