(2026-07-10 20:24)DustWolf Wrote:  My identity is secondary to my experience of therianthropy. I did not choose my therianthropy and in fact there are people out there who reject their therianthropy, yet are still therians.

While I'm new here, I will say this is the perspective I have of therianthropy at this time. If it isn't experience-first, it's more of a wish than what actually is. That would place it in the fandom category, and then what would the differences be between therians and furries?

The involuntary point is what crystallizes the experiences as just those - not vacations of choice, but actual reality. The simplest comparison I can make here is the number of people who try to "pray away the gay" but can't. As one who attempted to as a teenager, it became very clear to me involuntary nature is still true whether one chooses to identify with it or not. In fact, I'd argue that experience, painful as it was, made it extremely apparent to me that aspect of myself was not a choice. Therianthropy is much alike in that regard, I believe.

(2026-07-10 17:18)Murray Wrote:  Definitions often do more than just describe something, they also create a distinction between one thing and another. In this case, defining therianthropy as involuntary helps separate it from things like roleplay, intentionally choosing an animal identity, or other forms of identification. That doesn't necessarily mean those other experiences are less meaningful or less genuine. It just means that, within the common definition of therianthropy, involuntariness is used as one of the criteria for what falls under the term.

I think it's worth noting that, in the situation that inspired this conversation, a therian was being belittled for their definition of therianthropy (as a non-voluntary experience), because their perspective was in the minority (on a large alterhuman discord guild).

There are a lot more non-therians than there are therians, so as a rule, therians who experience therianthropy as we do, will always be in the minority. And this means that we cannot rely on the normal mechanism by which society at large decides whether someone's identity is to be validated or not: Which is that if you don't qualify in the view of the majority, you simply have to accept that nobody is going to believe you.

The only thing we will ever have in this regard is our individual perspectives. In other words, we will not be able to impose our definitions, however we will still be able to hold individual opinions and the option not to acknowledge people who believe differently.

(2026-07-10 17:46)Emi Wrote:  I chose to use the therian label because I experience therianthropy.
I chose to identify as an ikran because the ikran fits my experiences to a T and is the best representation of what I feel.

Views I agree with all round, but especially this.

My identity is secondary to my experience of therianthropy. I did not choose my therianthropy and in fact there are people out there who reject their therianthropy, yet are still therians.


As I've said elsewhere though, I think identity isn't really as central to therianthropy as people make it out to be. I think therianthropy is primarily the experience, which is why therianthropy is commonly described as a vague animalistic nature. Meanwhile identity itself is much more relevant to the otherkin, to whom identifying as a specific type of creature is much more significant (aka, identifying as a unicorn, rather than experiencing horse-like tendencies).

The fact that young people cannot tell the difference between said groups is part of the reason why understanding of this topic is as poor as it is.

LP,
Dusty

We aren't therians ourselves but are still nonhuman and would like to talk about this.

When we look within we see ourselves as something nonhuman, we did nothing to influence this and did not choose to look like what we are on the inside. We're all different kinds of nonhumans.

Firefly did decide to identify as an attack helicopter for fun however. They did not look inside and see an attack helicopter, but they did want to take back the term that anti-alterhumans and anti-trans people use and make it into something fun.

(2026-07-10 17:46)Emi Wrote:  I often wonder if it is a fundamental misunderstanding that leads people to say it is voluntary. Yes, I chose the label. Yes, I chose to identify as an ikran. That sounds bad and very anti-therianthropic, but think about it this way:

I chose to use the therian label because I experience therianthropy.
I chose to identify as an ikran because the ikran fits my experiences to a T and is the best representation of what I feel.

We find what you said here to be very interesting, often when someone claims to be a therian and says that they chose their theriotype they get backlash. But when you phrase it like that, you technically do choose a theriotype that best fits you. So why does this happen??

I think that over time the word "Chose" seems to have become a word that will get you backlash in certain alterhuman spaces and may be interpreted in the same way no matter context. Even if you didn't specify you were otherlink or that you chose that creature as a type because it fit your experience.

We've also noticed that some therians on certain platforms absolutely REFUSE to accept that you can voluntarily identify as something, or view otherlinks as lesser than involuntary identities

There's nothing wrong with voluntarily identifying as something, it's just that it would fit the label otherlink. And that's perfectly okay, this identity can be just as powerful and just as valid as therianthrope. I'd also like to note that it's absolutely not anti-therian

When I personally describe my therianthropy as involuntary, it is because the main chunk of what I think, feel, and experience comes without my input. When I experience phantom limbs, it is usually because I just woke up or felt a gust of wind. When I feel that strangely intense urge to gape my jaw at people who piss me off, it comes as a sudden pulse of instinct and not something I decide would be a good idea. When I feel a profound sadness at the way my chest seems caved in, unable to hold flight muscles, it is out of my claws. I do not choose to feel sad. It simply happens. These are things I deal with, put up with, sometimes hate, sometimes enjoy. I am not in control of when these feelings appear and I did not ask for them, nor can I get rid of them or stop them happening.

There are voluntary aspects, of course. I choose to cover my home in banshees. I choose to paint myself at times. I choose to dress in bright colours. I sometimes choose to manifest phantom sensations to minimise dysphoria. These are all parts of my experience, but they are indeed brought on. Would I say these are integral to the experience? No. If I didn't experience dysphoric sensations I likely wouldn't do any of this. I can stop doing these at any time. Are they false or fraudulent experiences because I choose to behave in these ways? No, they're part of how I present and manage myself. I can understand people when they say some aspects are voluntary as a result. To say the entire thing can be voluntary though? No, I do not understand or believe that.

I often wonder if it is a fundamental misunderstanding that leads people to say it is voluntary. Yes, I chose the label. Yes, I chose to identify as an ikran. That sounds bad and very anti-therianthropic, but think about it this way:

I chose to use the therian label because I experience therianthropy.
I chose to identify as an ikran because the ikran fits my experiences to a T and is the best representation of what I feel.

Is this what people mean when they say the identity is voluntary? If so, it is leading to some very harsh misunderstandings and discourse that could so easily be avoided if everyone was on the same page.
I often think the identity-first language is a bit of a bane on the community at times and if this is the case, it is yet another example of why experiences need to be at the forefront of what it means to be nonhuman.

That's something I wanted to see being thoroughly discussed on the forums, however I am having trouble finding any clear threads about it, so I am starting my own. If I missed something, I apologize.
This idea stems from a discussion in another community claiming that therianthropy is voluntary, which feels very wrong to me. As someone who wouldn't choose to be a therian despite loving some aspects of it, it's something I can't simply get rid of, regardless of how much I've tried.

That got me thinking, though...what exactly do we mean when we say therianthropy is "involuntary"?

In my opinion, experiences themselves are what are the most involuntary, because many describe it as something they didn't intentionally "create", however experience isn't involuntary by definition either. You can choose an activity, but you cannot choose/control the results of one, nor the feelings/sensations. Even if someone intentionally explored their identity through meditation, visualization, or other things, would the eventual sense of identity be something they consciously chose, or something that emerged beyond their direct control?
It does get blurry. It's not like an on/off switch. You might voluntarily engage in things that influence your mind, while the resulting experiences and how deeply they remain are outside of your control.

It's easy to say that we didn't choose to be a therian, however what exactly wasn't chosen? Was it the experiences.. identity, interpretation of those experiences?
There is at least some degree of interpretation involved, but at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean the identity is a conscious choice. You don't simply decide what feels authentic to you. At most, you choose whether to accept it, reject it, or how you describe it.

All of it combines different ideas into one statement, it could mean different things.
Saying therianthropy is entirely involuntary can be a community boundary, but it becomes complicated when it is treated as a fact about identity formation, since experiences, interpretation, and self-identification can involve different levels of agency.

Definitions often do more than just describe something, they also create a distinction between one thing and another. In this case, defining therianthropy as involuntary helps separate it from things like roleplay, intentionally choosing an animal identity, or other forms of identification. That doesn't necessarily mean those other experiences are less meaningful or less genuine. It just means that, within the common definition of therianthropy, involuntariness is used as one of the criteria for what falls under the term.

The question is whether "involuntary" is describing a consistent part of the experience itself, or whether it is also a boundary created to preserve a distinction between different experiences that might otherwise overlap, because if it is a boundary, then saying "therianthropy is involuntary" is partly about how the word is defined, not necessarily a statement that every possible form of therianthroopy can only happen involuntarily.

So, when you say therianthropy is involuntary, what exactly do you mean by that? Is it the experiences, the identity itself, the inability to change it, or something else?

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.