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.

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. )