So in regards to this post I do admit despite being made up on the spot and probably really flawed I do really like the term "per/ sel". So consider this a "I'm throwing even more sh/t at the wall and seeing what sticks" post.
First, cons! The biggest downside to this is then people going "I am literally this person" as per is derived from person/ selfhood. We'd once more get into some pretty nasty doubles discourse, which I'd like to try and avoid. In addition, we could also get into identity hierarchies, though that's no different than it is now. Lastly, saying I am x person does start to infringe upon systems. In the same vein of saying you are "kin" blurs the boundary between KFFs and otherkin, claiming someone as your per/ sel could potentially blur the lines between kff/ persers and introjects.
As for pros! Obviously, if this does take off, we won't have people wrongly using the term kin. We could then work on separating the two communities and move on. Also, we would avoid conflation. Someone saying they're per would carry a different weight than saying they're kin in the KFF way. I mean the whole problem this is trying to fix really is the upside.
But why per? Because it plays off what kffs already know and it has the versatility that "kin" has. It's short/ can be shortened since I'm thinking personhood could be the full term. There's nothing big or fancy about it nor does it require a specific grammar structure to sound right which is where most proposed terms fall flat on. The "kinning" phenomenon is fun to these people, and to treat it as a business exchange is why no fix can be enacted.
So say this does pick up traction. How would we even use it? I'm thinking: - This is my per/ I have a coupla pers
- I'm a perser/ I per x
- Don't trust anyone who perses x / local persie lol
