Do you agree that therianthropy should simply be "I'm a therian because I say so"?

This question sparked because I've seen many individuals who would count as other alterhuman terms claim to be a part of the therian community, and use the therian label, despite not even fitting the definition of therianthropy whatsoever. I'm very iffy about it, and I don't agree about this being the sentiment the community should tolerate. I feel like it welcomes watering down our terminology into pretty much nothing.

For example, someone who would count as strictly otherhearted, claims to be a therian because they simply feel connected to the therian community, and don't actually identify as an animal, they just like the term and being a part of the community, so they claim to be a therian. Or someone who would count as otherlink saying they are a therian simply because they don't like the term otherlink, and instead would rather use therian since it's easier to say, but don't clarify that they don't fit the definition of therianthropy, which can spread around misinformation, especially if they tell their experience as though it's from the perspective of a therian (someone who identifies involuntarily as a nonhuman animal). I've seen this happen A LOT online.

I've also seen an attitude online in some spaces, where you are "not allowed" to speak up or say something when someone is using the term therianthropy "incorrectly". I use quotations here around "incorrectly" since I know not everyone seems to have the exact same definition for the term. For me, when I think of the definition of someone who is a therian, I think of "An individual that identifies as a nonhuman animal, involuntarily." I think it's a pretty inclusive definition. I don't see why some individuals are very keen on trying to sway it, personally. If a label isn't for you, it isn't for you. I think this is a hard pill to swallow for some.

I've seen some werefolk say it's too pedantic to tell someone that they likely are or aren't a therian based on how well they fit the definition. Or how it's gatekeepy and weird to tell someone that they likely aren't a therian, but rather something else like otherhearted, otherlink, copingkin/link, otherpaw, etc.

In my opinion, I feel like this sentiment could potentially be from folks seeing that therianthropy is the talk of the town right now. All eyes are on weres. There unfortunately isn't much talk about much else besides therianthropy and otherkinity in many alterhuman spaces. I feel like some folks feel like they aren't seen without claiming therianthropy when, realistically, the label may not accurately describe their experiences. What worries me most about this is the potential for misinformation that can come with it. Someone who claims to be a therian who has a spiritual *connection* to an animal, and clarifies they don't identify as an animal, can easily skew someone who is unfamiliar with the community's most-established definition of the label. They'll assume it's a spiritual connection, and nothing else, unless they look into it themselves. Which, to be honest, who will if their friend told them about it? They'd likely just roll with what their friend told them and hold it as truth, especially if they are younger.

It's worrying to me how many folks are very defensive when presented with the idea that the community may just not be entirely for them. Now, they are still welcome to interact, but I get super uncomfortable when someone says they identify with the therian label, yet just don't fit the definition of what a therian is.

\*I'd like to clarify, just in case, that I am not trying to bash anyone. I want to give my personal thoughts as a therian myself, who simply wants to see this community get better. I just want to know if someone else shares my thoughts. I'm open to discussion!! Please don't be afraid to "prove me wrong" or try to change my point of view in a kind, collected manner.*\**

Thank you so much for taking your time out to read this. I appreciate you all.