(2026-03-25 19:19)Cygnus Wrote:  (We're currently discussing forming a cohesive definition TG will be using in another thread, since it often isn't described in a cohesive way and has lead to confusion. See: https://forums.therian-guide.com/Thread-What-should-our-official-stance-be)

This is actually why I asked this! Was originally going to be a reply but turned into a question when I realised I didn't exactly know the answer myself lol.

Quote:My personal definition is the following:
"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."

Yeah, I agree with this, and I certainly wouldn't count myself among the "people saying that you didn't need to have animal nature already present to have the experience of being an animal".

Thanks for the detail, very informative and well written!

(2026-03-25 10:21)DyadDryad Wrote:  I wasn't sure whether this was agreed on in the community and I just wanted to ask for some clarity as I've seen the term 'Therianthropy' used in both contexts!

Basically, do you think that:

- "Therianthropy is a term which describes my set of experiences as my theriotype (such as shifts)"

or

- "Therianthropy is an innate quality that I have which is the source of my therian experiences (such as shifts)"

As far as the word itself and its context-based meanings:
The use of the word itself depends on it's word-sense, so its meaning may refer to different aspects of being a therian depending on the focus of the sentence.

Technically it's a descriptor, but depending on the word-sense it's being used in it can also be used to reference anything that's part of the state of being a therian (referring to the ontological state or referring individually to the source of the experience or its effects)

Use Examples:

Use 1: The top-level use as a Definition/description of the Ontological state:
"Therianthropy" as describing the ontological state of existing as an animal within a human body." Here, the word "Therianthropy" isn't individually referencing the source or what flows from it, just the state of being."


Use 2: To describe individual aspects of the whole experience of being an animal:
"Tell us about your therianthropy" would be referring to everything about your state of being an animal; it's source and experiences and they're usually asking for you to break it down into individual parts, experiences, etc

Quote:It's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" scenario. Do therian experiences make a therian? Or does therianthropy cause therian experiences? The way we discover our own theriotypes suggests the former - i.e. "I am a wolf therian because I experience wolf like qualities in shifts", but I've also heard it talked about as something innate too, as the mechanisms by which our experiences occur.

---

As for the actual definition of the state:
This differs from space to space because there's no central group defining it anymore..we're all like tiny nations with our own versions of the idea, which has been both a boon and a bane.
(We're currently discussing forming a cohesive definition TG will be using in another thread, since it often isn't described in a cohesive way and has led to confusion. See: https://forums.therian-guide.com/Thread-What-should-our-official-stance-be)

My personal definition is the following:
"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."

This was what I understood the concept to mean when we were posting on AHWw, so when I heard newer people saying that you didn't need to have animal nature already present to have the experience of being an animal it reads completely backwards and misfocused from most conversations I've had since I awakened.

(edit: corrected spelling of "led")

I lean a bit more towards my therianthropy being something more innate because it's very integrated in my life. My therianthropy has no traceable cause; not as the result of trauma, not imprinting, etc. My parents have videos of me acting animalistic before I could even form memories. I'm constantly shifted to some degree, and the way I see and understand the world is very much through a wolf lens and always has been. If you were to take my therianthropy away, I would lose the core of who I am.

@Hemlock I completely agree with you here; I feel the same about my being a crow. I think there's some interesting introspection to be done on if our experiences as a roadrunner and a crow have a definable source but, while we're unsure of that, therianthropy is in my view a useful term to say "I'm not sure what we're experiencing but its the same thing as this whole community is experiencing".

I personally see it as a descriptor. I am not spiritual, so i do not believe in an innate soul or something similar to this. I call myself a roadrunner because it is the closest animal that matches my experiences, and i did not start this journey even knowing i was specifically a bird.
To me, my experiences are what define me as a therianthrope. If i stopped completely having those experiences, i would most likely just start calling my theriotype a heart-type. This makes it hard to differenciate from cameos, but my cameos have always kinda been spurred by something in my environment while my therianthropic experiences just happens on their own.

I wasn't sure whether this was agreed on in the community and I just wanted to ask for some clarity as I've seen the term 'Therianthropy' used in both contexts!

Basically, do you think that:

- "Therianthropy is a term which describes my set of experiences as my theriotype (such as shifts)"

or

- "Therianthropy is an innate quality that I have which is the source of my therian experiences (such as shifts)"

It's a bit of a "chicken and the egg" scenario. Do therian experiences make a therian? Or does therianthropy cause therian experiences? The way we discover our own theriotypes suggests the former - i.e. "I am a wolf therian because I experience wolf like qualities in shifts", but I've also heard it talked about as something innate too, as the mechanisms by which our experiences occur.

Hey guys,

I see someone on staff closed this already, probably recently and didn't bother to add an explanation.

But... obviously since it hasn't moved from 2018, no it's no longer open.

Admittedly, it's a shame, but the thing is I got a bit overwhelmed and doing this when I didn't use facebook at all was too much of a strain. I don't even know if we still have access to the TG facebook.

As you can probably tell, the main purpose of this was to advertise TG on social media, because it contained new people and art was likely to get liked and reposted. These days, TG is not struggling to find new people and overall the staff's policy lately has been to scale back our involvement in other media, because of all the drama this brings along.

However we might still do a thing to give artists more points tho, because you guys are cool and deserve it.

LP,
Dusty

(2026-01-29 23:44)StormyNeedsALife Wrote:  this is amazing. lol but really unessary word are funny but should not be used unironically.

I never ended up explaining this in this thread, wanting to preserve a straight face while delivering the joke. Also I think I put the explanation in the Therian Wiki and they deleted it.

But basically I believe that having stuff like this generator as available as possible will do good to the community, because people stumbling upon it will recognize that their attempt to create a new term is as senseless and silly as clicking Generate to get another important sounding word with a goofy explanation.

Like I said many times before, the special terminology is a bane of the therian community, because:
1. They make it quicker for young people to misidentify with a concept they don't understand
2. They makes us look like a cult in the wider community (using in-group words is a cult red flag)
3. They are used by people to make themselves seem more important than they actually are (by being term authors)

LP,
Dusty

(2026-03-22 6:32)Baumarius Wrote:  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.

Hm, I'm unsure if I did understand your point then; the way you wrote it was a bit winding and it was rather late for me.
You seemed to start off referring to the area of metaphysics that would deal with the soul/spirit, so I tried to address it within that context. This is the reason why I brought up ideas of "wells" and "homes"; they're common concepts shared across multiple cultures and traditions that have views of the spirit/soul, and from a view of it as comparative mythology each distant retelling of those archetypal concepts could be viewed as a data point. This is usually how I determine if something is likely representative of a truth about the nature of reality.

I was aware you were partly making a solipsistic argument, though I wasn't sure why you mentioned spirituality since that isn't the same as belief or firsthand experience. When you mentioned empiricism as a counterpoint I assumed you were trying to say that it was truth and classifying held-knowledge as dogma (it's opposite), since nothing outside the mind could be truly known from within a solipsistic view.

I don't really come from a solipsistic viewpoint, though I do view the mind as a filter for objective reality.. It's actually something I was having an interesting conversation about the other day regarding the way different cultures report seeing deities, spirits, and other features of reality; perhaps it is because of the mind presenting those archetypal features of reality in a more comprehensible way. ^^

Quote: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.

I actually do agree with you on the first part, though I'm not agnostic. Much of what could be said to be supernatural I view as based in physical systems, their nature and influence, and the spirit world(etc) as an adjacent universe(or several) that seemed to match the branes described by M-Theory when I was younger. I've actually been retreading back through my old views of things recently in an attempt to figure out a more cohesive structural view of how things might be.

As for the international communities, perhaps reaching out to someone from their spaces and talking about concepts of experience might help; people learn best by seeing relatable examples.

Quote:...
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 problem, and my apologies if I came off as badgering through this and good luck on your grant.

(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