Identifying As A Furry?

[TAC]

I do find being around him to be fascinating and challenging to my neurotypical brain.

Thank you for the kind words; I talk about myself freely, it's another matter with someone else.  I feel okay with it, since he's so okay with it, and I know the consequences here won't be disastrous for him.

But that one sentence really bears repeating.  I've learned so much from him; I literally find myself watching the same sensory inputs hitting me, my wife, my son, my other kids, and seeing his reaction being sometimes radically different.  I don't mean the normal sort of "that makes me angry whereas it's only a mild irritant to you" that we all experience.  I mean radical, science-based reactions.

Yup!

[Crow]

Three times in the last 6 months, parents have gone ballistic with the school system and board because their child identifies as a furry. The parents want special treatment such as litter boxes. When I heard this I thought my wife's friend was pulling our leg so I Googled it. Crazy.

as a literal furry on this literal website this is a total hoax lol. it's fox news pandering right-wing garbage to cause a panic bcuz the vast majority of the furry fandom is LGBTQ+

[jammindude]

Want to know how cynical I am?

To this day, it persists that “The Momo Challenge” was a hoax. (Look it up on Wiki, it’s got its own entry) Now, I don’t doubt that reports of massive casualties coming from this are totally bogus (I don’t think children are that stupid) but people say the video never existed. I saw it personally, first hand, with my own two eyes. The video absolutely existed, it was the creepy face everyone has seen, and the character does instruct children to do “fun” things around the home that would absolutely result in their harm or death. I watched it myself for probably about two minutes. It came across as an extremely sick joke, but it was a real video.

It has since been pulled, and since the entire internet now says it was a hoax, no one believes me.

I’m not saying the same thing is happening here, I’m just relating a personal true story to explain how cynical I am.

[Adami]

Want to know how cynical I am?

To this day, it persists that “The Momo Challenge” was a hoax. (Look it up on Wiki, it’s got its own entry) Now, I don’t doubt that reports of massive casualties coming from this are totally bogus (I don’t think children are that stupid) but people say the video never existed. I saw it personally, first hand, with my own two eyes. The video absolutely existed, it was the creepy face everyone has seen, and the character does instruct children to do “fun” things around the home that would absolutely result in their harm or death. I watched it myself for probably about two minutes. It came across as an extremely sick joke, but it was a real video.

It has since been pulled, and since the entire internet now says it was a hoax, no one believes me.

I’m not saying the same thing is happening here, I’m just relating a personal true story to explain how cynical I am.

I had not heard of this, so decided to just google it. I easily found a report on the video which had clips of the video. And god DAMN is that a creepy looking face. I think the hoax part was that children weren't offing themselves or seriously injuring themselves in huge numbers. Not that the video never existed. But I might be wrong.

[jammindude]

I hate to say it, but that would be a bit of a relief. If the video itself is now finally back out there, at least people won’t be calling me crazy for saying that it did exist. There was a time when CNN even ran a story claiming that no one‘s ever actually seen the video and they could find no evidence that the video ever existed. For a long time after that I had to give up even talking about it. Because no one believed me.

[Stadler]

I hate to say it, but that would be a bit of a relief. If the video itself is now finally back out there, at least people won’t be calling me crazy for saying that it did exist. There was a time when CNN even ran a story claiming that no one‘s ever actually seen the video and they could find no evidence that the video ever existed. For a long time after that I had to give up even talking about it. Because no one believed me.

Well, it goes to show something I've said for a long time and will keep saying. IT'S NOT ONE SIDE.  IT'S NOT ONE GROUP.  IT'S NOT JUST THE "THEM".   The truthfulness, the veracity of our information is highly suspect these days as a general proposition, and anyone who is picking and choosing their information simply because it "agrees" with them or fits their world view is as ignorant as any of the "deplorables/libtards" on both ends of the extreme at whom we so frequently point fingers.

[jammindude]

I hate to say it, but that would be a bit of a relief. If the video itself is now finally back out there, at least people won’t be calling me crazy for saying that it did exist. There was a time when CNN even ran a story claiming that no one‘s ever actually seen the video and they could find no evidence that the video ever existed. For a long time after that I had to give up even talking about it. Because no one believed me.

Well, it goes to show something I've said for a long time and will keep saying. IT'S NOT ONE SIDE.  IT'S NOT ONE GROUP.  IT'S NOT JUST THE "THEM".   The truthfulness, the veracity of our information is highly suspect these days as a general proposition, and anyone who is picking and choosing their information simply because it "agrees" with them or fits their world view is as ignorant as any of the "deplorables/libtards" on both ends of the extreme at whom we so frequently point fingers.

Let’s not take this to P/R territory. We’re dancing on the edge already.

[Stadler]

I hate to say it, but that would be a bit of a relief. If the video itself is now finally back out there, at least people won’t be calling me crazy for saying that it did exist. There was a time when CNN even ran a story claiming that no one‘s ever actually seen the video and they could find no evidence that the video ever existed. For a long time after that I had to give up even talking about it. Because no one believed me.

Well, it goes to show something I've said for a long time and will keep saying. IT'S NOT ONE SIDE.  IT'S NOT ONE GROUP.  IT'S NOT JUST THE "THEM".   The truthfulness, the veracity of our information is highly suspect these days as a general proposition, and anyone who is picking and choosing their information simply because it "agrees" with them or fits their world view is as ignorant as any of the "deplorables/libtards" on both ends of the extreme at whom we so frequently point fingers.

Let’s not take this to P/R territory. We’re dancing on the edge already.

I didn't take it there.

[emtee]

I took a few days away from here because honestly, I felt demoralized and angry after posting this.

My intent was to try to learn about parents and their reaction, levels of support, etc., for children who identify this way. And to understand why a parent might get irate when special accommodations are not agreed to.  As I understand it there are some things, like a litter box for instance, that are...emotional props that enable the individual to immerse themselves deeper into an alternate reality that provides comfort. The litter box is not used to deficate in. There are other things, like saucer bowls of milk that are actually used. I figured that someone here would identify this way or have kids that do and they could shed some light on this for me.

Moreover, I wanted insight on how far should parents go when providing this alternate reality setting,  before actual harm might be done. It feels to me as if our society and it's love of animals - humanizing them in many ways - combined with cosplay and virtual reality, gaming...etc, is taking us into uncharted territory.

To reiterate. These private meetings happened. They are not news stories to be found on the internet. My wife's friend was troubled by how angry the last meeting went. As such, she called her best friend,  my wife, and I listened to the call. It troubled her so much,  especially having occurred three times ( the last meeting being the worst) that she said she wanted to retire because things were getting so crazy.

I also admitted in my first sentence that I didn't know anything about this until the phone call. So obviously I was not aware that this was some political hot button topic - hence, why people came at me so hard. I felt assaulted and confused.

I greatly appreciate the people who tried to show support and also for those who shared personal experiences.  This helps me to understand how complicated this situation can be for parents.

Peace out....

[Orbert]

If someone born female identifies as male, or without gender, or somewhere in between, that's up to them (or some would say, not up to them but rather just the way they were born).  If it's a biological male who identifies as female, okay, same thing.  And that same thing is "who gives a shit?"  I really don't.

But a child identifying as a cat or dog or whatever, I'm sorry, that's just not the same thing.  Gender identification is a very personal thing and I'll defend people's rights to identify however they want.  And I guess that extends to kids.  But a kid who decides that they're a cat or dog or whatever is not exercising their gender identification rights; they're deeply immersed in make-believe and alternate reality, and I think humoring them to a certain degree might make sense, but I'm gonna draw the line at schools having to accomodate them.  Gender ID is 100% mental, and no one other than the person involved can tell you what they ID as, if they even can.  Species ID is biological.  No, Johnny, you are not a cat, and the school is not obligated to provide a litter box for you.

[Stadler]

For me, though, it's less about the issue itself than emtee's core question: where is the line for parents.  As much as I agree with Orbert and as much as I want to teach my kid to be his own man and all, there are limits to this.  We still live in a society.  School is not home.  There is no right to be perfectly comfortable with all your psychological needs met at all times.   There are benefits to fitting in.  There are benefits to learning to deal with adversity.  I owe him to teach him how to fit in so that when he's old enough to make the decision for himself, he knows how to.  I don't subscribe to this notion that we ALWAYS have to ACCEPT everyone exactly how they present.  If I'm hiring for a job and I have two candidates, and I'm looking for creativity, I may go with the dude with the bone in his nose and the painted finger nails.  But if I'm looking for a salesperson, or a tactical process person, I may go with the girl with the prim dress and subtle makeup and finely manicured nails.  Whether the kid accepts it or not, adopts it or not, they have to understand that SOME people are going to judge them. That's not bigotry that's human nature.  So putting my kid - who has been bullied to the point he was punched in the face in his old school - in a position where he might be judged because I forced his school to let him lick milk out of a pet's bowl, not going to happen.  I'd rather take the time and teach my kid that he can lick his milk from the toilet for all I care AT HOME, but in school he's going to have to drink it from a milk carton like everyone else.

I'm sorry; I may be old school, but we're going soft with this shit. A little discomfort isn't a bad thing.  When I think of my grandparents - who got on a fucking boat with the clothes on their backs to come to America, not speaking a word of English, and here I am today, I feel ZERO sympathy for a kid that doesn't feel exactly 100% comfortable and relaxed in every setting.  We're setting that kid up for failure.

There's a great line in Yellowstone; native American man walks in and sees his kid sitting there with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on the plate, and he asks "what's this?"   Mom says "oh, he doesn't want peanut butter and jelly."  And dad says "he's not hungry enough."   Goddamn right.   

[emtee]

I was hoping Adami would weigh in on this. Of all of us, he is a student of the mind and of behavior.

[jammindude]

If someone born female identifies as male, or without gender, or somewhere in between, that's up to them (or some would say, not up to them but rather just the way they were born).  If it's a biological male who identifies as female, okay, same thing.  And that same thing is "who gives a shit?"  I really don't.

But a child identifying as a cat or dog or whatever, I'm sorry, that's just not the same thing.  Gender identification is a very personal thing and I'll defend people's rights to identify however they want.  And I guess that extends to kids.  But a kid who decides that they're a cat or dog or whatever is not exercising their gender identification rights; they're deeply immersed in make-believe and alternate reality, and I think humoring them to a certain degree might make sense, but I'm gonna draw the line at schools having to accomodate them.  Gender ID is 100% mental, and no one other than the person involved can tell you what they ID as, if they even can.  Species ID is biological.  No, Johnny, you are not a cat, and the school is not obligated to provide a litter box for you.

But even as I am reading this…weren’t the *exact* same arguments used about gender identity 30 (or 50) years ago? I feel like I could substitute that topic, and I’d be looking at this exact conversation back then.

[Adami]

I was hoping Adami would weigh in on this. Of all of us, he is a student of the mind and of behavior.

Honestly I've avoided posting in this thread because I have some issues with it. I figured it'd be better for me to just read than to cause any issues.

However, I'll do my best to avoid my concerns and try to address what I perceive as your questions.

It didn't seem like you were asking about furries in general, and since I am not an expert on them, I'll refrain from even guessing as to what's going on there. And we seem to have a furry on the board, and I can let them talk about it.

As far as why parents would do this? Putting aside the fact that I'm not sure many have, assuming everything you've told is true, I think it's been 3 parents who have gone a bit nuts? Honestly I think that's a low number for parents going nuts about most things. I'm surprised there aren't stories about parents threatening violence because of the use of white paper over black paper for their kids to drawn on, you know? In the end, there's not really a huge explanation to this. Some people are just weird and get really angry over very little thing. Some of those people are parents. Some of those parents have kids with odd needs/wants. Mix them all together and you get parents threatening to sue a school for not letting her kid bring peanuts or for the school letting his kid get a failing grade. Parents are just really dumb and bad sometimes and can have bad tempers. Unless there's more specific information than parents getting angry cause their kids aren't getting special treatment, I don't have much to go on. Parents are a main reason I don't like working with kids. I usually can't stand parents in a professional capacity, their relationship to their kids often blind them to any sense of rationality.

Sorry it's not a more scientific explanation, but I just haven't seen enough info to see anything more than a small amount of people being insanely irrational and some of those people being parents.

[Melphina]

Meow.

[Crow]

also fwiw like 95% of this thread seems to be operating on the conflation of "furry" and "otherkin" which are two very different things lol

[emtee]

Otherkin?

*googles otherkin*

[Stadler]

also fwiw like 95% of this thread seems to be operating on the conflation of "furry" and "otherkin" which are two very different things lol

Unless it's a translation issue, I'm not sure a "lol" is warranted here; I think there ought to be some acknowledgement that EVERYONE is, despite a lack of knowledge on the subject, being eminently respectful and willing to discuss this with an open mind.  We all know full well that ignorance - whether accidental or purposeful - tends to breed fear and insecurity and misunderstanding, which then leads to a hardening of the "in-groups" and "out-groups" until hilarity ensues.   Whether that line is clear or blurred, if one isn't even aware that the line exists, it's a sort of counterproductive move to make that line a point of judgement.

I say this respectfully but I don't give a shit about the difference between a furry or an otherkin (other than as human curiosity).  The fact remains that I have a son that is dealing with a circumstance and I have to help him navigate his interface with the real world in such a way that he comes out better for it. 

We were watching TV last night and a commercial came on that had anthropomorphic cats in tuxedos, and I paused it to make a comment to my wife.  She says, "oh, did you hear? Supposedly, one of the schools in the [neighboring] school system has a litter box in the bathroom.  Can you believe it?"  And I related the conversation here, and the possibility that it was a hoax.  We also sort of reaffirmed our commitment to honoring our kid, but at the same time preparing him for a world that might not genuflect at every little quirk he brings into it. 

[TAC]

Otherkin?

*googles otherkin*

I be also never heard that term before.

[Harmony]

Otherkin?

*googles otherkin*

I be also never heard that term before.

Neither have I.  And I want to thank Cyril for expanding my limited knowledge on the topic.

I don't know that chastising someone for an 'lol' (that can be open to many meanings) is helpful either.  It could be that people who participate in furry (should I capitalize that?) culture are aware that non-furries attempting to talk about subjects we obviously know nothing about is amusing.  Sort of like someone on this board posting about Kiss culture and talking about how great Paul Stanley is on drums.  It could also be an uncomfortable 'lol' in that Cyril can see from some of the responses here that perhaps the discussions about their culture is seen as unwelcome or something to mock.

At any rate, I'm with Adami, allowing someone who is better informed on the topic participate seems like the best way to learn more about it.  If we are going to help our children navigate these topics in the real world then understanding them seems to be prudent - at least to me.  YMMV

[lordxizor]

If someone born female identifies as male, or without gender, or somewhere in between, that's up to them (or some would say, not up to them but rather just the way they were born).  If it's a biological male who identifies as female, okay, same thing.  And that same thing is "who gives a shit?"  I really don't.

But a child identifying as a cat or dog or whatever, I'm sorry, that's just not the same thing.  Gender identification is a very personal thing and I'll defend people's rights to identify however they want.  And I guess that extends to kids.  But a kid who decides that they're a cat or dog or whatever is not exercising their gender identification rights; they're deeply immersed in make-believe and alternate reality, and I think humoring them to a certain degree might make sense, but I'm gonna draw the line at schools having to accomodate them.  Gender ID is 100% mental, and no one other than the person involved can tell you what they ID as, if they even can.  Species ID is biological.  No, Johnny, you are not a cat, and the school is not obligated to provide a litter box for you.

But even as I am reading this…weren’t the *exact* same arguments used about gender identity 30 (or 50) years ago? I feel like I could substitute that topic, and I’d be looking at this exact conversation back then.

I get your point, but I think it's a pretty big leap to go from transgender to trans-species. I don't think that's the same conversation at all.

[Orbert]

I remember the basic argument, which was biology, if that's the connection you're making.  If you're born biologically male, you're a boy; biologically female, you're a girl.  Act like one.  We now know that it's more complicated than that.

But a human is not a cat, or a dog, or a hamster.  If in 30 years it turns out that humans can actually be cats or dogs, okay.  Right now though, I'm just not seeing it.  It's make-believe.  A kid wants to be a cat at home, fine.  At school, you're a fucking human being.

[Dublagent66]

I prefer all my women to be non-furry. 

[Herrick]

To reiterate. These private meetings happened. They are not news stories to be found on the internet. My wife's friend was troubled by how angry the last meeting went. As such, she called her best friend,  my wife, and I listened to the call. It troubled her so much,  especially having occurred three times ( the last meeting being the worst) that she said she wanted to retire because things were getting so crazy.

Were these three meetings about the same parents and kids?

[wolfking]

I prefer all my women to be non-furry. 

Amen!!

[bl5150]

God I wish I could go back to the 80s and finish my time there.

[wolfking]

God I wish I could go back to the 80s and finish my time there.

 

I do think to myself all the time that I'm glad that I won't be here in another 50+ years.  Can't imagine what the world is going to turn into.

[Cool Chris]

I am not even sure where to go with this, but I find this "I identify as..." thing fascinating. I had to look up "furry" and WebMD says

Furries are people who have an interest in anthropomorphic animals, or animals with human qualities. Many furries create their own animal character, known as a fursona, which functions as their avatar within furry communities

Ok, so it is a thing, an "interest" but is that such a defining characteristic of their personality that they need a special term for it to identify by? It doesn't read as if these people believe they are the animal they identify with, which to Orbert's point, is a different...erm... animal. People use the term "Metalhead" to describe those who like metal music. But those people are still people.

[Orbert]

I don't know if that WebMD definition goes far enough.  If it's to the point where someone needs a litter box in the bathroom, then this is not just an interest in anthropomorphic animals, this is identifying as an animal.  I've heard of it happening with adults; they literally get lost in the fantasy.  Prior to this discussion, I hadn't heard of it among children, but I can certainly see it happening.  Kids' abilities to get lost in make-believe far exceeds that of adults.

[Cool Chris]

That's what I am struggling with. It is all over the map. The quote I posted gave no indication it's a situation where someone believes they are an animal. In many instances "Identifying as" doesn't equal "is." And it is becoming hard to know where someone is with their self-identification, and how to accept it.

Rachel Donezal was black, because she said she was, until everyone realized she wasn't, but then race is apparently a "social construct" so she is. She can identify as black (whatever that even means) but the genetics and biology don't make it so any more than Orbert can be that tiger. 

[TAC]

So...you're not a llama?

[jammindude]

By that same thought…is this any different from the fanatical sub-culture of Avatar? Anyone remember that? There were people so obsessed with the movie that they didn’t want to leave the fantasy of that world?

[XeRocks81]

Rachel Dolezal was black, because she said she was, until everyone realized she wasn't, but then race is apparently a "social construct" so she is. She can identify as black (whatever that even means)
 

I like youtuber T1J's videos on subjects like this because he's usually very nuanced.  like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HD5jHSkmN8

TLDR:  race and gender don't really work the same way

[wolfking]

oh fuck.......I have an animal in my username............does that mean I'm actually a furry?

[bl5150]

oh fuck.......I have an animal in my username............does that mean I'm actually a furry?

Kip's lookin' pretty furry too