Involuntariness, Voluntariness, and the Stigmas in Between

Sivaan of Candlekeep

January 26th, 2025

This entry will have a looser structure than usual since it’s coming from a place of frustration. I’m not venting, though. These are criticisms on what I’ve noticed lately.

In terms of how my identities developed, I prefer the term quoiluntary. I have this preference for two reasons: 1. I experience all manners of origin, so the context varies from species to species and 2. I don’t give a fuck either way. I only emphasize on origin when I’m coming from a place of pride. Otherwise, I don’t care to differentiate myself from those whose experiences aren’t like mine.

Make no mistake, I can understand why someone would feel like they should emphasize on their involuntariness. I used to be the same way. Even now, I recognize the significance of the identities I have that I didn’t choose. I am innately this character, this beast, this concept, you name it. It’s laid dormant inside me for so long, and now I’m finally free. I absolutely see why that is something to be proud of.

At the same time, that’s not the only reason why folks talk about involuntariness in comparison to other experiences. Sadly, whether folks are conscious of it or not, it feels like involuntariness and voluntariness are still played against each other in this community.

No amount of validity posts has changed the fact that folks still engage with their peers, or at least what they hear about said peers, as if they’re KFF-adjacent or “wrong” about how they feel. It’s like folks don’t bother in understanding other experiences unless it’s within their threshold of comfort, let alone respect them as equals.

What’s the point in acting as if involuntariness is the only experience that’s inherently profound?

What’s the point in saying “Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with voluntary identity!” and proceeding to go “Well, actually…!” when met with anything that isn’t otherlinking?

Speaking as someone who does link identities, I hate the assumption that chosen/voluntary identity is inherently “less serious” and not as important as other experiences. Nine times outta ten, folks are going off of what they see from young members. Still, they are children. If you expect them to not be the least bit light-hearted, then I’m not sure what else you expected. Some of them may be misinformed. Some of them may be simply expressing themselves. Either way, using one demographic to mold your perception of an entire group doesn’t show much solidarity towards us at all. You can’t blame kids for everything. I said so on my blog: there’s such a thing as being narrow-minded about experiences that you don’t personally have (for those who apply).

What folks may not know is that there’s a lot of empowerment in actively choosing to be something, let alone something outside of the “norm” of a vastly anthropocentric world. It may seem like frivolously picking up something and not caring for it in the grand scheme of things, but that’s also a very limited understanding of other people’s experiences within our community. I too advocate for more personal introspection, but truthfully, it’s nobody’s business whether or not our peers engage with their own identity like a Greek philosopher, seated upon the steps of the Agora in deep thought. Some people are what they are, choice or no choice.

Furthermore, I hate how the act of otherlinking is treated as the “valid” way to choose an identity. It’s not said out loud, but the takes surrounding chosen identity certainly make it feel that way.

I understand that there’s plenty of new members who don’t know most communal lingo. Some of them aren’t going to know that there’s terminology relating to voluntary identities and may hook onto what they do know. It’s one thing to educate them on these terms. That’s great! Introduce them to sides of our community that they aren’t familiar with! You never know when it may help someone in their journey along the way.

It’s something else entirely to a.) assume someone is misinformed and doesn’t know their own identity, b.) assume someone is spreading misinformation for simply labeling their identity as chosen, and/or c.) make unnecessary comments about how they’re not “really” or “technically” the label they identify as but you accept it anyway. Unless someone plainly states they’re an otherlinker, folks respond with skepticism and doubt. It doesn’t even need to be a named person or their account. Just the idea of it ruffles feathers.

I’m going to make something very clear: I don’t speak for all otherlinkers as I air out my thoughts. This is solely my standing on the issue.

With that out of the way, I must say I’m very disappointed that some folks still hold these sorts of mindsets towards chosen identities. I am not any more “serious” or “valid” of a nonhuman for linking than an individual who chose to be someone or something without having to build upon it. Someone doesn’t overcomplicate or muddy down the meaning of anything by simply choosing their identity. The implication of such is disrespectful in my opinion.

Who is to say that their choice(s) didn’t have any significance of their own?

Someone could come across a character or species that reminds them of themself so much, they simply decide that they are that character or species. They don’t need to build upon anything. What if they just know and make that choice based on knowing?

Someone could love something so much to the point of wanting to be the very thing they admire. Some folks may not need to build upon that identity if they already love it so much that this love shaped who they are.

What folks forget is that otherlinking isn’t just a label. It is an act. You actively link something. You build upon that relationship to the point of identification. I’ve had this happen for a former link, which is now my Dwemer constel. I still take pride in the factor of choice because I don’t often choose what I get to be. The act of doing so is quite freeing. It’s a similar kind of freedom I feel when I unearth an intrinsic identity. They are processed differently, yes, but both are equally a part of me. No involuntary or quoiluntary constel outweighs a voluntary constel in terms of significance.

Moreover, the act of otherlinking takes consistency. I can’t leave it at just saying “I chose to be (x)” like how most folks assume. When an identity is still in the process of becoming my own, it stays in the link phase. Personally, things I experience with vague or involuntary identities are usually a sign of my link making progress. For example, managing to phantom shift into one of my links is a sign of huge progress for me. This morning, this happened with my Verza link. I’m still a Verza right now, and it makes me excited that I’ve gotten closer to being this species. Some past links, like my Splatoon-based link and my Wickerbeast link, eroded away. This happens all the time with links. Some stay and become a part of me. Some are shed and that’s that.

When someone calls themself a chosen therian or chosen nonhuman, they likely didn’t need to do what I do. They chose something. They became that thing. That’s it. That is not the same as the conscious act of otherlinking.

I’m all for educating new members, especially young ones, on our community’s terms, but I’m also thoroughly annoyed with how these would-be “educators” conflate experiences. I wish people would look beyond their noses and understand that just because both experiences involve voluntariness, that doesn’t mean they are interchangeable. It looks less like trying to help someone find a label that may suit them, and more like trying to nudge them into that spot out of your own comfort.

They don’t fit the standard of this label that’s had a word-of-mouth definition for so long, so it’s perfectly fine to cast doubt if they’re “really” that identity or not. Right? (This is sarcasm).

The defensiveness is justified when it’s actually applicable. Therian is one such example. The therian label is heavily guarded due to actual misinformation spreading around it, plus its overall spread throughout social media. It’s understandable why folks want to preserve the label, its meaning and its history so badly. It’s needed when folks claim that therianthropy isn’t identifying as an animal. To call oneself a therian when you aren’t an animal defeats the whole point of using the label. Defensiveness is justified in this context.

However, it’s not needed in context to involuntariness and voluntariness. In my opinion, it’s similar to how the “earthen” part of the definition was never needed. It was wedged in there for fuck all reason.

When it comes down to it, a therian is an individual who identifies as a nonhuman animal. If anyone can explain to me in great detail what makes someone who chose to be a fox different from someone who’s involuntarily a fox, that’d be wonderful. Bonus points if you do so without dumbing down the experiences of the former. Besides their personal backgrounds, I guarantee you that little difference will be found between the two.

They’re both therians. Neither is any more or any less of an animal than the other.

Folks of involuntary experiences also post in silly, lighthearted ways just as some of their voluntary peers do. Those of voluntary experiences also discuss their introspections and what it’s like to choose ourselves. If you’ve made it this far, congratulations. You’re reading from someone who’s been doing that for almost a year now.

What I don’t understand is this is: when you become a part of a community, you’re always going to find folks whose perspectives are different than yours. Folks pour a lot of attention into finding like-minded individuals. That in of itself is to be expected and isn’t an issue. The issue arises when, in the midst of said search or in communal discussions, experiences that deviate from communal “norms” are put into question for no sensible reason. Folks suddenly forget that yes, these experiences are possible and yes, there are members amongst us who identify that way. Worst of all, folks still entertain the question of “valid or not valid?” as if their input on someone else’s identity isn’t invasive.

Pray tell, what do these discussions achieve?

What do we as a community benefit from these speculations if folks continue to downplay these experiences?

From where I stand, it looks like folks still want their peers to perform their identities for them. Is the issue that pressing that you need assurance of their experiences being 100% real, 100% serious, and 100% “valid” enough for you to consider them a part of this community? Is this what we’re hung up on?

On one hand, I get that otherlinker and its associated labels (funlinker, copinglinker, etc.) came about as an answer to those who claimed they chose their kintypes or theriotypes when these discourses were still hot.

On the other hand, it is 2025. The stigmas behind chosen identity have got to go. I’m not saying the concern around trolls and other anti-kin/therian groups isn’t understandable, but that same concern has also led to no nuance being added to these conversations.

Nobody is actually asking for the opinions and perspectives of those who choose their identities.

Nobody is actually looking into how we experience things.

All we get is more and more strangers speaking on us like we aren’t a part of communal discussions and can’t see what they have to say about us.

My answer so far is just being more vocal about my quoiluntariness. I’m not only discussing the identities that are involuntary, but the ones that are chosen and the ones that I honestly couldn’t care less where they came from. “Be the change you want to see,” and all that, y’know?

These frameworks are a spectrum. There’s always going to be folks who lean exclusively on one side or the other, but there’s also those of us who slide all across the spectrum. There’s also those of us who don’t care either way, and that’s arguably even better. The importance of these frameworks isn’t universal. Even when folks recognize why that may be the case for their peers, their positions show otherwise.

I’m so tired of the belief that involuntariness as an experience is so much more unique and significant, therefore someone couldn’t possibly experience that kind of significance with a chosen identity. It sounds pretentious and inconsiderate even when folks aren’t trying to be that way. All things considered, this community is in desperate need of more nuanced perspectives.

That’s all I have to say for now. Thanks for reading as always.