I am otherkin. I am otherhearted. I am nonhuman. I’m a lot of things, but I am not alterhuman. I have my reasons for it, but the important thing for this post is that I do not opt into the label “alterhuman”.
I’ve seen a fair few posts going around recently, including a number of surveys, that say “alterhuman” when it’s clear they mean “otherkin and adjacent communities”. Now, that might be just to save keystrokes, but it sends (what I hope is) an unintentional message that “alterhuman” is the umbrella term, and that everyone needs to accept it.
Every time I’ve seen discussion about the meaning of “alterhuman” as a label, I see it described as an opt-in term. That is, it only applies to those who choose to use it. But in practice, it’s treated as an opt-out term, one that applies to everyone unless otherwise stated. That’s a problem.
There’s a concept that I know that a lot of members of our communities believe in that gets broken when “alterhuman” is treated as opt-out like this: “Don’t call people things they don’t want to be called.” It’s a matter of basic decency and courtesy. It’s something that (ideally) is applied universally, no matter who it is or how one feels about them. By saying “alterhuman” when what’s meant is a different (even if related) community, it sends the message that people in that community have to accept the label whether they want it or not.
I am not alterhuman. I do not want to be called alterhuman. And calling my communities inherently alterhuman forces the label on me, intentionally or not.
Either we need to start actually treating “alterhuman” like an opt-in label (which means not treating it as the default), or we need to admit that it’s actually opt-out. We can’t have it both ways.
Anonymous:
Can you blend kromer from limbus company and on the highest setting possible if that’s okay ?
@who-is-page and @frameacloud’s panel at Othercon has gotten me thinking about writing essays about my own alterhuman experience… I was thinking maybe I should write something about why I write fiction, and how that relates to my own identity. But thinking about that made me realize that one of the reasons I write is because I identify as a fictional self-insert character that I created when I was a hatchling in make-believe games. Like, that’s the way I view myself - not as a generic blue dragon, but as that specific character. Additionally, given that many of those games were based loosely in books I’ve read, it means that my identity is based in fiction as well. Though I don’t identify as him, my name is even based on a fictional character’s!
I’ve never really thought about calling myself fictionkin before now. When I joined the otherkin community initially, I had some bad reactions to talking about my identity in that way. And then some more bad reactions. My identity as a dragon is involuntary; I couldn’t change it if I tried (and I have), and it isn’t something I intentionally made into an identity. It’s a bit of why I never really got why everyone insisted strongly on the distinction between otherkin and otherlinkers. Though I’m not opposed to the idea, I don’t feel like my fictional identity was made by me channeling a past life either, which felt like it was the acceptable explanation for this back in 2016. Otherwise, creating a kintype wasn’t “allowed.”
For a while, I felt like I separated my identity into a dragon otherkin aspect, where I was just “a dragon”, and had character me on the side as a fun thing - what I considered my “kinsona”. But I think this is a false dichotomy. The two aren’t really separable; who I am as a dragon was created through books and play. It wasn’t really until @aestherians’s posts in early 2021 - five years after I found the otherkin community - that I felt that the community had finally decided that the definitional line between kintype and linktype, voluntary and involuntary, didn’t have to be such a strict line after all. (I’d been arguing that “involuntary identity” shouldn’t be a part of the definition of otherkin for four years by that point, so yes, I’m still both smug and salty.)
So, though I didn’t expect this to lead to me coining a new term when I started out writing out this post, I’ve decided to do it. I’m not sure if anyone except me is going to use it, but I think creating it as a concept gives it both a bit of legitimacy and permanence. I hope it will be of use to someone else, and if anyone else shares a similar experience, I welcome them to talk about it in more detail - at some point now, I think I definitely should describe mine.
Imagithrope- An alterhuman whose identity was created and/or formed, wholly or partially, through some form of imaginative play. This can include fantasy play, roleplay (tabletop, text, live action, etc), fanfiction, writing, art, and more.
“the sea doesn’t care about you!!” ok well just because the ocean is unspeakably powerful and can’t stop the rhythm she’s held for uncountable eons just for one person doesn’t mean she can’t love you. loving and changing are two different things. we wouldn’t have life without the ocean…. and yeah, if you don’t respect her and treat her cavalierly, you’ll perish. but how can anyone say the sea doesn’t mourn when she holds so much life and beautiful secrets in her belly? why are we putting atheism on the ocean that loves us?
you want the ocean to change for YOU? you think that being tamed is the only way for her to prove her love??? go sit on a rock by the seaside and listen to the tide. find some gratitude for one of the only things in existence that always keeps its promise to come back
