11/05/2025
Continuing a line of thought in my last post:
I can’t tell the difference between when people ask genuine questions or sarcastic/”thought provoking” ones, so I treat every question as if it’s genuine unless it is painfully obvious. I think it’s important to preface this post with that. I also think that it’s important to acknowledge my own shortcomings and biases; I was reprimanded a lot growing up specifically for, by my parents’ terms, victimizing myself. In my parents’ eyes, I would get hurt or suffer mental illnesses on purpose in order to get back at them somehow, or to criticize them. This led to a mentality I try to balance between my bouts of apathy; an understanding but refusal to engage with specific issues. In other words, I’m naturally critical of people but I’m willing to understand on a deeper degree.
For example, a friend of mine who is queer once compared being called a past username of theirs instead of their present one to deadnaming, which is the act of people (usually) hatefully calling a transgender person by their birth name as a way to antagonize them. Of course, I was highly critical of this comparison, being that I have an actual deadname, but in the end I do understand why someone less knowledgeable or ignorant would make the comparison in order to get people to stop.
Now, the main idea behind this post is the comparison between being a furry and being queer; however, I want to criticize the idea that using AI is anything similar to being a minority.
Furries and queer people often heavily overlap; the ratio of gay cisgender men in the furry community (while it has evened out over the years) has always been the largest demographic within the group. Even more strangely, furries as well as queer people as of recently have been facing scrutinization by the government. In 2024 and 2025, Oklahoma and Texas legislators attempted to ban “animal-like behavior” and “furryism” in schools, much like the now passed legislation “Don’t say Gay” in elementary schools in Florida. In an interesting turn of events, what is argued as a hobby has turned into a political debate attempting the restriction of rights. While there were plausible differences between the two, the government attempting to reduce the rights of a hobbyist community draws more comparisons than anything.
As for the usage of AI and how individuals may think the scrutinization they may face when revealing they advocate for it is comparable to that of a queer person’s experience fearing for their rights to their own body, I tend to lose respect for individuals who claim that facing minor criticisms for utilizing a tool known for theft and plagiarism is the same as the possibility of losing a marriage license to a lifelong partner or having the government make statements about how their original body must be preserved and that their mind is too weak to have rights. I think that anyone who finds the two comparable should look deep within themselves as trying to compare the usage of an understandably morally grey mechanism, and someone who is trying to live as themselves and being constantly threatened by a governmental body, is not on the right side.
For example, a friend of mine who is queer once compared being called a past username of theirs instead of their present one to deadnaming, which is the act of people (usually) hatefully calling a transgender person by their birth name as a way to antagonize them. Of course, I was highly critical of this comparison, being that I have an actual deadname, but in the end I do understand why someone less knowledgeable or ignorant would make the comparison in order to get people to stop.
Now, the main idea behind this post is the comparison between being a furry and being queer; however, I want to criticize the idea that using AI is anything similar to being a minority.
Furries and queer people often heavily overlap; the ratio of gay cisgender men in the furry community (while it has evened out over the years) has always been the largest demographic within the group. Even more strangely, furries as well as queer people as of recently have been facing scrutinization by the government. In 2024 and 2025, Oklahoma and Texas legislators attempted to ban “animal-like behavior” and “furryism” in schools, much like the now passed legislation “Don’t say Gay” in elementary schools in Florida. In an interesting turn of events, what is argued as a hobby has turned into a political debate attempting the restriction of rights. While there were plausible differences between the two, the government attempting to reduce the rights of a hobbyist community draws more comparisons than anything.
As for the usage of AI and how individuals may think the scrutinization they may face when revealing they advocate for it is comparable to that of a queer person’s experience fearing for their rights to their own body, I tend to lose respect for individuals who claim that facing minor criticisms for utilizing a tool known for theft and plagiarism is the same as the possibility of losing a marriage license to a lifelong partner or having the government make statements about how their original body must be preserved and that their mind is too weak to have rights. I think that anyone who finds the two comparable should look deep within themselves as trying to compare the usage of an understandably morally grey mechanism, and someone who is trying to live as themselves and being constantly threatened by a governmental body, is not on the right side.
