People tend to think that something being "metaphorical" (like furry/kin identity, or mysticism stuff, or lots of other things) makes it less real.

That's kind of deeply missing the point. Our brains are *entirely* metaphorical. Our perception of the world passes through billions of years of evolutionary processing and filtering, and is only tenuously connected to a deeper fundamental truth. Approximations are all we have.

@starkatt It's fine with me if someone wants to self-describe their mysticism/furry ID, etc, as 'metaphorical', but the word is still used often enough to delegitimize such things that I'm really uncomfortable with it getting presented as the default or base-case for them.

@indi I can see where you're coming from. I want to push back against that delegitimization, because so many people come from a framework where "literal" == "objectively, externally, and empirically verifiable"

@indi I remember getting into an arugument with a friend once because he was conflating "god literally exists" with "god materially exists", and that definition of "exists" is so boring and limited.

@starkatt I agree with you there, but in that case, maybe a good focus here is broadening the definition of 'literal' rather than reclaiming its antonym?

Maybe it's just me but:

When I hear "You're not literally a coyote" I tend to want to say "Okay let's talk about what you mean by literal"

When I hear "So you're metaphorically a coyote" I tend to want to say "Why the fuck did you need to put that extra word there."

@indi If someone asked me that last thing, I'd respond with "yes, metaphorically, but that doesn't make it any less real." Maybe that's me implicitly respectability politicking...

Feeling that invalidation is definitely understandable.

I feel like no matter what, we're gonna get dismissed as irrational and misguided by a lot of people. The dichotomy between "literal" and "metaphorical" is a crock of shit, and I fully think it should be broken down from both directions.

@indi IDK. At the end of the day, I don't really actually know *how* I am a fox, just that I definitely *am* one. The framework to me is a lot less important than the core concept, and honestly I don't feel like the core concept is something we have adequate words for as a culture.

@starkatt

RIghtly or wrongly, 'metaphorically' waters down that statement, based on how people understand the words.

I don't 'prefer' pronouns. These are my pronouns.

I don't 'identify as' a gender. This is my gender.

I'm not 'metaphorically' a metaphysical identity. It's my identity.

@starkatt And, it goes further: As I've seen folks discuss lately elsewhere, it's true in a sense that 'prefer', 'identify as', 'metaphorical' are useful constructs to use in discussion with how we relate to these descriptors. But I think using them in the core statement is giving something for no actual gain.

@indi I'd never use "metaphorically" in the core statement. I think "am" suffices, aside from any needs for "literally" or "metaphorically".

@indi But when people insist on saying "you only mean that as a metaphor!" I want to resist and say "even if it is, that doesn't make it any less real or true."

@indi You're saying I shouldn't concede that in the first place, yeah?

@starkatt Yep, was writing my previous post just as this came in. ;)

@indi Okay. The thing is, *I* don't feel like my statement "I am a fox" is literal, yet it's still something I want to reify and defend, and that's something I don't have a great toolkit for? I feel like an even expanded definition of "literal" still contains a statement of categorical equivalence, and that's not something I personally feel applies to myself.

@starkatt If 'metaphorical' is the right word for you, by all means use it to describe yourself. I'm not sure what word I would use there myself either, maybe I'm just not in the habit of talking to folks where I need to defend the initial statement against prescriptivist linguistics. If've found trying to defend this stuff to logical positivists is a fool's errand not even fit for this coyote. ;)

@starkatt Further thought on how I'd explain it: It probably goes back to (non-)falsifiability, subjective experience, etc. Which I guess means I'm talking in terms of qualia, or something like them. If someone's gonna argue that qualia don't exist (or "aren't a coherent concept"), we're probably living in worlds that are too different to effectively communicate about it.

@indi Funny enough, I seem to have had a logical positivist come at me over the post. I tried to genuinely engage, but when they got to the statement of "qualia are pointless", yeah, that's just too big a gap :P