I think you misunderstood, but I’m not presupposing otherkin isn’t a thing. I am saying it doesn’t have the same type of intellectual backing as transgender experience does, so it isn’t treated the same. I think that is unfortunate, even if there are studies done as well as expressed experiences, especially within indigenous peoples (and you could argue that is part of the reason fewer studies are done on it.)
I’m not really here to debate whether fish exist because I know fish exist and I can drive to most lakes and find fish in them and I can go to a few museums and see fish remains and I can go to pet stores and find fish for sale and I can go to a grocery store and find fish to eat. Doing that same thing with people and their personal experiences is much harder since it’s more of a personal experience and not, you know, a visible phenomenon, and so it’s going to be harder to convince people a personal experience is real if it’s not their experience and especially if it’s not a common one.
Au contrare. I can go speak to otherkin right now. In fact, I’m in conversation with one about how the cartoon Generator Rex uses nanites as a parallel to the AIDS crisis. Otherkin quite clearly and obviously exist. I see otherkin much more often than I see fish.
Now, most people see fish more often, because most people are boring, but that’s no reason for disbelief. The point is that there’s little point proving something so non-controversial exists. Nobody cares. You won’t get a research grant for something so irrelevant.
Asking people to provide research studies for this kind of thing is absurd. The only reason all these studies on trans people exist is because the media politicises our existence. When you treat otherkin the same way, you’re politicising their existence too.
I think you misunderstood, but I’m not presupposing otherkin isn’t a thing. I am saying it doesn’t have the same type of intellectual backing as transgender experience does, so it isn’t treated the same. I think that is unfortunate, even if there are studies done as well as expressed experiences, especially within indigenous peoples (and you could argue that is part of the reason fewer studies are done on it.)
I’m not really here to debate whether fish exist because I know fish exist and I can drive to most lakes and find fish in them and I can go to a few museums and see fish remains and I can go to pet stores and find fish for sale and I can go to a grocery store and find fish to eat. Doing that same thing with people and their personal experiences is much harder since it’s more of a personal experience and not, you know, a visible phenomenon, and so it’s going to be harder to convince people a personal experience is real if it’s not their experience and especially if it’s not a common one.
Au contrare. I can go speak to otherkin right now. In fact, I’m in conversation with one about how the cartoon Generator Rex uses nanites as a parallel to the AIDS crisis. Otherkin quite clearly and obviously exist. I see otherkin much more often than I see fish.
Now, most people see fish more often, because most people are boring, but that’s no reason for disbelief. The point is that there’s little point proving something so non-controversial exists. Nobody cares. You won’t get a research grant for something so irrelevant.
Asking people to provide research studies for this kind of thing is absurd. The only reason all these studies on trans people exist is because the media politicises our existence. When you treat otherkin the same way, you’re politicising their existence too.