Talk:Otherkin

	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.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Transmisogyny and genderqueer bigotry ahoy!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28582-scans-prove-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-male-or-female-brain/

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.

https://medium.com/@keisisqrl/dear-fellow-trans-people-lay-off-otherkin-9787ccf6725c

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.

23.227.207.68 (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)

@23.227.207.68 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

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: 89.76.6.78 / 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)

I hope this is helpful. This is my understanding of Otherkin.

Otherkin and trans are different in cause, yet similar in manifestation and presentation. Many differences are similar in how they manifest, yet have very different causes. It's not black and white. When someone says that Otherkin is proof that Trans and Nonbinary are mental illnesses, it's due to ignorance of this fact, or sometimes even just to cause contention. And this is bad for all communities, and everyone in general. This confusion can even be dangerous.

Transgender and nonbinary are similar in cause, yet different in effect. The cause is a flush of hormones that occurs in the womb. This flush of hormones occurs in every individual, which is why everyone is different. Trans and nonbinary are just different, too, fundamentally, and this flush causes them to identify themselves mentally as a different gender than the one assigned at birth, which is the form their body takes, because they either simply get more of a certain hormone or the hormones affect them in a different way. This doesn't mean that they have a hormonal imbalance, however. Their hormones are generally normal and stable, but this flush affects the trajectory of their lives at the very beginning.

Otherkin is psychological. This does not mean mental illness. Rather, imprinting in childhood is the most logical cause. There is nothing wrong with this, and it becomes part of someone's identity. Children and Autistic individuals are susceptible to imprinting because their identities and sense of self are more fluid and less rigidly defined by NT cultural norms.

Spirituality is part of everything. Spirituality is a way to give a purpose and narrative to one's life and make sense of one's circumstances. Spirituality is creativity, is imagination, is the essence of being. It puts things in a framework. Spirituality is what trans folks used to explain themselves before studies were done and brain scans were created. They would say they have the spirit of the gender they identified as. Otherkin do the same thing. They have "the spirit of a wolf" or a toad, or a plant, or creature from another realm, and whatnot. It's not the same as oppressive religious structures. It's not something that should be dismissed and taken lightly, either.

Otherkin know they're not physically another species besides human. Therefore, they are not delusional. And as long as they are not hurting anyone or themselves, they are OK. Anything can be harmful if oneself or others are harmed, which I would assume is obvious.

Otherkin have a right to express themselves. Expression often occurs through appearance. Tails, ears, collars, jewellry, t-shirts with their identified species on them, contacts, animalistic makeup or face paint, body modifications, tattoos, etc. These are the most common forms of Otherkin expression. Art in general is a common means of expression for Otherkin. Anime has a lot of things Otherkin can relate to, as well as the Furry fandom.

Thank you for this. — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

about detail omitted from my initial furries edit

initially i'd written something about how some furries might be confusedly labeling themselves as "otherkin" because they feel an attachment to their fursona, despite not being downright delusional the way otherkin are, and how that would imply a shift in the meaning of the label (in fact i think the topic directly above this describes spiritual furries/whateveries more than otherkin), but that was largely just speculation based on a single discussion i oversaw between two other furries

"Different concepts of kins are different and they also dont share any kind of collective responsibility because its an entirely personal thing"
"Someone spiritually feeling like they have the essence of a crow should not face responsibility for creeps who identify with GoT [game of thrones] characters"

just clarifying in case it seemed sus i suddenly left that out of my revision --151.203.115.149 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite?

This article's language and tone regarding otherkin/therians is derogatory. It's that simple. Beyond the fact that the articles on both otherkin and therians both insinuate that otherkin and therian identities are somehow a form of "religion". While some otherkin do propose religious/spiritual explanations of otherkin/therian identity, not all otherkin actually use religious/spiritual explanations for their identity. The rhetoric used in this article and in the one on therians mirrors the BS spewed by TERFs.

I will try to see if it is possible to rewrite this article. -PKMNLives (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I kept your edits (for now) but to be fair, I don't understand the movement enough so I can't comment on the rest. I don't think people that align with this, like, literally believe this, and it's probably a more abstract sort of identification, it's hard to explain, but there's some historical basis on it iirc. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I, too, know nothing about this. In my case, though, it leads me to be rather skeptical of somebody who shows up, is apparently quite familiar, and begins by removing large swaths of critical content. I also find it hard to believe that people literally believe this, but I could say the same for much of what this site covers. No idea how reliable a sample this is, but it only makes me more suspicious. I will grant that the prior version had large sections that were poorly sourced, in any case. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please reference Debate:Otherkin in part for attempts to gain an understanding why this article focuses so heavily on the woo elements. I intent to restore this article to it's previous state. The religious comparisons, if you read the actual article are mostly in the context that just like religion, Otherkin desires highly to be rendered unfalsifiable. There's no "argumentation mirroring TERFs" because TERFs don't argue like this (seriously, look at TERF rethoric for like, 5 seconds. TERF rethoric is all about how trans women want to eat your babies. This isn't that). Also I just want to point out the irony that one part that is removed from the article is the fact that a lot of otherkin like to paint their beliefs as identical to the need for transgender/non-binary people to be accepted into society and this person blaming us to be TERFs. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstand your argument.... but otherkin is an identity. How does falsifiability fall into self-identification? If someone says they're nonbinary, then they're nonbinary. Now some of the claims are possibly falsifiable, but an entire identity being subject to falsifiability? That seems fallacious to me. Like, do otherkins actually believe they're, say, a wolf or whatever, or is that an abstraction? What relevancy does falsification have here? Carthage (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean to add to Carthage's comment, "falsification" generally is also largely rejected within philosophy of science to be a genuine criterion for demarcation. If one were committed to such a standard then the discovery of dark matter should have led someone to bin astrophysics as "pseudoscience". Talk of identities like this gets into the more philosophical sides of things about the metaphysics of what these categories seemingly refer to. Are there limits to sensible identity? if so, what are they? I am not so certain I would draw the line at "otherkin" anymore then I am willing to draw a line at "muslim". I am sympathetic to the idea that one can't really be psychologically of another species because it doesn't seem like the metaphysics of that tracks, but if they are not being literal then it doesn't seem at all relevant. Still I am willing to grant people identity categories for beliefs that I take to be false. If otherkin was a spiritual sort of belief then why should they be treated as any more or less legitimate then folks who identify as "christian" or someone who adopts a religious belief from their particular indigenous folklore? I feel like there are nuances here that may not be given due diligence. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that perhaps a rewrite should be done

In my opinion, the article, as it stands, is perhaps a little too derogatory in the way it is written; While even as a spiritualist, I do believe the spiritual perspective many take in regard to Otherkiness, the article (and partially the talk page) comes across, to me, as derogatory in a way that extends past 'We are making fun of only the woo parts' and into 'We are making fun of the whole thing' in a way that, dare I say, reminds me of Transphobic rhetoric I have seen.

Otherkin is a unique psychological phenomenon which is yet to be understood by the scientific world and which has had little research done to try and further understanding of it, and much like any other psychological phenomenon, I feel as if we should treat the subject matter with care, regardless of what the true nature of the phenomenon is.

I suggest we rewrite the article, keeping the snark directed at the woo in, of course, but also while attempting to be more neutral and careful regarding the remainder of the subject matter.

TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be said that just because something reminds you of transphobic rhetoric does not necessarily mean that there is a real analogy between the two identities and the dismissal expressed externally to them. This same sort of appeal to loose association is how we get really problematic comparisons made between various social groups that ignores the relevant intersectional distinctions in the oppression these social groups face. Being a psychological phenomena or not does not per se justify granting identities the same lens of cultural/legal legitimacy of known immutable identities shared among members of an oppressed group. There are a wide, wide, wide range of psychological/cultural phenomena that includes everything from believing oneself to be the only thing that actually exists, to thinking that physical reality does not exist, to thinking that one has been possessed by the devil. There is more that is required beyond it simply being a psychological phenomena in order to justify cultural/political legitimacy, and there is a deeply normative dimension to these things as well. That being said it doesn't necessitate being a dick about it, which in this case I can grant that the article is definitely in the ballpark of "being a dick about it". - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Precisely, regardless of what the situation may be (of which you raise many fair points), I believe the tone of the article can and should be handled better than how it is as of now. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)