mouseteeth

"A therian is someone who partially or fully identifies as a nonhuman animal in any way."

('identifies as' can be replaced with 'is' based on personal linguistic preferences)

Now wait - you might argue - shouldn't we explain about involuntariness? Origins? How it has to be real earthen animals? Theriomythics? What if someone asks 'how do you know if you're a therian' rather than 'what is a therian'? Shouldn't we talk about shifts and memories and instincts?

And my answer is no. The definition above can answer both questions. Further study is up to the individual, especially if they don't want to be bombarded with all possible information right away.

It can be as simple as 'some common experiences are...but that's not all' and 'there's many reasons why someone might see themselves as a therian such as...' if they want more information from you or you feel like giving it right away.

Because the annoying thing is any other definition with extra information baked in will always be both right and wrong at the same time especially if you only go on your own personal beliefs.

"A therian is someone who involuntarily identifies as a nonhuman animal on all levels except physical." "A therian is someone who had a past life as an animal." "A therian is someone who is an earthen animal on any level at least some of the time." etc etc

None of these are not true, but they aren't fully true either, and thus end up imperfect, giving incomplete information that gives rise to arguments and disagreements later on when someone is sure they are right and meets someone with a different interpretation of certain factors of therianthropy.

Today I saw a conversation between two therians which was not unlike many conversations I've seen.

Therian A: "Therians know what they are based on instincts and behaviours they display related to their theriotype."

Therian B: "That's not always true, for me I had no behaviours or instincts due to being raised as human in a human society, but I still know what I am."

Therian A: "If being raised in a human society got rid of nonhuman instincts them how come many therians still have them?"

The issue here is that B's attempt at educating A on different experiences of therianthropy by speaking of their own had A assuming that B was trying to apply it to all therianthropy.

And I suddenly twigged on to the fact that A, at least in part, was one of those therians who wants to 'solve' therianthropy.

They want a definite, uncomplicated, singular explaination of what a therian is, what they experience, how it works and why.

And I thought of all the different conversations and arguments and discourses I've seen that exist for basically that same reason. Butting heads about what therianthropy should be, could be, or would be if only a strict definition could be achieved.

This by and large is hurting therianthropy and actually hindering our understanding of it.

By accepting that therianthropy occurs in individuals for a plethora of reasons, than it can be voluntary and involuntary, that you can have one or a hundred theriotypes, that there are common experiences (e.g. shifts) but they're neither a requirement nor universally experienced, we can thrive a lot better.

Spend time wondering 'why' and 'how', but do so with the knowledge that your conclusions are just your own and might even only apply to you, and that will be infinitely more valuble than trying to cut out the 'fake therians' and pool together a more singular experience which time and time again has been proven to be impossible.

Starting off, I’m proud to be a Badger of Mossflower Country. Mossflower Badgers are archetypal in their existence, to say the least. Our depictions are comparable to that of fantasy dwarves. We’re renowned for our smithing, battle prowess, and hardiness. I may not apply every aspect of us to myself, but I love being a Mossflower Badger nonetheless.

Mossflower Badgers are somewhat anthropomorphic european badgers who’re among the most prominent tribes in Redwall, alongside mice and otters. I specify Mossflower because the Mossflower Woods is the general vicinity of most Redwall stories.

Moreover, not all Badgers dwell within Salamandastron, a notable badger stronghold typically occupied by men of the species. After all, the first badger that readers meet is Constance, a Badger Mother of Redwall. I personally prefer the position of “Badger of Salamandastron”, though. I am no lord nor lady, but I’m fond of this stronghold as a reader and as someone who chose this identity.

I’ve always admired these strong and noble folk. As a child, part of me even wanted to be a badger within Brian Jacques’s Redwall series. It’s like when kids muse on which Warriors clan they’d be in while taking quizzes or making characters. If I could choose to be in any tribe, I’d be a badger in a heartbeat.

A couple months ago, Redwall was one of the few childhood favorites I revisited through audiobooks. Those feelings resurfaced, except this time I knew I could become a Mossflower Badger if I wanted to. This identity started as a link. Soon after, I shared my introspections on this link in a Tumblr Community, specifically the Alterhuman Community.

Unlike most of my links, it became a part of my identity fairly quickly. I suspect it’s because of my familiarity and resonance with this fictional group. Those feelings have been around since my childhood.

One thing to take into account is that I incorporate another identity into this one. I didn’t choose to be a honey badger, but I do perceive myself as a semi-anthropomorphic honey badger when I am a Mossflower Badger. As I’ve mentioned earlier, Mossflower Badgers are exclusively european badgers in appearance. This makes sense given the settings of Redwall. Redwall takes place within a fantasy woodland based on the environments of England or Scotland if I’m not mistaken.

While I technically don’t belong in this environment, that never stopped me in being a Mossflower Badger. Technicalities are nothing against my convictions, and one thing about choice is that you are often your own master.

My appearance doesn’t define me as a Mossflower Badger. My character does. I am steadfast in my values. I support the agency and freedoms of all creatures. I’d rather go down swinging than bow my head in submission, than to sullenly accept plight at the hands of another. That’s just being humane on paper, but in relation to Redwall, that’s also the makings of a tried and true badger.

Furthermore, there’s an experience among Mossflower Badgers that’s not exclusive to them but happens to them so much that it reminds me of myself. Mossflower Badgers tend to carry a mental condition known as Bloodwrath. It intensifies the emotions, abilities and tolerances of an individual, essentially causing them to enter a berserker state. Often triggered in battle, it’s a traumatic ordeal for anyone who undergoes this state. It’s not completely without its setbacks in battle either, for it can cause someone to struggle with differentiating between their friends and their foes. It’s also very difficult to control. Not all badgers carry this condition, but it’s still quite common amongst us.

I don’t experience berserker shifts, per se. However, I do have schizophrenia-based disorders which affect my perception of self; this includes my perception of my species. In revisiting the Redwall series, I liken Bloodwrath to my own struggles with particularly intense or overwhelming bouts with psychosis. Obviously, I didn’t choose to have said experiences but I do think choosing to be a Mossflower Badger helped me reflect on those experiences on my own terms.

Though, I must specify this isn’t a copinglink. This is just another reason why Mossflower Badgers resonate with me so much, hence my decision in becoming one.

Much like Mossflower Badgers, some of my links formed simply because I wanted to be them. While there’s usefulness to terms like copinglinker and funlinker, I also feel like they’re more boxes to put on myself. It’s not often that I refer to my links under those specifics. I have exactly one copinglink, and I only label it as such because I believe that’s how that identity will stay. It exists to cope with a very upsetting point in my life which I won’t get into.

As for the rest of my links, I had only two supportlinks. Besides those, my links didn’t really need those labels since their reasonings tend to be a bit more nuanced than what’s proposed for otherlinkers.

I link Colossi because Shadow of the Colossus is not only my favorite game ever, but it is a game that has deeply inspired me as a creative. I chose to be one of its titular enemies to grow closer with the game I love.

This is a choice not made for fun, for aesthetics or for support, but made out of love and passion for something. There’s nothing wrong with the aforementioned reasons, of course; I just want folks to understand that choice isn’t limited to those avenues.

I linked the Starlii, an open species, because I really liked the species concept. One could argue that this started as an aeslink, but reading about them in detail made me more invested beyond their looks. I wanted to further explore this species and their lore but not exclusively through original characters and ‘sonas. To do so, I chose to be a Starliian.

With this link, I also realized it serves as an outlet for my connection with the sun. I’ve never had a word for that connection as it always felt like an impasse between being and not being. Being a Starliian helps me bridge that gap by being someone pulled from solar energy but not being a sun myself. This realization ultimately caused the Starlii species to transition from a link to a formative part of my identity.

Despite already having a non-chosen identity from Creatures of Sonaria, I linked two species from said source for completely different reasons. Funny enough, I don’t play Roblox whatsoever.

The Fleuralis species became the first of two supportlinks. I originally chose to be a Fleuralis because I wanted to express my leonine nature within its source. However, the reasons behind my choice soon changed. It was less about asserting my leonine nature, and more about leaning into a more imaginative, fanciful side of myself. I linked this species to better embody myself as a fantasy creature. It worked so well that it eventually became a part of me.

The second was the Verza species. Their dreamlike space aesthetics were nice and all, but what led me to linking this species was their presentation. I was drawn to the Verza because, for a lack of better words, they were very gender to me. I’ve been meaning to explore other means of presentation, such as androgyny and femininity, while being a transmasculine individual. They’re avenues of selfhood I’ve wanted to forge for myself but always struggled with to some extent.

I chose to be a Verza to tap into those qualities. The Verza species was an ideal model outside the standpoint(s) of cisnormativity and orthohumanity, respectively. I experimented with this species from a queer perspective, and doing so made me feel a whole lot better about myself. Eventually, it transitioned from being a supportlink to simply being me.

I am an otherlinker not for my chosen identities, but for my struggles in saying with confidence that I am (x) by choice. Many of my constels come about because of involuntariness or vagueness. Additionally, I don’t get to choose what I shift into either. My polymorphism pretty much resets each day and takes the shape of my constels or core identities at random. I can choose a new species, no doubt about that. Embracing the choice is the hard part.

I’m so used to either knowing and not having a say in it or not knowing at all and letting things be as they may that it’s difficult for me to adjust to my choices. I’m an otherlinker because linking allows me to process those choices and build up my confidence.

If the process wasn’t so difficult, I probably wouldn’t call myself an otherlinker. There would be no need to. I could just specify which identity came about in what way if I felt like it. At the end of the day, I am who I am.

As is the case for chosen therians, otherkind, and nonhumans. They are who they are. Simple as that. I know that idea gets under the skin of some folks, but I implore them to ask themselves why it bothers them so much.

Someone choosing to be otherkin or a therian doesn’t inherently mean that they think all experiences involve choice. Someone choosing themselves doesn’t inherently mean they proceed with this identity in a disingenuous manner. These concerns boil down to people’s perceived “seriousness”.

The topic of “seriousness” has confused me for longer than it should have. What does it mean to have a serious identity? Identity is a nuanced subject. Who cares about its tone? I love having in-depth discussions about my experiences, or the experiences of others, with my peers. I also love joking around with my partner, saying “You wouldn’t hurt a little guy like me, would you?” during a badger shift and seconds before she snipes me in Splatoon. I love writing essays and poetry about my identity, but I also love Wet Beast Wednesday like any other blogger.

Voluntary identities are approached with the perspective that they aren’t given much thought. Chosen therians, otherkind, etc. are thought to be extremely laidback about their nonhumanity and go about their choice(s) without consideration. Meanwhile, their involuntary peers are thought to treat nonhumanity with the “seriousness” and complexity it holds as an experience.

Not only is the former’s behavior a non-issue, this approach is a false equivalency. Plenty of involuntary therians, otherkind, etc. have blogs and make posts that are lighthearted. You’ll find an infinite number of memes, shitposts, and reblog bait (ex: “Share to turn someone into a dragon!”) in our tags. Some are also shapeshifters, polymorphs, polykin or polytherians, and constelic nonhumans with many identities of their own. These qualities are not unique to voluntary members whatsoever.

I understand not relating to that sort of content. It’s not my speed unless I see something that actually humors me. That said, I don’t make it my problem. All of us engage with the community differently. I shared my thoughts with my partner a while ago, and I said something in passing that I feel is still relevant now. Perceivable “seriousness”, or lack thereof, is just another way to stress about authenticity.

Authenticity is a hurdle for any community. It’s certainly no stranger to us. This applies to both personal contexts (ex: “Am I still (x) if I (x)?”) and general contexts (ex: What are your thoughts on (x)?) among nonhumans.

Personal contexts come in the form of second-guessing oneself. It’s common to see a new member questioning every single detail about themself and worrying if it is the “right” or “wrong” means of experience. Some will find themselves in a community where they feel like they belong, but don’t want to “overstep” and risk being invalidated or ousted. They pour a lot of focus into what is the “right” or “wrong” way of being instead of focusing on their own journey. Regardless, that journey can still get caught up in concerns regarding validity.

The bridge between that and general communal contexts comes in the form of discourse. Old discourse is kicked up, and old stances are put into place to determine who is and is not one of us. I’m coming up on three years of being in this community, and for the first year or so, I wasn’t all that active. Most of my involvement started in early 2024, and despite the recency, even I’m tired of the tit-for-tat nature of our discourses.

This usually happens out of concern for KFFs (folks who “kin-for-fun”), trolls, and misinformed newcomers affecting the community. Even so, KFFs typically frequent fandom spaces and don’t associate themselves with us. They are hecklers, not participants. A multifandom blog asking their mutuals to “kin assign” them is not the same as someone who chose to be a werewolf. Moreover, a troll is a troll. I know our community has faced its fair share of assholes poking around, but someone identifying as a therian by choice isn’t enough evidence to go off of. As for misinformation, sharing resources and information is always welcomed. You can do that without trying to nudge someone out of a label.

In this case, folks tend to do this by nudging others towards using otherlinker. Otherlink/er is often used as a default for chosen identity, but it’s up to the individual whether or not they want to label their identity as such. I support spreading information about other labels in our community, but I don’t think insisting upon said labels helps anyone.

It’s like trying to nudge someone who uses synpath into using otherhearted instead. You have a general idea of what they’re talking about, so what difference does make it in telling them to use something else?

Some believe it’s to prevent confusion or conflation with words and their meanings, but I think folks are “helping” from a place of bias and aren’t aware of it. There’s so much emphasis on having a serious approach to identity that involuntariness, or intrinsic identity to some, is basically put on a pedestal. If there is any way to “prove” or assert the authenticity of your identity, it’s to experience it without choice.

It’s a perspective that I’ve grown bitter towards, even as someone with involuntary identities of my own. To me, this is a product of approaching involuntariness and voluntariness like a binary. This also comes from a place of respectability. Even if folks are loudly and proudly nonhuman, the ways in which they distance themselves from those who chose to be nonhuman leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

No one wants to be associated with “fluff”. No one wants to approach others’ experiences with fairness. Unless, of course, they linguistically separate themselves from therianthropy and otherkinity by calling themself something else.

They’re “valid” but only if they don’t label their experiences as we label ours! (This is sarcasm.)

Cringe culture is supposedly dead up until someone chooses to be what they want to be. Suddenly, they’re associated with all the bad actors one can list at the top of their head.

There’s a lot of “You’re so valid!”-posting but not a lot of substance coming from it. People want more weird and unapologetic nonhumans, but still struggle in accepting someone who creates their own identity. People want their peers to show how they’re “truly” are a part of this community. Yet, what we really need is to seal those old wounds.

We need to reconsider how we approach experiences outside of our own. Community isn’t just about the similarities we share but the diversity that brings us together as well. It’s about recognizing those differences and embracing them. There is beauty in innately being someone or something, but there is also beauty in choosing who you are and in having your own experiences outside of either concept.

Ask us about our experiences with choosing our identities and how we facilitate those decisions.

Ask us about our experiences fluctuating between or existing beyond the framework of voluntariness and involuntariness.

Don’t let it stop at the contexts of origin either. This applies to other stigmatized experiences as well. Physical nonhumanity, clinical zoanthropy, and endelity, to name a few. Reconsider holding discussions on someone’s right to be here. Instead, open up discussions alongside each other. How do they feel as members of this community?

If they’re comfortable sharing, ask them about their experiences. Their voices deserve to be heard just as much as everyone else. It’s not hard to do. It should be common sense, if anything.