New belief among teenagers. What do you think?

RileyG said:

I agree. Some of it has been proven to be a hoax, like putting litter box in schools for students who identify as a cat. That’s not happening in reality.

Click to expand...

That's just good old fashioned scare-mongering. In the 80s when I was a kid, it was all the stories about poison in candy and razor blades in cans of Pepsi, and all the teenagers becoming involved in Satanic cults by playing D&D or watching the Smurfs. When I was in high school and the Harry Potter books started coming out, that was the new thing to freak out over. There's always something, people wearing black clothes, people listening to rock 'n roll, people reading comic books, playing video games, there's always something.

-CryptoLutheran

Marlena Telep said:

members believe they are animals

Click to expand...

During my college biology studies at a religious college, starting in 1966 if I remember correctly, we were told we humans are animals > Homo sapiens.

Marlena Telep said:

and record themselves walking on all fours

Click to expand...

We weren't told to walk on all fours. And, by the way, chimpanzees and gorillas and others walk on two and on all four. And I think they are lemurs that can walk and jump around in the trees, with their hind legs.

May be those people should identify as copy-cats.

Or, copy-dogs.

It seems there definitely are people who are turkeys.

Where I am, we have wild turkeys and they can hold up traffic. May be as they are crossing they spot their reflections in the shiny side of a car; and then is when they can stay a while to peck at themselves! So, a couple of times I have gotten out of my lady friend's car and I would gobble and flap my arms and corral them off of the road. That could get a laugh or a smile.

But being a full-time turkey . . . do not get too close to a dominant male. It seems they have spurs on their feet and they can pop them out at you faster than your eye can see. So, I would not think I can play with them.

RileyG said:

Smurfs? Really?

Click to expand...

Incredibly serious. The Smurfs were a major target of Satanic Panic profiteers, and I was banned from watching it by my parents (I usually ended up watching Saturday morning cartoons at my grandparents, and they were far less strict about it). Later on as an adult I had a conversation about my dad about it, and it boiled down to someone at church told him that Gargamel was actually another name for Satan, and since Gargamel uses black magic that the cartoon was indoctrinating children into Satanic dark magic practice. Again, not even slightly exaggerating here.

As you might guess "Gargamel" isn't a name for the devil*. And he is depicted as quite bad, so I don't know how one reads "bad guy uses bad magic to hurt cute blue small people who live in mushrooms" as "hey kids, worship Satan!" but that was the gist of it.

Gargamel's pet cat, Azrael, however is named for a supposed angel of death in the Islamic tradition (and, to a lesser extent, shows up in some Christian contexts in the middle ages). I have a theory that a game of telephone of some kind happened, and Azrael as an angel of death in medieval folklore blended into modernistic Satanic Panic circles as a name for a demon or the devil, and this is conflated with Gargamel; and somehow that is what got filtered into what my dad heard. I don't know exactly how widespread this was, but I remember reading a Texe Marrs book written in the 80s when I was a teenager in the 90s, he pretty much said that the devil is using everything to indoctrinate kids into Satanism and that there is a secret cabal of Luciferian New Agers running everything behind the scenes. Marrs was a total wackadoodle; but he like so many others convinced an entire generation of parents (at least) that everything in the world was coming to get their kids and bring them into some secret Satanic cult.

This was big business in many corners of the Evangelical and Fundamentalist world of the 70's and 80s. There were professional conmen who became incredibly famous not only in church circles, but even in secular circles as supposed "experts" on the occult. Mike Warnke is perhaps the most famous of these, he was everywhere, not just at churches and Christian conferences, but on mainstream broadcasts being interviewed by serious journalists.

This was a whole thing. And if you didn't grow up in that period of time, or if you happened to not grow up in a household where this was taken seriously, then bless you that's awesome. It was a weird time to be a kid.

-CryptoLutheran

Don't give it too much relevance. Tiktok and social media can amplify unusual beliefs or attitudes in ways that aren't helpful, or actually reflective of the real world. Furthermore, some people subconsciously or conscious are using Tiktok to get attention. Attention, positive or negative, gets monetized on these platforms.

I've seen alot of purple haired types at my local coffee shop, with more nose rings than my shower curtain, but, I've never met one of these "therians".

RileyG said:

I agree. Some of it has been proven to be a hoax, like putting litter box in schools for students who identify as a cat. That’s not happening in reality.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Beware of moral panics.

FireDragon76 said:

Don't give it too much relevance. Tiktok and social media can amplify unusual beliefs or attitudes in ways that aren't helpful, or actually reflective of the real world. Furthermore, some people subconsciously or conscious are using Tiktok to get attention. Attention, positive or negative, gets monetized on these platforms.

I've seen alot of purple haired types at my local coffee shop, with more nose rings than my shower curtain, but, I've never met one of these "therians".

Click to expand...

According to the info I read, Therians in general don't have an appearance that distinguishes them as such.

Aldebaran said:

Google AI disagrees.
While therianthropy (identifying as a non-human animal) and LGBTQ+ identities are distinct, they can and often do overlap, with many individuals identifying as both. Therianthropy is not a gender identity or sexual orientation, and therefore not inherently part of the LGBTQ+ umbrella, but individuals who identify as therians may also experience gender or sexual orientations that align with LGBTQ+ categories.

Click to expand...

I have yet to meet any therians, and I have known quite a few gay or trans people. It's very much a fringe thing.

AI isn't an oracle, and the language it uses should be considered carefully. Knowing something about how LLM's work, as predictive algorithms, and not oracles, is helpful. If two words occur together in a prompt, you are more likely to get certain language used, even if there's no direct, logical connection between the words (which is why AI is better at writing poetry, music, etc. than the kind of language we associate with precise analysis). So the results of this query could simply represent a fallacy of profundity or false depth, you're seeing connections where none really exist, an illusory correlation, multiplying two statistical probabilities together (what AI does) doesn't necessarily give you a discovered truth, it just gives you two things multiplied together that may not be causally connected.

"Many" is a relative term, one that I'd argue is being used by the AI in a potentially misleading way: "some", or even "a few", would be more careful language, but my guess is that the AI has been trained to use "generous", "inclusive" language in this context, especially as "LGBT" was used in the prompt.

Not coincidentally, ChatGPT also has this to say about your conclusions:

Possible Logical Fallacies in Weaponizing the Passage:​

1. Guilt by Association
   They might argue: “Since some LGBTQ+ people identify as therians, LGBTQ+ identities are weird or abnormal like therianthropy,” which unfairly links the whole group to a marginalized or misunderstood identity to discredit them.
2. Strawman
   They could be misrepresenting the careful distinction the passage makes, by pretending it says “all LGBTQ+ people are therianthropes,” or conflating the two to ridicule or delegitimize.
3. Hasty Generalization
   Assuming the overlap implies that the entire LGBTQ+ community shares the same traits or “freakishness” of therianthropy without evidence.
4. Equivocation
   Using the word “overlap” or “many” as if it means “most” or “all,” to exaggerate the link and then condemn.
5. Appeal to Ridicule
   Taking the idea of therianthropy and framing LGBTQ+ identities as ridiculous or absurd, using mockery instead of reason.
6. False Cause / Correlation-Causation Fallacy
   Implying that because some LGBTQ+ people identify as therians, one causes or defines the other, or that this “overlap” is meaningful in a negative way.

Click to expand...

and I interrogated ChatGPT further for clarification:

Do you agree it's likely "many" is overly broad?

ChatGPT said:​

Yes, I agree that "many" can be an overly broad or vague term in this context. It’s a relative word that depends heavily on the size and characteristics of the population being discussed.
In the case of therianthropy—an identity or experience that is relatively uncommon and less publicly visible—saying "many individuals identifying as both therian and LGBTQ+" might give the impression of a large or mainstream overlap, which may not reflect reality accurately.
A more cautious or precise term like "some," "a number of," or "a subset of" might better communicate that such overlap exists without implying it's widespread.
That said, the AI might be reflecting data or discourse from communities or sources where that overlap is noticeable, but without clear statistics, "many" risks being misleading.

Click to expand...

and

It’s quite likely that many individuals who identify as therians do so as part of complex psychological or social experiences, including feelings of loneliness, isolation, or imaginative self-exploration that may not reflect external reality. However, equating the entire LGBTQ+ community with this fringe identity is both ugly and malicious. Such generalizations are harmful and unfair. It’s deeply regrettable that AI-generated content—intended to clarify distinctions—has been weaponized to stigmatize a larger, marginalized group. We should be cautious and responsible about how AI outputs are used, especially when they affect vulnerable communities.

Click to expand...

Sounds like one of the more fad positions, like otherkin. Vanishingly small subculture, with a few particularly dedicated individuals making it appear more mainstream than it is.

Aldebaran said:

That's how they all start out. Even abortion was said to be "safe and rare", gays being only 3.5% in 2012, but 7.6% in 2024, and the LGTB lineup keeps increasing in length (for some odd reason), and transsexualism is clearly on the increase to where they can't even stand to keep it to themselves and feel the need to take over women's sports--and their locker rooms.
"Fringe" went out the door a decade ago.

Click to expand...

The increase in gay persons is explainable simply by greater social tolerance of coming out of the closet. 7 percent is actually low compared to the number of people that experience same-sex attraction.

Actual trans people who undergo medical therapy to transition are still relatively rare. 0.0385% of all minors receive HRT for gender dysphoria or gender transition. It's vanishingly small. So moral panic is unwarranted. The apparrent alarming increase in trans identification can mostly be explained as a social media phenomenon that exaggerates the frequency and relevance. the number of trans people 20 years ago was small, and it's still small.

So no, “fringe” hasn’t taken over—it’s just been made more visible. Social media can distort the perceived scale of phenomena, but visibility does not equal prevalence, and certainly not danger.

Concerns about trans people “taking over” women's sports and locker rooms are often exaggerated to incite fear. The actual number of trans athletes is tiny, and decisions about participation are usually handled by sports governing bodies under medical and performance-based guidelines. Framing this as an existential threat is disproportionate and stigmatizing.

FireDragon76 said:

Framing this as an existential threat is disproportionate and stigmatizing.

Click to expand...

Depends on what we're talking about. While the numbers of trans individuals is rare, the impact on culture cannot be denied. And it's far more than simply a matter of sexual mores, but a question of truth itself since "male" and "female" are objective statements not simply a matter of opinion. So a large part of the conversation is about embracing post modern theories of truth that focus on subjective perceptions and deny that there is such a thing as objective truth. So it's not as simple as a humanitarian question, but a question that very much undermines theistic belief at its core. So there is an existential threat to it, just not when it comes to women's sports.

Fervent said:

Depends on what we're talking about. While the numbers of trans individuals is rare, the impact on culture cannot be denied. And it's far more than simply a matter of sexual mores, but a question of truth itself since "male" and "female" are objective statements not simply a matter of opinion. So a large part of the conversation is about embracing post modern theories of truth that focus on subjective perceptions and deny that there is such a thing as objective truth. So it's not as simple as a humanitarian question, but a question that very much undermines theistic belief at its core. So there is an existential threat to it, just not when it comes to women's sports.

Click to expand...

I'm not a foundationalist epistemologically, so I have no bone in the fight upholding rigid gender ideology either way. I'm more of a critical realist. The categories of male and female do have real weight and relevance, but I also understand there's room for complexty and anmbiguity.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not a foundationalist epistemologically, so I have no bone in the fight upholding rigid gender ideology either way. I'm more of a critical realist. The categories of male and female do have real weight and relevance, but I also understand there's room for complexty and anmbiguity.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure your response presents a genuine challenge/issue with what I am saying since I'm not depending on a particular epistemic framework, merely the need to integrity in a commitment to objective categories of one stripe or another. I am not a foundationalist either, I am actually an epistemic skeptic, but allowing psychological facts to override correspondance to real and inflexible categories like biological sex creates an existential threat from adopting post modern ideas like that we are the creators of our reality. It is, in other words, idolatry of the self.

Fervent said:

I'm not sure your response presents a genuine challenge/issue with what I am saying since I'm not depending on a particular epistemic framework, merely the need to integrity in a commitment to objective categories of one stripe or another. I am not a foundationalist either, I am actually an epistemic skeptic, but allowing psychological facts to override correspondance to real and inflexible categories like biological sex creates an existential threat from adopting post modern ideas like that we are the creators of our reality. It is, in other words, idolatry of the self.

Click to expand...

It's really what we "do" with objective categories as concepts that is my issue. If we use the notion of objective categories to limit human autonomy or agency in a way that's incompatible with human flourishing of individuals, that is gravely immoral, no matter how much it comports with a metaphysical system's vision. In my understanding, the mystery, the irreducible nature and worth of personhood is fundamental to Christian ethics.

FireDragon76 said:

It's really what we "do" with objective categories as concepts that is my issue. If we use the notion of objective categories to limit human autonomy or agency in a way that's incompatible with human flourishing of individuals, that is gravely immoral, no matter how much it comports with a metaphysical system's vision. In my understanding, the mystery, the irreducible nature and worth of personhood is fundamental to Christian ethics.

Click to expand...

It depends on how we define "human flourishing"...as that is quite an ambiguous phrase.

Fervent said:

It depends on how we define "human flourishing"...as that is quite an ambiguous phrase.

Click to expand...

Love isn't an intellectual task, a puzzle to solve, divorced from its relational and incarnational nature.

I'm really pointing towards something more like Native American or Eastern Orthodox spirituality and ways of being in the world, but one that also recognizes insights from western modernity. Where our primary orientation is noetic and relational rather than focusing on the discursive intellect as our primary way of being. The mind serves the heart, not the other way around.

FireDragon76 said:

It's messy and difficult but it's only "ambiguous" if we treat love as an intellectual task, a puzzle to solve, divorced from its relational and incarnational nature.

Click to expand...

That understates the practical issues involved.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm really pointing towards something more like Native American or Eastern Orthodox spirituality and ways of being in the world, but one that also recognizes insights from western modernity. Where our primary orientation is noetic and relational rather than focusing on the discursive intellect as our primary way of being. The mind serves the heart, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

I think there's more of a holistic challenge rather than swinging in that direction entirely, though there is something to be said about the disordered priorities that have developed from overreliance on philosophical approaches.