Readydaer wrote:
Sonic200 wrote:
"Gentlebeings!"
It includes those who identify as therians (real animals like wolves) and otherkin (legendary beings like mermaids and dragons, fictional characters, objects, or concepts).
the school of thought of identifying as animals, fictional or otherwise, warrants the question of if they deserve human rights. I think that it's fine to return to primal simplicity, like the Daodejing says, but taking it too far is odd. However, if they want it that badly, they can surrender their human rights and go live in the woods. This is different from the 'furry' thing, I think. Where does it end? Suppose I identify as a protected species?
If even a trans woman questions it, maybe it's too far lol
Well, my view is that it's none of my business what someone else identifies as, even if I don't understand it.
"Human" rights should not be awarded based on identity or even species, but based on whether they're fundamentally self-aware enough to suffer as a result of being deprived of them. I think this is a threshold that every human who has brain activity meets, regardless of whether they personally feel like a mermaid or whatever. The act of being able to say "I identify as a mermaid", while bizarre to me, is proof that the person is capable of the sort of cognition that should entitle them to the same legal rights as a human.
If you identify as a protected species - so what? We already give all humans more rights than we give any protected species. Nobody is going to introduce humans into captive breeding programmes.
But frankly I'll think seriously about otherkin when I start seeing functioning adults, in real life, requesting medical treatment in such numbers that scientific journals cover it. I see no reason to be concerned about teenage experimentation, or indeed that of vulnerable, powerless adults.