For people such as myself, who think there might be a certain purpose in not being able to actually be furs even though/if we want to, that's really problematic.
I wanted to mention that this seems especially problematic to me given that the existing definition of SID is explicitly based on GID. If there is some medical treatment or surgery in 50 or 200 years for SID, will medical or psychological treatment be denied those people who choose not to take it, or will a dichotomy of pre-op/post-op furs emerge, the way it has for the trans community? For myself, I feel like the attitude of "don't deny that you want wings but don't spend all your time thinking about it" has been very helpful, in terms of allowing myself to keep my species identity and in terms of allowing myself to let go of my teenaged misanthropy and tendency to asociability and in allowing me to see my depression as separate from depression/longing caused by species or body image issues (and even allowed me to separate some human body image issues from species body image issues). I feel like this middle road is the best attitude to take in the current human world if you're not willing to disavow entirely your wish to change your body to match your species (as so many people do, with age and responsibility), but don't want to spend your entire life dreaming about a goal that's not yet medically possible (as some furs do).
Also: this data can be used by the furry community itself. Why are we an 89% white fandom, folks? What can we do to change that?
There is another rant in here if "species" is often used as a stand-in for race in furry literature (for intance, in Brian Jacques' work, I seem to remember that often (though not always) the fur color of a certain character is mentioned only when a mean or threatening animal is being described), but I'm not well-versed enough in furry literature as a genre to actually do the idea justice, because I think it would be a big one with a lot of reading needed to cooberate or deny my half-baked thought.
no subject
I wanted to mention that this seems especially problematic to me given that the existing definition of SID is explicitly based on GID. If there is some medical treatment or surgery in 50 or 200 years for SID, will medical or psychological treatment be denied those people who choose not to take it, or will a dichotomy of pre-op/post-op furs emerge, the way it has for the trans community? For myself, I feel like the attitude of "don't deny that you want wings but don't spend all your time thinking about it" has been very helpful, in terms of allowing myself to keep my species identity and in terms of allowing myself to let go of my teenaged misanthropy and tendency to asociability and in allowing me to see my depression as separate from depression/longing caused by species or body image issues (and even allowed me to separate some human body image issues from species body image issues).
I feel like this middle road is the best attitude to take in the current human world if you're not willing to disavow entirely your wish to change your body to match your species (as so many people do, with age and responsibility), but don't want to spend your entire life dreaming about a goal that's not yet medically possible (as some furs do).
Also: this data can be used by the furry community itself. Why are we an 89% white fandom, folks? What can we do to change that?
There is another rant in here if "species" is often used as a stand-in for race in furry literature (for intance, in Brian Jacques' work, I seem to remember that often (though not always) the fur color of a certain character is mentioned only when a mean or threatening animal is being described), but I'm not well-versed enough in furry literature as a genre to actually do the idea justice, because I think it would be a big one with a lot of reading needed to cooberate or deny my half-baked thought.