I recently read an amazing post on the idea of moving past obsessive doubt and justification of identity (link) and in light of it I would like to throw my own opinion out there, specifically regarding something I’ve written about on Project Shift.
I’m a firm believer in the idea that labels can be exceptionally useful for people to use, a thought of mine which extends beyond just the boundaries of just the otherkin community. With that said, however, I feel as though we have set up unconscious rules around labels, putting them on a pedestal and significantly reducing their usefulness in the name of intracommunity articulation.
When trying to label identity, it ideally should come down to what the individual in question finds most fitting and most beneficial. In the otherkin, fictionkin, and therian communities, that does not often seem to be the case. Instead, it seems much more commonly held within the community that we try to adhere to this mythical ternary of identities--otherkin, fictionkin, and therian--each of us supposed to label ourselves with one (and only one!) as an explanation for our understanding of a unique non-human identity. This is where we so frequently find individuals obsessively attempting to argue the so-called innate differences between therians and otherkin, or otherkin and fictionkin, or etc. Some differences which may not be so innate as we like to establish them.
Identity is complicated and weird. And, as the post I linked talks about, we shouldn’t value the articulation of identities over the understanding of identities (in whatever way that may mean for us all individually). Sometimes, this supposed perfect ternary of fictionkin, otherkin, and therian may not fit an individual’s needs when attempting to understand their non-human identity--and that is something we, as a greater community, currently lack spaces and language to discuss due to how we’ve formed around this idea of perfect boxes that people can fit into.
We need to look at ourselves and remember that not everything non-human will be able to fit underneath these labels, or only under a single one of these labels--and we need to remind ourselves that that is perfectly okay. While it’s important to understand one another and ourselves, that understanding does not have a prerequisite of grilling and ostracization of differences. Some people may utilize these pre-existing labels in new and interesting ways, while others may throw them to the wayside entirely to utilize something that better fits their own experiences. Regardless of the decision of the individual, what’s important isn’t the label--it’s the identity behind it, and the understanding of that identity.
How you understand your identity is up to you. How you label your identity is up to you. While it’s important to understand the definitions of various labels for a variety of reasons, these labels are not the end-all be-all to what you can or cannot call yourself or identify yourself by. Identity is unique, it’s not something that can be charred well-done and then flipped into a tupperware container for tomorrow’s lunch. It’s something we all discover on our own, in whatever way we find useful (whether that’s intrinsically knowing, or consistent questioning, or merely speaking about it ambivalently with friends).
We, as a community, need to keep in mind that identity just can’t always be so simplified as to intrinsically fit into one of three categories, just as identity may not always be investigated or understood in the same way from individual to individual. This uniqueness is something wonderful about us all and is something to be acknowledged and celebrated, not squinted at suspiciously. There is no downside to broadening your understanding of yourself and others.
