I felt @Jeb_CC 's explanation is really impressive.

To me, identity is like an art, in many ways.
As a well-known concept, therianthropy is explained as an 'innate trait', a sort of 'born gift'. I agree with it. I had had non-human recognition since I was 3 or 4. But I couldn't sort out my 'nearly-true theriotype' until the adolescence stage. And when I could detect the accurate theriotype was later stage of 20's. It took a pretty long time.

@Jeb_CC 's metaphor, identity is like a clay sculpture perfectly makes sense to me. Without accurate references, I cannot draw nice art nor good 3D models. I have to reference photos, anatomy, and actual animals to draw or model. Identity is just like that, I feel. We can imagine 'maybe something like this' without accurate reference, but cannot picture the detail unless we see the objective reference. Just like we cannot see ourselves without a mirror.

I personally feel, my identity can decompose into an amorphous, chaotic mud. It can shape into anything or anyone, but 'nobody' at the same time. Perhaps our subconscious is like that. What we're thinking 'ourselves' is the tip of the iceberg, this is a well-known theory in psychology. Potentially we can be anything or anyone but we're taking the shape of what we want to be or 'should be', willingly, necessarily, or forcibly. Perhaps the human brain has the potential to imagine like that, and it is the source of the creativity of humanity.

However.
For both good and bad in therian's case, we have the 'awkward gift' of being a non-human animal.
Just like dogs, our 'awkward gift' defines what we're good at and what we're not good at when we were born. Like working groups, herding groups, hunting groups, or toy groups, many dog bleeds are specialized for their use or purpose, have innate superiority in their own tasks on both their body and mind.
In my personal forecast, therianthropy is the phenomenon of 'sharping' our basic shape of an identity, which originally can be anyone or anything into specifically 'something non-human'. Still we can decorate our identities, yes. But the most solid core shape cannot be anyone or anything else, for good and bad. Or at least it has shape-memory traits. Even if once it took another shape or smashed, but eventually it returned to the original form. That is the difference between normal humans and us, at least I personally think so.

So both 'discovery and reference' and 'imagination and creation' are important elements to one's identity. Even if the basic shape is solid and unchangeable, but still we can carve the details on the sculpture to make it more beautiful.

Some dogs are superior to normal humans in some specific tasks and that's why there are guide dogs, police dogs, military dogs, and therapy dogs. As long as we can draw our true potential in the right place and right purpose, we may perform better. But it depends on our respective circumstances. So finding one's theriotype means finding their superiority in my opinion. Finding the most appropriate job which much to their theriotype is the key to drawing one's potential in my opinion.

I did not expect my post to randomly revive XD anyways, I have read all three (technically four I just didn't know what to say) responses. Jeb, you have made a very important point, yes. I do feel this may vary for everyone however.. I know for at least my troll self, it's been something that's very innate to me. I know all the small and finer details... It just isn't something I can show off well! But I suppose in the long run, that doesn't matter.

Interesting. I think to some extent our therianthropy is malleable. I mean, what I think is intended is a group of animals like felines, canids, birds, fish, reptiles, or insects. I think these basic aspects of our therianthropy are determined, they are immutable parts of our identity. But exactly what species we are is already a question. In each of those groups the animals are very similar that then they differ only in small ways. For example, I thought I was a coyote. That was my very first type on thereotype. Because it was clear from the beginning that I was canine. I just knew that, it was a certainty. But finding that one animal in that whole family was so hard. So then I narrowed it down to wolves. But there's a lot of those, too. So I think it's very hard to decide, given how similar the related species are, which is why I think our therianthropy is malleable. Only the basics are given(animal group and genus) and the rest is a question mark. In this case i was oriented by feeling and harmony. And I think it is also influenced by our humanity. Because how much our humanity affects our perception of ourselves. So there you go.

Ooh this is a good question, and I really like Jeb_CC's clay metaphor. As a young teen, when I first discovered therianthropy I was feeling 100% positive that I was a wolf- but throughout my life as I absorbed so much wildlife trivia, once I came to reexamine my therianthropy I was positive that what I'm looking at internally just aligns far more closely with foxes. I feel quite sure about it right now that that's what I've always truly been! But I'll stay open to the idea that this is a part of me that could prove to be more fluid. Maybe I'm a fox right *now*, and later in life I'll come to be something else- or I'll just be as wrong as I was as a kid when I thought I was a wolf.

(2024-10-19 10:57)Abysmal. Wrote:  I wonder, if there were animals of very similar characteristics both physically and personality/behaviour wise, and I came across them first, would I have identified as them, instead of what I identify as now?

(Note: My response is from the perspective of psychology based therianthropy, not spiritual)
I think that one thing some often forget as well is that... therianthropy is rarely some hyper-specific identity. It is a non-literal intangible identity, and it would be improbable for one to know their exact fur pattern, size, weight, place of birth, how soft their fur feels, etc. It is why hyper-specific alterhuman stories are scrutinised so much, because it more aligns with one's imagination rather than one's inner subconscious identity. As an example, my dragon avatar is not truly me - it just a drawn representation. But I cannot know for sure that's how I'm coloured, cannot know for sure that my horns are of that length, etc.

So what are our therian selves actually shaped like? And can they be shaped? You could consider your alterhuman part a metaphorical mold of clay. It starts with a default appearance that might look a little canine, but then as you grow and learn more about the world, that clay may shape into a wolf, or a dog. But this clay object doesn't actually exist, you can't actually physically see or touch it. So how the hell do we even know what species it is?

I think many struggle with that lack of self-understanding, and when they find the concept difficult to grasp, they instead begin to perceive the mold literally; they start to shape it into something with their own hands, and it becomes something they are not (it becomes a figment of one's imagination or creativity). That clay mold is then no longer truly them, it is instead what they have made of it.

I think many would do well to learn that this clay is not something we even need to touch. It is a background part of ourselves, and it will take whatever shape it naturally develops. It may become a wolf, it may become a dog, it may become a bird! It doesn't matter. We don't need to understand every specific nature of our alterhuman identities and I don't think we should try, because they are intangible constructs. Even if we could prove that therian brains function differently to non-therians, that still will never tell us who we actually are as an identity.

It is an intriguing theory, though psychology based theories always tend to be hard to prove - if they can even be proved at all.

A primary ingredient of that recipe being dissociation makes sense. But I might even suggest that this includes disassociation. To sum it up briefly: dissociation is involuntary, whereas disassociation is voluntary. But they can in some cases result in similar symptoms. At the core of both concepts though is that disconnection from someone, something, oneself, or the world. Though a child may not necessarily be dissociative because they have not experienced a form of early stress or trauma, they may choose to disassociate depending on the circumstances.

As a rough example: a child who can't seem to find any other classmates who have the same interests as them might then choose to disassociate themselves from their classmates. They may feel disconnected from the concept of friends because of these circumstances, and that disassociation can then potentially lead to a connection with therianthropy. From what I can see, humans don't tend to function very well when completely disconnected. They need to be connected to something, someone, a concept, a goal, a philosophy, anything. And perhaps therianthropy is just one of those things.

In this way then, obviously those who experience dissociation are more likely to identify as alterhuman (and this has been seen on many occasions where those with DID have reported experiencing animal-like identities). But I believe disassociation can play a part too, which is not inherently dependent on neurodivergency, trauma, or personality (though may still be affected by such traits). Anyone has the capacity to disassociate.

And obvious disclaimer: I am not a medical professional, I am just guesstimating.

I see what you mean. As a biological male, I am an outcast in the Therian community. but thats alright!

This is an interesting way of looking at it, Lopori! There certainly is logic behind what you're saying.

Men do want to have plans to do things in group, while women often do introspection, care about emotions, about others. They are more predisposed to talk about them, while men often keep them for themselves. I am not a furry, however. I don't suit at least, do introspection, but am perhaps not as communicative as women tend to be. I care about emotions of others, not just the ones close to me, but taken as a whole.

I know this is not about me in particular. I just wanted to chime in and say that this may explain why there are more women in the community. Loved your take on this as well.

(2025-02-23 14:03)UniqueUsernameTADA Wrote:  One reason that I think that there are more AFAB therians is that young girls are generally more encouraged to be interested in animals than young boys. I believe that therianthropy usually develops when someone is a young child, whereas furries can choose to become one at any point.

Horse-girl+

Therianthropy sometimes develops a little later, I was late teens (still pretty young in the grand scheme). But yeah I get what you mean about girls and animals.

One reason that I think that there are more AFAB therians is that young girls are generally more encouraged to be interested in animals than young boys. I believe that therianthropy usually develops when someone is a young child, whereas furries can choose to become one at any point.