Heyyy. I'm quite late to this topic, and so much has already said, but there are a spot that was only briefly touched upon that I'd like to voice my thought on.

I like to stress test things, so let's say this does happen and becomes well established. Especially younger ones, around my age (16) and younger will decide on an origin. My concern here is that, like theriotypes, there will be a strong sense and feeling of belonging to one origin. Similar to echo chamber, like prev. mentioned. It becomes very easy for newcomers to 'sort' themselves, and then confirm themselves over and over within that label.

It could create a barrier there, maybe similar to how many therians begin as eg. a wolf, only to figure out many years later that they're not a wolf. This maturity to figure out who you are comes with age and time, but making these splits between origins is similarly fickled. Without them, it compells individuals to read about longer descriptions of other beliefs and develop their own.

Of course it can make language within the community easier, but even so, it would likely be another label someone new flips through and chooses, based on their immediate thoughts regarding the topic.

Others on the other hand, might have not figured out what they believe in. Youngsters (defining it as around my age and younger) or others might fly in greeting those with (un)helpful thoughts on what you should or could believe in, again limiting the amount of introspection many might do.

Basically repeated myself here on one aspect, but it's difficult for me to keep my thoughts short haha.

~Greenleaf

Well, of course we can label more things, but why?
As many have said, Psychological/Spiritual connection encompass everything. Moreover, I think that our therianthropy connection cannot be explained through categorization, because many things that we're experiencing have more connected, yet chaotic nature. We cannot say that solely X or Y is caused my therianthropy, even when we feel that it is. Sticking to something easier to understand makes us attach to theories. And let's be honest, most of the theories doesn't go so smooth, so what's happening that we tend to be with label as long as we can or fluctuate between labels every season. Aren't we suppose to cling to something that is certain, to have as unbiased experience as we possibly can?
I don't know accurately why I am therian, but what's certain that this is due to psychological nature.
In the spiritual sense, people tend to make theories that connects to their beliefs, because this makes everything easier. Nevertheless, noone can certainly say that it's true, spiritual person can only believe that it works like that. It bring sense of understanding that many of us crave. It's okay to try rationalise everything. And yet we need to be careful not to confuse ourselves with the expectations that we impose on therianthropy.

I think they wouldn't really be that useful, since we already have spiritual and psychological. You could say something like "I think my alterhumanity is a result of ____" but I don't think an entire word is needed. Also, from my understanding, they don't have much of an effect on the actual experience and are more of a self-description/belief that you get to choose.

As someone new to exploring therianthropy space, I will say adding a handful of labels seems a bit extra at this point. There are two main reasons I hold that view at this time.

1. Therianthropy is a fairly small space, so the subcategorization isn't that necessary. Imagine I have 30 files on my desktop, and I want to organize them. I don't make 30 folders, and I'd imagine it's very unlikely I'd even make 10. There is a point at which the amount of categories is more cumbersome than just sorting through the terms themselves, and without knowing an exhaustive list of the terms you seek to add, my instinct tells me it would feel like overcategorization to me.

2. As others have said, there is a benefit to discussing your experiences in a topic like therianthropy. I am still feeling myself out on the topic, and while contherian and suntherian are terms I have seen - and are perfectly fine under the surface - if I were to be forced to wade through them immediately upon entry here, it would be a lot to juggle. I'm someone who likes terminology - so long as its consistent. Given the personalized nature of this space though, it might be better to stick with the megacategories of psychological and spiritual, and even those still have some grey boundaries.

(2026-07-02 19:46)Saki Wrote:  I intend to become an Anthropologist Scientist solely to study Alterhumanity as a phenomenon of the human mind; this fascinates me and has great scientific potential for study.

I can't wait for scientists to see Alterhumanity as something interesting enough to study, And that term interests me.

No need to wait! Anthropologists and psychologists are already studying us: we have a paper on non-human identification from someone with a masters in anthropology and a psychology doctoral dissertation about mental health in non-human identified individuals. That second paper is one I gave to my therapist after I told her about being therian and she found it very interesting.

There's more research papers linked in this research paper thread on Reddit. I could swear we have a similar thread with a collection of links on TG but the best I could find with some searching is WVZ's Guide for Professionals thread...

Anyway, good luck with your studies and apologies for going off-topic.

What I proposed during that meeting was a slightly more refined version of the previously proposed definition which does not necessarily try to include every form of alterhumanity, some forms of which I've learned are entirely unrelated. After more discussion and thought, this is what I arrived upon:



"Zoesthesia ('zo-esthesia') is the experience of sensations, perceptions, and behaviors subjectively interpreted as belonging to something incongruent to one's own biology. Interpretations and identities arising from these experiences are personal and diverse; zoesthesia can be present without interpretation, especially at early ages, but is often experienced as an embodied identity.

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

1. The experience of zoesthesia involves:

- Experiences (e.g sensations, perceptions, memories, behaviors, desires, social cues, states of consciousness, and/or involuntary urges) that are often subjectively interpreted as belonging to something other than one's own biological species,
- Experiences that may vary in form and intensity, remain at a stable baseline, or become triggered by internal or external stimuli,

2. And may include any number of the following:

- An identity or overarching sensation that embodies these experiences,
- An understanding that one still has a human body,
- Dysphoria regarding the incongruence between one's physical body and perceived embodied experience,
- Dreams or trance-like states that are experienced through the lens of something incongruent to one's biology,
- A strengthening or increased frequency of experiences after one becomes conscious of them,
- And/or a personal interpretation of these experiences as non-human through psychological or spiritual means."




Obviously, this could technically be considered as a refined definition of therianthropy or otherkin. So why did I create this? There are a number of problems I see within current definitions that jump out at me.

1. Therianthropy is often associated throughout the community with identity first, despite the fact that we know it's much more than that. There are many who have experiences they interpret as non-human but do not feel the pull to say "I identify as a _____." I feel it necessary to properly define what is "under the hood" of therianthropy in an empirical way.

2. According to Therian Guide, we don't just have "therianthropy." We have suntherian, contherian, non-shifting therian, standard therian, polytherian, cladotherian, shifting, aura shifting, bi-location shifting, phantom shifting, dream shifting, astral shifting, and a whole slew of other terms. From an outside observer looking in, this makes it look like a cult. Point #1.1 in the definition of zoesthesia eliminates the need for this obtuseness entirely, reducing the need to use seemingly woo-woo terms like aura shifting, astral shifting, bi-location shifting, and more. I don't believe that these extra terms need to be publicized as part of an official definition, but instead as a historic note. Obviously I can't advocate for the outright removal of these terms and microlabels from the community's lexicon (this likely isn't even possible), but this all looks wildly disorganized.

3. One thing that came up during our meeting was the fact both therianthropy and the original proposed definition of zoesthesia are largely based on one's interpretation of their experiences as non-human. There is an ache for feelings of legitimacy in the community. Many feel as if they don't shift or if they aren't "committed" enough to their identity, their experiences aren't real and they won't get to be a part of the club. There are those who want to put forth the idea that certain sensations, behaviors, or lack thereof are concrete proof that one is or isn't a particular animal. This itches as the incredibly human fear of social exclusion. Currently available definitions of things like therianthropy promote these attitudes by not emphasizing the fact that all of this is based on interpretation to begin with. This isn't an exact science and may never be. As much as one may desire for their experiences and identity to be perceived as legitimate by their peers, there is no empirical way to do this except to say that your experiences are valid because they're yours. Gatekeeping legitimacy turns the therian community into a kind of cult that encourages members to preen their experiences and limit themselves. This is not a positive direction.

4. The younger alterhuman community is the only one I can think of that coins new terms every week to describe their own flavor of experiences. I feel that there must be some deeper commonalities that people are trying to get at. I believe that this refinement may alleviate some of those efforts.

5. I also believe that potential authority figures such as Therian Guide, as well as general members of the community at large, have a responsibility to avoid the promotion of magical thinking. By not educating people about the fact that the "non-human animal experience" is an interpretation of one's experiences as "non-human" rather than an undeniable fact of existence clearly within the definition of therianthropy, magical thinking is encouraged. Anything and everything can become a cult when this responsibility is ignored. I bring this to everyone's attention out of concern more than anything. I was raised in a cult, which Bagera herself rescued me from and helped me process. I can only hope that this responsibility is understood, for the sake of the integrity of the community.

I am requesting that this proposal (in this particular post) be considered and debated amongst yourselves so that a decision can be made regarding how to proceed. I believe the threat I described in #3 is very real, and I think it is damaging to the community as a whole. While many in the community may be more spiritually minded, I think it behooves everyone to approach these topics with a dose of neutrality and empiricism.

Zoesthesia It basically has the same meaning as Therianthropy, however, I found it incredible.

I've said several times that I'm in favor of creating new terms if they explain someone's feelings, And this one sparked my interest because it has a 'scientific perspective' on the matter.

I intend to become an Anthropologist Scientist solely to study Alterhumanity as a phenomenon of the human mind; this fascinates me and has great scientific potential for study.

I can't wait for scientists to see Alterhumanity as something interesting enough to study, And that term interests me.

(I saw the small discussion involving the Chinese community, and really, each community has to deal with its own problems in its own way; after all, they are the ones who know the situation best. But regardless of that, I found it to be a good term suggestion that deserves more polishing. )

It's possible I received misinformation (or poorly translated information) from others in the Chinese therian community. I was not aware of some of the points you've brought up, Chase. I don't intend to pursue this further.

I spoke to a researcher about the whole zoesthesia idea face-to-face yesterday. They felt that it could potentially be useful as a term in that in emphasizes experience over identity, but is unlikely to remedy any of the social issues mentioned. Some (including myself) have compared it to synesthesia, but even though something like synesthesia isn't really targeted by bad actors, the nature of therianthropy would likely remain an issue with people threatened by nonconformity no matter what you call it.

Another therian brought up in private that "cenesthesia" already exists - typically in regards to cenesthopathy in medical literature when referring to a disruption in one's perception of themselves in things like clinical lycanthropy. And in such medical literature, cenesthopathy is specifically avoided when describing what therians and otherkin experience. I think that's for the best.

Wooooooaahhhggggg, well, for me at least, Microlabels are fun and almost down to the point on certain experience, but as far as finding people similar and feeling validated it may be hard. My experience especially when trying to explain to multiple people the term 'genderfaun' (Genderfluid but not ever Female/Femme). Therian wise, i have an entire document in a pack doc i use to communicate w/ my pack that explains microlabels and the more 'umbrela terms'. Its alot to be simple about it.