(2026-03-20 17:40)Baumarius Wrote:  Because the root "zoe" means animal or life, and in a literal sense it can mean "life perception/feeling" (similar to qualia), I think the definition can be expanded in a way that includes all alterhumans without referring to any specific community. "Allosthesia" achieves the same thing in a different way, but so far there are people who don't like either term because they "sound like" other things. I will say, so far the poll on Tumblr has 85 votes, 78% saying "I'd use it!" With that in mind, zoesthesia can mean: "The subjective experience of traits, instincts, urges, memories, and etc. that may lead to an identity based on a species, concept, or form of consciousness not typical of one's biological species."

I think it is important to separate identity from experience, especially when identity can arise from the interpretations of one's experiences. Those interpretations and beliefs are not infallible - and they can be the target of bad actors. There will always be an explanatory gap between the words we use and the raw experiences we have. I want a term that makes belief and interpretation secondary or removes it from the picture. There are countless wars over belief and identity, but experience? It's just what you experience. It is what it is. A term like this might have less potential to trigger individuals who take offense to others identifying differently from them. Therianthropy technically achieves this already, but "therian" will continue to be stomped into the ground by people who don't like that you're different. "I am a therian" sounds ego-based and "I experience zoesthesia" feels neutral. Both are valid in theory, but if it depends on who you're talking to, these statements may have wildly different results.

Ah! Thank you for that, I must have missed that it was zoe and not zoo. I got very little sleep last night, forgive me ;]

Honestly, I do think I agree with you much more now that I'm more awake. It'd be a decent word to have in my back pocket, especially when we start getting into the weed with what we experience vs. what we identify with. I've spend months trying to articulate my own experience with what we would call full zoesthesia sans identity. I've been calling it plenanima (zoesthesia + identity) and pencorpus (zoesthesia - identity) for maybe six months now, and it's been a struggle to try and communicate how I can be something without wanting to identify as it. I think my case is pretty uncommon, I haven't run into others who have experienced the same thing, but having a word like zoesthesia would make that whole process significantly easier.

I do wonder how much this would impact the definition of things like therianthrope if implemented on a large scale. If we begin to include zoesthesia into the definition for things like theriantrhope and otherkin, we'll have to be a bit more careful about how we navigate the nuances between these two groups. It would simplify things, for sure, but I wonder how it would impact the perception of the communities and their separate histories/cultures. Of course, that's already a topic that I don't think anyone agrees on, but food for thought!

(2026-03-20 15:28)gillman Wrote:  I have interesting thoughts about this, because I do see the appeal in a term that talks about the baseline experience of nonhuman feelings. When reading the definition, I immediately thought about the term "noema" and the role it has within the environment of past lives, xenomemories, and xenotrauma. Noema gives us the ability to have a term that describes a specific experience without having it tied to a strict spirituality/psychology binary.

My main issue is that zoesthesia is looking to be tired directly to therianthropy when I think it might be better applied to the alterhuman community as a whole. We have many terms (regardless of how you may feel about them) that are trying to really articulate the same experience of being Other. We call these things general "alterhuman experiences" or "alterhuman feelings" already, but it can be hard to have a shorthand for these things that does not imply a specific identity. I know many who dislike being associated with alterhuamsn, nonhumans, therian, or otherkin but who still seek to separate themselves from common notions of humanity. A neutral term to describe those experiences that is separate from any standard or identity may be well received. Something that implies an experience as opposed to an identity. I know plenty of orthohumans who have "nonhuman experiences," such as brief phantom sensations, that could then easily be described as little moments of zoesthesia.

I see what you're trying to get at, I just think it needs to be expanded a bit to actually have a use. Otherwise it will just devolve into another term that is really just the same as therian. If this was to be expanded, I do think it could go for a name change, just to make it a bit more neutral. I definitely can feel the lexical gap you are looking to fill in, I just think it'd need some refinement before really being of much use. My thoughts here aren't fully fleshed out, but I did want to comment ono it before I forgot. I may come back to add some more later :^]

Because the root "zoe" means animal or life, and in a literal sense it can mean "life perception/feeling" (similar to qualia), I think the definition can be expanded in a way that includes all alterhumans without referring to any specific community. "Allosthesia" achieves the same thing in a different way, but so far there are people who don't like either term because they "sound like" other things. I will say, so far the poll on Tumblr has 85 votes, 78% saying "I'd use it!" With that in mind, zoesthesia can mean: "The subjective experience of traits, instincts, urges, memories, and etc. that may lead to an identity based on a species, concept, or form of consciousness not typical of one's biological species."

I think it is important to separate identity from experience, especially when identity can arise from the interpretations of one's experiences. Those interpretations and beliefs are not infallible - and they can be the target of bad actors. There will always be an explanatory gap between the words we use and the raw experiences we have. I want a term that makes belief and interpretation secondary or removes it from the picture. There are countless wars over belief and identity, but experience? It's just what you experience. It is what it is. A term like this might have less potential to trigger individuals who take offense to others identifying differently from them. Therianthropy technically achieves this already, but "therian" will continue to be stomped into the ground by people who don't like that you're different. "I am a therian" sounds ego-based and "I experience zoesthesia" feels neutral. Both are valid in theory, but if it depends on who you're talking to, these statements may have wildly different results.

I usually say "go think out of the box, try something new". I don't know where I stand on this, so I replied with nay on this one. The thing is, in time, no matter how you twist or turn it, new people'll catch on this new term quick, make it their own and make fun of or ridicule it again. So, why change? We're using too many terms right now already. Wouldn't it be better if we started to think about defining what therianthropy means for us? Don't mean to disregard the work you've put into this, Bau. It's just that, what if we change terms, wouldn't that be an invitation for some people to misuse said terminology again?

I have interesting thoughts about this, because I do see the appeal in a term that talks about the baseline experience of nonhuman feelings. When reading the definition, I immediately thought about the term "noema" and the role it has within the environment of past lives, xenomemories, and xenotrauma. Noema gives us the ability to have a term that describes a specific experience without having it tied to a strict spirituality/psychology binary.

My main issue is that zoesthesia is looking to be tired directly to therianthropy when I think it might be better applied to the alterhuman community as a whole. We have many terms (regardless of how you may feel about them) that are trying to really articulate the same experience of being Other. We call these things general "alterhuman experiences" or "alterhuman feelings" already, but it can be hard to have a shorthand for these things that does not imply a specific identity. I know many who dislike being associated with alterhuamsn, nonhumans, therian, or otherkin but who still seek to separate themselves from common notions of humanity. A neutral term to describe those experiences that is separate from any standard or identity may be well received. Something that implies an experience as opposed to an identity. I know plenty of orthohumans who have "nonhuman experiences," such as brief phantom sensations, that could then easily be described as little moments of zoesthesia.

I see what you're trying to get at, I just think it needs to be expanded a bit to actually have a use. Otherwise it will just devolve into another term that is really just the same as therian. If this was to be expanded, I do think it could go for a name change, just to make it a bit more neutral. I definitely can feel the lexical gap you are looking to fill in, I just think it'd need some refinement before really being of much use. My thoughts here aren't fully fleshed out, but I did want to comment ono it before I forgot. I may come back to add some more later :^]

I myself belive that it is both idenity and expierence

I completely understand the desire to implement a more scientific-type term, but no matter what you do, the issues we have now are not going away or getting much better anytime soon. While part of the problem may be the labeling and the lack of a consistent, specific definition, the bigger issue for other people is therianthropy itself, no matter what term(s) you use to present it. Take it from someone who lives in the world of things that people have a problem with. Just coming up with a more "professional"- sounding term will not make people who treat therianthropy inappropriately treat it differently, especially if it's a term with no history in the scientific community and comes from a member of the therian community. Take cryptozoology as an example; this term was created by a scientist, and it does have a long, consistent history at this point, yet its use doesn't change the negativity that other people have towards the discipline because, no matter what you call it, most people don't see it as a legitimate science. Anything that isn't typical, normal, or mainstream to the average, everyday person takes issue with the essence of something, not just the terminology. How it's presented doesn't help if it's presented in a negative way, true, but just making a new label isn't the solution, especially not by itself, though coming up with a consistent definition and emphasizing the experience more would be beneficial.

I get your reasoning, but zoesthesia, in a way, sort of sounds like zoophilia, so I sort of wish there was an in-between option.

I feel like everyone else conveyed what I meant better than me in my first reply and added other points I forgot to add.

While I'd love to call myself something that's accurate to me and the wider community not assuming I'm doing it in their own very incorrect way, I don't think this is exactly the solution.

And to add, the "types" of therians (eg. contherians, suntherians, etc.) are terms that were coined by specific people (singular) for themselves. I don't even think it's entirely useful to use these terms as they are, just discussing your level of integration would be sufficient. Labels, labels, labels...

(2026-03-20 7:40)DustWolf Wrote:  I disagree. I think therianthropy is the animalistic experience. The identity aspect was just tacked on when people wanted to merge it with being otherkin, while not understanding the distinction, as young people generally do.

All I was referring to was that the term “therianthrope” is an identifier (label, if you will) for someone who experiences therianthropy, not implying that there was some secret other aspect to therianthropy. My apologies that that didn’t come through haha

This thread is pretty interesting to go through, because I will say--giving my input as a newcomer and a newly... what do I even call this, "awakened"(?) therian/therianthrope/your choice of word, one of the more interesting processes of figuring this identity out for myself was exactly the vagueness of the definition, and trying to map it in any meaningful sense with my own experiences.

For the definition currently, as it stands, the closest I've seen to it being concrete is the "like" vs "as" distinction. You feel like or relate to the animal symbolically, or you ARE the animal internally in some way... and to be fair, that is a pretty thin line, since that requires some self-reflection/observation/awareness to distinguish between the two. I think some element here has to do with the involuntariness of "shifting"--hence the thing about "you either are or aren't a therian, and you can't force a change on that"--in the strict definitional sense of "person who experiences shifts," but for a more comprehensive method of separating "like" vs "as," more details would need to be established.

It's funny, because debates like this often vaguely remind me of the kinds of debates that happen in the trans community. I'm not trans (I have a friend who is), but the vibe of figuring out what therianothropy "really is" has the same energy as when trans people also have to figure out a way to understand each others' experiences, when each of them may experience it differently. It is trying to express something identity-level that you feel about yourself in some objective term that is "verifiable" in some sense by external parties.

I would say the interesting part with labels for me has always been it feels like there's a two part component to them--(1) one, that there is some sort of external standard with which to compare it to--i.e., a definition provided by a community--and (2) the second, consent/agreement from the person the label is pertinent to to accept it. They must accept/claim the label themselves, or it would not apply. I see that perhaps the proposal here is to distinguish between (1) and (2), and label therianthropy the "formal self-adopted label chosen by people to identify with the community"--the second, adopted term, and zoesthesia with (1)--the same way people in psychology can test people for "ASD traits" without actually diagnosing them ASD. But I think, again, what's making this difficult, is where exactly to categorize therianthropy as an identity.

For instance, comparing it with gender, we can see in some sense it actually shares a lot in common, in the sense it is deeply felt within and a highly subjective experience that can be hard to convey to people and oftentimes, for a lot of therians, perhaps not even visible externally (including the times they mask or hide their shifts away from the public, or people they don't feel comfortable around). The only difference is that gender rather is something that you cannot necessarily remove entirely--even "agender" implies an active "removing" of the gender, and you are opted in by default. Therianothropy would differ from that.

Then, the second, being the furry fandom. Fandom is in the name, so that already says a lot; furries have more in common in terms of "identity" as the Star Trek fandom, than say, therianothropy. It's a self-chosen hobby/interest that you may enjoy; while some people may look at someone and say, "haha, you must be a furry with how much you draw animal art," the person in question cannot be a furry until they self-accept this label. I will say, it is unusual (if we were to take the comparison again, between (1) and (2) from earlier) by analogy if we had a separate term called "furriness" that referred to people who display "furry traits" but whom haven't identified with the term/label/community.

The third useful comparison could be with "mental conditions/illnesses" like (diagnosed) anxiety disorders, ADHD, ASD, etc. Since therianothropy is not recognized on its own as a medical "problem" or thing to fix, there is no reason there would be need to be an external standard to judge someone with. This is a case where there is an assumed external standard for something like ADHD for instance, and then even if the person does not "claim" the label--they may still have it by some objective standard. Contrast this with, for instance, someone who does research on ADHD, and is now convinced they have ADHD. Whether they do or don't, generally people will not treat it as legitimately or seriously until they get diagnosed by a licensed medical professional, and this is because there are usually institutional or bureaucratic reasons for doing so (access to disability services, medications, etc). The key difference here is that the medical institution is seen as the ultimate "authority" and "gatekeeper"--whatever it says is generally treated as the truth, for better or for worse.

Something like the therian community lacks this "central authority", since it more or less coalesced on its own, and the members found each other spontaneously through communities irl and online. I actually do remember coming across a paper on this a while back, about this exact thing of therians for instance needing to gate the identity against other people who may try to shift what the label means because they don't understand it.

Here's the thing I've always found fascinating about therianothropy; as stated above, when I compared it to gender and said it could be something that for many therians could be kept private, it is interesting to me how--despite the fact I was a therian and was simply unaware of it before (or was I? you could argue about the ontology of this if you wanted to badly enough, I suppose, like whether I was therian "all along" or if I only became therian the moment I recognized it and only from that moment and afterward)--I always had the feeling of, "this is a super personal/private experience that surely no one is capable of relating to in any form," and so I kind of classed it as a "private matter," and left it as that--not expecting there to be a community for such a "niche" and "hard to articulate" thing. (My shifts mainly having to do with I tend to mentally shift to a red fox when I'm feeling either stressed/agitated or happy, and I in turn as a result of that shift begin to act fox-like.) So I'm honestly impressed that the therian community exists at all, for people united and bonded over such an internal, subjective experience. But moments like this I suppose are reminders as the to "limits of interiority," in a sense. This also could explain the TikTok trends and people seeing the--again, ironic--external manifestation of, a group of people united around a personal experience, and it ends up being a wannabe "I'd want to force my way into this social group because they sound cool" kind of thing, and it becomes more about performing what the external manifestation of therianothropy looks like, and not at all what is happening internally.

The presence of a group united around therianthropy incentivizes people to see it as a cute label to attach to themselves because they feel like it, without further consideration for understanding what it really is. (And, of course, the lack of consensus on a definition at times would definitely make this worse, and it starts to become more and more "vibes based" from the exterior).

Man I did NOT expect this to be that long of a rant, if you're still here after reading through that whole thing, I'm impressed, lol. But this is just my personal take on the matter!! Feel free to ask for clarifications or questions or provide comments, etc. :3