On Therianthropy, Otherkin, Zoesthesia, and My Perspective on Subjectivity
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. Some of the thought experiments I put forth were originally defense mechanisms against others trying to rewrite my own beliefs with theirs. 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. I want to emphasize now that I do not necessarily think that anyone else needs to adopt this perspective, only that it is useful to me.
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, but they are entirely unrelated to this topic).
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, improved upon, or thrown out, 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. This is 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 did I create 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 doesn't assert that anything we feel (whether interpreted as psychological or spiritual) is objectively "real" or "unreal." This avoids language that reifies belief as fact, since it is impossible to measure how objectively "real" something is in the first place. It also avoids the linguistic ambiguity present when someone says something like "I'm a nonhuman animal," which is typically inferred to be about one's subjective interpretation of reality, but can - from a purely linguistic standpoint, be confused with an assertion of objective reality. That kind of ambiguity has resulted in some individuals claiming that certain identities under the alterhuman umbrella are inherently delusional.
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 terms and thought experiments and how I use them. I ask that you try to understand my perspective on these ideas. As I've said previously, some of these things are thought experiments informed by my upbringing and experiences. I cannot assert that they are objectively true.
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 can ambiguously be taken to 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 subjective belief, not an empirically tested fact.
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. The problem I have with this is, once again, that subjectivity and objectivity are not crystal clear.
Over years of certain members policing labels and experiences, 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. Some such people are coming back after being turned away by sites like TG years ago. I'm not active enough in the community to know what it is generally like now, but I would be concerned if these attitudes remain.
Those who put forth the idea that certain sensations, behaviors, or lack thereof are concrete proof that one is or isn't a particular nonhuman animal engage in something known as reification. According to David K. Naugle's Worldview: The history of a concept, "Reification takes place when natural or social processes are misunderstood or simplified; for example, when human creations are described as 'facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will'." Engaging in this itches at the incredibly human fear of social exclusion, especially in kids just trying to make sense of themselves. Some of these definitions keep the existence of this fallacy hidden 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 encourages members to preen their experiences and limit their interpretations of them to a prescribed box.
This will not lead 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. 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. For ease of understanding, I wonder if this may need to be refined.
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 zoesthesia may alleviate some of those efforts, but I can only use it for myself.
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 objective truth clearly within the definition of terms like therianthropy, magical thinking is encouraged. Anything and everything can start to become cultish when this responsibility is ignored. I'm not a fan of ambiguity. 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've seen a lot of dangerous patterns that have left me observing from a distance. It is my hope that the future of the community is a positive and healthy one.
Okay! Finally got the spoons to come back to this.
First of all, I love this. Which isn't me saying that it's perfect or anything, but I feel like as a community we (general alter/nonhumanity, I'm not a therianthrope myself but I'll get into that later) are bizarrely resistant to taking any kind of empirical approach to discussing our experiences and identities. And like...why, you know? There's a lot to be learned there. And I also feel that as a whole we're wildly allergic to the idea of academia, which is really unfortunate. We say we want to be taken seriously but then we actively reject the currently existing route to being taken seriously¹, which I think is really counterproductive.
As someone who hasn't interacted with the therianthrope community, I don't feel like that's a label I can or should adopt. I do feel some kind of heavy draw towards the idea of being a trumpeter swan, but I don't feel like I can claim that I'm a therian. That entails a whole lot of social meaning and implications that simply don't apply to me. I am not following the same norms as the majority of therians, I don't hang out in those spaces, basically none of that. However, that doesn't change my experience of having experienced some kind of swan-ness. I feel like zoesthesia is a perfectly good and useful word to frame that: implying nothing further than the definition itself nor any allegiance to any societal group or set of norms, I have some subjective experience of being a nonhuman animal.
Where I'm less certain of the term is what the boundaries are regarding nonhuman and specifically nonanimal experiences. I am also fae, which isn't a known kind of animal. I'm also also a reploid², which is not just an inorganic thing but also a fictional³ thing. I wouldn't say that my experiences are tremendously different in kind, however, beyond those details. The definition and etymology of zoesthesia doesn't really include either of these things, though, or many other identities that involve having experiences of being non-living things; is that by design, or oversight?
Another question that I have is, is there a specific reason that the phrasing, "[...]a personal interpretation of these experiences as non-human through psychological or spiritual means" (emphasis mine) like the experience to being limited to just those two means? I ask because I'm one of those who does not attribute my overall state of alter/nonhumanity to either of those things, and while I do realize that the category could simply not apply to me in that case since it's in the "may include" section, there has been a major shift towards communal acceptance lately of other possible ways that one can identify oneself as nonhuman⁴ and I think it would be worthwhile to include some reference to that in the definition of zoesthesia.
I've very much experienced what you have in others trying to claim that they know my experiences and internal life better than I do and/or trying to claim that they have authority in labeling myself. It's ass, to be blunt. I shed every label that anybody else had perceived control over to escape it. I feel very strongly that we need labels like this that specifically cannot, be definition, have a gatekeeper.
And now the footnotes, because it was the only way I could wrangle the ADHDtism parenthesis habit...
¹ Yeah, I know it would be nice if society would just take us seriously without study, but if you have to start your thought with, 'If everybody just...' then you've already lost. Nobody will 'just' do anything en masse, that's not how society works, you can cry colonialism or whatever if you must but I'm being realistic here. I'm not saying, 'It's good that it works this way,' I'm saying, 'Currently it does work this way, value-neutral statement.'
² A type of android with free will, sentience, sapience, and human emotions, from the Mega Man X series of games.
³ Arguably, fae are fictional as well, being from mythology, but many draw a hard line between those concepts. I don't, but for convention and conversation's sake, let's draw the line anyway. Line-drawing is, after all, the great community pastime.
⁴ Phrasing it that way for brevity, but let's pretend I said 'possible ways that one can come to understand one's subjective experiences through the lens of nonhuman identity' or something more empirically precise. Long day, tired brain.
Brave of you to voice support for this idea considering the feedback so far. I appreciate the thoughtful response.
It has gone through several iterations, and I'm still refining it. "Nonhuman" in the definition of Zoesthesia was originally "something incongruent to one's biology." I'm not yet sure if there's a better way to word the fact that there's a difference between your physical appearance and what you are feeling/perceiving/etc.
On the psychological/spiritual bit - it may be better to simply say that the available reasons for this kind of interpretation of one's experiences are diverse. Also not sure what other options there are.
I clarified the thought experiment a bit more in one of my recent responses, too, though it is long. I may put parts of this in the original post as well.
"otakukin" icons made by me for myself and various livejournal community members circa 2006-2007. At the time, we were under fire from a bunch of trolls who were trying to assert that our beliefs were a violation of copyright.
If you use these, it would be polite to attribute them to me.
i'm a tattoo artist + i have a tattoo on my palm, so a little addition:
i love this idea but please be ready for correction sessions. mine took 3-4 corrections before the ink finally stopped falling off my palm (and it's here for years now). palms/fingers are nasty, nasty brats :D
what you can do: first, find a tattoo artist who's already done that before. your issue is 70% solved (it still may require corrections btw, just lesser).
but if that's impossible for some reason and your tattoo artist is really willing to try their best, you can tell them to use dotwork techniques. no, it won't be dotwork in the end; it's just the ink stays in such places better if you use dots instead of strokes. so yes, your tattoo session can take way longer than you expected, but it will be worth it. also tell them to use higher voltage (yes this bitch will hurt. you were warned). DON'T take anesthesia gels, they will make the process worse.
as soon as your tattoo is done, listen to your artist's recommendations about healing and MULTIPLY them. twice. thrice if needed. maybe tenfold. apply healing stuff (sorry i forgot the word, not english native speaker) all the time in the first 3-5 days, like LITERALLY never let your fresh tattoo stay uncovered in healing thingy. obviously 3-4 weeks (just to be sure!) don't rub it, don't take hot baths, absolutely no public pools/bodies of water, etc etc, your tattoo artist will tell you everything (please take notes from them, it's really important).
TLDR: palm/fingers tattoos are very tricky, be ready for longer tattoo session, for additional correction sessions and prolonged healing phase. good luck, it will be cool !!!
Shift happens. Lol. I wanted to make one of those phantom shift charts but I found it more useful to draw these myself.
Things to note :D under the cut
The first drawing is pretty much one for one what i see in the mirror everyday. My wings and coyote ears are constantly there and I tend to subconsciously emote with them (wings spread suddenly when startled, ears lay back or swivel when listening) I also almost constantly have a phantom tail but it switches constantly (shark tail, bird tail, canine tail) and is non emotive.
Paws and Claws!!! These are Lycanthrope specific and only show up when I'm wereshifted. The structure of the hand itself is bulkier and the claws are retractable and come out of slits where my fingernails are. Paw pads are just kinda there, my hands are pretty calloused so functionally they are always there. Lol.
Werewolf shifting also comes with general bulk, a muzzle and mane.
Wings are proportional to body size, and can be inconvenient. I think I miss flying the most. They were light weight (bird) but it still feels weird for just noting to be there. Wearing a backpack helps.
Sometimes I feel my wings on my arms as opposed to my back but they come from the same shift.
I have had the least experience with My blacktip reef shark theriotype (as of me realizing it, there might be things I remember at a later date, when I get back to the water) but there is more weight to my tail than the canine or avian tails.
Psychological therian not as in "this one circumstance from my childhood made me this one species" but as in "millions of tiny things over the course of my entire life from birth to well into adulthood added up to create a nonhuman identity that likely continues to evolve as my psyche changes, some of which I can identify but many of which will get lost as memories of unremarkable life events seemingly unrelated to my nonhumanity"
Peddling the Veil Between Worlds: Proselytizing within Otherkin, Fictionkin, and Therian Communities
Author: Page
Type: Essay
Words: 1,778
Summary: A look into common proselytizing and invasive spiritual narratives in the otherkin, fictionkin, and therian communities.
[Part of the Sol System’s Alterhuman Writing Project for NaNoWriMo 2021. If you don’t want to see these posts, block the tag #inkedpaws]
I’ve definitely talked about this before, but if for some reason you weren’t there for that, yes, and I consider it a pretty important part of my alterhuman identity. In fact, all of my fictotypes you could say started as fictionflickers; my neurons made their weird connections and created a flicker for the character, it just didn’t go away for some reason. All four of my fictotypes I expected to go away with time and was surprised when they didn’t (less surprised for the most recently-discovered three, since it had happened before by then).
Hello!! I was wondering if you had any good activities/ideas/tips for a not-deer (predatory deer mimic from internet urban legends) ? Thank you so much!!
This one is one I've been stumped on and working on for a while! Most stories of not-deer are passed down orally, so there isn't much to go off of. Nevertheless, here you go, pal!
--🦌--
Things to do for a not-deer:
Go for a run and work on your mile time! Not-deer are very, very fast
Pull an all nighter
Wake up early and watch the sunrise
Go on an early morning sunrise walk! Or a walk at dusk, right before the sun sets
Depending on if you're a not-deer with claws or not, do your nails! Paint them, file them, sharpen and shape them
Do something that scares you. Get out of your comfort zone!
