Miniar Wrote:I don't think that a psychologically "other" person is "non-human" in any sense other than identification, never the less I consider their experience as "otherkin" to be valid.
I consider their experiences to be completely valid, but I also think someone who is "otherkin" purely psychologically is not
the same as someone who is "otherkin" in that their soul (or whatever) is a mismatch to their body. Essentially, "thinking" you are something is not the same phenomenon as "being" that something.
Quote:Also, I do Not believe that a human being, who identifies as human, and in fact disbelieves in reincarnation as well as (for example) dragons, should be called otherkin even if they have a dragon soul.
IMO the only reason not to call such a person otherkin is politeness.
As an analogy - I'm Northern Irish, and British. My passport, birth certificate, and all relevant documents show me to be British and I identify as a member of British culture. But this being Northern Ireland, there are many people who are from the same place as me but who identify with Irish culture.
If those people have British passports, were born in a British hospital, have spent their entire lives in the UK, pay British taxes, vote in British elections, etc etc etc . . . they are factually British. Now, the friends I have like that, who consider themselves Irish but are legally completely British, I would never
call them British. (Except if I was teasing them, of course.) It would be impolite and downright disrespectful for me to call someone a Brit if they identify as something else. But, that said . . . they have a British passport, a British birth certificate, and a British voting card. Which makes them British.
Someone who is completely dragon in energy and soul (and let's not worry about how we would determine that, heh) is, IMO, otherkin - even if they would never identify as such.
IMO "otherkin" is a concept of fact, not opinion. Tenuous, vague, slippery, unsubstantiated fact maybe . . . but fact all the same.