I'll probably read your essay (or parts of it anyway) later but I'll still reply now.
This is not about making a sub-group or making furry as what I like. This is about looking at what unites the concept of furry and then using that as a criteria for something to be furry. There are things I don't like that I consider furry (chakats for instance) and there are things I do like that I don't think are furry (pokemon being the most obvious). Definitions like this won't be determined by a vote anyway and I wasn't trying to make a final declaration on what is and isn't furry. The purpose of this was to propose a possible (and I think better) definition of furry. Once people know about it it's open to debate and can be best suit what is furry and will obtain legitimacy through use.
I don't want to go into too much on why it is important to actually define what is furry. I think I've probably covered it previously in the comments and Crossaffliction has also made the point quite clear. I'll try appeal to the need to define furry using an example instead. Let's take the case of bestiality that was just reported. To me it's not furry, and I imagine the same for you. However to some outsiders it is and, according to "what Furry fans themselves regard to be part of the fandom" it could be. Furry and bestiality are not mutually exclusive (although some furs seem to have this weird idea that they are) so someone can have an interest and practice both. If someone considers bestiality to be part of the furry fandom you have no way to disagree with them because you consider furry to be whatever furry fans want it to be. If you aren't willing to accept that then perhaps you will see that furry does need to be defined.
"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~
I'll probably read your essay (or parts of it anyway) later but I'll still reply now.
This is not about making a sub-group or making furry as what I like. This is about looking at what unites the concept of furry and then using that as a criteria for something to be furry. There are things I don't like that I consider furry (chakats for instance) and there are things I do like that I don't think are furry (pokemon being the most obvious). Definitions like this won't be determined by a vote anyway and I wasn't trying to make a final declaration on what is and isn't furry. The purpose of this was to propose a possible (and I think better) definition of furry. Once people know about it it's open to debate and can be best suit what is furry and will obtain legitimacy through use.
I don't want to go into too much on why it is important to actually define what is furry. I think I've probably covered it previously in the comments and Crossaffliction has also made the point quite clear. I'll try appeal to the need to define furry using an example instead. Let's take the case of bestiality that was just reported. To me it's not furry, and I imagine the same for you. However to some outsiders it is and, according to "what Furry fans themselves regard to be part of the fandom" it could be. Furry and bestiality are not mutually exclusive (although some furs seem to have this weird idea that they are) so someone can have an interest and practice both. If someone considers bestiality to be part of the furry fandom you have no way to disagree with them because you consider furry to be whatever furry fans want it to be. If you aren't willing to accept that then perhaps you will see that furry does need to be defined.
"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~