Talk:Otherkin/Archive 2

message: It is found that people confuse otherkin with not just furries as mere fans, but people heavily into furries.  I was going with furry lifestylers, but now I believe that is not quite right.  I'm hoping someone can come up with a more specific comparison.
-Thodin
:Don't pay too much attention to what PoE say, they aren't a reliable source.  Do you have any sources that aren't blatantly anti-otherkin that associate them with fursuit sex? :) Vashti 22:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Otherkin vs. Furry confusion

message: Gabrielsimon and I have a disagreement over whether the subculture quote under "Medical perspectives" is valid.
I've quoted it as follows (irrelevant information replaced with an ellipsis):
"To be considered signs of a mental disorder, these atypical behaviors or mental events cannot be either ... individual variations that are expressions of a particular subculture (for example, coloring one's hair green and purple because one's friends are doing it). In neither case are the atypical behaviors or mental events a sign of an internal dysfunction: they are consistent with the norms (standards) of some social group to which the individual belongs."
It's been suggested that removing information from the quote is misleading, and that the whole thing should be given, like this (excised text in bold:
"To be considered signs of a mental disorder, these atypical behaviors or mental events cannot be either (a) culturally acceptable responses to infrequent situations (for example, grieving the death of a family member) or (b) individual variations that are expressions of a particular subculture (for example, coloring one's hair green and purple because one's friends are doing it). In neither case are the atypical behaviors or mental events a sign of an internal dysfunction: they are consistent with the norms (standards) of some social group to which the individual belongs."
What do people think?  I don't believe the way it's quoted is at all misleading (although if it stays cut, I really must take that "either" out too). Vashti 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno; depression is a mental disorder, and often is triggered by the death of a family member or something similar. I'm not entirely certain that culture has anything really to do with a mental disorder; I'm pretty sure they are mostly characterized by maladaptive behavior. Of course, that definition pretty much includes every religion to some degree or another, but whatever. Titanium Dragon 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, but the question to hand is "can the beliefs and habits of a subculture be used as evidence of a mental disorder, in the absence of maladaptive behaviour?"  The quote refutes that, which is why it's there - the religion or philosophy or whatever of otherwise healthy individuals shouldn't be considered pathological. Vashti 10:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue: quoting 

message: Erm, why have we split spiritual and psychologic into two separate categories, then not explained the psychologic aspects? I mean, there are bound to be a few aspects of an otherkin's nature (if the otherkin is what he/she claims to be) that would be human, given the effect of hormones on psychology and the socialization process inherent in any culture. Thus, all human-form otherkin (as opposed to, say, a duck who thinks he's a rooster or a pig who thinks he's a dog [you know to what I refer]) will have a modicum of humanity. Even biologic otherkin would have that humanity in them, as the cross of human and whatever other entity that could cross with a human (I'm going with elf at the moment for the purposes of this discussion) would be more human than elf if the cross occurred fairly far back (as I'm betting many would claim, as it's a fairly common theme in mythology for a supernatural being to be in a human's ancestry). So despite some small chance of inheriting the complete haploid set of elf chromosomes fully intact (which is hardly going to happen, given crossing over and the number of meioses between the original elf and the biologic elfkin), there's some humanity going to be part of a biologic elfkin. However, at some point the spiritual aspects of the otherkin are going to manifest themselves in personality and such, which are parts of psychology. Basically, I would like a clearer distinction between psychologic otherkinness and spiritual otherness.
first, sign ourt posts, seconmd, thats not so easy.
Gabrielsimon 06:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because I didn't have time to write a section on the psychological wossnames, and there was no existing material on it in the article. :)  Maybe "philosophical" would have been a better word; I was thinking mainly of the people who, rather than say "I have an elf soul", say "I associate with elves as a method of further understanding myself".  The split is there primarily to provide a structure to build on, and is based on the "biological, spiritual or psychological difference" from the older article, which I believe derived from otherkin.net.  Please feel free to contribute if you want to. Vashti 16:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: We've got another phantom editor - I thought it was Iro, but looking at the IP addresses I'm not so sure.  Whoever you are, could you sign up for a user account, please?  It makes it a lot easier to talk to you. :)
One of the things I'm trying to do at the moment is to provide sources for all of the information in the article, and (as Thodin observed) to provide decent structure and style for what has been a rather bitty and poorly structured article.  I believe this is especially necessary given some of the extraordinary claims given here (compare the VfD on "Vampire lifestyle" for some of the accusations that have been made in the past).
Can I ask that people help out with this by providing sources for any new information they add, using Wikipedia:Footnote3 style?  Especially if you're going to add things like people's claims of having non-human biology, this is very important.  Other things I'll mention in passing are Wikipedia:Policy, especially impartiality (NPOV), and writing style.
I've also made more use of inline comments in the article than I should have, and this has been picked up on, so I'm going to cut some of these across to here - I suspect they only ought to be used when there is important information that needs to be pointed out to people editing the article.  My mistake, sorry. Vashti 14:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the alternative is to assume that people are ignoring policy.  I assure you there are people on Wiki who are a lot harsher about this stuff than I am. Vashti 09:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests to editors 

message: [under "overview"]
Did the other communities spin off from the mainstream or did they evolve separately?  Anyone?  Bueller? [my comment]
A combination of both perhaps?  I am not one to have been around long enough to know.  Also is it possible that there is no origins to the term Otherkin, and that it came about as the result of a "stand alone complex"?
[under "bicameral mind theory"]
<-- This may be a interesting thought.  I heard a voice at one time myself.  "All Knowing," definately.  However I did know that the voice was not my own, and eventually blocked it out.  Sometimes I also seem to think as this section suggests, whereby /my own/ thoughts are seemingly not-mine and that I can, and have, refered to myself (in thought) in third person as a multitude of "voices" each with a distinct personality.  Something to poner on, I think. ~Draco18s -->
Vashti 15:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draco18s's comments from the main article 

message: Psycological difference offten turn up in changes in an individual's behavior.  Not even Otherkin of the same type have the same impulses.
Some wolve-kin for example might have a craving for raw--or nearly raw--meat, while others would not.  However most of these traits do seem to be widespread.  Many dragon-kin for example exhibit a hoarding trait, weather they hoard things of value or triknets or just junk, nearly every one hoards something.
There are exceptions to this, even so far as going completely against it.  A fuit bat -kin wanting nearly raw steak, for example.
Another examples of psycological behavior that isn't "normal" for being human, is noises: growling, purring, hissing, etc.  Some even use these noises unconciously instead of "normal" pyscological responses to stimulous.  Some of these may not even realise that do this until a friend points it out to them.
I think these are behavioural differences that could apply however you explain your kin-ness, so I'd be inclined to move these further up to the main section heading and not have them under any of the sub-headings (I've renamed the former psychology section to make it clearer what it's actually meant as).  However, I'm concerned that we're heading back towards the state the article was originally in, with a lot of information on therianthropes/weres/furries and vampires (who have their own articles at therianthropy and vampire lifestyle, as do dragons at draconity), and less that is generally accurate for otherkin.
One of the first things the article says is that otherkin has a specific meaning (mythology-kin) and an umbrella meaning (all the elves, fairies, dragons, vampires, werewolves and so on).  However, I'm almost positive that specific information about the communities with their own Wiki pages is better done over on those pages.  I would like to keep this page for specifics about the first meaning, and no more than generalities about the second.  Thoughts?
There may be cases in some types of Otherkin where biological differences may be more obvious.  Such as a vampire having an extreamly low blood temperature.  A normal temperature of 65 degrees farenheight (18 degrees Celcius) has been self-documented.  The subject also exibits other bizare medical symptoms that would be considered fatal to a "normal" human, or where "normal" is fatal to the subject.
This is going to need a good source, or it'll have to go.  Sorry.
However, most of those who claim to be Otherkin and are not (called RPers for the association with all of this to be role playing) are ussually found and routed.  They may still continue to participate in the community, however is becomes common knoledge that they are jsut acting.  It is also possible for an RPer to become despised by a community and forced out once they are found out.
The problem with this paragraph is that it's POV (not impartial) - the article assumes that people who have been gangbanged by one community or another for being RPers actually are.  This is very hard to determine, and certainly the Wiki article shouldn't assume that they are and refer to them as "RPers".  However, the article probably needs something somewhere on "Elven Princess Syndrome", even if it just defines it.  Need to find a reference for that. Vashti 15:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea; it should probably be down there.  Thanks. :) Vashti 07:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in recent edits