𓆩⟡𓆪 Nonbinary
𓆩⟡𓆪 Intersex
𓆩⟡𓆪 Asexual/Aromantic
𓆩⟡𓆪 #ActuallyAutistic
𓆩⟡𓆪 An Adult, An Old Fart, Not A Minor
𓆩⟡𓆪 An IRL Activist
𓆩⟡𓆪 A Fierce Inclusionist
Things I’m Okay With:
𓆩⟡𓆪 Anyone asking for recipes
𓆩⟡𓆪 I really mean Anyone & really, really mean Asking For Recipes
Things I’m NOT Okay With:
𓆩⟡𓆪 Exclusion of others*
𓆩⟡𓆪 Mockery of others*
𓆩⟡𓆪 Minors interacting in any other way than Asking For Recipes (or liking/reblogging recipes)
𓆩⟡𓆪 Truscum, transmeds, p3d0s/MAPs, racism, antisemitism, sexism, etc.
*Honestly I’m okay mocking or excluding those who threaten people’s basic human rights/lives/right to exist, especially if they’re being actively antagonistic or arguing in bad faith or whatever.
A very good friend of mine is attempting to get a cat but ran into some issues. I know we all are worn out trying to help the many crises that are happening on Earth right now, but if you have time in your schedule and Petty in your heart, please consider helping. This doesn't even require cash.
the tldr is they have more space dedicated to selling merch than to cat care and roaming, they seem to only adopt out cats in poorer health or with behavioral issues and not the "popular cats", and even the more popular cats have health concerns brushed off by volunteers
and a friend pointed out as they combed the reviews that only queer people seem to be having these problems
Apparently the cat I applied for and have been ghosted on entirely (not even my references contacted) that looked physically ill when I visited (which the handler brushed off and said "oh she gets eye gunkies a lot from being in the cage so much", despite it looking more like an eye infection than just gunkies)
has been having every potential adopter get ghosted
and anyone who asks up the chain of command gets their application rejected with no explanation
so Something Is Not Right and I want to get some higher ups outside of the org to at least investigate by bringing this situation to their attention
basically I'm just trying to get their senator and the local humane law enforcement officer to like. look into whats going on.
And what's extra weird is I was told no one applied for her when I asked to apply
that I was the first one to do so, which is clearly incorrect
I understand if you don't wanna get involved but like, something sketch is going on
I figure if the senator gets more than one email it might light a fire to look into it
TL;DR - Having a simple, consensus definition for the word otherkin can be helpful for explaining the identity to outsiders and newcomers. However, we reject the idea that any one person or group can authoritatively decide the definition. And we find that the stricter the definition is, the more likely you are to exclude people who would feel at home in our community.
Our inspiration for writing this is in response to recent community discussion in the past few days. Keep in mind, this is not an attack on anyone in particular, nor an attempt to "debunk" anyone or be inflammatory. This post is our opinion about how the word otherkin is defined, and why we believe that imposing strict definitions is harmful to the community. We invite open and honest discussion, either in reblogs / replies or in our DMs if you'd like to speak privately.
Post under the cut.
Here is the "consensus definition" we will be working with, and critiquing, in this post:
Otherkin: An individual who identifies, partially or wholly, as nonhuman on some non-physical level - typically mentally or spiritually. This identity is in some way innate or otherwise involuntary.
This definition is based on what we personally see used most often, and is found in several community-based dictionaries, such as this Alterhuman Dictionary. This does not mean it is "The" definition of otherkin, it is merely one we see used very commonly. Hence why we are using it as the so-called "consensus" definition.
If someone who has never heard of otherkin asked for an explanation, we believe this is a perfectly acceptable starting place. It accurately summarizes quite a large majority of the community, and is a good basis to build off of for further discussion.
So what are our issues with it? We'll go point by point.
1.) Defining otherkin as a non-physical identity. This portion of the definition is technically accurate in the sense that the vast majority of the community do not consider themselves to be physically nonhuman. Otherkin experiences most often exist on a psychological or spiritual level. It would absolutely be inaccurate to say that otherkin IS a physical identity.
However, strictly excluding those who experience their nonhumanity on a physical level leaves out large swaths of the community. While its not quite as common anymore, there has historically been members of the community who considered themselves to be genetically nonhuman. This can include changelings, those who believe that their ancestors had children with nonhuman beings, those who believe their DNA has been altered in some way, and many more. We ourselves believe that we have lycanthropic DNA tracing back to distant ancestors.
There are also those who simply consider their body to be a nonhuman body. "I am nonhuman, and this is my body, therefore it is a nonhuman's body." This is not necessarily a denial of one's physiology, simply a statement of one's self determination about the nature of their body.
More information about those who are physically nonhuman.
This definition also excludes people with Clinical Lycanthropy as well as some Endels. Not all CLs and Endels consider themselves to be otherkin, but many do!
The point we are trying to make is that while otherkin is generally a non-physical identity - experiencing your nonhumanity on a physical level does not and should not exclude you from being otherkin.
2.) Defining otherkin as involuntary. Same logic applies here as with the previous point. Otherkin identities are generally involuntary, and the vast majority did not choose to otherkin. It would be inaccurate to say that otherkin is a choice for most people.
However, identity alteration is absolutely an option for some people. Many people have fluid identities, and some choose to move towards a different experience of the self.
Believe me, I know this is a sensitive topic, especially for those who have experienced the trauma of others trying to forcibly change something about them. Just because some people out there voluntarily alter their identity, that DOES NOT mean you chose yours, or that you can or should change yourself in anyway.
All it means is that people are not static. Not everybody was "born this way" and that's ok! And just like people should respect that one person's identity is innate, we should also respect that for others it might not be.
There has been much written about otherlinkers and copinglinkers who began with a voluntary identity that eventually became involuntary over time. Many linkers consider their linktype to have become a kintype. Some people gained a nonhuman identity through magical rituals. Others had an identity alteration after trauma, or some other life-changing event. Some system members gain a nonhuman identity after voluntarily fusing with another system member. There has always been multiple theories to how people can be otherkin, and several of them include some level of intentional connection.
Hell, even tracing community history back to its very beginnings, the Silver Elves believed that wanting to be an Elf was enough for you to be one!
So in general, a kintype is very rarely a choice, but there are some people who gained it through voluntary means, whether directly or indirectly. That does not make their identity any less genuine than an involuntary one, and it certainly does not exclude them from being otherkin.
On page 66-67 of Orion Scriber's Directory, you can find several writings about becoming nonhuman, as well as those who are no longer nonhuman.
We also strongly recommend reading aestherian's essay on the history of voluntary identities in the community.
3.) Defining otherkin as strictly nonhuman. This is a tricky one to explain. Again, otherkin has always been defined as a nonhuman identity, so it's perfectly accurate to explain it that way. However, we do think there is room for exceptions.
One possible exception to the rule being human fictionkin. Many human fictionkin consider themselves separate from otherkin, which is totally fine. However, some consider their experiences to be very similar to otherkin. Especially if their human fictotype has traits that are not standard to this world's humans - such as superpowers, magic, or physical traits such as being born with purple or pink eyes. These deviations may cause a fictionkin to relate more to nonhumans, despite technically being human by the standards of their source.
Some nonhuman system members do not consider their nonhuman identity to be a kintype, instead they may be an extranth or something else entirely. However, nonhuman system members can have human fictotypes - thus the "other" in "otherkin" would actually be the human identity, rather than the nonhuman identity.
There are lesser known groups who identify as no-longer extant human ancestors and other hominids, such as Homo Erectus and Neanderthals. These definitely blur the line between human and not, but we would argue that they are certainly "other"!
And yes, we do think someone with a fact-type (factkin, etc) could consider themselves otherkin if they feel their experiences align. We know this subject is touchy, and we don't have time to get into in-depth, but the point is about whether or not the individual feels that their experiences align with others in the community.
We think its perfectly acceptable to define otherkin as being a nonhuman identity, but there should be room for others who fall in unusual categories or relate to nonhumans in general.
Again, this is on a case-by-case basis and is up to the individual to define whether they feel they fall under the otherkin umbrella. If one relates to otherkin experiences or feels at home in the community, one should have the right to self determine themselves as such. Even if they "don't fit" the standard definition.
4.) "Otherkin isn't a mental illness / delusion". Ok, so, this is a brief interlude to critiquing the definition above. This is more in response to the general talking point that comes up time and time again.
This talking point is largely in reaction to anti-kin rhetoric. Anti-kin often bash otherkin in ableist ways, such as saying that identifying as nonhuman must be a mental illness. It makes perfect sense to respond, "no, it isn't" especially if you yourself have kintypes that aren't related to mental illness.
However, there's a few problems with this response. When anti-kin say "otherkin is a mental illness", it is with the unspoken implication that something rooted in mental illness means that it isn't real, that it is wrong in some way, and that it should be fixed or cured. By responding "but its not a mental illness!" one is often, without realizing it, contributing to that same stigma.
It is far more accurate to say "otherkin isn't inherently a mental illness". Which is true, however, it would be very helpful to follow it up with something like, "And even if that's the case, which it is for some, that would not make it any less valid or genuine."
Mentally ill and delusional people still have the right to self determination. A kintype rooted in mental illness is not any less genuine than kintypes of other origins. By excluding otherkin with these sorts of origins, you are implicitly contributing to ableist and sanist stigma that mentally ill people do not have the same level of autonomy to decide their identity.
Like it or not, many nonhuman identities come from trauma, delusions, neurodivergence, and more. If that does not apply to you, that's perfectly fine! There is nothing wrong with stating that your kintype is not rooted in mental illness, and that many otherkin are similar. But when doing so, you do not have to throw mentally ill nonhumans under the bus.
5.) Who gets to decide what is and isn't otherkin? Well, we could start back at the very beginning, when the term was coined. The word "otherkind" was coined to be a more broad and inclusive alternative to Elvenkind. However, this was over 30 years ago, and a hell of a lot has changed since then.
Therian, otherkin, and other nonhuman communities used to be almost entirely separate, with hundreds of scattered, isolated forums and chatrooms all across the internet. Now most of us are consolidated to the major social media sites, and intermingling more than ever.
Otherkin and all the intersecting communities have exploded outwards into all sorts of directions. However, even when the communities were a lot smaller and more isolated - there never was, and never could be, a leader of otherkin. There are well known figureheads and respected greymuzzles - but no leaders, no rulers, no gods, no masters.
No one single person, or group of people gets to define what otherkin is. There is no gatekeeper, there is no arbiter of the otherkin experience. I don't care how long they've been in the community, or how many followers they have, or how well respected they are. Nobody is the authority. The best we can hope for is to come to a very loose consensus, and to always leave room for nuance.
And trust me, we get it. The harm that "kin for fun" (or kin-as-relating) has done to our community have made many want to be cautious. Having a solid, clean definition of otherkin would give us something nice and easy to point to and say "They aren't real otherkin!". However, its really not that simple.
KFF / KAR aren't harmful solely because they're using the "wrong definition" - they're harmful because they push ableist and sanist rhetoric. They're harmful because they push the idea that anyone who is genuinely nonhuman MUST be delusional while also excluding and making fun of actual delusional nonhumans. They're harmful because they shit on people's spiritual beliefs and punish "problematic" kintypes. They're harmful because they refuse to understand the way that their rhetoric has damaged our communities.
And unfortunately, we do not have a solution to that problem. But what we can tell you is that creating a stricter definition of otherkin and attempting to harshly gatekeep our community is NOT going to fix anything. There have been countless testimonies from kin who have been harmed, abused, or had their self-discovery set back by years because of community gatekeeping. Attempting to draw clear lines in the sand is only going to push out newbies, questioning otherkin, and those with more complex relationships to their sense of self.
There is never going to be a definition of otherkin that perfectly includes all kin and perfectly excludes all non-kin.
People are just too complex to be sorted into neat little boxes that way. There will always be grey areas, nuances, and blurred lines. There will always be individuals who do not want to be sorted, and never could be. There will always be those who don't quite fit in, but still choose to make their home with us.
And we should be the first to welcome them.
6.) So how do we define otherkin? Well, like we said, we can never come up with a perfect definition of the word. And we certainly do not have the authority to do so. But we have some suggestions that may help create a more inclusive consensus definition for newcomers and outsiders.
Let's start with the definition from above, and modify it a bit.
Otherkin: An individual who identifies, partially or wholly, as something nonhuman - typically on a mental or spiritual level. May also include individuals who identify as non-standard deviations of humanity, such as fictional humans.
Is this perfect? No, definitely not. Admittedly its a bit clunky. But the purpose is to include wiggle room for exceptions, such as the word "typically" and "may also include". The purpose of this definition is not to exclude those who aren't otherkin, but to include those who may be otherkin.
We once again want to reiterate that nobody has to use this version (in fact, we welcome anyone to pitch in and critique it). The definition from the start of this post is perfectly workable, so long as one clarifies that it is a general explanation, and may not include all the nuances of otherkinity.
Our major goal here is to ensure that whatever definition we use, that we do not do so with the intention to exclude - but rather to explain, invite curiosity, and to welcome kin from all experiences into our community.
