![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
on idea of human words
Jun. 29th, 2025 11:35 amcrosspost from tumblr . ( original post )
preface : this is specifically in answer to A. prior ask about animal-centric attitudes in physical nonhuman spaces , which is honestly alterhuman-wide also , and B. new physical nonhuman community , which right now have similar animal-centric lean in language and rules , and want to break down problems with this . will clarify that did also show this to admin , just easier to make things as public post due to how kossai write , so hopefully will see some more change . because of this , there is more mention of physical nonhumans , but still broadly applicable .
preface : this is specifically in answer to A. prior ask about animal-centric attitudes in physical nonhuman spaces , which is honestly alterhuman-wide also , and B. new physical nonhuman community , which right now have similar animal-centric lean in language and rules , and want to break down problems with this . will clarify that did also show this to admin , just easier to make things as public post due to how kossai write , so hopefully will see some more change . because of this , there is more mention of physical nonhumans , but still broadly applicable .
person / people is not just human word . many alterhumans and nonhumans still prefer people over terms like animal . not all alterhumanity is nonhuman in nature , not all nonhumanity is animal in nature , and even fellow animal folk can still have preference to acknowledge personhood .
as well , refusal to say person and comparisons to animals can be very touchy subjects for alterhumans who experience any number of oppressions , especially on basis of race . to broadly refer to others as creatures or beasts , even if intend under alterhuman context , is not neutral action .
on top of that , some physical nonhumans naturally belong to humanoid species . this means words for body parts like hands , feet , and nose might still be preferable , and to insist on use animal terms in place is disrespectful . this is not to persuade anyone else to personally accept these words , but not fair to consider these words " human only " .
to set standard of inclusive language for community space , especially in this case physically nonhuman one ... do not focus on which words human and which ones nonhuman , because there will always be exceptions . instead , would be more inclusive to :
- include words like people in community-wide addresses - such as people and creatures , rather than just creatures . kossai find that addition of folk also can soften implications in these contexts , mileage may vary on this one - creature folk , animal folk , etc .
- focus on fact that there will be range of users with range of species , and that these users may choose to use any range of words and descriptors .
- and set standard to follow lead of these users , whether that means whale , cheetah , vampire , or indeed person . to intentionally refuse to call someone as person should be just as punishable as any other intentional refusal to respect terms of choice .
no need to distinguish any of these as human or nonhuman , as that create confusion , frustration , and feelings of isolation even within community .
community priorities
Feb. 27th, 2025 01:23 pmcrosspost from tumblr - original post .
not important :
not important :
- whether experience is measurably real or not - virtually all alterhuman experiences will never be measurable enough to satisfy detractors , regardless of origins or expressions .
- whether experience is possible to prove or not - some folks speak of experiences that do not line up with currently known advances , experiences that seem to break laws of physics , experiences with basis in religion and spirituality , or in general scientifically unverifiable . literally so what ?
these categories rigid , and do not address legitimate concerns . folks also take these categories as opportunity to argue - only X is measurably real , Y is not , only X is possible , Y is not - but that will not change individual experiences or worldviews .
while there can be legitimate reasons to talk about proven science and consensus reality , discussion of personal experience without any enforcement or danger on others is not reason .
these arguments only lead to animosity and frustration , and at time various armchair diagnoses even where actual medical criteria is not fit - which can hurt everyone .
- distress levels - is this experience stressful , and how much so ? what would help to address and treat this distress , if anything ? some folks will say medication . some folks will say therapy . some folks will say , simply , community acceptance .
- comfort levels - how comfortable is this experience ? sometimes comfort can come hand in hand with distress , but which one is more abundant and why ? what would make experience more comfortable , if anything ?
- risk levels - whether one might misjudge safety and try things that could be fatal , neglect ADLs like nutrition and hygiene , or otherwise follow impulses and poor judgment calls that might worsen life . what can one do to lessen these risks , if anything ?
- autonomy and dignity of risk - ability to make any choices in these above categories , even if against long-term best interests . that is life sometimes .
everyone deserve right to autonomy and choice - unfortunately , while some would benefit from support , many only have choice to be either totally dependent or totally independent . this must be fix at system level , not push individuals into total dependence and legal guardianship .
these categories able to change with time and mental state , address actual concerns of safety and happiness , and not exclusive to any framework of experience .
there should not be any stigma to admit that instincts high and might need someone to monitor safety for today , that animalistic language is more comfortable than human language , or to make choices against grain . this is personal safety and happiness .
should also be mindful not to dictate what anyone else experience , or to let others do this . this can include :
- anyone who actively want to categorise all religious and spiritual explanation as delusion - even though this is not applicable framework , hurt folks who do fit and use this framework , and generally frustrate everyone .
- anyone who actively want to categorise all psychological explanation as secretly religious or spiritual - this can trigger psychosis in vulnerable folks , and generally frustrate everyone .
- anyone who promise to teach secrets under conditions of payment , secrecy , and/or isolation - demands for secrecy and especially isolation major red flags this arrangement is likely abusive .
- anyone who , in general , regularly argue about what origins , expressions , and worldviews deserve respect , and which ones to treat as lesser or cast out .
understand what red flags of abusive behaviours and potential cults look like , and do not tolerate intentions to hurt or throw peers under bus . direct attention to individuals of concern , rather than sweep statements about entire worldviews and frameworks . this is community safety and happiness .
