So you’re saying that they’re effectively not dogs in some deep and essential way?
No, intelligence is not necessarily essential to dogness, just as whiteness is not essential to swans.
What am I supposed to glean from this that I didn’t already know?
Otherkin are a recognised social phenomenon to which scientists assign some legitimacy. But okay, you want more direct proof that scientists think these identities are genuine and worth valuing, here it is:
Otherkin science is conceived, constructed, deployed, and enforced by a lay group that, for all intents and purposes, appears to ignore central scientific tenets in their very self-definition. I argue here that, in fact, they take great pains to employ scientific knowledge in a rational and systematic way to explain their other-than-human identification. In doing so, they seek to
mitigate the tension between their Cartesian epistemological frameworks of empirical science and their animistic ontological perception of other-than-humanness: the dissonance caused when what they know conflicts with what they experience.
Next you’ll start talking about your tulpa.
That term is culturally appropriated, “parogen” is the more respectful term for the online phenomenon.
No, intelligence is not necessarily essential to dogness, just as whiteness is not essential to swans.
Says who? Are you speaking for all doggender folks now? And swangenders as well?
Otherkin are a recognised social phenomenon to which scientists assign some legitimacy. But okay, you want more direct proof that scientists think these identities are genuine and worth valuing, here it is:
Jesus Christ. That paper isn’t talking about what you think it is. It’s discussing the use of scientific terminology and thinking in online groups of ‘otherkin’, and how they use it to attempt to fashion and validate their identity. It’s no more saying that the identity is ‘genuine and worth valuing’ than a paper discussing how racialists use scientific terminology and thinking in their attempts to fashion and validate their own identity. The paper points out, at several points, that their thinking is not backed up by scientific evidence.
That term is culturally appropriated, “parogen” is the more respectful term for the online phenomenon.
The Otherkin know that current accepted science does not support their other- than-humanness; they also know they experience life as other-than-human beings. These things are both equally true, so they must find ways to reconcile the two if they hope to ever achieve anything like the recognition they see in the LGBTQ+ community.
Dr Proctor believes and states that otherkin are entirely genuine in their experience of themselves as nonhuman. Would you at least agree with the PhD specialising in this area, that otherkin are not lying or trolling?
I never said otherkin were lying or trolling. I don’t think people who believe in ghosts are generally lying or trolling either, and that’s another area where scientific terminology and thinking is used to justify a belief, but that doesn’t fucking mean that I take kindly to the idea that disputing the existence of ghosts is verboten and bigoted.
No, intelligence is not necessarily essential to dogness, just as whiteness is not essential to swans.
Otherkin are a recognised social phenomenon to which scientists assign some legitimacy. But okay, you want more direct proof that scientists think these identities are genuine and worth valuing, here it is:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327969897_Policing_the_Fluff_The_Social_Construction_of_Scientistic_Selves_in_Otherkin_Facebook_Groups
That term is culturally appropriated, “parogen” is the more respectful term for the online phenomenon.
Says who? Are you speaking for all doggender folks now? And swangenders as well?
Jesus Christ. That paper isn’t talking about what you think it is. It’s discussing the use of scientific terminology and thinking in online groups of ‘otherkin’, and how they use it to attempt to fashion and validate their identity. It’s no more saying that the identity is ‘genuine and worth valuing’ than a paper discussing how racialists use scientific terminology and thinking in their attempts to fashion and validate their own identity. The paper points out, at several points, that their thinking is not backed up by scientific evidence.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Dr Proctor believes and states that otherkin are entirely genuine in their experience of themselves as nonhuman. Would you at least agree with the PhD specialising in this area, that otherkin are not lying or trolling?
I never said otherkin were lying or trolling. I don’t think people who believe in ghosts are generally lying or trolling either, and that’s another area where scientific terminology and thinking is used to justify a belief, but that doesn’t fucking mean that I take kindly to the idea that disputing the existence of ghosts is verboten and bigoted.
Very well, my estimation of you has risen. Nonetheless, I still think you should have chosen kindness over pedantry.