I still don’t follow why you’re calling it an aspect of sexual preference rather than identity. It seems like you don’t really know where our understanding of the world comes from, which is important for contextualizing this conversation.
At a fundamental, neurological level, we can never really exist in objective reality. The world is nearly infinitely complex and impossible for any mechanical process to fully grasp, so all biological thinking machines need to simplify the world to have any understanding of it. This is a fairly post modernist perspective, but not one that says objective reality doesn’t exist. Rather, I’m saying that we cannot experience the outside world based on our current understanding of neuroscience.
We have tracked how external stimuli are not only recorded into finite chunks, but further simplified multiple times as the signal travels downstream. It’s a more efficient and lossy compression algorithm than anything we see outside of AI, which themselves copy what our brains already do.
All this results in a troubling conclusion about science and philosophy: it is all constructed, and it always will be. Bisexuality is a category we came up with; a form to simulate external reality in our finite brains. This is true for everything, no matter how objective we think it is. Even if we had a final Grand Unified Theory of physics, it would only be an imitation made of the untouchable rules of reality.
That is what queer theory teaches us about all attempts at understanding. The question of other kin isn’t about which group we put it into, but about why we need to put them there in the first place. How does seeing it as part of gender identities or sexual identities help us understand it? How does that understanding help us live better lives or be better to each other?
I don’t care for this drag character, nor do I think we should waste time worrying about such people. If they act like a-holes, it says little about their identity. No identity can make up for being an inconsiderate douche-canoe, and shitty behavior can come from anyone.
Rather, I’m saying that we cannot experience the outside world based on our current understanding of neuroscience.
This is an unnecessary constraint, just because we don’t know how to fully understand or explain something yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a basis in reality
The constructed simulation we live in gets constantly updated based on real world stimuli, but we often overwrite that stimuli with expectations. So long as it helps us get what we want, our perception doesn’t need to be accurate. We sometimes can’t see reality until it smacks us in the face; forcing us to accept it or die.
It’s painful to face unfortunate realities, so we often refuse perceive them. This is not an unnecessary constraint, but a humbling truth. The only way we could ever avoid this is by becoming an omniscient god with infinite processing power.
I don’t follow how any of that even applies, but really just because you can’t face a reality doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, one’s avoidant behavior implicitly acknowledges it’s true nature.
All arguments about definitions are about what words should mean to best serve us. All ideas work this way, especially scientific ideas. They’re all just tools, not objective or stable forms that we discover. The line between scientifically validated understandings and pseudoscience isn’t sacred, but constantly in flux. This isn’t a fault of science, but its greatest strength. We only make progress by testing limits and attempting to falsify what we assume to be true.
Using science to exclude other kin from gender identity overestimates our knowledge. I don’t personally think it’s just a part of gender identity, but related to some other aspect of identity. At the same time, science is barely starting to understand gender, and currently knows almost nothing about nonbinary identities.
There is no scientific explanation for drag, so anything we come up with is total conjecture. As a result, we should just accept our ignorance for now and move on. Doing otherwise is denying the limits to our knowledge.
Yes, science is a tool, and it’s a tool for getting towards a fundamental truth or basis of reality.
Otherkin don’t need to be a part of gender identity to be accepted.
Species are species, species are not different genders.
We don’t know currently how to change someone into another species, but maybe someday we might. We also don’t currently have any understanding or consensus of how to define a dragon or make people into one, but maybe someday we might.
Tbh, I don’t care if someone gets hormonal or genetic therapy to change into whatever they want or identify as, but by definition other kin is not part of a gender.
That’s not gatekeeping, I am simply saying words like cat, tiger or dragon etc are not genders.
that’s a lot of words. allow me to summarize your argument, and please correct me if i’ve misunderstood.
A. humans are rational creatures
B. rational creatures make rational choices, unless influenced by madness or sexual preference
C. being otherkin is a choice
D. choosing to be otherkin is an irrational choice
E. otherkin are not mad
∴ otherkin choose to be otherkin due to a sexual preference
your conclusion does seem to follow logically from your premises, though I don’t think i agree with the truth of most of those premises.
I think it’s interesting that 4chan has invented “anon” as, functionally, a naturally occurring genderless neopronoun. I would argue even more genderless than xe/xim because while xe/xim was created in relation to gender, anon was created with no connection to gender at all. Xe/xim is “not he or she” whereas anon is he, she, they, xe, or anything else.
There’s other words as well (homie, oomfie, bestie) that are functionally genderless neopronouns although these (and anon) are commonly used alongside gendered pronouns eg: anon posted his greentext on 4chan, I visited bestie and her dog.
Now I’m not recommending that anybody starts using anon/bestie pronouns or anything, cause if bestie wants to do that then bestie will have to deal with how awkward it sounds. But, I’m generally more partial towards these absolutely genderless naturally-occurring neopronouns over the relatively genderless constructed xe/xim. And I’m curious if anybody else has thoughts about these.
My thoughts on the second point: I find that constructed neopronouns (particularly any of them that use the letter x) and bespoke pronouns (like “drag” as mentioned before) have an air of immaturity to them that make it difficult for me to take seriously. I also tend to find them aesthetically displeasing. I also don’t think it makes sense for bespoke pronouns to be considered “pronouns” in the same way common, neo, and the aforementioned (what I’m now going to call) slang pronouns are, because by their very nature they refer to a specific individual rather than being a word that can be readily applied to a great many individuals.
As for my thoughts on the first point, I hadn’t ever thought of those words as pronouns, but after thinking about it, it makes sense to me.
The only reason why I’d say society doesn’t need to cater to individualized pronouns other than a set of agreed terms for flexibility and inclusion is so that every single time someone interacts with a person, they don’t have to work too hard to collaborate and cooperate.
Remember that everyone is trying to self actualize, and and any one person is not here to cater to just your preferences. Some people have limited mental capacity, so it’s just kinder to forgo imposing all of your self expressing desires on them.
If you can express yourself and live and thrive, then that’s all that matters. It doesn’t matter that you convince every single asshole that your pronouns should be whatever/whatever.
Removed by mod
i’m not sure how your understanding of otherkin has glitched badly enough to where you think it’s a sexual preference. what do you think otherkin is?
Removed by mod
I still don’t follow why you’re calling it an aspect of sexual preference rather than identity. It seems like you don’t really know where our understanding of the world comes from, which is important for contextualizing this conversation.
At a fundamental, neurological level, we can never really exist in objective reality. The world is nearly infinitely complex and impossible for any mechanical process to fully grasp, so all biological thinking machines need to simplify the world to have any understanding of it. This is a fairly post modernist perspective, but not one that says objective reality doesn’t exist. Rather, I’m saying that we cannot experience the outside world based on our current understanding of neuroscience.
We have tracked how external stimuli are not only recorded into finite chunks, but further simplified multiple times as the signal travels downstream. It’s a more efficient and lossy compression algorithm than anything we see outside of AI, which themselves copy what our brains already do.
All this results in a troubling conclusion about science and philosophy: it is all constructed, and it always will be. Bisexuality is a category we came up with; a form to simulate external reality in our finite brains. This is true for everything, no matter how objective we think it is. Even if we had a final Grand Unified Theory of physics, it would only be an imitation made of the untouchable rules of reality.
That is what queer theory teaches us about all attempts at understanding. The question of other kin isn’t about which group we put it into, but about why we need to put them there in the first place. How does seeing it as part of gender identities or sexual identities help us understand it? How does that understanding help us live better lives or be better to each other?
I don’t care for this drag character, nor do I think we should waste time worrying about such people. If they act like a-holes, it says little about their identity. No identity can make up for being an inconsiderate douche-canoe, and shitty behavior can come from anyone.
This is an unnecessary constraint, just because we don’t know how to fully understand or explain something yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a basis in reality
The constructed simulation we live in gets constantly updated based on real world stimuli, but we often overwrite that stimuli with expectations. So long as it helps us get what we want, our perception doesn’t need to be accurate. We sometimes can’t see reality until it smacks us in the face; forcing us to accept it or die.
It’s painful to face unfortunate realities, so we often refuse perceive them. This is not an unnecessary constraint, but a humbling truth. The only way we could ever avoid this is by becoming an omniscient god with infinite processing power.
I don’t follow how any of that even applies, but really just because you can’t face a reality doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In fact, one’s avoidant behavior implicitly acknowledges it’s true nature.
All arguments about definitions are about what words should mean to best serve us. All ideas work this way, especially scientific ideas. They’re all just tools, not objective or stable forms that we discover. The line between scientifically validated understandings and pseudoscience isn’t sacred, but constantly in flux. This isn’t a fault of science, but its greatest strength. We only make progress by testing limits and attempting to falsify what we assume to be true.
Using science to exclude other kin from gender identity overestimates our knowledge. I don’t personally think it’s just a part of gender identity, but related to some other aspect of identity. At the same time, science is barely starting to understand gender, and currently knows almost nothing about nonbinary identities.
There is no scientific explanation for drag, so anything we come up with is total conjecture. As a result, we should just accept our ignorance for now and move on. Doing otherwise is denying the limits to our knowledge.
Yes, science is a tool, and it’s a tool for getting towards a fundamental truth or basis of reality.
Otherkin don’t need to be a part of gender identity to be accepted.
Species are species, species are not different genders.
We don’t know currently how to change someone into another species, but maybe someday we might. We also don’t currently have any understanding or consensus of how to define a dragon or make people into one, but maybe someday we might.
Tbh, I don’t care if someone gets hormonal or genetic therapy to change into whatever they want or identify as, but by definition other kin is not part of a gender.
That’s not gatekeeping, I am simply saying words like cat, tiger or dragon etc are not genders.
that’s a lot of words. allow me to summarize your argument, and please correct me if i’ve misunderstood.
your conclusion does seem to follow logically from your premises, though I don’t think i agree with the truth of most of those premises.
I didn’t say sexual preferences are irrational, and I didn’t say other kin are irrational
Removed by mod
I think it’s interesting that 4chan has invented “anon” as, functionally, a naturally occurring genderless neopronoun. I would argue even more genderless than xe/xim because while xe/xim was created in relation to gender, anon was created with no connection to gender at all. Xe/xim is “not he or she” whereas anon is he, she, they, xe, or anything else.
There’s other words as well (homie, oomfie, bestie) that are functionally genderless neopronouns although these (and anon) are commonly used alongside gendered pronouns eg: anon posted his greentext on 4chan, I visited bestie and her dog.
Now I’m not recommending that anybody starts using anon/bestie pronouns or anything, cause if bestie wants to do that then bestie will have to deal with how awkward it sounds. But, I’m generally more partial towards these absolutely genderless naturally-occurring neopronouns over the relatively genderless constructed xe/xim. And I’m curious if anybody else has thoughts about these.
edit: mods what did you do to my parents 😭
My thoughts on the second point: I find that constructed neopronouns (particularly any of them that use the letter x) and bespoke pronouns (like “drag” as mentioned before) have an air of immaturity to them that make it difficult for me to take seriously. I also tend to find them aesthetically displeasing. I also don’t think it makes sense for bespoke pronouns to be considered “pronouns” in the same way common, neo, and the aforementioned (what I’m now going to call) slang pronouns are, because by their very nature they refer to a specific individual rather than being a word that can be readily applied to a great many individuals.
As for my thoughts on the first point, I hadn’t ever thought of those words as pronouns, but after thinking about it, it makes sense to me.
The only reason why I’d say society doesn’t need to cater to individualized pronouns other than a set of agreed terms for flexibility and inclusion is so that every single time someone interacts with a person, they don’t have to work too hard to collaborate and cooperate.
Remember that everyone is trying to self actualize, and and any one person is not here to cater to just your preferences. Some people have limited mental capacity, so it’s just kinder to forgo imposing all of your self expressing desires on them.
If you can express yourself and live and thrive, then that’s all that matters. It doesn’t matter that you convince every single asshole that your pronouns should be whatever/whatever.