Otherkin and queers - religion or truth

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
I would not disagree.

No not you. I would not disagree. I did not quote the post. Sorry.

arakish's picture
Aposteriori Unum: But then

Aposteriori Unum: But then again I find the majority of people don't go all the way down their rabbit-holes.

And the other way: Nor does their elevator work properly.


arakish's picture
Back to OP and Clarifying

Back to OP and Clarifying Post:

Had to think a while. As far as anyone who identifies themself as genderless, I have never met, nor heard of such a thing until this thread. However, if that is what a person wishes to do, then who am I to say, "No."? Hell, I have dated and had sex with a transgender that used to be a "he." Who am I to say anyone cannot love or be anyone they wish?

I may have grown up and lived most of my life as an "out in the boondocks, knuckle-dragging, inbred redneck," but I ain't one. LOL. Crazy Fuzzy jumped into my head. One thing I used to love doing was calling those stupid closed-minded rednecks by that nasty "N" word. Boy that would liven up a conversation.

As far as I am concerned, if you are a "he" and feel that you are a "she" OR a "she" and feel that you are a "he" OR you feel you are androgynous OR ambisexual OR neuter OR whatever, then that is your right. That is your personal freedom. Just let me know in advance so I can at least make the attempt to use the proper pronoun. And if I screw up, please point it out. But do NOT assume I am a hateful extremist. The only persons I truly hate are the die-hard Absolutists and Apologists.

To me, the only true hatred is caused by religion. Humankind's worst enemy.


Sheldon's picture
I am cheering, bravo! Well

I am cheering, bravo! Well said sir...

Tin-Man's picture


Like Sheldon said.... Bravo!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
No argument here...

No argument here...

chimp3's picture
This is a totally modern

This is a totally modern subject and should be divested of any opinions from the Bronze Age.

Aposteriori unum's picture
"The leading academic take on

"The leading academic take on otherkin, I gather, is that it is a kind of religion, where the person is spiritually a dog or a snail. But if the mere self-identification of someone as a non-female or non-male makes such a person nonbinary, a nongender person would have to, I think, allow that an otherkin person is indeed a dragon if they so choose to identify. Atleast if they take the strong position of being sex nonbinary."

The two subjects here are quite distinct. There's LGBTQ and there's otherkin. The former is a real thing, the latter is nonsense. Some people identify with a different gender and sexual orientations are basically spectral, but no one is a rabbit, except of course, for rabbits.

The property of being gay, for example, is not excluded by being human or any other animal. But the property of being a non-human animal is excluded the property of being human. A thing cannot hold two contradictory properties at the same time (the law of non contradiction: human ^ not human). Also there's the law of identity ( P = P, or: P = ~~P). Okay, so they might say: "it's not about being a rabbit, it's about identifying as one." Are they then saying that they are a rabbit soul inhabiting a human body? What nonsense is that? If only to point out the fact that souls have never been demonstrated to exist in the first place. If you want to pretwnd something that's fine, but to get everyone to respect your (human!) right to be called something other than human is to hijack a legitimate human rights issue (LGBTQ) for a fantasy roleplaying adventure. I will respect their rights (as humans) to believe or practice whatsoever they so desire, but I will not respect their fantasy game character's title.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Dang apoth, you sound like a

Dang apoth, you sound like a narrow minded otherkinphobic bigot.

Aposteriori unum's picture
"Dang apoth, you sound like a

"Dang apoth, you sound like a narrow minded otherkinphobic bigot."

That makes no sense.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Ok, then how does it feel to

Ok, then how does it feel to be a otherkin phobe bigot.

Aposteriori unum's picture
You're fired. If it was a

You're fired. If it was a real thing to be born as an animal outside of your...I can't even say it... what you were actually born as and I said things like they shouldn't have the right to be called such then that might be phobic. But... it's not a real thing.

I know what you're trying to do, but it doesn't work. It's ridiculous. It's projection and it's a tacit admission on your part that "phobias" and bigotry are a bad thing and that you know you demonstrate that you have these qualities.

But, as I said... otherkinism is not a real property that a person can have like sexual orientation or identifying as a different sex or gender. You know what I said, unless you don't do english well or you're too stupid to comprehend such thoughts, so don't pretend that I'm anything like you in any way.

Terminal Dogma's picture
Just fucking lol at getting a

Just fucking lol at getting a student debt to take a course in gender studies. Pay to get yourself brainwashed with narcissistic propaganda by pretend academics.

Fucking lol at taking a degree in gender studies to a job interview.

arakish's picture
As AU put it. You are

As AU put it. You are projecting your bigotry onto others.

You are fired.


Sheldon's picture
I imagine some people laughed

I imagine some people laughed at abolitionists and those who studied racism and it's impact on social cohesion. Some people fear change, they pretend they have valid objections, but I've noticed the fear dripping from their comments, and posting lol at the end of what is supposed to be an argument in a debate is a dead giveaway.

Why does this bother you so much? I can agree, or I can disagree, what I can't do is get annoyed because someone doesn't view themselves as others do, and would like to live as the person they feel they are, and not as the person others think they should be.

If my morality is based on the premise that I should care about others, and not want them to suffer unnecessarily then why would I ignore that here? People who fear all change are usually focused on archaic perceptions of morality that have nothing to do with empathy or trying to reduce suffering, but just what they think will please an imaginary deity with a penchant for bronze age patriarchal misogyny, so you're something of a puzzle to me.

Terminal Dogma's picture
No not projection, getting

No not projection, getting you to acknowledge your prejudice. Your arguments sound typical of those that oppose gender identity politics to a tee.

For otherkin there identity is a real thing.

For the social construct commentators race is a social construct, gender is a social construct...pretty much everything is a social construct so the same analysis applies to otherkin.

Depending on source, none are "official, there are dozens...basically infinite genders and they can be changed back and forth any time of day for the same person. We now even have people marrying themselves. Ugly people will be next to be making moves for compensation against the "establishment" cos they are discriminated against...which incidentally has more scientific merit than many claimed gender discrimination cases.

This is leftists "logic" in action aka a steaming pile of semantic shit games.

I defend the rights of otherkin against you facist bigot haters....see how edgey and woke I am lmao.

Aposteriori unum's picture
I can speak only for myself,

I can speak only for myself, but here I say: I have no prejudices based on any attribute a human can have that they cannot control. That being said I do discriminate against those who are racist; they will not be my friends. I do discriminate against nazis; they will not be my friends. I do discriminate againsts misogynists; they will not be my friends.

Gender equality, equality of sexuality, racial equality et cetera, is NOT the same thing as otherkinism. Sexuality, race and gender are not choices humans make. Here's where your reasoning fails terminal: you cannot tell the difference between choices humans make and things humans cannot choose. Otherkinism is not real and being not real it is a choice to subscribe to such a thing. Being homosexual or female or transgender or Red or black or white is NOT a choice. Those are real human things.

And yes, what you said was projection. Try to fool a teenager, but we here are not so ignorant.

It's hard for me to believe you are an atheist. I've not seen such a lack of thinking skills and such dishonesty outside of theism.

Jared Alesi's picture
"It's hard for me to believe

"It's hard for me to believe you are an atheist. I've not seen such a lack of thinking skills and such dishonesty outside of theism"

Obviously you've never seen The Young Turks.

arakish's picture
The only prejudice I have is

The only prejudice I have is against bigotry and those who project it onto others. As far as I am concerned, if you want to be a bigot and express bigoted ideas, then you should be shipped off to 141°E, 82°S.


Jared Alesi's picture
I tried searching these

I tried searching these coordinates, and when I clicked images, I got a mixture of pornography (of all variations), a few maps of Iran, and a painting of Vladimir Putin.

Never use Bing. It scares me.

arakish's picture
Try Google Earth Pro. rmfr

Try Google Earth Pro.


Terminal Dogma's picture
Your error is saying

Gender is a social construct according to leftists/feminist thinking so your error is saying otherkinism is not real, evidently for those identifying as such it is real as any other social construct. What makes you the arbiter of real identity. You sound like a theist claiming absolute truth.

Have you even seen the list of genders on offer, how are they more or less real than folks that identify with love and attraction for inanimate objects etc.

Aposteriori unum's picture
I displayed the logic behind

I displayed the logic behind what I said. Arakish understands what I said, why can't you? What country are you from? Is english your first language?

Otherkinism is not a social construct... it's a mental construct. The conflation of otherkin and LGBTQ is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying that they are NOT the same. If they were I would be saying a completely different thing... how do you not understand this?

Oh wait... you're terminal dogma, that's why.

Flamenca's picture
@AU: "What country are you

@AU: "What country are you from? Is english your first language?"

Hey, watch out, you sound like @PGodJordan. Speaking English as a second language doesn't equate to being an ignorant or a fool. Your arguments are pretty clear, so if @TD is twisting them, he is probably doing it on purpose. I'm pretty sure English is his first -and only- language. Am I wrong, @TD?

Peurii's picture
Wow, I didn't mean to draw

Wow, I didn't mean to draw this kind of a rift. But let me state that personally being gay, trans or nonbinary are by no means signifiers of some sort of deficiency. Some of the implications and desires of accommodation are a bit questionable. I'm just more interested in the nature of claiming nonbinarity in ontological and epistemological grounds. I support getting rid of gendered pronouns. As I said in OP, my ancestors got rid of those before historical times.

The claim to nonbinarity seems to me to hinge on not feeling that traditional gender roles offered by society are not to your fitting. That's fine, you can be who you like. It just seems strange to me that such a category is necessary. It's akin to saying that "I am a nonseafoodeater, because I don' like seafood." I guess that would have fewer political implications, but why it should be a part of your identity, instead of your way of being a man/woman. Feels like there is some ideology behind that claim. As opposed to transsexualism, which is an old phenomeno, claiming nonbinarity as an identity is much never, although of course there have been people who do not conform to the norm before. I mean I don't conform to the stereotype of a man, but I am a man nevertheless, thanks to my hormones etc., or so the biologists would have me believe. Should I then claim nonbinarity or genderfluidness, because I (used to) like to put on make up as a teen goth back in the day? I'd say that I could make such a claim, as I was toying with the gender norms, but wasn't it just my take on being a man? And as nongender seems to hinge on feeling alone, arn't we all just genderfluid? I mean most of us today do traditionally male or female things. Making such a claim would not entail having to accept that otherkin are really dragons etc., though. As gender pertains to our social world, and it is "just" a social construct*. I don't know if destroying gender norms should be the goal though, I get the feeling that most people like being a man or a woman. Maybe the social categories need just to be more inclusive.

As to the made up pronouns, the presumption on the people who would insist on people calling them what ever they just made up (literally just socially construing it from thin air) has to be a kind of performance artistry. If I feel, as nongendered people feel that they are a "zir", that I am royalty, why shouldn't I insist on being called "m'lord"? What is the difference in the social construct that is nobility and the social construct that is gender, that make them constitutively different?

On the other hand, the people who claim there is no biological sex would, in my estimation, have a harder time saying to otherkin that they are not dragons etc., and as such I wonder why that is not considered a religion too. This is because essentially the argument goes, that because there are overlapping characteristics and no clear definition of "man" and "woman", or that the biologist's search for sex has duped the scientist, because of his preheld idea of only two sexes, into reifying the idea in science jargon. This same argument could be used in favour of otherkin too. We preassume species are different, there is no clear definition of species, so the arguments sound analogical to me. If you feel that you have no biological sex, well then why can't you be a dragon? If biology is not an arbiter of your sex, why would it be the arbiter of your species?

Then there is the problem of transsexuals. It used to be (removed a few says ago in fact I think) categorized as a mental condition, the causes of which are yet to be known, as is much of the (seemingly?) biological difference between the male and the female brain (if such exists, as some biological & psychological studies would suggest that it does). But the claim used to be, in a sense, that they were brains in the wrong kind of body. But if there is no biological sex, then the transsexual's desire, and the urge, to make their thinking align with their body makes less sense.

*I mean, what isn't. Social constructs are our way of understanding the world as creatures evolved in the middle world with modest reasoning capabilities. Doesn't mean that some social constructs's arn't more close to reality or more useful. Planets are social constructs just as much as gender is, doesn't mean that planets arn't real though. Why are Mars and Earth planets, and the Moon and Pluto arn't? They are all just blobs of matter in space, arn't they? And when does the Moon end? At what point is an atom the Moon and not the Moon? Seems to me that there is no clear definition of the Moon, yet we say that there is such a thing as the Moon.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
This needs to be made clear

This needs to be made clear in that we are discussing Gender and not Sex.

I agree that people may identify as whatever they choose, However, I would add the caveat that it should not be imposed by law.
No one should be compelled to say or do anything, But we as a species should educate ourselves and be more compassionate.
I don't think it is too much to ask they we be respectful of people and act in the appropriate manner.

However, I despise the small offshoot groups who think biological sex is essentially a myth and male/female sex is not a legitimate entity.

That is scientifically completely inaccurate and needs nipping out as soon as possible.

Both sexes are incredibly different biologically, physiologically and psychologically.

I recently made the point to someone online who took this view, that if Usain Bolt was decide to be female and we had to legitimise this and allow "her" to run in women's events, that you may as well cancel it and give over the medal.

Furthermore, As a women it is a little insulting. We go through so much naturally, such as menstruation, menopause, pregnancy, labour, birth and so on.

The boarders could and perhaps should be made clear so everyone understands the discussion that is happening.

LogicFTW's picture
I agree with you fully The

I agree with you fully The BlindWatchMaker.

Also fascinating to me, as you mention: "Both sexes are incredibly different biologically, physiologically and psychologically." Which I realize is so true, the difference dna wise, is less then 1% for female to male. The basic instructions of how to grow for male and female are more than 99% identical, yet so much difference in that tiny change to our basic building block code. Anything else that had such a tiny percentage of change and we would consider probably consider pretty much identical.

Peurii's picture
As I understand it, all DNA

As I understand it, all DNA is not used. So it's not like the fact that men have the Y chromosome, that only differentiates males from females, but that the Y chromosome contains a sequence which will activate other genes in other places that develop the male fetus in different ways from the "normal" position of developing a female fetus. So even if on the DNA level the difference is miniscule, what is more important is the way the genes activate. Same is true for transsexuals going through sex hormone therapy, I've read. Reports say that after taking the sex hormones, their thinking changes to more female typical thinking.

LogicFTW's picture
Makes sense Peurii.

Makes sense Peurii.

As a programmer and all around nerd I find the following hilarious and fascinating:

The average male orgasim (ejaculation,) contains the rough equivalent of 135 Petabytes (135,000 terabytes) of information. All shot out in ~1 second.

135 Petabytes could easily fit every written word in the whole history of human kind, dozens of times over.

Terminal Dogma's picture
The level of bigotry and

The level of bigotry and prejudice toward otherkin borderlines on hate speech.

You guys are so conservative you might as well be fundamentalist Puritans.

It's 2018 you need to be accepting of difference....lead with love.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.