It’s okay if you don’t particularly like / or hate something you kin. You’re allowed complex emotions around what you kin. Being nonhuman/otherkin isn’t usually a voluntary experience. It can be from trauma or just simply being a part of yourself natural. Being complex makes us alive. It makes us real.
It’s okay if you aren’t always happy to be otherkin/nonhuman. It’s okay to be sad, our sadness and rage is as important as our joy.
It’s okay if you don’t want to live in a forest or where your kintype lives. It’s fine if you like / want to live in cities! Or on the beach or in the mountains. It’s okay if you like modern things like phones or cars that your kin might not know about / like.
It’s okay if you don’t have memories of your past lives or if your past lives weren’t impressive or if your past lives were traumatic OR if you simply don’t believe in past lives at all.
It’s okay if you don’t have any dysphoria or if you have crushing dysphoria around your nonhumanity/kin.
It’s okay if you aren’t all ‘aesthetic’ ‘pretty’ and ‘perfect’ around your kintype/nonhumanity. You can be exactly how you are.
It’s okay if you don’t know your kintype/nonhumanity, your kintype is complex and hard to understand, and it’s okay if your MULTIPLE kintypes or nonhuman types. You don’t owe anyone anything.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
compilation of posts on physical nonhumanity and freedom of experience
new one , because original one get hard to navigate over time .
newest addition : 24/07/2025
please note date stamps on these posts , as kossai change how word and express certain ideas over time . as well , please note that while not all physical nonhuman experiences fall under frameworks of delusion , this topic come up frequently due to perceptions and stigma - freedom and autonomy for any must be freedom and autonomy for all .
what is physical nonhumanity ?
why definition is hard (2025/02/28) - thoughts on different frameworks , and difficulty in define experience .
misconception frustration (2025/07/24) - how some folks misunderstand typical therian and otherkin experiences to be physical experience , to frustration of everyone .
community safety
case for open communities (2025/02/02) - why open communities like those here on tumblr help in fight against cults .
priorities (2025/02/27) - thoughts on where communities should generally focus .
some food for thought (2026/01/22) - reminders that some people really , really need to hear . still .
individual safety
assumptions , autonomy , and respect (2024/12/24) - can one assume that physical nonhumanity is always safety risk to individual ?
physical nonhumanity and disability (2025/02/14) - why disability is not reason to deny physical nonhumanity of others .
how to navigate new physical experiences
discernment - is this shift or crisis ? (2024/12/25) - thoughts on how to figure out when signs and shifts might actually be something very , very important to look at .
respect and kindness
all true statements (2024/12/01) - thoughts on lines of religion and delusion .
interaction and tolerance for physical nonhumans (2025/02/23) - compilation of thoughts on how to interact and view with kindness .
hopeful respect for others' memories (2025/06/28) - some thoughts on how to discuss and respect experiences of others who fall outside ideas of objective reality .
on delusions and autonomy
do reality checks help ? (2025/01/01) - when help is not so helpful .
wishes (2025/01/01) - things that kossai believe would actually , materially help folks with delusion , poor grasp on reality , or otherwise .
cultural boundaries of delusion (2025/03/29) - on cruelty to brand different cultures and religions as delusional outright .
how double book-keep hurt folks (2025/04/14) - some folks want physical nonhumans to announce experiences as unrealistic , if not delusional outright . but that can be seriously hurtful , and here is why .
why not trigger tag for unreality ? (2025/06/25) - expansion of above , on why folks do not trigger tag , even where this seem cruel - and what unreality trigger means .
frustrations and misconceptions
denial of delusion in concept (2025/06/28) - why delusion is not necessarily bad word in and of self .
idea of human words (2025/06/29) - how supposed species-neutral language , and erasure of supposed human language , can actually hurt .
expectations from non-physical nonhumans (2025/12/27) - small vent about ways in which non-community members sometimes treat .
how not to ground away (2025/12/30) - frustrations in how individuals who need to ground away from physical nonhuman discussions may make things worse in attempts .
personal experiences of kossai
relationship to diagnoses (2025/07/01) - how kossai relate to medical and psychiatric diagnoses .
suppression and journeys (2025/07/04) - not just about physical experiences ; history with suppression and re-exploration of faeriehood .
to be physically nonhuman is to have some sort of physical experience of nonhumanity . why say this ? because again , pet peeve - folks mistake fairly common , not inherently physical experiences , as specifically physical ones . this is frustration for everyone .
these experiences not inherently physical :
desire for gear or body modifications
desire to shapeshift , to become something physically nonhuman
desire for others to respect identity
desire to use certain physical abilities
species dysphoria
phantom shifts or envisage shifts
mental shifts
what is really physical nonhuman experience can be hard to just sum up in any kind of list , like any other alterhuman experience , because of diversity in personal histories and journeys .
these can include , but certainly not limit to :
changeling-type swaps
gift of faerie , demon , divine being , etc
inherent biology and / or genetics
family history - blessings , curses , or genetics alike
transformation , shape-change , or size-change of some kind
physical experiences can also fall under any framework , whether that is religion and culture , delusion , neither , little bit of both , or others entirely .
all of this is important to clear up because these communities do not have perfect one to one overlap - otherwise if that was true , lines would not even exist at all .
true that certain experiences can come as common threads between communities , but each also have unique experiences , and unique labels for those reasons . to present all experiences as inherently physical experiences encroach on spaces and frustrate .
as well , there is as much variety among physical nonhumans as there is among anyone else . exact experiences , labels of choice , histories and journeys , all of this is different for everyone . for everyone to feel safe and welcome , this is vital to remember .
I’m one of those people who likes being educated on practically everything, so can someone explain to me the difference between a Therian and an Otherkin?
Denotatively (ie, in terms of strictly the definitions):
Therian = someone who identifies as an animal (sometimes you'll see this defined as earthen animals only, but this is historically not necessarily part of the label - if it's animalistic, it qualifies)
Otherkin = someone who identifies as nonhuman (be that animal, plant, sapient nonhuman people, object, concept, etc.)
Connotatively (ie, in terms of associations and cultural nuances), there are some cultural distinctions as well. The therian and otherkin communities actually arose completely independently, and only later started interacting so closely that in many ways they've nearly merged.
The otherkin community originates from a few separate groups of elves, namely the Silver Elves and the Elf Queen's Daughters, both of whom originate somewhere in the 1970s (exact dates often difficult to pin down) and which then led to the Elfinkind Digest, a mailing list originally intended for elves but which quickly expanded to other nonhuman beings, within which the term otherkind (which would rapidly become otherkin, as far as I can tell due to typographical errors that accidentally got preserved in the lexicon) was coined to avoid the inconvenience of having to write elfin-/dragon-/orc-/hobbit-/etc-kind constantly within the Digest. The influence of these groups and communities has meant the otherkin community has always had heavy influence from New Age and neo-pagan philosophies, and has always leaned toward spiritual explanations - though certainly never exclusively.
The therian community, on the other hand, originates from a messaging board called alt.horror.werewolves, often abbreviated to AHWW within the therian community these days, in the early 1990s. While this messaging board was originally a fansite for werewolves, at a certain point people started turning up who felt themselves to be (were)wolves under the skin, and gradually that kind of discussion took over much of the board. (Not just wolves, either - some of the earliest weres I remember seeing in logs include a bat and, of course, the now-famous werePontiac.) If you've ever seen animal-people, particularly older ones, calling themselves weres instead of/in addition to therians, this is why - that was the original word we used for the concept. Culturally speaking, the therian community has always been very focused on the concept of shifts because of these origins - it is, if I'm not mistaken, where the otherkin community adopted that terminology from. The therian community also tends to be more focused on the animality of being non-human - which is why these days that's usually used as the primary distinction between otherkinity and therianthropy.
Ultimately, there's a lot of overlap, but there are also a lot of reasons why someone might want to use one word or the other even if both could theoretically apply to them denotatively.
On Therianthropy, Otherkin, Zoesthesia, and the Responsibility We Have To Each Other
This post might make your brain hurt, so take your time with it. As someone who was raised in a cult, escaped, and was forced to deconstruct the origins of belief in order to stay sane and retrieve control over my life, this topic is very important to me. I also believe it is paramount to the integrity of our communities that you understand the material in this post. You may or may not agree and I don't necessarily posit that I am "correct" in my analysis; I don't really expect anything one way or the other, but I am curious what will come of it. If this community means something to you and you are willing to at least hear me out, read on.
Yesterday I met face-to-face with a researcher to discuss the "zoesthesia" term I proposed a few months ago as a potential precursor or stand-in for terms such as therianthropy and otherkin. They brought up a number of good points. It was a delight to hear the insight of someone both educated in psychology and external to the community, and about some of the future studies they're still formulating (I can't discuss that at this time).
It became clear that adoption of this term may be unlikely to aid many of the major social issues plaguing the community both here and abroad. Although it sounds like "synesthesia" - a phenomenon rarely, if ever, targeted by bad actors, zoesthesia may still be a hot topic for those who take offense to the non-conforming simply because of its nature. They did find it interesting that zoesthesia prioritizes experience over identity. Whether zoesthesia is actually adopted or not, I have no preference.
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 may be entirely unrelated. After more discussion and thought, I refined the idea further.
For a moment, as a thought experiment, I want to ask that you forget every term you know relating to this community and consider what I arrived upon:
Zoesthesia
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.
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.
"Zoesthesia" is derived from "zoe" and "aisthesis" - Greek, literally "life perception" or "animal perception."
So why do I propose this?
Obviously, this could technically be considered as a refined definition of therianthropy and/or otherkin. It does not deny the existence of spiritual experience or belief, but in order for this to be a responsible definition informed by empiricism, it must not assert that anything we feel (whether interpreted as psychological or spiritual) is "real." This is not to say that it isn't. I find that it is much more constructive to completely avoid language that asserts beliefs as such because it is impossible to measure how "real" something is. Asserting a belief as true may demand that others believe you, which may be disrespectful and disingenuous.
If I'd like you to have a clear picture of why this proposal exists so that we can have constructive discussions, I must assume that you're entirely unfamiliar with my worldview and deconstruct its basis for you. Before we continue, I would like you to consider the following oft-misunderstood terms and thought experiments and how I use them. The way I discuss zoesthesia and the rest of what I'll say in this post hinges specifically on my understanding of these ideas. Take a breather if you need it - it's heavy.
If you would like to skip this, go to the "Current Definitions" section.
1 . Empiricism
In philosophy, empiricism is the view that all knowledge and belief is derived from firsthand experience, e.g. through the senses. This philosophy is the basis for the scientific method and the following thought experiment:
Consider that you may have already taken for granted the belief that a real person wrote this post and not just a collection of subatomic particles resembling a person. I believe it to be a fact that I wrote this because doing so is now within my memory and I believe that my memories were not placed there last Thursday. I might tell you that this is a "fact," but then you have to believe that I am a reasonably trustworthy person and that a "reasonably trustworthy person" is an inherently "real" fixture in your reality.
You also may believe or take for granted that the conversion of the letters you're reading on your device into concepts in your consciousness isn't just zeroes and ones but a complex process derived from quantum mechanics, psychology, or the amorphous idea of "the soul" that none of us can put a definitive finger on.
These beliefs are not empirically verifiable or unverifiable because we cannot physically sense the world on this scale (as far as is generally understood). Even if you use tools to measure the world on that scale, you then have to believe in the accuracy of your tools.
With this in mind, you may need to be wary of what you assert as "truth." The only thing you may truly be able to know without the need for reason is what you are currently feeling and thinking in this ever-present moment. Everything else in your head that you "know" (e.g. your memories) is made up with varying measures of belief. It is entirely possible that the past may not exist. Attempting to make judgements on that information can result in some pretty funky paradoxes, but there are ways to talk about experience without invoking belief. This is why I have structured the refined definition of zoesthesia to emphasize interpretation.
This thought experiment is a robust methodology known as methodological solipsism. If you still don't believe that any of this is valid or useful because you believe in another kind of philosophy, religion, or dogma...can you see where this is going? I cannot emphasize how important it feels to be precise in the language that we use so that we might avoid creating and promoting dogma while just trying to discuss and share our experiences.
Growing up in religion we are often taught that belief is virtue and that you must believe in one way or another. After all, taking the stance of "not believing" something is the belief that something is not. It seems like a circular dilemma on the surface and cults will often try to manipulate that intuition. I've since found that the responsible thing to do is to simply observe the moment and decline to believe in the first place. There are plenty of beliefs you can function without. The state I get into when I'm feeling particularly mental-shifted is a state in which belief and language is largely reduced or implicit, my inner dialogue is non-existent, and if I do think it tends to be in pictures. If one can exist and thrive in such a state, why don't so many of us ever leave that monologue?
2. Spirit
Often thought of as a force, being, consciousness, or presence
For the purpose of sticking to the concept of empiricism and the previous thought experiment, I would suggest that a spirit is no different from any concept that you can interact with in your head that is based in something you have observed externally or internally. It may also include any actual object or being in the external world (some would call beliefs related to this animism or panpsychism).
It is not possible to verify the "being-ness" of any particular object or animal, whether it is conscious or just a bunch of atoms playing the part. Just watch Vsauce deconstruct a chair's existence. You are free to believe that it is more than that, but that will dive us into spirituality, dogma, and paradox. I see "spirit" and "object" as synonymous with "concept."
3. Spirituality
A preoccupation with or capacity for understanding moral, existential, or metaphysical questions without the dictation of dogma.
Whatever you've experienced through your senses is something that you have come to know, and in that sense "spiritual experience" is just another way to describe firsthand experience that falls perfectly under the umbrella of empiricism. If you have the firsthand experience of going into trance and entering [what you believe to be] the astral plane, that is still received through your senses and is a part of your conscious experience. Even your mind's eye could be considered a kind of sensation. Your experiences, no matter how you see or discuss them, are inherently valid because you experienced them.
"Valid" in this context simply means that you experienced what you experienced and we are giving you the benefit of the doubt because we can't see inside your consciousness. To say something is valid is not necessarily to make the impossible assertion that your interpretation of your experiences is based in "reality." Good researchers try their best to maintain this perspective to respect everyone they study. To claim that someone else's experience is invalid is a just another belief that no one can definitively assert as truth.
4. Dogma
In religion, dogma is typically referred to as a collection of deeply held beliefs often passed down through generations. Those beliefs can seem "spiritual" in that they may have once been based in someone's firsthand experience, but this quickly leads people into a trap.
It can also be thought of as the rules, laws, and rituals you believe in. We create new rules all the time as we gain new experiences. If you're open to new experiences, you may find that it is possible to break whatever rules you've previously prescribed to existence. No law can be empirically verified as universal or eternal except maybe entropy - until even that breaks down at the event horizon of a black hole, which typically breaks our understanding of the laws of physics.
Some rituals may be useful to you, especially if they help promote or maintain your well-being. Practicing something like Tai Chi every day is a ritual that can keep your mind and body healthy. Actually practicing it and believing that it helps you (because you have, in fact, found that it does in your own experience) is entirely empirical. Believing that it will make you super lucky and start seeing synchronicities everywhere would be superstitious. Superstition is often based in dogma too.
You create your own miniature personal dogma every moment you look to the past for guidance. Even firsthand/spiritual experience can transform into a kind of dogma the moment it becomes a variable for calculating future actions. In some cases this is necessary for your survival. It can also become overblown and lead to things like depression and anxiety, especially in the form of trauma and limiting beliefs. Trauma can become a form of dogma, too - if it changes the way you live and behave.
Finally, dogma is often the result of:
5. Heuristic Processing
To put it simply, heuristic processing means that your brain makes judgement calls based on limited information. You flop three dates in a row with potential partners you were interested in and your brain wants to jump to generalizations like "Maybe I'm just an unlovable person, I'm ugly, I'll always be lonely, etc." And then bam, 6 months down the line your life is agony and you've done nothing to actually improve your odds of connecting with somebody, reinforcing your confirmation bias (also what I would consider to be an element of dogma) that you're just not cut out for love. And so the downward spiral goes. It is so tempting to do this - heuristic processing is the primary mode of the brain, after all. Years of reinforcement only makes the resulting neural pathways stronger and harder to move on from. This is especially apparent with addictions like alcoholism, which literally alters the structure of the brain over time.
Everyone is guilty of this. It can useful because analyzing every single point of data would be absolutely debilitating, but it is a double-edged sword I believe you should be aware of. Look for it and you will find it everywhere.
These ideas, and perhaps relativism, are some of the pillars of my worldview and understanding of the thing we call reality. It's not an exhaustive list, but was wholly necessary for me to break things down this way so that I could purge myself of the dogma of the cult I was raised in. I'm not necessarily suggesting that you should subscribe to these ideas, but now you should be able to see where I'm coming from.
Now that these things are defined, I can get to the point!
The Problem
I'd like you to take a look at the following definitions and see if you can spot the problems:
If you don't see it, I'll explain in a moment. In response to the initial zoesthesia discussions, TG also published their own "Definitive Stance" in the forums, which suffers from the same problem. The definition above remains on the main site. This is the new one:
Wikipedia's page on "Therian subculture" (there isn't one for therianthropy itself) primarily focuses on identity, but at least mentions "the broader lived experience of therians":
Therianthropy's Fandom wiki page is much closer to emphasizing the experience, if a little term-heavy and requiring the use of "therian" in the main definition:
Pluralpedia's definition...
There are countless others, but I want to focus on the first two for the moment. Both definitions for therianthropy on TG take for granted the interpretation of one's relevant experiences as "non-human" or "animal." By omission, these definitions assert that we know for a fact that there are individuals out there who are having non-human animal experiences and aren't just delusional or whatever else. But the interpretation of these experiences as non-human is belief, not an empirically tested fact. It's dogma (see point #4 above).
Some of y'all are willing to let physicists and mathematicians concede that what we call reality is inherently mathematical in some way, and yet fail to realize that mathematical proofs can't be fabricated backwards by creating the solution first. Saying that "therianthropy is the internal experience of being a non-human animal" as TG maintains is the equivalent of creating a "true" statement and then forming a hypothesis that might make it seem true. At that point, you may as well be practicing Biblical numerology or quack science.
In the early years of the community, members came up with the generally accepted terms and definitions for their experiences long before we had any evidence for what was actually going on underneath the hood - as a stand-in for what we hoped we would know in the future. But they ossified until they became writ in stone. We still do not have evidence to say with certainty that we are experiencing actual non-human sensations or something entirely different.
Over years of certain members policing labels and experiences as if this were some kind of cult, there remains an ache for feelings of legitimacy in the community. Many feel like if they aren't "committed" enough to their identity, their experiences won't be seen as real and they won't get to be a part of the club. Based on most of the available definitions for therianthropy, identity is implied as a necessary component when identity arises from interpretation. Is it not plausible that one might experience what we might all consider a "mental shift" and think nothing of it or simply not be able to put a finger on what it was?
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 at the incredibly human fear of social exclusion, especially in kids just trying to make sense of themselves. These definitions inherently 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 their interpretations of them to a prescribed box.
This is not leading in a positive direction.
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.
Many of the other definitions on other sites (not all can be pictured here) emphasize either identity or a combination of experience and identity. Every site is different and some are better than others. Several have 5+ terms within the first couple paragraphs.
Zoesthesia's definition contains one novel term: zoesthesia.
Something I recently realized was that 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 my proposal of zoesthesia may alleviate some of those efforts. If we could iron this out, it may allow us to focus more on what matters: sharing in our experiences and connecting with each other.
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 the new owner of TG 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 be formally considered and debated amongst yourselves so that a decision can be made regarding how to proceed. I believe the threat of these communities becoming cult-like began long ago, and I think it is damaging the community as a whole. While many in the community may be more "spiritually minded" and think that means that the scientific method is irrelevant to their experiences, I think it behooves everyone to approach these topics with a dose of neutrality, curiosity, and empiricism.
Since drafting this post and sharing parts of it on TG, I've been told that I'm just "overly sensitive to cults" because of the horrible things I went through. I've been assured that their community is much healthier now because of the large monthly influx of new members. I've been told that empiricism is a form of gatekeeping and that therianthropy does not need to be seen as "valid" by science.
This attitude isn't strictly a TG problem, but we do have a problem.
I understand people's distrust of modern science and psychiatry. Yes, it moves slowly, its history has been riddled with injustice and corruption, and we have a dysfunctional medical and pharmaceutical industry that we don't want involved in potentially purging us of our experiences. I want it to be crystal clear that I do not condone corruption, injustice, or systemic racism. But empiricism isn't about gatekeeping at all. It's simply asking "What can we truly know based on our senses and available data?" If you assert that you know something that cannot be "known" without belief, you may be wishful thinking or jumping the gun in an attempt to drum up feelings of legimitacy. Everyone has a right to do this, but if you speak as an authority in a way that makes a held belief seem like fact, you aren't far from exhibiting cult-like behaviors.
Most of you have never physically stood in a room with 50 other people telling you that you're the one who's wrong because the status quo was more important for them to maintain. Where the illusions of the cult were more important to maintain.
I am wary of cults, but more importantly, I am highly perceptive of the concessions people make against rationality that often lead to a state of mutually reinforced delusion. No particular group is immune to this, even if you'd like to think of your own group as wiser than humans.
It goes deeper than that too. I have had to refine the way that I speak because I used to speak in very non-constructive ways, and it felt like people hated me for it. Because I "spoke my mind." Because I was "honest and direct." In truth, I was hasty and felt that backing up my hastily chosen words with more words was the best course of action. It never ended well and I didn't understand why. Now I do.
I could've simply crawled back into my ego and said, "They'll never understand me, I'm just a pariah." When I was younger, that is what I did.
Now I recognize that everyone is constantly creating dogma for themselves - often in the form of limiting beliefs. People say things like "I'm good for nothing" or "That's just how the world works." They give up their power and their capacity for rational thought simply because something happened a certain way a few times. Even if it's happened a thousand times, that's no excuse to close your eyes to what's before you. We have a responsibility to ourselves and each other not to shoot ourselves in the foot for no good reason.
I've actively tried to fight heuristic processing on and off for the past decade. For my whole life, a lot of folks have said, "Just chill out man, you're trying too hard." And for my whole life I've watched my peers undergo spiritual and intellectual atrophy.
If I do not strive for some level of precision in my speech, to question belief and consider intellectually the logic behind what I have to say…if I let that responsibility go and let the world burn, the world I wish to see will never come to be. I personally know more or less 5-10 people who would ever care about this as much as I do. Maybe life would be easier if I did let go, but I can't unsee what I have seen. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
Understanding the need for empirically vetted definitions and empirically minded thought has nothing to do with giving therianthropy/otherkin/etc. a scientific "stamp of approval." Instead, this is about being responsible about what you can assert as truth and what you must clarify as personally held belief. The alternative leads down a long road to authoritarianism and cult-like behaviors. Our society has a critical lack of understanding when it comes to these things and it shows. It shows on nearly every level of human society - politics, finance, religion, the whole nine yards. If humans go extinct or our societies descend into seemingly inescapable fascism, I would wager that it will have been this lack of understanding that did it. Science is necessary and it's why you're not going to die before the age of 40 in the year of our lord 2026.
The problem I've detailed may not seem important and it may even seem pedantic, but understanding this subject or not may mean the difference between maintaining the cult-like aspects of the therian community we all know and hate or nurturing healthy discussion in a thriving, positive community. If you are able to see the nuance, please advocate for this. No one else will do it for us.
Can't say I have an opinion on adopting the term one way or the other. I think that's mostly from what you pointed out, the terminology bloat. Every week there's another word for something you know was defined by someone else a month ago, on repeat.
The way you've described what it is, and the experiences… I like that. I think regardless of the label, describing it like you have is valuable. Shift focus to the experiences, the life itself.
"Growing up in religion we are often taught that belief is virtue and that you must believe in one way or another. After all, taking the stance of "not believing" something is the belief that something is not. It seems like a circular dilemma on the surface and cults will often try to manipulate that intuition. I've since found that the responsible thing to do is to simply observe the moment and decline to believe in the first place."
I like this bit, as it gets at a fundamental misunderstanding people have about atheism. Even other atheists get this wrong more often than not. It isn't "I believe god doesn't exist" as that implies we have evidence; it is "I am unconvinced that any god exists", because there really is no evidence. The distinction does matter. To claim to be rational means you have to logically analyze what's available to you, and the logical conclusion I come to is that there's nothing behind the curtain. Until and unless I see that there is, I just don't care about the curtain at all. Life is easier, in my opinion, without the need to believe in anything. Belief in things I can't verify mostly gives me headaches these days. Or at best, something nice to fall asleep thinking about. I/we used to need it though, so I get it, but that understanding also makes me impatient with it because I know how it holds people back.
I'm not as plugged in as I used to be, but I don't know how cultish things are lately. Ever since the physical shifting/zoanthropy stuff took off, I've gotten even more distant. It's hard not to see patterns and stay quiet all the time, so it's easier to just be absent.
"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."
But then you come out swinging with this one and I have to sigh, because we've been thinking this for a while, but it's one of those perspectives that (usually) ends in the audience writing you off as some stubborn greymuzzle or whatever. Black and white thinking makes my scales itch.
That's a lot of words for me to say "Yeah", basically, but I appreciate the novelty of going into this tag and getting to think critically.
I'll have to reread this a few times to form a coherent perspective on it (something that's unlikely to happen considering the reading funk I've been in lately - I haven't been able to finish a physical book for a year). But my first immediate thought is a question: How is the therian community's interpretation of internal experiences as nonhuman different from the trans community's interpretation of internal experiences as gender incongruent? Should we treat the two communities with the same type of empiricism, and would it be beneficial to do so? Sorry if that's a redundant question; my reading comprehension is not as good as it used to be.
"Even other atheists get this wrong more often than not."
Yes. A lot of Christian apologists attempt to fight the "atheist" belief that God does not exist when actual atheists don't even believe that he doesn't. Atheism is not the belief that deities do not exist - it is defined as the absence of belief in them. The distinction is super important. The confusion often comes from these cults trying to flip the narrative. Interestingly enough, every apologist I've ever known ended up becoming atheist or pagan themselves.
"But then you come out swinging with this one and I have to sigh, because we've been thinking this for a while, but it's one of those perspectives that (usually) ends in the audience writing you off as some stubborn greymuzzle or whatever."
I'm only 29! Not even 30 yet! Don't..........don't even........XD
"How is the therian community's interpretation of internal experiences as nonhuman different from the trans community's interpretation of internal experiences as gender incongruent? Should we treat the two communities with the same type of empiricism, and would it be beneficial to do so?"
I am not sure I'm well enough versed in the trans community's interpretations of their experiences. I'm sure there will be nuance with each different segment of LGBTQIA+. I do believe we should approach the way we define things with an empirical attitude.
Let's take xenogender for example. Someone suggested that this post was veering towards "anti-xenogender ideology" - so I had to learn what xenogender was. Xenogender's official definition as "a gender that can't be contained within human concepts of gender" bothers me a lot.
Gender has been defined by humans to include any combination of things such as identity, social roles, expression, presentation, and more. To say your gender is "not within the human concept of gender" is to say that it is not gender and instead something entirely different, because the human concept of gender IS what we know of as "gender." If one is saying that they are windgendered (a defined xenogender) because they identify as the wind or feel empathetic towards their own personal concept of it, that is by definition not outside the human concept of gender (because it is an identity, and identity is part of gender) and therefore not "xenogender." That is not to say that "windgender" is invalid, but that "xenogender" is nothing related to gender at all, and may in fact be nothing in the first place. This is more of a linguistic debacle than anything because the definition of xenogender inherently negates itself. Its definition on this website would be linguistically sound if they were to simply change that first line about it being outside the human concept of gender to instead say that it is outside the gender binary. I am making an edit to this there, hopefully they understand.
I don't blame anyone for not thinking well-enough through however they want to define what they experience. The post on zoesthesia took me 14+ hours to write, 4 months of turning it around in my head, and discussions with researchers and community members to refine it in a potentially constructive way. It is extremely difficult to bridge the explanatory gap, so it is often good to take analysis of such things with a slow and methodical approach and with insight from others.
I don’t think we need a whole new term for this, and I think that’s sort of counterproductive to your point, anyways? I’ve discussed how conceiving of therianthropy as a framework resolves these issues (in so many words). What exactly does a new term provide that awareness and reframing of “therianthropy” can’t better accomplish?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Today is my birthday, and I wonder if you have any cool trivia about rabbits in Magic? Any bunny-related funny story?
Thanks!
We did a series of commercials back in the day. We told the ad agency they could choose any creatures they wanted to use for the commercial. They chose Kezzerdrix. Wanting to capitalize on the commercial we ended up making Vizzerdrix as Kezzerdrix wasn’t a good card for beginners.
library genesis is still up (very similar site) and r/freemediaheckyeah and r/piracy have lots of other alternatives. zlib was the GOAT though. fuck tiktok
(originally commented. putting as a reblog as its important)
some sites i use to read online:
- https://libgen.li/
- https://www.pdfdrive.com/
- https://libretexts.org/
- https://openlibrary.org/
- https://novel80.com/
- https://www.allfreenovel.com/
- https://bookreadfree.com/
- https://allbookshub.com/
- http://thefreeonlinenovel.com/
- https://www.epub.pub/
- https://www.readingsanctuary.com/
- https://yes-pdf.com/
- https://www.booksfree.org/
if none of the links work if you just search up "(book title) read online free" there's almost always gonna be a pdf link and those are always good to read from too
This is even more important with the internet archive losing the lawsuit and being forced to remove so many books. Consider donating to the Internet Archive.
Probably more medical detail than opsec calls for, but there's practically zero research on nonbinary chemical gender transition — so I'm throwing my trip report into the collective 'net.
I am nearly 29, knew I was trans since 17 and I have been on HRT (estrogen) on and off for the past 18 months with testosterone for the last 6. Currently: 8mg Estradiol Enanthate weekly, plus 25mg testosterone weekly.
The hypothesis: The body auto-converts excess T→E and excess E→T, so it can handle high levels of both without much trouble. Women regularly take testosterone during menopause — this should be doable.
My theory: Take high E to block natural T production, then supplement a tiny bit of T to compensate. Should keep everything contextually balanced.
Six months in, and I just got my labs back. My doctor (not amused by this experiment) is shocked: I'm healthier than I've ever been across every metabolic marker. Dead center on every single metric. Blood pressure normal (first time ever). Weight stable. I have some breast growth starting, but no solidified nodules — so with raloxifene I could revert 90%+ if I wanted (TBD). They are very sensitive, for better or worse.
I have noticed my body becoming more feminine (appreciated), which is saying something since I am naturally broad and muscular. Think of a very masc blacksmith-NPC-character-model kind of build. I have curves now. Skin is overall softer. Body hair is much thinner (previously was bold, black, and gnarly). Face is smoother, jawline more defined, but the face itself is a bit rounder, especially in the cheeks.
Mental state is solid. Making real progress on projects, feeling hopeful, taking more risks and actually being comfortable with it. More open, more outgoing. Before this was quite depressed, anxious, paranoid, unable to make decisions, and just felt worthless, now its the exact opposite - I have tried every anti-depressant around, and had great luck with LSD, but this has been by far the most 'calm', happy, and level-headed I have ever been. That said, on pure estrogen, my mental clarity is certainly sharper. The combo is still clear enough though.
I understand why most queer people hate these kinds of reports and this kind of experimentation, trust me my friends make that very clear. And sure, I'm probably still denying plenty of things to myself. But , from a research perspective, this has always fascinated me, and the literature is so thin that I might as well add a small, informal case study to the mix.
Q: Why do queer people hate these kinds of reports? I'm unfamiliar
I am writing this here because the tumblr reply system is purposefully built for extremely short-form communication and this is a longer answer.
This is a mixed answer, all people have different hangups, some are around natural arguments, some are perversions of inclusivity philosophy, some are residual myopic views on gender, and some are just plain worried about what it means for them, or the time sunk cost falacy that maybe they went down the wrong path. I don't have anything against these people, many of them are very dear friends that I would give my life for, but this is the way I read it and have noticed in discussions (and analyzing my own gender woes and hangups).
This is a bit longer, so stay tuned after the break:
Welcome back! - let's get into it.
Some worry that researching alternative hormone regimens could societaly delegitimize being trans, invalidate their own path, regret through the 'possibility of alternatives', and more.
Even in queer spaces, gender is often still treated as a binary. You can switch sides, but you can't exist outside them. That men are men, women are women, and while you can switch between them, you shouldn't, wouldn't, and couldn't be anything outside of that binary. Some hold this philosophically; others fear that expanding the binary will make society hate us more for complicating the conversation. Why fight the system when you can just work to redefine it from within?
There are quite a few otherwise progressive people who will accept non-binary as a category, but it becomes clear in conversation that they see it as a subset of the primary dualities of 'femme|female|woman|girl' and 'masc|male|men|boy' . You can be nonbinary [masc.nb] or nonbinary [femme.nb] but "nonbinary" itself isn't a category you're allowed to be. The same people who notably and righteously reject gender hierarchies often still treat masc lesbians as closer to men than to women, or trans men as closer to women than men — even if they hold that trans women are women (or the inverse). They may argue that sapphic or gay spaces should only include femme and masc primary archetypes, and ignore anything that goes beyond those labels. But I digress....
There is also a strange, yet marginally understandable, bio-essentialist reframing of "You can't be both. Your body runs on one primary hormone, synthetic or not." It masquerades as natural fact but often traces back to just plain unexamined essentialist thinking.
Now, part of the reason for the natural naturalistic fallacy argument is that non-binary transition paths are radically understudied, even by the scant standards of trans and gender research. We know the 'standard' approach works for transition, and we just build off that through replication of studies and more, but frontier science is nearly nonexistent. So we default to "your body has one primary hormone, don't fuck with nature, god mother nature knows all" and take it at face value.
Another view: any affirmative research into this could be weaponized by anti-trans evangelists to argue that "transition isn't worth it," because it breaks apart the coupled concepts of social transition and chemical transition—the idea that if you're perceived as masc or femme, your chemical makeup can't be at odds with that perception. If the social view doesn't have to match, and you can "solve" being trans chemically, then appearance doesn't matter. And that threatens preconceived notions of what is and isn't natural, biological, expected, or scientific.
You can hear echoes of the same argument from others in the community "You can't and shouldn't boymode, even if you genuinely enjoy it, because the real goal is to be yourself, inside and out. Anything else is just fear keeping you in your comfort zone." You should be free to be yourself. I won't argue against it. But some people would be understandably fine being perceived as a jacked masc dude while running on primarily estrogen.
Here's a hypothetical, and uncomfortable thought experiment: If a pill existed that eliminated dysphoria (you don't need dysphoria to be trans!), depression, and all of the mental and physical desires to transition, trans activists would call it "medical conversion therapy" and oppose it; while anti-trans evangelists would celebrate it as medical conversion therapy and demand it become mandatory. Both sides would find common ground, then eat each other's faces.
If non-binary transition or balanced hormone levels proved effective for people like me, it'd be weaponized by both camps, each treating non-binary as a subcategory of the binary, not an expansion of gender itself. And that terrifies people who may not realize they believe society should forever be bound by a dual gender hierarchy, a two-party system. They'll say they understand non-binary people exist, but still see them as part of the binary. As if the name on the tin isn't literally non and binary - to be not of the binary, and not just used as a collective new superior monolithic third category just as no woman is an island, nonbinary is not a monolith.
There's a lot of nuance and straw-manning here, but after countless discussions: with myself, with others, in circles, with people who get it and people who don't, I'm sure I'm still missing some arguments. But, it mostly boils down to these issues.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
to be clear, I believe younger artists and minors can write good fics (not to say “fanfic must always be good” either because it is a hobby and I still believe that as long as it’s done with love and the artist’s joy, it is good) and I believe it’s good when younger artists and minors start making art at young ages.
that said, a lot of fanfics out there that you read and love are done by adults with kids, jobs and responsibilities. adults who have years, decades of practice under their belts. adults who don’t let life and responsibilities take away their joy in creating.
someone’s love and passion don’t suddenly go away the second they reach a certain age. so if anything, I feel sorry for people who say “adults shouldn’t write fanfics or make fan art” because what these people really say is that they expect themselves to stop having fun and finding comfort in things that bring them joy and comfort the second they reach a certain age. it’s sad that they put an expiration date on their own fun and source of comfort.
hi, i love otherpaws here. otherpaws are always welcome.
in light of the recent influx of otherpaw hate, i have some Things To Say.
truly, there is no real difference between otherpaws and furries, except the materials they use to roleplay as animals. we should not be gatekeeping materials, guys. you cannot seriously call yourself furry-friendly if you are anti-otherpaw. but that is not my main reason for disliking the anti-otherpaw stance.
i find a laaaaarge issue i have with these “but otherpaws are copying therians!!!!” folks is that the term otherpaw was created specifically to distance otherpaws from alterhumanity; to create a clear distinction that masks and quadrobics ≠ alterhuman (therian included). which is a factually correct distinction. and folks whining about copying are (maybe unintentionally, maybe not) obscuring that distinction.
no, someone wearing a mask or doing quads is not inherently copying or mocking therians, because masks and quads aren’t exclusive to therians, and they never have been. wearing a mask does not a therian make. wearing a mask does not necessarily have anything to do with therians. claiming that anyone who wears masks or does quads is copying therians is trying to claim exclusive rights of therians over masks and quads. it’s gatekeeping, yes, but worse than gatekeeping, it’s trying to cement masks and quads as inherently ‘therian’. which they aren’t. which we have tried all this time to teach folks that no, not all therians wear masks/do quads, and just because someone does those things doesn’t make them alterhuman.
but now these anti-otherpaw folks are regressing again to “mask = therian, therefore they must be copying and mocking therians”. which is factually inaccurate and damaging to what being alterhuman and being therian truly means. it’s what leads to the misinformation about the true depth of alterhuman identity on places like tiktok. and i’m so sick of it.
i know it’s not a widespread issue (yet). but given that i’ve seen a handful of posts and comments about it, this is why i hope it doesn’t become one.
(i have also alwayyyyyys found the argument “but x is too similar to y!” to be a terrible argument against x. cause like…. who cares. things are allowed to be similar. humans and nonhumans alike are so incredibly numerous that you will almost never have a completely unique experience which no one else has ever had. our experiences overlap significantly because there are so many beings in this world. there is no fault in someone having a similar experience to you. you will not die just because you aren’t in fact that worlds most special snowflake. i prommy.)
Do you think it’s okay for people to identify as a physical nonhuman due to trans framework like “I am x therefore I have the body of x.” Is the problem that many are being cruel to other physical nonhumans- and not the identity itself? or is it both? Additionally, do you believe transspecies folk that socially/physically/etc transition or decide they feel more comfortable as physically nonhuman are accepted as physical nonhumans? Holothere label includes nonhuman alters, so does physical nonhuman include nonhuman alters? Can physical nonhumanity be a choice? Can you reject your biological species? Im curious of your thoughts on this
There are a bunch of questions here so I will break down each individually:
Do you think it’s okay for people to identify as a physical nonhuman due to trans framework like “I am x therefore I have the body of x.” Is the problem that many are being cruel to other physical nonhumans- and not the identity itself? or is it both?
Generally I would say no. I think identifying your body as [species] because you are that species is a valid way to approach things. The problem comes with the terminology and its function. These terms like physical nonhuman, transspecies, therian, etc are not just adjectives to gather but they are a means to find others and find community - which for some identities can be very difficult. This is part of the problem with tagspam, something many identities under wider alterhuman umbrella like otherlink and otherhearted struggle with as people crosstag their posts.
This philosophical or metaphorical approach does not provide, or does not appear to provide a meaningful difference in experience that is not already covered by therian, nor is that experience marginalised or ostracised within the therian and otherkind communities. For many the reason to take this language seemed very much in an attempt to gain legitimacy in their own mind and as a response to the rise of tiktok which led to significant incursions and tagspam in physical nonhuman, transspecies, holothere, and even at points clinical zoanthropy. The problem comes in that using that reasoning to claim physical nonhuman - or the other tags mentioned - displaced the original community as having this alternate use in the tags makes it functionally impossible to find others who actually share the same experience. That this use became so overwhelming it would come to dominate any discussions and when people would make various microlabels everything would always include options for metaphor, really defeats the purpose of the term.
The way we were treated by the interlopers did not help, but if they were nice about it (which would never have been an option as these communities and terms only existed because we had and still have no place within therian communities), the result would not have been meaningfully different. I could imagine a scenario where maybe we could have all integrated together, but we would still want to find people that connect to specific narrow experiences and so would still have had to create new terms. In the past there have been communities and spaces, namely transspecies, where several different definitions operate and different interpretations and experiences exist together fairly balanced (unless this all started happening a year or two ago and the tag sometimes became another therian tagspam combined with radqueer tagspam and pornbots) so it is not infeasible such could have happened. These hypotheticals though really do not matter because it did not happen that way, and realistically could not have happened another way, and I cannot seperate the history of what actually happened.
Additionally, do you believe transspecies folk that socially/physically/etc transition or decide they feel more comfortable as physically nonhuman are accepted as physical nonhumans?
Yes generally, there are quite a few people within transspecies community that identify themselves as physically nonhuman - I am one of them.
Holothere label includes nonhuman alters, so does physical nonhuman include nonhuman alters?
If that alter's experience of nonhumanity is physical and they relate to the community's experiences then yes. There are a number of physical nonhuman alters, or systems which contain multiple physical nonhumans, within the experience
Can physical nonhumanity be a choice? Can you reject your biological species?
I suppose it would mean what exactly you mean. I would tend to say yes, but a flat answer would be really confusing and insufficient as self-identity alone would be insufficient as the term asks or expects certain experiences, namely a physical experience of nonhumanity. It also makes things very confusing because where exactly is the line for choice? The line between voluntary and involuntary is very blurry and not nearly as binary as many present. But I do think someone could choose to become physically nonhuman. I could imagine a scenario in which someone becomes otherlink and then chooses to take steps in species transition. That would be a particular edgecase, but would fulfill it as being wholley a choice. For the vast majority of us though I do not think that having these experiences is a choice, though as many of us experience significant psychiatrisation and so choose to reject humans' interpretations of our experiences or demands that we view ourselves human. For me the question of voluntary versus involuntary is not particularly relavent or illustrating as much as the nature of the experience and shared experiences with others.
I hope this helps answer some of your questions.
- Kala
The metaphorically physical nonhumans were the first folks I ever saw using the term "physical nonhuman," back in 2019. And they were, in fact, incredibly marginalized and ostracized for it. I would know, my friend, victiim-of-changes, was one of them, and the bullying led to faer eventually leaving the community.
I honestly really appreciate everyone who’s come out in defense of me, or those in my situation (for anyone unaware of the context) and I wa
But that's only tumblr history. I don't know how physical nonhumans have fared on the forums or other social media. And of course the usage and meaning of words changes over time. "Transspecies" was largely considered troll terminology in 2019, and now it's accepted in most of our community here.
You messaged me, asking for more writings on physical nonhumanity.
I was only ever tangential to physical nonhumans, but if memory serves, back then we used 'physically nonhuman' interchangably with 'transspecies' and 'embodied nonhumanity'.
Still thinking about this, even though I’m not writing the fic!
This Vulcan, I’m calling her T’Pen, goes to a shelter and gets a cat, and the shelter employees are like, a bit weirded out? But obviously they’re going to give her a cat, I mean, she’s a Vulcan, she’s Super Responsible, she takes all the pamphlets and listens attentively to all the advice the shelter employees give her, even though it is obvious she researched a lot on her own.
Then T’Pen asks the shelter folks what she should name the cat and runs into That Thing Humans Do Where They Confound a Vulcan With Their Weird Ways
Shelter Employee 1: oh, you can name a cat anything! That’s what’s great! People names, common nouns, whole phrases.
Shelter Employee 2: yeah, nothing sounds weird on a cat. Everything from Chad to Cupboard is fair game.
SE 1: yeah, I mean, you can’t call a dog Chad, that would be weird
SE 2: I wouldn’t fuckin’ trust anyone who named their dog Chad
Later, in the interest of furthering her anthropological study of Earth, T’Pen has a houseparty and she invites her coworkers, many of whom are human, but others which are aliens, and are fascinated by T’Pen’s cat
Vulcan Co-worker: T’Pen, what have you named this small Earth feline?
T’Pen: I have named him Marmalade.
Vucan co-worker: Is that not the name of a type of Terran fruit preserve? I do not understand the logic behind this choice.
T’Pen: the logic is self-evident to a human.
Human Co-worker: T’Pen, omg, you have a cat! What’s his name?
T’Pen: thank you for your inquiry. His name is Marmalade
Human Co-worker: oooh! yeah, that makes sense, because he’s orange and sweet! lmao, great name
T’Pen: He has the peculiar habit of walking on my workstation.
Human: Aggravating, isn’t it?
T’Pen: We Vulcans do not feel human emotions. However, I would prefer it if Marmalade stayed off my workstation, particularly when I am working.
Human: Get a box.
T’Pen: Murdering Marmalade seems an overreaction.
Human: No, you need a box with interior dimensions approximately the same as Marmalade’s body, and set it on the floor next to your workstation. Marmalade will sit in the box.
T’Pen: Why do you believe that this will work for Marmalade?
Human: We don’t know. It’s just something cats do. If he fits, he sits.
Vulcan Commander: T’Pen, you are posting videos of your cat. Explain.
T’pen: My colleagues are amused and entertained by Marmalade’s interactions with his environment. I am amused and entertained by their reactions as reflected in the comments.
Vulcan Commander (reading): “U haz done me a startle”?
T’Pen: Some of them like to verbalize what they believe are Marmalade’s thought processes. He is a cat, so they imagine that he does not grasp human spelling and grammar.
Vulcan Commander: … Fascinating. As you were. (signs off)
T’Pen (returning to her meal): Now I can haz lunch.
Marmalade: Meow. *nudges food bowl and looks expectantly*
T’Pen: You have just eaten. Logic dictates that you should not yet be hungry.
Marmalade: Meeooowww!
T’Pen: I must remember that cats do not adhere to the dictates of logic, and adjust accordingly. However, I will not give you more food right now as that would be unhealthful.
Marmalade: *sad cat eyes*
T’Pen: You attempt to appeal to my emotional side, however you will find that your attempts will be fruitless.
T’Pen:…I am speaking to an animal who cannot understand linguistic communication. The cat’s illogical nature seems to be having a deleterious affect on my own. Fascinating.
Vulcan Coworker: T'Pen, I have noticed that you have ceased allowing Marmalade into the dining room during what the humans call “dinner parties”. May I inquire as to why that is?
T'Pen: I have noticed that among Marmalade’s curious habitual instincts is the desire to knock over glassware, including and especially when they are filled with liquid. Despite my attempts to train him out of this habit, I have found it unsuccessful. When I sought advice from my human coworkers, they simply said that all cats have this peculiarity, and thus advised I leave him in a separate part of the building when such events are to be held.
Marmalade, pawing at a see-through door: *Mreeeowwww!*
T'Pen: Despite this arrangement, he continues to loiter by the door in the apparent hope to, quote, “guilt-trip me” into allowing him complete access to all of the faculties of my domain.
T'Pen: I have observed that my domestic feline demonstrates a pattern of attempting to consume processed petroleum products despite being said products’ indigestibility by any form of Terran fauna. While Marmalade demonstrates a high level of problem-solving and kinetic sense in other respects, such as locating and extracting treats, I am concerned that this habit reflects a fundamental lack of cognitive capacity.
Vet: ….Your cat chews on plastic so you’re worried that he’s an idiot?
T'Pen: As a Vulcan, I do not ‘worry’. I merely note possible negative situations and seek expert information on how best to approach them. (pause). That is an adequate rephrasing, yes.
Vet: He’s fine. Don’t let him eat plastic.
T'Pen: Are those two statements not contradictory?
Vet: It’s normal for cats to want to chew on plastic but you still shouldn’t let them. At least, not on regular household plastics. I can direct you to a few places to acquire cat-safe chew toys.
Burritos! I've recently found that they're really good for tearing into with my teeth like ripping into prey. 10/10 would recommend going absolutely feral on your burrito. Pizza is pretty good for this too
In a similar vein, soft fruit that you can tear off chunks of with your teeth is also great for this, especially if they're really juicy. I like to do this with cooked pineapple (specifically cooked because it's softer and easier to tear pieces off of). I've also heard of "shower oranges", where you take an orange into a shower to eat it so you can be as messy with it as you want, and in a place where it's relatively easy to clean it up (and apparently it smells amazing too, if you like the smell of citrus).
Tear up some lunch meat and mix it in with rice-- I don't know why, but this works, at least for me. It's very good. I like to do it with turkey.
If you have a kintype that crunches on bones like a Tasmanian devil, try pretzel sticks! You can also stick marshmallows on either end of them and cover them in white chocolate for a treat that looks like a bone too.
Speaking of bones, whenever I eat bone-in chicken I like to crack open the bones, then dig out and eat the marrow. Be extra careful if you try this though because the broken edges can be very jagged and sharp.
I've never tried this before, but I think it might be fun or affirming to do some exercise like running, and then "reward" yourself with food afterwards, to simulate hunting. Even though you don't actually catch the food, I think that running specifically to eat food afterwards might still recreate that feeling a little bit. If anyone tries this do let me know if it works!
Try to find candy / snack versions of your prey, like marshmallow mice, peeps, sugar or gummy insects (Annie's makes bug-shaped fruit snacks that I like!), Swedish fish, animal crackers, etc. Some of them, like the ones made of marshmallow or gummy, are also great for tearing into like I mentioned about burritos and fruit.
If your kintype eats insects, there are plenty of places to find actual insects sold as food like fried crickets. There are shops that sell these online, and I believe you can also find them in Asian markets or the like. (And if you don't like to eat real insects, there are candy versions like I mentioned above!)
Jerky is also really great for satisfying prey drive, but if you don't like jerky or are vegetarian, fruit leathers have a similar texture.
Let me know if you've tried any of these and if they work for you, and if you have any other ideas do tell me so I can add them!!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Read this post recently and had some thoughts about it, but OP wasn't a fan of keeping my comments up, so. here we go! This was certainly an interesting read, even if it wasn't something I agreed with in the end.
My responses will get cleaned up and thrown in the reblogs for ease of reading. this was a good thought experiment- and I even enjoyed the discussion with OP and a few of the other folks I ended up chatting with too. Too bad im blocked to high heaven now but hey! life goes on xD
I'd love to continue the discussion in the comments if any of yall wanna keep it going too- discussing the dangers of the online community and ways to prevent those dangers is right up my alley. I remember the early days of the online wild west and wanna prevent that for as many young/new/vulnerable nonhumans as I can. Please don't harass or attack OP either, they've just got their own framework of beleifs and are simply expressing it on their own blog.
marking 'beleif' as the problem universally while ignoring the content, affect, and context of those beleifs is just a far too flat take on something as huge and complicated as the concept of beleif. saying you do not have any, or have reduced beleifs because of your trauma is fine- but that isnt the state of a well-adjusted person. having absolutely no beleifs prevents you from being wrong, sure. but it also prevents you from being an individual with a functioning analytical brain. beleifs arent always all-or-nothing either. most beleifs sit comfortably in the 'well, this is probably true!' range until theyre inevitably corrected by new information. beleifs, culture, and the objective+subjective truths we learn about the world as we grow and change is a cornerstone of human development, the basis of learning. being wrong is part of being right, eventually- and removing the ability to beleive (not blindly, but reasonably + with evidence) or talk about our beleifs as core parts of who we are strips us of a huge chunk of the human experience. de-centralizing *beleifs* in favour of *experience* doesnt actually fix the problem either, because your experiences are also fully subjective. if you interpret your mental shifts as nonhuman, at all, you're really not that much different than someone who thinks they can physically change. You've got the same amount of proof as they do: which is Zilch.
Besides- how is it that you able to interpret your own nonhumanity with any level of accuracy, while the rest of us stupid schulbs are apparently just coasting by on 'well i think so, so it must be true!' You clearly beleive that on some level youre a telepathic pheonix-wolf. how is that *not* in the realm of subjective truth? What is more emperical/objective about being a phoenix on a a mental level, than being a dog on a spiritual one? genuinely? id love to know where that line gets drawn and why and where some therians are emperically sound and others aren't. as far as I knew, all we actually have is our own interpretations/beleifs/experiences/cultures. I genuinely would love to know what makes OP so sure that their 'mental shifts' to a more quiet, pictures-only, reducded-beleif thought process is "emperical" therianthropy and evidence of their wolfishness, and not just a trauma response from being raised in a situation where having ones own beleifs was punished. Its not up to me to decide that, but it does go to show the hypocrisy on display.
From the outside, I genuinely cannot tell why they seem to think their therianthopy lives in the realm of emperisicm and almost everyone elses' is just the product of confirmation bias.
i have also since been blocked. despite being relatively constructive throughout and providing sources that would strengthen their argument. i think to argue that you are trying to prevent a cult from forming in the community is disingenuous when you also block all critique. that’s an echo chamber you’re building.
i think for baumarius to also state it was “actually just me sharing my personal philosophy” is untrue when, in a response to aestherians they stated they went in an changed the coined definition of xenogender to their own on a fandom wiki, then a few breaths later state they were not "well versed" with the trans community. fandom wiki is not the end all be all of information of course, and the definition has since been changed back to the original, but i think my point still stands.
easy way to make yourself look more reputable: block all dissenting voices.
Firstly, thank you for posting the hidden replies faerie, I had wanted to know what was said.
I was much harsher in my rebuke of baumarius than others were. I honestly flip-flop on whether it was warrented or productive, though given others attempts to be more productive it seems it would not have mattered and I do not think I was incorrect or withdraw in anything I said.
I though agree with hearthwolf that the insistance about it being personal philosophy seems more of a shield to criticism rather than a genuine view. I have had posts misinterpreted in wildly different directions by others so I can sympathise if that is what occured. Even then though I struggle to believe that is the actual case. It was presented as a serious arguement, titled in a way that is associated to serious work "On [subjectmatter]", suggesting that this is a responsability to each other and necessary to prevent cult-behaviour within the community, and legitimising it through interaction with outside researchers and attempting to get a grant to study this. Even if it is a personal philosophy that does not make it immune from criticism, though if it were not for the attempts to legitimise or publish such work I imagine myself and others would have been much less likely to engage with it - at least for myself, I would have let it by.
Their response to criticism though was very poor, even to those who offerred much gentler feedback. They presented it in a very condescending way and would often reply to people suggesting they simply had not read it well enough. They clearly had no understanding of the community or any of the critiques being offerred (as is apparent by comments since). It was honestly to the point given their behaviour and that they would at points act and speak like "sjw pwned by logic and facts triggered" from the 2010s, that I was wondering if this was an attempt at Sokol-Hoaxing us (and part of why I stopped interacting, though I did continue to follow it). Honestly I still do not know; if they are being earnest and we were not all taken for a ride, clearly they are in a significant amount of pain from their experience with TG and everything they write appears filtered through that experience and limited experience with broader community, that I do hope they can heal from that at least. And if that is indeed the case, then my rebuke was, in hindsight, unproductively harsh.
I got blocked too. Posting my replies here because I don’t want the accusations of “abusive ad hominem attacks” on my part to go uncontested on the record.
Reply 1:
Text:
All due respect, I don’t think you should be putting sanism and Eurocentric in scare quotes in your response to Kala if you don’t want to imply that those concepts don’t exist/are nonsensical. Also, would you be willing to share info regarding the researcher you spoke to—or at least what it was about nonhumans they were researching? Feel free to DM me if you’re more comfortable with that
I never received a DM about the research or reply of any kind.
Reply 2:
Text:
Re: your latest addition. Sorry, but did you not invite feedback? You literally call it a “proposal.” Proposals receive feedback, and of (sic) that feedback is going to be impassioned. This is not, fundamentally, an academic space, so not everyone is going to approach your proposal with academic neutrality. Perhaps that’s not what you anticipated or wanted, and I can understand how the amount of responses you received might be overwhelming, but I would encourage you to evaluate the actual content of some the replies you received instead of dismissing them out of hand. I don’t think you intend to come off as defensive, but rejecting the sanist and Eurocentric critiques without actually contending with what was being said does come across that way.
Additionally, I’m at a loss as to how my mentioning that the quotes around sanism and eurocentrism constitutes a bad look (that I thought based on my wording was clear you did not intend to portray!) is a straw man (you literally put the words in quotes and I just said the implications were unsavory) and an abusive ad hominem attack (I did not say anything about you or insult you). Unless there is someone else who pointed out the quotations that I’m not seeing because of the removed replies, then ofc disregard this point.
I don’t know how much more I have to say about the subject (besides just don’t post things you aren’t ready for criticism on, I guess). I had also made a reblog response that also went unanswered. I’m not really sure why both my reblog and reply were ignored when it seems almost everyone else was responded to but oh well, I’ll never know.
If you saw the earlier version of this post, no you didn’t. Did you know you can still see your own replies on a post after you’ve been blocked? I didn’t.
