You started with adding three opposing definitions of blindness and then did the arguably worst thing of creating a single “blindness spectrum” that you call “vision”.

What you wrote isn’t adding to my message, it’s in direct opposition in a lot of ways and shows that you didn’t stop to understand what was being said before “adding” to it.

I think we do agree with the “everything is a spectrum” part, but my whole point could maybe be best summarized as “reality is a spectrum, classifications and language are not”

So I guess we’re fighting now. Meet me at the Brooks river at the end of the month, it’s a fish slapping contest, you’ll recognize me as #901 here

That’s not just any manual, that’s clearly an O’Reilly programming book!

They’re learning how to program their elephant.

I would encourage you to re-read because I did cover exactly what you’re mentioning here and it seems like you might have stopped reading after the second paragraph.

the “healthy” variant

This is what was meant by the “mythical neurotypical”

Yes and no.

Using blindness as a simplified example, “blind” describes a person with visual accuity of less than 20/500 and/or a visual field less than 10°. The term “blind” describes a binary classification for individuals according to where they fall within those 2 different spectrums.

By definition there is no such thing as more blind or less blind, a person is either blind or not. This is true for the lesser “visually impaired” classification as well, however the flaws of this sort of classification are more apparent there as the treatments for low visual accuity and low visual field are vastly different and so acknowledging and understanding those spectrums are critical for treatment.

However, in acknowledging those spectrums it allows for the phrase “person A is more blind than person B” and it makes perfect sense because for both those spectrums lower scores are directly related to that “blind” classifier and higher scores to “sighted”. So it works perfectly well to describe the relationship between two individuals on those spectrums even if neither is definitionally blind.

This gets extra confusing when it’s unclear which spectrum axis is being compared.

Every human is blind compared to a spy satellite. ~according to visual accuity~

Every spy satellite is blind compared to the average human. ~according to visual field~

Often the way around this is to take those 2 spectrums and combine them into one score to create a “blindness spectrum”. Depending on how one reduces the 2 dimensions down to a single 1 dramatically changes how “impaired” one individual is compared to another, re-introduces the issues faced with the binary classification and additionally can result in many who meet the technical definition above having the same “blindness score” as a sighted person.

In many ways this is worse than the binary classifier because it introduced addition biases, errors and distortions between the root symptoms, in this case visual accuity and field, which prevents actually understanding and helping an individual.

These issues get significantly magnified when one is taking about a disorder like autism which is defined as an individual with “differences or difficulties in social communication and interaction, a need or strong preference for predictability and routine, sensory processing differences, focused interests, and repetitive behaviors.” With each item consisting of multiple different measurements and criteria each defining their own spectrum. It’s no longer just describing an axis direction within a 2d space with fairly precise, impartial measurements, but a very specific cluster of individuals within a 6+ dimensional space using highly subjective measurements.

This imprecise and high dimensional space is the actual “autistic spectrum” and yes everyone is somewhere on this spectrum. “Autistic” is just the name of what appears to be a very specific cluster of individuals, however when dealing with high dimensional spaces what counts as a cluster starts to get real weird and illusions start popping up everywhere, like the mythical neurotypical.

Wait until you hear the true story of the Irish Potato Famine and realize that not only did nobody learn from it, but most of the anglosphere seems to be towards a direct repeat of it at an even wider scale.

go fuck yourself, ___ style

I’ll give you props for proudly wearing your intolerance on your sleeve like that.

I’m using something we can, hopefully, both agree you’re not and is problematic to demonstrate the fallicious logic. What would be a better way to communicate that?

You’re miscategorizing it and anthropomorphs aren’t real.

It’s more closely related to objectophilia or fictosexuality which are also seen in nature.

It’s to bestiality as homosexuality is to pedophilia. As in it’s not related at all.

That’s called masking, in the context of transfolk also known as boy/girl moding.

Nobody “takes their identity off”, almost everybody masks to some degree. It’s never “convenient” but it is sometimes less harmful than the alternative.

As the TERFs say:

I can totally see why women would NOT want to complicate their already assailed lives by defending the gender non-conforming. life’s hard enough explaining the intricacies of womanhood without tossing in crossdressing hypotheticals.

Not calling you a TERF, but you do see the logical fallacy you’re sprinting straight into, right?

How does acknowledging someone else pain minimalist that of another’s?

Predilections for certain features, what makes you so certain anthropomorphism isn’t one of those predilections?

a case of gender expression, not gender identity.

When those don’t align that’s usually referred to as dysphoria/dysmorphia. That’s what the fursuits are for, just like HRT, tattoos, piercings, clothing, etc.

I just want it to be recognized for what it is.

What it is, or what you perceive it to be? I don’t disagree that fetish is a part of it, but that’s true of any gender/sexuality etc. It’s like flattening down all homosexuality to leather daddies.

Then what are heterosexuality and homosexuality defined by?

Pornographic material: Pornhub has entirely separate sites for “straight” and “gay”. Would adding a “furry” site really feel all that strange or out of place?

sex toys, roleplay scenarios: I don’t think that’s as strongly correlated as you’re suggesting. Pony/pet play is big in the BDSM community and bad dragon toys were far from exclusively for furries. Unless you have something else in mind I’m unaware of?

Shared hobby: What exactly is the hobby all furries share?

sex and gender are central to a person’s identity while being a furry is not.

Sex and gender are clearly central to your identity, just as much as ‘furry’ is central, sometimes exclusively, to other people’s identity.

it’s conflating being a furry with sexual and gender identity.

Who are you to define what is or isn’t a legitimate sexual or gender identity? Identity is a personal and subjective thing. For many ‘furry’ is a gender and/or sexual identity and to say that it isn’t is no different than arguing with a trans person about theirs.

The issue isn’t that you are explicitly making some call to action, it’s that you are othering and implicitly calling for the persecution of other people based entirely on your personal aesthetics.

Why are heterosexuality and homosexuality not ‘just part of the fetish community’?

I’m not conflating furry sexuality with bestiality

You literally said in a comment further down:

I don’t find porn in general disgusting. I find furry porn disgusting because it borders on bestiality.

It’s perfectly valid for you to have the feelings of “It’s gross, it’s weird, and a perversion of my childhood themes. I don’t like it, and I don’t want to see it” because honestly; Same.

The problem comes when you start arguing that they need to be shoved into a closet in order to protect the children and the “real” LGBTQ individuals.

It becomes especially problematic when you start equivocating it to things that are actually harmful like beastiality and is no different than the “all gays are pedophiles” trope.

I may be wrong in my judgements

The issue is that you’re conflating “furry sexuality” with beastiality when they come from very different places with very different outcomes and moral implications.

The short story is that humans at ~10yrs old start learning and coding for what features they find sexually attractive which happens to co-incide with the target audience for many anthropomorphic films/cartoons/etc. and so some small percentage start developing an aesthetic and/or sexual preference for animorphism which then creates a subculture that feeds back onto itself.

It’s not “beastiality” it’s “mickey mouse-iality”. It’s not a sexual attraction to animals, it does not result in harm to animals, it does not result in rape or consent violations from those unable to give consent. It’s as close to beastiality as anime girls are.