Fandoms don't get to declare exclusive ownership. Anyone who declares that Furries aren't allowed to consider 'Watership Down' to be something they get to talk about, and consider part of their fandom, has issues. Do we get to say they can't have Ursula Vernon's "Digger" and "Black Dogs" as fantasy too?
I suggest that the people you are talking to just have weird ideas about Furry, don't want anything "icky" associated with the things they like, and that you are actually not helping furry fandom by re-enforcing that.
And it's really not a good idea to try and prescribe genre definitions in the first place.
I direct you to the instructive case of Margaret Atwood.
Fandoms don't get to declare exclusive ownership. Anyone who declares that Furries aren't allowed to consider 'Watership Down' to be something they get to talk about, and consider part of their fandom, has issues. Do we get to say they can't have Ursula Vernon's "Digger" and "Black Dogs" as fantasy too?
I suggest that the people you are talking to just have weird ideas about Furry, don't want anything "icky" associated with the things they like, and that you are actually not helping furry fandom by re-enforcing that.
And it's really not a good idea to try and prescribe genre definitions in the first place.
I direct you to the instructive case of Margaret Atwood.