#facthearted

Every factkin

Every fictionkin

Every otherlink

Every therian

Every objectkin

This is kinmisia!

My name is Calico! I'm an adult and I use she/they/it/any pronouns except for he/him along with you/your and thou/thee second person pronouns. And this blog is for anything kinmisic or anything that is bigoted or against alterhuman, nonhuman, therian, otherkin, copinglink, otherheart, godshards, vampires, and such.

I don't have a dni and anybody can send an ask. I'm also friendly towards factfolk, divinefolk, conceptfolk, aifolk, and fictionfolk. This is also a delusion and IRL safe spot.

Why Kinnie Is A Slur

Kinny vs Kinnie

"What is kinning?" Anon Asks

"What's wrong with 'I kin X'."

The Dragon heart Collective's Testimony on the KFF Phenomenon

Misgendering & It's Harm

Links Discussing the Clanker Discourse

How Can You Be Plant/Objectkin

This-is-[blank] blogs NOT to follow

Anons: 🦋🚬🥀, 🦗, 🗝️, 🐆⛱️🧀, 💚☢️, 🖐️💤

This blog does not have a DNI! This is a blog about sharing kinmisic experiences, not a personal blog! Anybody can experience this and I will not bar somebody from sharing their experiences even if we share differing beliefs!

Other "This Is" Blogs ↓

So, you know how fictionfolk often get upset by things posted in fandom spaces about their source, and they're essentially given a "you have to acknowledge it's not about you the person it's about the character so you need to get over it" as a response? And that's the general community sentiment. It's only seen as ok to be upset at all if someone's being an ass to your face directly about you, and if not then you have to separate from your source to "get over it because it's not about you". Sometimes even if someone is being weird about your source to your face, you get mixed responses and people telling you it's "not that deep".

But.. with animalfolk (and otherkin who aren't generally seen as fictionkind). I think from what we've seen it's more normalised if a fox therian sees someone saying foxes are stupid and gets upset. It's more okay for a dragonkin to get pissy when people say all dragons are xyz. And if someone brings animal-based stereotypes to an animalfolk like "dragons are all stuck up" to dragonkin, they're 9.9/10 times going to be backed up fully by the community around them. This is ignoring when animalfolk are making comments like "these animals in these cute videos are being mistreated" and correcting misinformation--because that's a separate thing of them informing and reducing harm as opposed to a personal vent. I'm only talking about the community-wide "valid" responses to criticism of your source and emotions around that.

Fictionfolk who are also animalistic or things like fictherians aren't exempt from the treatment of fictionfolk mentioned above, either, so it feels less about animality (and less about what's "physically real" due to non-animal otherkin/mythkin) and more about the identity being fictional in general.

Now I know animals are "real" (and in the case of dragons/other mythkin who aren't earth animals, well-established in the alterhuman community) and fandom should be allowed to exist as fandom, I'm not advocating for fictionfolk shutting fandom up or anything. This is about the allowance of emotion people feel. I'm not talking about what animalfolk or fictionfolk do in response to these situations, just simply the way others react when they simply express discomfort. Animalfolk from what we've seen aren't told to separate from their identity "just a little more" so they're less upset when people call cats stupid or ugly, they're usually supported. Fictionfolk on the other hand are much less likely to be supported and more likely to be told that for their own health, they should separate from their source. It feels so vastly different in how these things are handled.

And of course, nothing against animals or animalfolk--it's just a longstanding thing that fictionfolk are left behind a fair in the community bit so animalfolk are the baseline of how people should be treated by their community in my opinion.

On a similar vein of thinking, factfolk (including nonhuman factfolk) are often dragged through the mud even moreso than fictionfolk, in very similar ways. You have to be careful with what you say as a factive or someone will accuse you of... Anything under the sun, really. Especially if you talk about your source and your feelings about them. Factfolk are expected to be largely separated from their source in general, not just when they dare to have emotions about it. Which... Isn't great!

Maybe this post is an ice cold take but the "you need to step back from your identity" idea is really normalised and--yeah, in a lot of cases it's healthier to step back, but.. Why is that the response given to people venting? Why do we expect fictionfolk and factfolk to readily sever their close-knit connection to their source whenever others think it's too unhealthy for them? To change who they personally are whenever they vent their frustrations? Why are fictionbased and factbased identities treated as less of an irremovable part of you and something you should bend and remove yourself at least partially from? The more I think about it, the more it feels incredibly unfair that it's so normalised.

celebrity factfolk and non-celebrity factfolk

celebrity factfolk - a flag for factfolk (link) whose facttype are celebrities, such as a factive of an actress or factlink of a famous animal (such as laika the dog).

non-celebrity factfolk - a flag for factfolk whose facttype are not celebrities. intentionally broad.