Something else I feel that I need to mention in order to contextualize my journal better is that, I did not intend for the list to contain every exhaustive permutation of subcategories for anything I mentioned. Point 4 by itself (common furry style) contains all sorts of variations on anatomy etc--the thing is, with each definition, what it means is that when someone says "furry" they don't MEAN to drill down to an exact picture in their head (This is not the Furry Code after all).
But, nonetheless they usually mean something when they use the word, especially when they use it to exclude other things. Let me give a few examples. (These are all paraphrases of things I've read on the internet at one point or another)
"I'm not a furry, I only draw anthro art."
"LOL that's not furry, it has scales "
"Ugh, CAT Bowser? Now the furries will want him" (To which the response was, "Uh, furries are already hot for Bowser")
"Does an anthro fighter jet count as furry?" (Yes, but narrowly/broadly depending on if it fell to definition 4a (treat as superficially an animal) or to definition 8)
"I don't understand why centaurs don't count as furry." (Nostalgia Critic said this in one of his commentaries--technically it falls under broad definition 7, but furry is more well-understood by definition 4 . . . so this confusion doesn't help matters at all)
"Why do you furries have to ruin everything!? He's NOT a furry because he's an actioncharacter, he's not sexualized at all, and YOU have to go and add sex to it" (Speaking of main character from Dust. JUST the character being categorized as furry, no porn of him was in context.)
"Drawing dirty pictures of Simba (or Rainbow Dash) can't count as furry because they don't have a weird human body"
And likewise there are some definitions which are more example than anything--like how there are plenty of artists in the fandom who like doing human-faced furries that we don't want to exclude but at the same time aren't exactly what we're talking about when we refer to the broad definition, especially since it confuses outsiders "Well, if that IS furry then why don't you do more of that?" etc.
Sometimes these definitions do have opposites, such as "furry OR feral", but problematically while this works as a differentiation for definition 4, it is simultaneously folded into definition 5
Which is why that ambiguity is usually stepped around MORE--"anthro"/"bipedal" or "feral"/"quad". Also note that these differentiating words are only categorized as such in relation to definition 4--if you use them on their own, "anthro" is a shortening of anthropomorphic and can technically go all the way to definition 8, while the others are common words in their own right.
If someone wants to call what they like "furry" that's fine. If they don't, that's fine. If two people have different ideas of what's furry, that's fine. I like intelligent non-humans, and a lot of people who do things they call furry (and a lot of people who do things they don't call furry but other people call furry) treat them as intelligent non-humans, and that's great. Other stuff that people call furry, they could change all the species around and it wouldn't change the story any, and that stuff bores me, but other people are into it, and that's fine too.
Science fiction has the same naming issues. People deal with it. A lot of what people call science fiction doesn't seem like science fiction to me. There's a lot of great science fiction about intelligent non-humans. And a lot of science fiction about aliens might as well be about humans, there's nothing alien about them. I don't care for that, but other people do, and it works for them.
Because names and categories are made up by people, and people are complex and messy and stubborn, so names and categries are complex and messy and stubbornly defended.
I say, if you like it, if it's what works for you, you're ahead of the game.
Well that's why I (sorta) avoid trying to make it a value judgement for the most part--even with science fiction you have people who don't think it's REAL sci-fi unless it's HARD sci-fi. I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong, I'm just wondering if there's an easier way to make sure we're on the same page if that's what we're talking about.
Kinda-sorta; problematically the consensus was in the early 90s to name the fandom "furry" so that tends to be the term used most often. "Anthro" is more accurate especially when talking in a broader sense, but it's not usually the term used for the fandom, even though it OUGHT to be if it intends to be inclusive.
I agree that this statement is well backed and a good thing for furry and no furries to read. I usually tend not to over think these things, I put it down to does the person draw anthropomorphic characters if so dose that person have a fursona if so what species of animal if an artist doesn't have a fursona but draws furry I don't really consider him or her a furry unless they state other wise.
Furthermore those furries who draw pornographic images of anthropomorphic characters don't really bother me at all what does is non furs ameditally assuming just be cause a hand full of furries draw it and to use a lack of a better word yiff to it that all furries do but like you have said no not a'll furries do. I know some of this because I am a furry I have 4 fursonas each a different part of my personality but my main being a horse I drew him up and instantly got hit with that furries are ugly and pathetic people and they assumed that I yiff to furry porn so Rick I know where your coming from with this information and I am glad that there is some one trying to set the record straight thank you.
"I'm not a furry, I only draw anthro art". This statement is probably one of the most important statements in regards to what is anthro and what is furry.
Anthro-art as an artistic expression already has a name and that is "Anthropomorphism" while not an artistic movement exactly, that is what art with animal/object-human hybrids is referred to in artistic terms. Its also pretentious to call anyone who likes anthropomorphic animals furries since anthro art involving animals has been around since recorded history (more or less) and the furry fandoms only been as long as living memory
so in short yes, that fighter jet/centaur can be in the furry fandom. it does not make it furry as furry is a fandom not an art style/movement.
I understand, a scientist wouldn't go about saying "we've found another furry race sir!" I meant as general catagorization. In my universe there can be stories and/or events that have only a mention of a "furry" race, yet other stories or parts of the story could be fully focused on furry things (that may or may not resemble animals we know on Earth) without anything as much as a Human-like thing coming even near. Would my universe still have a "Furry elements" catagory (just wanting to be 100% sure, I've already had people say that my universe had nothing to do with furry in any cases).
Avoiding the word "furry" in actual media material I think is wise, not necessarily because of fandom associations but for the reason a Star Trek book wouldn't have the word "Trekkie" in it--the fandom is a particular community's commentary on the material and is therefore unnecessary if you're DOING something and not expecting total fan exclusivity.
The word furry is jargon even we struggle with. Using it in media that isn't niche can confuse people. I have seen one solution I kind of like. Some people make "furry" into an in-universe term. There are anthro characters, and the human refer to them colloquially as "furries". As slang in the story, readers get a clear demonstration of what the word means to the writer. It also makes for great world building.
Its rather crazy how, when "furry" gets mentioned, people instantly start thinking about all the perverted materials avaible. There is more of it concerning guns and fast vehicals than animals (both anthro orotherwise).
Thought Id throw that in there, but alot of this made sense at the most. To me I thought furries who liked to draw or enjoy art that appears furry biased. I usually am busy all the time but I usually stop to read webcomics like furthiahigh and 2kinds mostly because I like the design and the story.
I've even started learning to draw myself, but I dont think i would go as far as dressing up in a fur suite or something. No offense to furry fans but something about that kind of creeps me out.
I used to be in the Rowrbrazzle fanzine back in the day (from issue 24 to 50) and we'd have lengthy discussions about what constituted "anthro" because there were a few cases where people would put in some inanimate-object-as-a-character thing, which I don't really still believe belongs in a 'mostly furry' anthro zine, but technically speaking, it is still an 'anthro'. Someone around DA has some interesting "roller coaster anthro" stories, kind of odd but still well done.
I've been in and out of furry fandom for many years, since the early 80s. As usual the 'extreme cases' are the ones who usually get the air time and press - usually bad - and tend to define the term for people who otherwise wouldn't have known it. That's never good, because it hardly ever defines it correctly to the bulk of the other people in the broader fandom.
The sex part of the fandom has always been there, but certainly is a minor role compared to the massive amount of non-sexualized 'furry' / anthro stuff out there.
I always liked to throw people a little for a loop by adding the simple "Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck were furries, but then so were some ancient depictions of gods".