saying that you would still use the term tulpa if you acknowledged that it was racist or 'wasn't the best in terms of racial sensitivity' as you framed it is a pretty clear indicator that you're completely fine with racism so long as it's convenient, but on the off chance that you're just ignorant i'll say that(admittedly i'm assuming) you're not tibetan or a practicing tibetan buddhist, you really have no place deciding that a term that was explicitly based on an orientalist misunderstanding of tibetan buddhism is okay to use because it would be inconvenient to switch to any of the alternative terms your community has created specifically for this purpose. the fact that the term was created with no respect to the religion it appropriates from is the entire problem, not a gotcha. as the other anon said, the term 'spirit animal' might not be used specifically to mock native religions, but it still reduces a belief and practice to a party trick for the people who have historically used the idea that non-western religions are less serious as an excuse to prevent those people from practicing those religions. the 'battle over terminology' you talk about is an ongoing discussion about how the language we use functions and how it can be more or less harmful. you are not 'forced' to continue using tulpa for any reason other than being too lazy and racist to type an extra word and politely correct anyone who comes to you using that outdated terminology. if the concept of tulpa truly has no relation to tibetan buddhism, then surely a simple change of name or invention of a new term won't destroy your ability to communicate.
I'm weighing harm done and trying to take the path that would be most beneficial and least harmful. The truth is, I don't know the psychological damage that can be caused to Tibetan Buddhists who are impacted by me using the word "tulpa" in the context of a completely unrelated psychological phenomenon.
You see, you guys are very good at making vague accusations of racism and saying that things are harmful, but less good at articulating any way that the word can actually harm any given Tibetan Buddhist. You mention that it could reduce the religion to a "party trick", which might be fair if the modern practice was commonly associated with Tibetan Buddhism, but I don't think the layman has much awareness of the term's origin or associations.
You say that I don't have a place to decide that the term is okay to use if I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist, but I would ask who does? And if you're not a Tibetan Buddhist, do you have a place in trying to speak over their voices and "educate" others as you would suggest I do? Have we actually conducted surveys of the Tibetan Buddhist community to find out how they feel about this topic, or is this a case of predominantly white people and non-Tibetan Buddhist people of color speaking over the voices of those who would actually be impacted?
I'm personally a strong supporter of science, so maybe a survey of Tibetan Buddhist communities would actually help to see how much they care or are affected by the term at all. Then we could actually make their voices a part of this conversation. It could be productive to get a good sense of how they feel about this terminology, and maybe also ask how they feel about non-Tibetan Buddhist endo-deniers talking over their voices and using their racial identities as a thinly veiled attempt to break up and divide one of the strongest endogenic communities.
Without that data though, I am going to maintain my position that having the term completely divorced from its roots is the least harmful option when compared to the insulting caricatures portrayed in media prior to the new emergence of modern tulpamancy.
What I do know is the tangible psychological impact of questioning your existence. I know the psychological impact of hosts questioning if they're crazy. And I know that associating with this identity puts me in a position to provide studies and resources that can help make this easier. Anything that would make it more difficult to aid these systems is unacceptable to me.
And as much as I would hope this isn't the case, a part of me wonders if this is the real purpose behind this. There is undeniably a pretty large overlap between endo-deniers and people who are seeking to speak for the entire Tibetan Buddhist community on this matter, making me question if this is truly a sincere attempt at supporting ethnic minorities or if it's just using those communities as pawns in an unrelated debate in order to break up one of the strongest and most-researched endogenic communities.
Who would benefit from the Tulpamancy community being broken up? Who would benefit from guides not being disseminated to potential and prospective tulpa systems? Who would benefit from shaming potential participants in psychological studies from associating with the studies because of the community they're researching? Who would benefit from shutting down discussion of these studies that affirm the existence of endogenic and tulpa systems by associating them with racism?
I have a hard time believing that it's the Tibetan Buddhist.
So for the time being, without any explanation on how someone might be harmed in any tangible way by me identifying as such, I'm going to identify by the label that provides me with the best chance of aiding constructed systems and the scientific research into them.
