Bias in controversy section?[edit source]
Might be a good idea to make the controversy section on this page be less biased against those who dislike or criticize the term in any way. In particular; "Plurals who object to the term are often motivated by sysmedicalist beliefs." Isnt terribly neutral and we kinda take offense to that as a very pro-endo nonhuman system with spiritual elements. We strongly dislike plurality being included as alterhuman personally both because the wider plural community wasnt consulted before inclusion, and because if plurality is included by default and not other neurotypes or spiritual experiences it comes off as wildly ableist and dehumanizing in the bad way. Here is a whole thread with multiple criticims that should be acknowledged (ours are included in it) https://nonhumannationalpark.boards.net/thread/796/alterhuman-thoughts-problems-opinions
- that's absolutely a fair point, and the current state of things just reflects the fact that that's the only viewpoint we had found a source for so far. the source you provided should help fix that!
- (also, hope you don't mind that i gave this a heading for organizational purposes) vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 22:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reviving the 'who is alterhuman' section discussion[edit source]
on the old wiki we talked about adding a section to this article that lists specific identities that are or could be considered alterhuman. there was debate on what to include, but i have a proposal: separate subheaders for, say, 'included in the original coining post', 'explicitly identified as an alterhuman identity in its own coining post', 'discussed as a possibility', 'definitionally included but has its own bigger community' etc. divisions and names need some refining, but that's the best idea i've got for how to handle it so far. it might be best to gather up all the potential labels that have sources discussing them in relation to alterhumanity and figure out categories post-hoc.