Information icon.svg Results are posted for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election.
Thanks to all who participated in the vote, and congratulations to the new moderators!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon psychology.svg

This Psychology related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • The subject material is controversial and its treatment may not reflect RationalWiki standards.
  • There appears to be a reliance on some rather questionable sources.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>


Article says that transsexuals are supported by science and this isn't, when this is a thing You are part of the problem with your cis-species privilege! Thedoctor81 (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The page lacks any credible sources — Unsigned, by: / talk

DSM Manual[edit]

Does it say anything about this? I don't exactly have a copy of one. Zero (talk - contributions) 08:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This page needs more critical analysis[edit]

The article does a fine job of documenting otherkin culture, but not enough [1] criticizing how truly irrational otherkin are and [2] explaining why the constant comparisons between otherkin (and more extreme -kin, think the "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter" parody) and trans people are flawed. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That, and it obviously needs a psychiatric angle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This be some woo nonsense.Wikipedia Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

My critical analysis is that with our identity being little more than a convenient mental and social construct, both otherkin and anti-otherkin are not even wrong when making absolute essentialist claims about their and others' 'innate' identities. Personally, I think sexually identifying as an attack helicopter sounds awesome. :) (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I sexually identify as the jet from Count Zero book.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 16:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You know, hearing this stuff about "sexually identifying as weapons", I can't help but be reminded of George Carlin's "Rockets and Penises in the Persian Gulf" routine. (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did we think it was a good idea to add an image of a man who committed suicide?[edit]

[[File:StalkingCat.jpg|thumb]] This man committed suicide in 2012. The image was added in 2016 by BoggleYourMind. We really should remove this image from this wiki if all we are going to do is snark at a dead man; who isn't even otherkin.

Source of suicide.

Maybe someone tell BoggleYourMind "How in the world did you think that this was a good idea???".

ClickerClock (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe BoggleYourMind didn't realise he'd committed suicide, I've deleted the image. Christopher (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I going to have to inform BoggleYourMind to be more careful. ClickerClock (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Considering the last edit BoggleYourMind made was in March, he may not respond. Christopher (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
That is correct. It would be quite a shock if he does return. ClickerClock (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that Trans and Otherkin section...[edit]

It reads like an AltRight seminar. Holy shit. It reminds me of how TERFs dismiss trans people, and how certain gay people denigrate trans people as drag-queens. I smell far right tampering. I'm going to remove that section for now to draw attention to it. It's borderline TERF-esque hate speech. Is that okay to have on RationalWiki?

Plus, on top of that, it cites the trans-misogynistic pseudoscience as a way to validate trans above otherkin. However, that pseudoscience makes my trans partner deeply uncomfortable as it pushes heteronormativity which is anti-trans by its very nature. That section doesn't make RationalWiki look good, and if we are going to keep it then can a good argument be made for a section which promotes both trans and otherkin prejudice?

Like I said, I smell AltRight trolling all over this. (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the section. What are the specific sentences and words that you find denigrating? I can't check the source, though: the link is broken. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Transmisogyny and genderqueer bigotry ahoy![edit]

There is no such thing as a "male" or "female" brain. Neurology finds the brain is a non-binary construct. The notion of gendered brains is transmisogyny which is also openly bigoted against any and all genderqueer and non-binary allies. Not to mention unscientific and hardly rational.

There's no reason why othetkin shouldn't be allies either beyond simple-minded bigotry poorly disguised as an attempt to seek validation. I mean, that'd be like lesbians calling gay guys freaks to appeal to straights. That isn't cool. Halting this bigotry is something that notable trans journalists have agreed with.

This whole thing has the stench of "stealth" Alt-Right editing atound it. And unless this is actually a satire wiki created by Alt-Right authors (in which case, you got me good!)? Then you may want to audit your editors because this article is rife with trans, genderqueer, non-binary, and otherkin hate speech, which would only serve to drive a stake between groups who should be allies.

If this is a satire wiki, though, it's a masterclass. I wamnt to believe I'm just dealing with misguided lefties, though. (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Where exactly is the statement in question? I ask because I have gone over the article and cannot seem to find the disputed content. If you could quote the sentence in question that would be helpful. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Again, please highlight the content in question. It is easy to complain, but it is apparently quite difficult to actually do the work to lend one's complaints any weight. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
it is actually quite difficult when their complaint has no merit. i can get with not being dicks to people, everything else the op mentions is dross not in the article or even relevant. apparently making 'allies' involves ranting at them over imagined slights AMassiveGay (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@AMassiveGay I'm trying to be "nice" to new users, given in the past my tone has been a touch toxic. That being said... I went over this article fifteen (honestly, I kept count) times before posting my first reply, and around four times before posting my second. I have yet to see what this original poster is referring to. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Last section is lacking[edit]

It claims "This comparison is flawed." without any justification. Entire section is minimal, rushed and very dismissive. I guess cognitive dissonance hits hard, eh?

You guys have to do way, way better job if you want to show that otherkin (that you laugh at) and sexual identity shenanigans (that you support) are totally I swear different thing.

Disclosure: I don't see any difference beside obvious - that way, way more people cares about their (and more importantly others) sex/gender/whatever than species. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

One (gender identity) is based in evidence. The other (Otherkin) is based in woo-woo. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)