AWKWARD ZOMBIE

YCobb wrote:I don't think this discussion belongs in this tread, or even really needs to happen.

There's nothing useful to say, and frankly this could very readily be hurtful to someone who is convinced they do experience these things. Not that I don't agree with all of you, but bodaciously the only thing this conversation can do is hurt people's feelings.
I'm especially disappointed to see words like "bullshit" and "douchebags."

Be respectful y'all.

Really they're just a minority of a minority of a minority. A really stupid minority. But this discussion won't really progress any further so we probably move on.

I myself don't really have the time to spend scouring the internet for the commentary of these lost souls to engage in some cheap thrills at their expense - so I don't know how deluded some of these people really are. I'm with people on the phantom limb thing - I agree that's taking a personal fantasy too far.

I actually saw the discussion in this thread a few days ago and spent about an hour typing up a defense of otherkin and their admittedly oddball exploration of self-identity. However the forum auto-logged me out before I got the chance to post it so my rant was scattered forever to the electrons of the internet - perhaps this was for the best.

Though I feel I myself have come close to being an 'otherkin' in the past, I've also become tired of sticking my neck out to defend them - so I'm glad Ycobb spoke up in my apathetic absence. However for people to come to the 'snap conclusion' that otherkin are "Only looking for attention." or sympathy because "No one could possibly ever really believe that they are x/y/z trapped in a human body." is more than disappointing.

This is an oversimplification in the extreme.

People explore their self-identity and relationship towards other people differently. Sometimes people become so disenchanted with other people and feel so disjointed from human society that they build new identities that exist outside of the norm - this is something that I myself have gone through and I can definitely say that it was nothing to do with wanting attention - but more to do with finding a way to understand myself and the kind of relationship I wanted to have with other people (if I wanted a relationship with other people at all).

Rather than exploring my self-identity in regard to animal personas I personally became more convinced that I was a machine, monster or otherworldly being; Though I have now moved on from this period of self-exploration and become more comfortable with my humanity (in my own way), the residual after effects of those explorations of myself will always be with me - and I'm sure they make me a better person for the long haul - if only in regard to my creativity.


I'll put a different spin on what Ycobb had to offer:

Be excellent to each other.

Okay, no, sorry, but I disagree, there HAS to be a limit somewhere. I get that everyone has the right to think whatever they want about identity, but when someone says, completely serious, that they are something other than human, and then expect me to communicate with them with that in mind? No, there's a line, and when they then say that its the same kind of thing REAL minorities face, thats not just delusional anymore, its flat out offensive. It cheapens the real prejudice people face every day. Yes, I get that some people actually really do belive that they are some other being trapped in a human body, but just because its real to you, doesnt mean its real to the rest of the world. Its not the same as transgender either

Nothing wrong with being excellent to each other.

Sure, but does being excellent mean you cant disagree?

TheStranger wrote:No, there's a line, and when they then say that its the same kind of thing REAL minorities face, thats not just delusional anymore, its flat out offensive. It cheapens the real prejudice people face every day.

I never stated that it's the same as the 'real prejudice' people face everyday - you've imbued the sentiment of my comment with baggage you've picked up somewhere else.

If otherkin go off on one about prejudice then they're striking out at the world they're already having difficulty coming to terms with - and when people talk about them like some of the AZers here have been it only reinforces the view they have of other people and how they themselves don't belong in 'normal society'.

Everybody has to figure out who they are and how they face up to the harsh realities of the world in their own way - building up a fantasy 'otherkin' persona can be a bridge for someone to do that - it's a way of going against the grain and saying: "I don't accept all this crap that everyone is trying to tell me about who I ought to be and how I should live my life - this is my life and I'm making up my own rules!"

I eventually figured out for myself that's what I was doing by building up my machine/monster/otherworld personas - and instead turned that back on its head by saying "So I am a human - but I define for myself what it means to be human - no-one else will do that for me!"

So you have to allow for people to go through these phases to better figure out who they are and what they're trying to say - for a lot of people it's not mere self-delusion - it's an important stepping stone in figuring out who they are and what they have to say to the world. To deny them that would be stunting their development as a person (as 'retarded' as being an otherkin may appear to a lot of people).

TheStranger wrote:Its not the same as transgender either

I didn't say that either.

What I am saying is, that it's important to allow people to explore their identity however they feel they need to - so long as they are not causing direct or long-term harm to themselves or anybody else.

Otherkin are not really that big of a deal when you sit down and think about it - why get yourself so upset or angry about these people who have got themselves so caught up in a little bit of fantasy? However it does reflect badly on those who take the piss out of these people who have gotten a little off-track on figuring out who they are - isn't that the basis of all forms of prejudice?

It becomes socially unacceptable for people to single out one form of deviancy for piss-taking, so they move onto another - the sentiment often staying the same, regardless of the target.

Yeah, okay, tell them when they've gone too far - but you'll only be met with resistance because they'll see you as just another person kicking them down and telling them how they should live their life.

TheStranger wrote:Yes, I get that some people actually really do belive that they are some other being trapped in a human body, but just because its real to you, doesnt mean its real to the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what that even means because everybody perceives themselves and the world in a different way.

If you're saying that otherkin shouldn't expect other people to agree that they are x/y/z trapped in a human body or sympathise with them in that regard then I suppose I should agree?

I would hope that people learn to see through the 'otherkin' smokescreen and realise that a person in that position is trying to figure themselves out - albeit in a wacky 'way, way, out there' fashion.

When you get down to it, the definition of what a 'human being' is differs from person to person anyway. Some people argue that it's your DNA that makes you a human being - others argue it's the way that you perceive yourself, the world and your place in it.

How can I as a human being perceive myself through anyone else's eyes? The only perception I can be certain of is my own - the only definition of what 'I' am that really matters to me is the one I have built up throughout my own life time - I can't control how other people see me no matter how hard I might try. I can dress differently or pierce my nose or shave my head - but no two people are going to react to me in the same way.

Is it important that other people accept me or the way I live my life? I personally have come to the realisation that I don't give a damn about what other people think and I don't need them to accept me or prop me up - but I've only come to that conclusion by seeing my own delusions through to their end.

DoNotDelete wrote:It becomes socially unacceptable for people to single out one form of deviancy for piss-taking, so they move onto another - the sentiment often staying the same, regardless of the target.

I absolutely agree. There are no acceptable targets.

DnD, you brought up something in regards to otherkin that I've actually been wondering about for a while, specifically as it applies to similar (though in no way equatable) identities.

I apologize if this offends any trans* person here, because I perfectly understand why it would. My view on trans* stuff is that if a person is trans*, then they're trans. Your choice and all that. However, I have to wonder exactly why it happens.
I'm not a spiritual person; even if I was, I wouldn't believe in inherently gendered souls. I believe gender to be entirely derived from biology and experiences. This occasionally forces me to wonder if trans* persons are necessarily the other gender, like they feel, or if they just want to be treated te way the other gender is?

I don't mean to lend any agreement to MRA arguments, but men do have some specific disadvantages (child custody, a lack of sympathy in society for weakness, etc) and women obviously have loads of 'em; so a person of either gender could feel out of place because of their own disadvantages.

I guess I'm just pondering how gender applies to trans* stuff when treated as an abstraction? Because gender is a social construct, I have to wonder how intrinsic a specific gender can be to a person.

Apologies again if I cause any offense. I don't mean to invalidate anyone's identity or experiences, I'm just pondering causes.

So, what is a cis exactly? Is it like a eunuch?

........ Well, duh???
Definitions and all that.
Internet's just too crazy sometimes.

You'd do well not to call concepts crazy in this thread.

The term cisgender is needed because otherwise people call it "normal" or something similar, which is problematic because it can be used to justify exclusion/harassment/whatever of trans* people. It'd be a bit like calling white people "normal" - that'd be really offensive to people of color.

Speaking of this, may I ask why the accepted term for this sort of stuff is 'queer'? It kind of runs counterintuitive.

I figured it was an attempt to "reclaim" the word.

Malum wrote:Gender roles are a social construct. Gender/Gender Identity is not a social construct. Gender identity is defined by the brain, there are documented differences in the brains of cisgender and transgender people.
Trans people are mentally the opposite sex.

In some trans* individuals that's true. It's a notable trend, but not 100% accurate.

Then the distinction becomes why it's not present in all people who claim to be trans*, which can go into an ugly debate over whether science, psychology, or philosophy is the best way to handle the issue.

Personally, for me, in the soul-searching I've done on the matter, I've come to the conclusion that there's no distinction between the male and female gender except what people ascribe to it. I'd probably consider myself agender, but I'm not really attached to that, so I default as my physical gender.

Even having these feelings on the matter though, it's important to remember personal feelings on the matter doesn't negate how other people want to be treated, and it's certainly better to accept it even if you don't necessarily understand it. I think this comes up a lot when people insist on knowing people's reasons for being trans* before they can accept them as trans*. It's certainly fine to ponder and try to understand once you give people the courtesy of calling them what they prefer to be called, but they really don't have anything to really "prove" to you.

In my case, I don't have the world view to necessarily know what goes through an otherkin's mind, nor do I think many of you have that benefit too. In that sense (and I think in ONLY that sense) it's similar to trans* issues because of the lack of individuals around to make their personal experience available for better understanding.

If we want to be cynical and believe that it's a phase that people will (hopefully) grow out of, then look back on the phases you personally went through. Generally, you were allowed to live out your personal "bullshit" you used to think, whether it was make believe, imaginary friends, crushes on fictional creatures, stuff like that. Maybe you wish someone would have knocked some sense into you, but would that have worked? Did you ever have your parents shame you for not "growing out" of "embarrassing" habits? Did it ever feel good for them to force you out of that? Would you be the same person as you are now had you not made those "mistakes"?

I'm tolerant of people's "bullshit" as far as they're tolerant of mine. I have no problem entertaining people like otherkin so long as they respect me, regardless of whether it's a legitimate issue or a phase. If they're an actual harm to themselves or others (which the vast majority don't seem to be) that's when help is needed.

But no one needs people to yell and attack them to "break them out of their delusion". That's not how you fix problems. It doesn't help, and it's pretty dickish.

NEW TOPIC WOO: the whole PRISM thing and government surveillance in general.

I feel like I'm in the huge minority, but I honestly don't really mind if the CIA can listen to my phone calls. I don't really have anything to hide, and maybe I've watched too many spy movies, but if the CIA can somehow use that information to stop a criminal somewhere, it sounds to me like its for the greater good. Besides, from what I understand PRISM isn't even targeted towards US citizens, just people living abroad using US communication systems, and even then its more of a general data collection and search engine kind of system (to oversimplify).

Now, if they use that information to directly interfere with my way of life, like shutting down my phone lines or something or censoring what I post on the Web, that's indisputibly a breach of liberty, and is not okay, especially in a society that values freedom so much. However, that freedom doesn't really apply to breaking the law. If a government agency were to gather information that proves someone was breaking the law, then I would think the right thing to do would be to stop that criminal act.

Can someone give my their perspective on why surveillance only is a breach of liberty, though? It seems to me that as long as the government doesn't interfere with a citizen's daily life, I don't see a big problem. Especially since this isn't really an Orwellian security-camera-on-every-street scenario, just a collection of data from a select population. I can see how the idea of not having "total" privacy might make one a bit worried but so long as you can trust your government (I'm an idealist, I know) to not infringe on your life, what's the harm?

SaintCrazy wrote:Besides, from what I understand PRISM isn't even targeted towards US citizens

That's very nice for you guys but the US has zero business looking at my shit.

what's the harm?

You have heard about privacy rights right? Also, if the government has absolute control over you information, it has absolute control over you. You're not far from living in a tyranny then.
Read this for a more comprehensive explanation.