No... anthropomorphism is attributing human traits to non-human objects/creatures. How humans relate to other things is something else entirely.
Just because people don't agree on something doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. There are people who don't accept that people are animals but they are just wrong. You can't say that humans can't be defined as animals because not everyone accepts it. Those people that don't accepted can just be ignored because what they are saying has no evidence to support it and is just not true.
Furry might be changing all the time (though not that fast) but I never said you have to have a constant and unchanging definition. Whatever definition of furry we make applies at the current time, like the one about furry being about mammals is now out of date. People make sure they have a proper definition of lots of things, like evolution even though that has to be changed as they discover new things.
If there are things that don't fit into the definition of furry then they just aren't furry. It's that simple. If they later become a large enough aspect of the fandom then the definition might have to be changed to include them but your definition does not have to accommodate every minority group. To even say that they are furry and just don't fit the definition means that you have some idea of what furry is or else you couldn't say that. That thing that you won't say is your definition of furry and those people do fall within it. You aren't randomly flipping a coin to say if they are furry or not.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
No... anthropomorphism is attributing human traits to non-human objects/creatures. How humans relate to other things is something else entirely.
Just because people don't agree on something doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer. There are people who don't accept that people are animals but they are just wrong. You can't say that humans can't be defined as animals because not everyone accepts it. Those people that don't accepted can just be ignored because what they are saying has no evidence to support it and is just not true.
Furry might be changing all the time (though not that fast) but I never said you have to have a constant and unchanging definition. Whatever definition of furry we make applies at the current time, like the one about furry being about mammals is now out of date. People make sure they have a proper definition of lots of things, like evolution even though that has to be changed as they discover new things.
If there are things that don't fit into the definition of furry then they just aren't furry. It's that simple. If they later become a large enough aspect of the fandom then the definition might have to be changed to include them but your definition does not have to accommodate every minority group. To even say that they are furry and just don't fit the definition means that you have some idea of what furry is or else you couldn't say that. That thing that you won't say is your definition of furry and those people do fall within it. You aren't randomly flipping a coin to say if they are furry or not.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~