@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.

@indi Heh, once again we posted parallel things at the same time.

@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 Do you have any reading suggestions that might help me better understand what it means to me to have a particular species identity, beyond it just being a costume?

@starkatt Not offhand, but I could boost this to see if anyone else does? :)

Lemme post a new OP and then you can boost that? Might be confusing in the context of the whole thread.

@indi @starkatt this is all a really good conversation, and I'd like to note that if I ever used these words, it is probably because I have a lack of understanding of this.
I'm also coming to realize that I often use such qualifiers out of the lack of self-assuredness in myself.

@starkatt @indi "metaphor" was how I broke my pragmatism enough to see the truth in myself, and I often still have that language in my vocabulary even though I know, or should know, better now

@indi @starkatt (( err pragmatism wasn't The term I was looking for. Incessant, logical part of my brain clinging to how I used to see things ))

@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

@starkatt Wow, yep. I saw a bit from that convo yesterday and that's part of what I had in mind when I wrote that because I sorta expected it to go that way. :P

@starkatt Wait. Waitwaitwait. I just read through that again. Did they REALLY just say "Yeah I read all that but I want to hear YOUR understanding" .... and then immediately after that, say qualia are pointless? XD

@indi Yes, that is exactly what happened.

@indi @starkatt This is why I side-eye logical positivism; every field of knowledge, by its stated axioms, limits the set of the universe over which it can speak intelligently. Logical positivism, or at least every logical positivist I've met, tends to think it can cover everything, mostly by refusing to acknowledge anything as real which falls outside its domain.

@starkatt I think having that conversation when one is saddled with the 'metaphorical' label is important.

I think some folks really do feel it as metaphor and find it valuable, and I want to make sure they're covered and supported too.

What I don't want is folks feeling like 'metaphorical' is _definitional_ for these sorts of identities.

@indi Also, may I boost this?

@starkatt Sure :)

@starkatt Yeah, I've had that same argument (Though in my case it's "Well, I don't, but even if I did, that wouldn't matter")

I'm just not sure going to bat FOR metaphor is actually winning anything. It feels like conceding ground.

@starkatt Oddly enough I was in the midst of writing something about the respectability question right when your reply came in.

I don't think that softening or broadening a metaphysical stance in the interest of getting respectability has ever worked. Did you think that when the therian community decided to talk about it entirely in psychological terms, everyone said "Oh gosh okay THAT'S reasonable, we fully accept you now." All it did was alienate the spiritual folks.

@indi Yeah, realizing while writing that that what I was really reaching for was respectability brought around my thinking a fair bit.