Exploring Species Transness Through Philosophy

    The Liondrake(s)

    May 2, 2025

    This morning, I decided to chat a bit about being transspecies and why my experience is mostly approached from an ontological angle. Although I’m interested in options that’ll physically align with my identity, I’m not looking to immediately hit these goals. I’ll consider those pursuits when I have the time and money for them, but I’m not in an environment where I can. Furthermore, that’s not why I label myself as transspecies. When I first considered it, I started out by reading “Transspecies: Two Flags & An FAQ" at the Sundragon’s Roost.

    Initially, I was skeptical over whether or not I’d fit the label. It was the first option I considered outside of the alterhuman community. Although plenty of alterhumans use the label (such as myself), I also knew the term took root decades prior to and outside of alterhumanity as we know it today. I wanted to get a basic understanding of the label and its community first. While reading, this particular passage caught my interest:

    “People who choose this label also often have political reasons for doing so– making a statement of refusal of the social construct of humanity, and deliberately drawing comparisons with the transgender experience in order to make people think about how we construct these categories.”

    This follows after information regarding physical and/or social transition within the transspecies community. This perspective wouldn’t be the only one I’d find. It came up again in other transspecies readings such as Aster’s “Why I Call Myself Transspecies”:

    “What I'm trying to get across is that the status of "human" is socially constructed. It's been granted and taken away based on things like race, ethnicity, disability, orientation, gender, and far more throughout history into the modern day. "Human" and what that means has been looked at in myriad ways by different peoples since homo sapiens could first question our own being. "Human" is not the same as Homo sapiens. And I feel neither.”

    “Part of "transspecies" for me is criticizing the mixed messages I'm sent by society as a queer, Mad, crippled, plural, nonbinary alterhuman that I must be human -- but I'm not human and don't deserve to be treated like one. It's saying "fine, I'm not human, and I refuse to be." With the "dehumanization" I've faced, I'm choosing to embrace it. To say "no" to every effort to make me conform to the idea of "human" that is constantly shoved down our throats. To some degree, it's Voidpunk. But that's a very recent stance I've taken on it, and it's far deeper and older than that for me, too.”

    “So, "transspecies" comes from two places for me: both a place of "human" as a social/political construct that I reject entirely, as well as an innate and literal part of myself. One rooted in lifelong dysphoria and a deep desire to change my body to resemble inhuman beings that's tied firm to my sense of gender and body.”

    For the rest of the essay, Aster goes into detail about faer experiences with dysphoria (species- and gender-wise), how faer gender identity and species identity intertwine, the steps fae wants to take or already has taken to transition, and faer personal thoughts on the pursuit and struggle of attaining body modifications. This includes seeing a therapist who supports faer identity, gaining tattoos to ease paw dysphoria, and estimating the financial requirements for faer transition ($4,800 upwards for ear-pointing surgery, digileg prosthetics, and other attributes). Although I’m not sure how old this essay is, I still resonate with it to this day.

    Similar to Aster, my relationships with species and gender overlap. Each journey began with the realization that I didn’t need to confine myself to the standards of my surroundings. The society in which I live in is culturally Christian, increasingly cisheteronormative, and anthropocentric to its core. Time and time again, it’s been shown that this society doesn’t want any space for individuals like me and my communities. However, not once has that stopped us from embracing our personal autonomy. Of course, I have my own reasons for using transspecies as a label:

    1. My journey with my species identity parallels my gender identity.

      2. Neither were known from the beginning, as much as I try to find signs in my childhood. Regardless, both resulted in my detachment from my society’s ontological “norms”.

    2. Much like gender, I believe not only humanity but species as a whole is a construct.

      3. I hold the right to express and interpret my species how I see fit. If I say I am a shapeshifter, then I am a shapeshifter. That should be acknowledged.

    3. I resonate with the following definition: “crossing the cultural boundaries of species”. In my case, I am crossing the cultural boundaries of both species and reality.

      4. I am transfictional. I am a fictional character and a member of several fictional species while existing in this world. Typically, your average person won’t believe my existence. After all, fiction is known for containing imaginary events, people, and worlds within its medium. Therefore, fiction isn’t regarded as a part of our reality.

      What we define as “reality” can be split into two categories: shared reality and personal reality. The former is something we all exist within and engage in, but what we share doesn’t determine the finer details of one’s personal reality. At the same time, no one is obligated to adopt another’s personal reality but they’re still obligated to respect and coexist with it as long as it isn’t harmful. Let’s use spiritual belief as an outside example. I am an agnostic animist. I don’t follow a religion, but I do believe that all things contain a spirit of sorts— that includes plants, theriform animals, elements of nature, and inanimate objects. I don’t expect others to adopt my beliefs in order to respect me. Conversely, do I believe this world was made by a single, all-powerful God? I used to. It’s not my cup of tea anymore. Do I believe in pantheons? I think they make more sense than a single god controlling everything, but nope, still not my cup of tea. My reasoning? I believe we have no set way of proving nor disproving the creation of this world through divinity.

      That said, I do believe this world has a supernatural quality to it. In other words, I believe in spirits. Although our beliefs don’t align, I’m not clashing with a devout follower or an atheist. That’s a part of their personal reality. It’s not a part of mine, but I respect it at a distance. No one’s required to add the existence of fictional worlds to their list of beliefs around me. But, basic respect is required if we’re going to interact.

      Being a part of this world and in this body doesn’t define me as an individual. I involve myself in the social and political climate of my surroundings, because it will ultimately affect my experiences here. That said, I don’t need to adopt every concept of being as my own in the process— that includes how I’m perceived in this society and the world at large.

    4. I challenge the notion that personhood is exclusive to human beings.

      5. Gender and sexuality, for example, are steadily deconstructed in our societies, not only on the basis of personal experience but how these concepts are perceived in our cultures and their social mores. If we’re capable of deconstructing these concepts on such a level, then the same case should be made with the concepts of species and personhood. Consider those who entirely reject humanity. Now, consider those who experience humanity and nonhumanity as a spectrum, or are already nonhuman and developing their own connection to humanity. What of those who created their species or have no species of their own? Where do those of us belonging to multiple species, with fluctuating species, or experiencing all species at once fall? Personhood is an open concept. Anyone and anything can exist as a person in our societies.Personhood shouldn’t have to involve human identity unless an individual feels that it is applicable to themselves. Anthropocentrism has governed the concept of being for as long as Earth’s been spinning. By being transspecies, and transfictional no less, my existence contradicts the notion that only humans of this planet and reality can be people.

      As mentioned in Aster’s essay, this same demographic has continuously stripped personhood from their own kind on the basis of race, ethnicity, disability, gender and sexuality, and many more concepts. What grounds does humankind have in claiming that only they can be people? Some of humankind’s worst actors don’t recognize more than half of the planet’s population as people because they don’t fit their image of supremacy. This is also touched on in Akhila’s argumentative essay, “On the appropriation of trans narratives by therianthropes”, but under the context of humanity:

      “We should also keep in mind that in the past the humanity of some people was denied and some groups were considered closer to nonhuman animals than humans. What constitutes “humanity” has been subject of centuries of philosophical debates, and the boundaries defining “human” has always been rather blurry and shifting depending not only on scientific progress but also on cultural and historical contexts.”

      And that’s only covering humanity as a concept, given that it’s treated as synonymous with all things “just” and “civilized”. Never mind the fact that human (species) and person (concept) are also treated as synonymous. Yet, if a human being is denied personhood for the constructs they fall into, where does that leave us? What makes someone a ‘person’? When personhood can be revoked and redefined so easily by a ruling class, that begs the question of whether or not personhood is truly based in humanity. If humanity is no longer the defining factor, then what is?

      Humans can’t argue on the basis of general intelligence, that’s for certain. I’ve discussed in a separate post that plenty of non-sapient animals, such as dolphins and octopi, are incredibly intelligent on their own. As are humankind’s closest living relatives, chimpanzees and other primates. If we were to use intelligence as a metric, not specifically sapience, then that would open up thousands of doors. Anthropocentric thought often ignores the fact that all animals are intelligent, with or without sapience.

      Topics such as these are why I consider my transspecies experience to be largely philosophical. We should continue to push the boundaries of species, especially regarding who our societies choose to recognize as people and who they don’t.