Dragonkin and Kitsunekin blog

here it is compared to hubbles image:

If it makes me feel icky or weird to consciously change it, it's more likely to be a noema than a headcanon.

Like, I frequently change up my headcanons about Osmosians (Kevin's species in Ben 1O). I've pushed the idea on the fandom that they're cryptids just because it's fun. But in my heart I know that they're aliens (that have probably lived among humans for a few centuries, leading to all the confusion about their origins).

(Image Description: An X-Y graph with the X axis running from “100% canon” to “100% I created”, and the Y axis running from “was completely instinctive” to “took effort to create/learn.” The graph is divided into three zones, labeled “the valid box” (encompassing the entire “100% canon”-”was completely instinctive” quadrant, most of the “100% canon”-”took effort to create/learn” quadrant, and about a third of the “100% I created”-”was completely instinctive” quadrant”), “definitely fandom stuff” (encompassing the far corner of the “100% I created”-”took effort to create/learn” quadrant), and “noema? headcanon? does it matter? who knows. not me” (encompassing the zone in between these two). Several examples are scattered throughout the graph: “of course Na’vi can voluntarily move their ears,” “Eywa does not mind control the animals,” and “detailed animal and plant biology stuff” in the Valid Box, “’Awvea Tsahìk” and “prolemuris redesign” in the question mark zone, and “my OCs” in “definitely fandom stuff.” End ID.)

Ah, the pains of being a creature with access to a multiverse. Any variation of any headcanon is true, in one universe or another. Are Cynthia and her Lucario siblings, and that's why she has those things in her hair? Are they lovers, and those things in her hair was a gift from her Lucario? Are they merely trainer and pokemon? Answer: all of them.

I was there when the shift from otatkukin/mediakin to fictionkin happened. I'm an "original", whatever that means, and the fictional part of my identity is entirely rooted in my head until proven otherwise (which will be never). Whoever wrote this is making a sweeping statement to give certain spiritual beliefs more weight, and it's unnecessary.

There's one thing that stands out to me about the emphasis on "fictionkin" stemming from the metaphysical part of the community - from what I've been able to find, "fictionkind" with a D can specifically be traced back to you, @dragotoxins. 2017 was a much different time, but the way you intended the word to be used still seems very... self-determined, I guess. It doesn't say anything about the belief behind why someone might be who they are, it just states that they are.

If nothing else, it's a cool little glimpse into the past:

Something I intended with other/fictionkind is that it allows for more individual interpretation, while still keeping true to the general definitions accepted by the communities. Someone with a specific canine theriotype - let’s say, a doberman - could call themselves dobermankind, or caninekind, or whatever iteration they prefer personally and aesthetically. A dragon would of course be dragonkind, or wyvernkind, or wyrmkind, or whatever. Really, anything goes on that score.

The same could be said of kintype via dragonkin, dobermankin, etc, but if you do want to switch to using other/fictionkind, it can work with a little creativity. Rather than saying “I have a dragon kintype” you could just say “I am dragonkind”. And since the main reason I pushed for the switch to begin with was the patronizing misuse of our terminologiy and identities from tumblrkin and their ilk, and their fixation on kintypes as objects one has rather than what a person is, I think it’s a good distinction.

Yokai I've seen around but don't know a lot about (not enough either in the otherkin context or the mythology context to be able to speak on them), kitsunes I've seen once or twice but again haven't looked into the kitsunekin tag or anything - angels with Arabic names I've definitely seen, I think that's an "angels or beings we would probably lump in with angels have existed in a number of religions and cultures, therefore, inaccuracies to one culture/religion aren't cultural appropriation because I'm just not an angel from that specific culture/religion" thing? Which is... fair, I can't honestly say otherwise, since it's not unfathomable to me that a being like that might have/prefer a name from a given language without actually matching the mythos of the corresponding religion/culture/area?

...I'm turning myself in circles here a bit, tl;dr if someone is specifically claiming to be an Islamic angel without actually matching that description that definitely falls under the same concept of appropriation; if they're not making that claim and are just using an Arabic name it's probably just insensitive at worst?

Crystals that look like Fruit

Wavellite (Kiwi)

Watermelon Tourmaline

Grape Agate