# What is a good term for furry's self refrentially.



## Crate_Shadenberg (Jan 6, 2014)

I've heard a few terms throw out that I'd like to explore.  What makes you the most comfortable and why?

Furs
Furries
Anthro's

I'm probably missing many other terms, so please feel free to inform me of anything else that may be used!


----------



## funky3000 (Jan 6, 2014)

They're all the same to me, I'm not more comfortable or less comfortable with any of them. However I do think furries is the best choice if you're outside the fandom. With furs they may think someone bought furs off a trader that was traveling the river to sell the furs from his hunted animals. And some people might not know what anthros are right away, especially if they don't know their stems. Furries is the most general term and most people understand it right away the first time instead of needing to backtrack on their definitions.


----------



## ACraZ (Jan 7, 2014)

People who like walking talking animals, like cartoons.

That's an easy to understand and not be disgusted by term for anyone who has no clue what the fandom is.


----------



## Conker (Jan 7, 2014)

What ACraZ said.

I like "Anthros" as well since that's what the walking, talking, animal people actually are. Easier to say that than Anthropomorphic Animals though.


----------



## Aleu (Jan 7, 2014)

funky3000 said:


> They're all the same to me, I'm not more comfortable or less comfortable with any of them. However I do think furries is the best choice if you're outside the fandom. *With furs they may think someone bought furs off a trader that was traveling the river to sell the furs from his hunted animals.* And some people might not know what anthros are right away, especially if they don't know their stems. *Furries is the most general term and most people understand it right away the first time instead of needing to backtrack on their definitions*.


WHO even thinks that?

Also lol, people DON'T know what furries are then they'll look it up and find yiff.


----------



## Crate_Shadenberg (Jan 7, 2014)

hmm.  This is an interesting discussion, and thank you everyone for your responses so far.  I am looking for the most neutral term. One that carries the least sexual connotation, doesn't necessarily refer to the fandom, but is a term that a fur would use to refer to themselves.  Something like this "I am a Human, a man, or homo sapien sapien.  Most other people however would refer to me as a person".  Currently I am thinking anthro may be my best answer thus far.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 7, 2014)

"furfags" obviously


----------



## funky3000 (Jan 7, 2014)

Aleu said:


> WHO even thinks that?



My teachers felt the need to restate the traders every year. =.= But yea you're right, as soon as I posted that I wondered if it was still a relevant thing to even discuss. Apparently not. It could still mean pelts though. I live in an area where hunting is a common hobby, so, I guess it's only natural for me to think that.



Aleu said:


> Also lol, people DON'T know what furries are then they'll look it up and find yiff.



I meant for people who knew the terms, and that furries is the only single termed word in the list really, but ok. I always forget that I exclude nonfurs that don't know what things mean, I really need to get out of that habit.

Anyways, just use whatever term you feel more comfortable with. You're the writer, use what you feel most ok with using. I tend to notice that the only words I hear nonfurs use when they are talking about us, is furries, so if you aren't targeting the fandom, I'd use furries, so they at least have something instantly relatable.


----------



## Hooky (Jan 9, 2014)

I think anthro's work the best. But I would use the word people. I mean, that's what people are to them.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Jan 9, 2014)

Hooky said:


> I think anthro's work the best. But I would use the word people. I mean, that's what people are to them.



Yeah, pretty much this. I don't personally see any reason an anthro would refer to themselves as such, it seems kind of... formal. It's kind of like if we were to replace the word 'person' with 'human' in our own speech.

I don't reckon they'd call themselves 'furs' either - well, actually, maybe they'd use it as a general term in a context where BOTH humans and anthros interact, to differentiate in conversation. Yeah, I can see that happening.

I also wonder whether they'd have affectionate terms for themselves _within_ species, kind of like people use to describe their nationalities and such.


----------



## Conker (Jan 9, 2014)

Hooky said:


> I think anthro's work the best. But I would use the word people. I mean, that's what people are to them.


Brian Jacques seems to enjoy "Creatures" and "Beasts", and he flipflops between the two fairly often. "Somebeast" instead of "someone" and the like. Granted his Redwall novels are a bit more on the kid's side, but I can see reasons for not wanting to call them "people."


----------



## Antronach (Jan 14, 2014)

I'd call them people, since it makes them more of a person and less of a quirky character meant to appease furry fanatic. If you need to address someone by their species, make sure it's done in a tasteful manner, as if you were reffering to someone by their race.


----------



## Conker (Jan 14, 2014)

Antronach said:


> I'd call them people, since it makes them more of a person and less of a quirky character meant to appease furry fanatic. If you need to address someone by their species, make sure it's done in a tasteful manner, as if you were reffering to someone by their race.


I think that all depends on the setting and tone of your story, especially the "racism/specisism" thing.


----------



## Antronach (Jan 14, 2014)

Conker said:


> I think that all depends on the setting and tone of your story, especially the "racism/specisism" thing.



True, but I thought the OP was refering to everyday normal situations. I guess it just depends really on the setting. Still, drawing too much attention to it would seem a bit off, like you're saying that you have furries in your story.


----------



## Conker (Jan 14, 2014)

Antronach said:


> True, but I thought the OP was refering to everyday normal situations. I guess it just depends really on the setting. Still, drawing too much attention to it would seem a bit off, like you're saying that you have furries in your story.


That's true. If it's the aesthetic you're rolling with, fine, but it's not good to draw too much attention to it, unless you're going for cutsey.


----------



## Volkodav (Jan 14, 2014)

Aleu said:


> WHO even thinks that?
> 
> Also lol, people DON'T know what furries are then they'll look it up and find yiff.



Me
That's what I automatically assume when someone says "furs".


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Jan 14, 2014)

Ah, the little school children who go off of ridiculous "common sense" and believe that all furries are dildo-wagging creeps.


----------



## Crate_Shadenberg (Jan 27, 2014)

Antronach said:


> True, but I thought the OP was refering to everyday normal situations. I guess it just depends really on the setting. Still, drawing too much attention to it would seem a bit off, like you're saying that you have furries in your story.



Actually I was quite curious to hear both, and that need has been filled quite well.  For that, I would like to thank all who participated.  It's been my pleasure hearing your thoughts on this matter!


----------

