Furries are cool
-
sex and gender are central to a person's identity while being a furry is not.
Sex and gender are clearly central to your identity, just as much as 'furry' is central, sometimes exclusively, to other people's identity.
it's conflating being a furry with sexual and gender identity.
Who are you to define what is or isn't a legitimate sexual or gender identity? Identity is a personal and subjective thing. For many 'furry' is a gender and/or sexual identity and to say that it isn't is no different than arguing with a trans person about theirs.
The issue isn't that you are explicitly making some call to action, it's that you are othering and implicitly calling for the persecution of other people based entirely on your personal aesthetics.
Why are heterosexuality and homosexuality not 'just part of the fetish community'?
Why are heterosexuality and homosexuality not ‘just part of the fetish community’?
because people are born with these predilections, they don't buy them off of temu.
-
a case of gender expression, not gender identity.
When those don't align that's usually referred to as dysphoria/dysmorphia. That's what the fursuits are for, just like HRT, tattoos, piercings, clothing, etc.
I just want it to be recognized for what it is.
What it is, or what you perceive it to be? I don't disagree that fetish is a part of it, but that's true of any gender/sexuality etc. It's like flattening down all homosexuality to leather daddies.
Then what are heterosexuality and homosexuality defined by?
Pornographic material: Pornhub has entirely separate sites for "straight" and "gay". Would adding a "furry" site really feel all that strange or out of place?
sex toys, roleplay scenarios: I don't think that's as strongly correlated as you're suggesting. Pony/pet play is big in the BDSM community and bad dragon toys were far from exclusively for furries. Unless you have something else in mind I'm unaware of?
Shared hobby: What exactly is the hobby all furries share?
Then what are heterosexuality and homosexuality defined by?
Pornographic material: Pornhub has entirely separate sites for "straight" and "gay". Would adding a "furry" site really feel all that strange or out of place?
Porn categories do not define sexual orientations, so I do not understand your point. Sexual orientation is a description of the sexual characteristics of yourself and the people you are attracted too, neither of which are decided by whether or not either of you are furries.
sex toys, roleplay scenarios: I don't think that's as strongly correlated as you're suggesting. Pony/pet play is big in the BDSM community and bad dragon toys were far from exclusively for furries. Unless you have something else in mind I'm unaware of?
Shared hobby: What exactly is the hobby all furries share?
I'm not claiming all furries do all those things. I'm saying that all of the characteristics that make someone furry sexual are covered by the categories I listed. None of the categories I listed are relevant to whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual.
Also, the hobby that many furries share (I never said all) is fur suiting.
-
I'm not the one to define these terms. At best, furry is a case of gender expression, not gender identity. These are not the same concept, and I would argue that furry is not even gender expression since there isn't an underlying gender identity for it to express, though I am not an expert here.
The issue isn't that you are explicitly making some call to action, it's that you are othering and implicitly calling for the persecution of other people based entirely on your personal aesthetics.
That's not what I'm doing. Let me be clear about my central claim - the furry community is a fetish community. While I have given my personal feelings on the matter, my arguments have all been in service of this claim. Even if I were attempting to other furries, I wouldn't feel that bad on the basis that I don't believe it's a sexual orientation, sexual identity, or gender identity, rather I believe it's a fetish. However, that's not what I'm intending to do, though I admit that sharing my personal feelings on the matter may have come across that way.
If I did kink shame anybody, or otherwise make furries feel like inferior people, I want to apologize here. I don't have an issue with furries. I hope they can continue to enjoy their fetish. I just want it to be recognized for what it is.
Why are heterosexuality and homosexuality not 'just part of the fetish community'?
I have also made the claim that the misidentification of the furry community as a gender identity, sexual identity, or sexual orientation is harmful to the LGBT movement which exists to protect gender identities, sexual identities, and sexual orientations. To me, this question is a perfect example of the confusion that's brought about by the conflation of furry sexuality with the LGBT movement that is harmful to the LGBT movement.
To give my answer, it's because heterosexuality and homosexuality are not defined by their pornographic material, sex toys, roleplay scenarios, or a shared hobby in the way that furry sexuality is.
I have also made the claim that the misidentification of the furry community as a gender identity, sexual identity, or sexual orientation is harmful to the LGBT movement which exists to protect gender identities, sexual identities, and sexual orientations. To me, this question is a perfect example of the confusion that’s brought about by the conflation of furry sexuality with the LGBT movement that is harmful to the LGBT movement.
appreciate the nuance in this reply.
-
a case of gender expression, not gender identity.
When those don't align that's usually referred to as dysphoria/dysmorphia. That's what the fursuits are for, just like HRT, tattoos, piercings, clothing, etc.
I just want it to be recognized for what it is.
What it is, or what you perceive it to be? I don't disagree that fetish is a part of it, but that's true of any gender/sexuality etc. It's like flattening down all homosexuality to leather daddies.
Then what are heterosexuality and homosexuality defined by?
Pornographic material: Pornhub has entirely separate sites for "straight" and "gay". Would adding a "furry" site really feel all that strange or out of place?
sex toys, roleplay scenarios: I don't think that's as strongly correlated as you're suggesting. Pony/pet play is big in the BDSM community and bad dragon toys were far from exclusively for furries. Unless you have something else in mind I'm unaware of?
Shared hobby: What exactly is the hobby all furries share?
fursuits are for, just like HRT
I think this vastly disregards the lifelong impacts of gender dysmorphia and is frankly kind of flippant.
-
Why are heterosexuality and homosexuality not ‘just part of the fetish community’?
because people are born with these predilections, they don't buy them off of temu.
Predilections for certain features, what makes you so certain anthropomorphism isn't one of those predilections?
-
Then what are heterosexuality and homosexuality defined by?
Pornographic material: Pornhub has entirely separate sites for "straight" and "gay". Would adding a "furry" site really feel all that strange or out of place?
Porn categories do not define sexual orientations, so I do not understand your point. Sexual orientation is a description of the sexual characteristics of yourself and the people you are attracted too, neither of which are decided by whether or not either of you are furries.
sex toys, roleplay scenarios: I don't think that's as strongly correlated as you're suggesting. Pony/pet play is big in the BDSM community and bad dragon toys were far from exclusively for furries. Unless you have something else in mind I'm unaware of?
Shared hobby: What exactly is the hobby all furries share?
I'm not claiming all furries do all those things. I'm saying that all of the characteristics that make someone furry sexual are covered by the categories I listed. None of the categories I listed are relevant to whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual.
Also, the hobby that many furries share (I never said all) is fur suiting.
Not categories, entirely different sets of content for:
- straight: pornhub.com
- gay: pornhub.com/gayporn
- trans: pornhub.com/transgender
- lesbian: ___ which is actually just a category and not a set of separate content___ oof___ pornhub.com/video?c=27
Sexual orientation is a description of the sexual characteristics
You are conflating sex and gender which are distinct things.
None of the categories I listed are relevant to whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual
Other than, arguably, pornography they don't seem to be overly relevant to furry either.
Also, the hobby that many furries share (I never said all) is fur suiting.
Apologies, I did misspeak with "all", however that's like saying trans people all share the hobby of crossdressing and it's just fetish wear. Fursuits serve the same function as gendered clothing or HRT for many individuals.
My overall point is that you should speak with more furries, there's more going on there than you choose to acknowledge. Reducing it all to "fetish" is harmful and does harm the overall LGBTQ+ community.
Questioning and invalidating another's gender or sexuality identity sets the precedent and framework for yours to be questioned and invalidated in turn.
-
It’s as close to beastiality as anime girls are.
that seems to bring up another issue, which is the overtly-cute, cartoon nature that seems to be very attractive to children.
I also find anime girls problematic as so much of that porn blurs the line between adults and children, which gets into some strange differences - apparently in japan, they don't consider depiction of minors as problematic as we do. I think it's outrageously creepy.so interesting thing to bring up, because some will find ALL OF THIS very off putting, and for good reason.
Yeah, if I'm honest I probably chose anime girls as my comparison point for that reason and because I also find it all a bit unappealing.
However, if someone was running around and saying anyone with an anime profile is a pedophile my response would be the same. Anime girls ultimately harm no-one.
-
of course, you can be gay and furry, but this doesn't answer the query which was: is furry lgbtq. does a cisgender, straight furry have any claim to the same struggle as stonewall - which was the comment that prompted my query.
you do see how you are continuing to confuse what should be a fairly straight-ahem-forward thing to answer, right?
because I don't see this as gatekeeping at all, I'm not in either community, but consider myself a strong ally of lgbtq people whom I've advocated for my adult life, both in and out of the military. I get that these things are very fluid for some people and titles / permissions aren't granted by the committee, BUT ALSO, I do listen to my lgbtq peers when they take exception to rando's hopping onto their float claiming it was built for them.
hence my genuine confusion. it's not an attempt to limit people's rights or to man the gates, it's a genuine question.
does a cisgender, straight furry have any claim to the same struggle as stonewall
If you read through this thread replacing "furry" with any other identity label the levels of discrimination and phobia should be extremely apparent, and this is a rather tolerant and accepting space for them compared to more general cultural attitudes.
Also it's not like stonewall was the struggle and now that that's done all the struggle is over. In my opinion the core of "the struggle" is to advocate for inclusivity of all those marginalized. There's a lot of marganilizing going on in this thread.
you do see how you are continuing to confuse what should be a fairly straight-ahem-forward thing to answer?
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
I do listen to my lgbtq peers when they take exception to rando's hopping onto their float claiming it was built for them.
That's gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits. That argument and line of thinking is the exact same one that TERFs, etc. apply. I think they are unaware of the work that the furry community does to help propel that specific float if for no other reason than it adjusts the Overton window.
it's not an attempt to limit people's rights or to man the gates, it's a genuine question.
I know, which is why I'm engaging at all. I apologize as I'm a crotchety old person annoyed at having to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again which always seems to boils down to "discrimination is bad, yeah?". My frustration isn't directed at you and I apologize that it's leaking(spraying) out, but I'm trying to provide a genuine answer to a question with a flawed premise.
-
fursuits are for, just like HRT
I think this vastly disregards the lifelong impacts of gender dysmorphia and is frankly kind of flippant.
How does acknowledging someone else pain minimalist that of another's?
-
The problem comes when you start arguing that they need to be shoved into a closet in order to protect the children and the “real” LGBTQ individuals.
yet I can totally see why LGBTQ people would NOT want to complicate their already assailed lives by defending the fursona types. life's hard enough explaining the intricacies of human sexuality without tossing in cartoon hypotheticals.
As the TERFs say:
I can totally see why women would NOT want to complicate their already assailed lives by defending the gender non-conforming. life's hard enough explaining the intricacies of womanhood without tossing in crossdressing hypotheticals.
Not calling you a TERF, but you do see the logical fallacy you're sprinting straight into, right?
-
does a cisgender, straight furry have any claim to the same struggle as stonewall
If you read through this thread replacing "furry" with any other identity label the levels of discrimination and phobia should be extremely apparent, and this is a rather tolerant and accepting space for them compared to more general cultural attitudes.
Also it's not like stonewall was the struggle and now that that's done all the struggle is over. In my opinion the core of "the struggle" is to advocate for inclusivity of all those marginalized. There's a lot of marganilizing going on in this thread.
you do see how you are continuing to confuse what should be a fairly straight-ahem-forward thing to answer?
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
I do listen to my lgbtq peers when they take exception to rando's hopping onto their float claiming it was built for them.
That's gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits. That argument and line of thinking is the exact same one that TERFs, etc. apply. I think they are unaware of the work that the furry community does to help propel that specific float if for no other reason than it adjusts the Overton window.
it's not an attempt to limit people's rights or to man the gates, it's a genuine question.
I know, which is why I'm engaging at all. I apologize as I'm a crotchety old person annoyed at having to constantly repeat the same thing over and over again which always seems to boils down to "discrimination is bad, yeah?". My frustration isn't directed at you and I apologize that it's leaking(spraying) out, but I'm trying to provide a genuine answer to a question with a flawed premise.
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
yes, by not involving costumes!
That’s gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits.
it's gatekeeping to listen to queer people. Huh. that's a new one.
“discrimination is bad, yeah?”
and how are they being discriminated against? Are they being refused medical care, marriage rights, the ability to serve their country? I can't see these as equivalent as they represent two fundamentally wildly different cases - a person wants to wear a costume, vs., a person's sexual preferences that have been observed in humans and the animal kingdom everywhere.
I'm sorry if my premise is flawed, and I'm not trying to create arguments where there people should find love and support. If people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas perhaps I'd feel differently.
-
How does acknowledging someone else pain minimalist that of another's?
Transfolk can't take their identity off when it's convenient for them.
-
Not categories, entirely different sets of content for:
- straight: pornhub.com
- gay: pornhub.com/gayporn
- trans: pornhub.com/transgender
- lesbian: ___ which is actually just a category and not a set of separate content___ oof___ pornhub.com/video?c=27
Sexual orientation is a description of the sexual characteristics
You are conflating sex and gender which are distinct things.
None of the categories I listed are relevant to whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual
Other than, arguably, pornography they don't seem to be overly relevant to furry either.
Also, the hobby that many furries share (I never said all) is fur suiting.
Apologies, I did misspeak with "all", however that's like saying trans people all share the hobby of crossdressing and it's just fetish wear. Fursuits serve the same function as gendered clothing or HRT for many individuals.
My overall point is that you should speak with more furries, there's more going on there than you choose to acknowledge. Reducing it all to "fetish" is harmful and does harm the overall LGBTQ+ community.
Questioning and invalidating another's gender or sexuality identity sets the precedent and framework for yours to be questioned and invalidated in turn.
Not categories, entirely different sets of content for:
- straight: pornhub.com
- gay: pornhub.com/gayporn
- trans: pornhub.com/transgender
- lesbian: ___ which is actually just a category and not a set of separate content___ oof___ pornhub.com/video?c=27
This is incoherent to me.
You are conflating sex and gender which are distinct things.
How so? Also it would help if you didn't cut off the quote mid phrase.
Other than, arguably, pornography they don't seem to be overly relevant to furry either.
I'm giving a family resemblance definition of furry sexual. I'm not making any deep claims about the activities of any particular furries.
Apologies, I did misspeak with "all", however that's like saying trans people all share the hobby of crossdressing and it's just fetish wear. Fursuits serve the same function as gendered clothing or HRT for many individuals.
You're presupposing the conclusion you want to draw. I don't believe furry is a gender so you're not going to convince me that wearing a fur suit is gender affirming care.
My overall point is that you should speak with more furries, there's more going on there than you choose to acknowledge. Reducing it all to "fetish" is harmful and does harm the overall LGBTQ+ community.
I'm not reducing the entire furry fandom to fetish. I'm claiming that it's a fetish community. Does it have more depth than that? Yes, but that doesn't change the nature of the fandom. You could make the same claim about adult babies. They do more than just wear diapers. That doesn't change the fact that it's inherently a fetish community.
Questioning and invalidating another's gender or sexuality identity sets the precedent and framework for yours to be questioned and invalidated in turn.
I'm not questioning anyone's gender or sexuality, so I'm not worried about that happening.
This has been a long conversation. It's been getting less focused and more repetitive, so I'm going to call it here. I hope you have a good day.
-
Transfolk can't take their identity off when it's convenient for them.
That's called masking, in the context of transfolk also known as boy/girl moding.
Nobody "takes their identity off", almost everybody masks to some degree. It's never "convenient" but it is sometimes less harmful than the alternative.
-
To some degree, but the problem is that gender and sexuality is not that straightforward. Do you have suggestions on how to make it less confusing?
yes, by not involving costumes!
That’s gatekeeping. The only thing it does is further wedge issues and perpetuate divide and conquer exploits.
it's gatekeeping to listen to queer people. Huh. that's a new one.
“discrimination is bad, yeah?”
and how are they being discriminated against? Are they being refused medical care, marriage rights, the ability to serve their country? I can't see these as equivalent as they represent two fundamentally wildly different cases - a person wants to wear a costume, vs., a person's sexual preferences that have been observed in humans and the animal kingdom everywhere.
I'm sorry if my premise is flawed, and I'm not trying to create arguments where there people should find love and support. If people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas perhaps I'd feel differently.
wrote last edited by [email protected]yes, by not involving costumes!
All clothing is costume. People costume to express all sorts of identities, it's not any more complicated than skirts, dresses, burkas, etc.
it's gatekeeping to listen to queer people. Huh. that's a new one.
Textbook
"I have a black friend" fallacyfriend argumentIf people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas
Nobody comes out of the womb identifying as anything. If somebody transitions later in life does that make it less valid?
people should find love and support.
That is all I'm arguing for. If somebody self identifies their sexuality as anthropomorphic fictosexual who are you to argue with that? If they define their gender as otherkin why are you telling them that's not allowed?
Edited to use more technical phrasing to avoid accidental aspersions.
-
As the TERFs say:
I can totally see why women would NOT want to complicate their already assailed lives by defending the gender non-conforming. life's hard enough explaining the intricacies of womanhood without tossing in crossdressing hypotheticals.
Not calling you a TERF, but you do see the logical fallacy you're sprinting straight into, right?
Cute straw man. Either I'm a terf or I agree with your premise. Neither, thanks.
-
Predilections for certain features, what makes you so certain anthropomorphism isn't one of those predilections?
wrote last edited by [email protected]We see homosexuality in the wild. Sexual coercion in animals isn't cute or cuddly. Usually non consensual and violent to the point of fatality. This is not the premise you want to pursue unless you're embracing the beastiality premise of fursonas which I've been repeatedly assured is not their thing.
None of this helps your argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals
-
We see homosexuality in the wild. Sexual coercion in animals isn't cute or cuddly. Usually non consensual and violent to the point of fatality. This is not the premise you want to pursue unless you're embracing the beastiality premise of fursonas which I've been repeatedly assured is not their thing.
None of this helps your argument.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion_among_animals
You're miscategorizing it and anthropomorphs aren't real.
It's more closely related to objectophilia or fictosexuality which are also seen in nature.
It's to bestiality as homosexuality is to pedophilia. As in it's not related at all.
-
Cute straw man. Either I'm a terf or I agree with your premise. Neither, thanks.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm using something we can, hopefully, both agree you're not and is problematic to demonstrate the fallicious logic. What would be a better way to communicate that?
-
yes, by not involving costumes!
All clothing is costume. People costume to express all sorts of identities, it's not any more complicated than skirts, dresses, burkas, etc.
it's gatekeeping to listen to queer people. Huh. that's a new one.
Textbook
"I have a black friend" fallacyfriend argumentIf people came out of the womb identifying their fursonas
Nobody comes out of the womb identifying as anything. If somebody transitions later in life does that make it less valid?
people should find love and support.
That is all I'm arguing for. If somebody self identifies their sexuality as anthropomorphic fictosexual who are you to argue with that? If they define their gender as otherkin why are you telling them that's not allowed?
Edited to use more technical phrasing to avoid accidental aspersions.
Textbook “I have a black friend” fallacy.
aaah. you have no intention of an actual dialogue this is just some silly attempt to shame me into agreement. fuckin' gross.
why are you telling them that’s not allowed?
ain't telling shit to anyone. You keep laying this at my feet as if I've constructed it, when I simply stated I think the LGBTQ folk should be the ones to make that decision, not fictosexuals, furries, otherkin, whatever other edge cases you want to toss.
But keep attacking allies that don't perfectly line up with your arguments, in the long run, you're making it easy for me to disregard your entire premise.
