Murenu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2022
Stuff like this is stupid because things like "furry" and even "trans" are usually counted based purely on self-identification. Anything based purely on self-identification is arguably not real or accurate. A more correct way to define furry is someone who has a psychological fixation on anthropomorphic animals to a systematic degree whether they identify as furry or are open about it or not. This is obviously much harder to track.I dont necessarily disagree with what youre saying, but jumping from being or not being a furry to dog fucker only hurts your comparison. Plus, your counter argument is about "how should we define what a furry is", and the assumption that this would change..something in the papers results.
It has been debated ever since the 90s and there is no right or wrong answer. For this, its best you read the study and check what they went for here, which you find on page 3 of the attached PDF, among other pages and paragraphs (hint, they already took into account everything you mentioned, read the fucking thing). The short of it, is that it doesnt matter since the data implies what has been posted, that while not all furries have a tendency to be zoophiles, most zoophiles have a tendency to be furries. This is because the distinction between "furry" and "zoophile" would not change if you broaden or limit the definition up like you suggest. You would arbitrarily create a correlation, which is not only bad analysis, its also not the point of the study.