A couple posts have mentioned parallels between the definition of science fiction and furry, while others mention a need to improve the definition for sake of explaining furry to those not within the fandom. It is kind of interesting to compare the ledes from the respective Wikipedia articles though. The furry fandom lede, with only three sentences, manages to include the commonly stated definition, address an alternative use, and give examples of what anthropomorphic can mean (despite having its own article). While the science fiction lede is longer, but more vague, with a lot more talking in terms of abstracts, and a bullet list of examples.
This is not to say that the Wikipedia ledes are the best possible written introduction to the two things, but they do get the gist of the topics, and given the nature of stereotypical internet users, have been worked on a fair bit. And while one is referring to the genre and the other the fandom, they both seem to capture the subject of both as fandoms and as genres.
In this sense, in terms of simple, concise definition to give to someone outside the fandom, furry is doing quite well with the common definition, considering how people are able to pick up an idea of what sci-fi is by example and without as concrete of a definition.
Of course it means there will still be discussion of the details of defining characteristics, both from those trying to better understand the fandom, and from those just trying to make their interests look more true/authentic/better than someone else's. But I don't see why that would need a sharp border between what is and isn't furry, as opposed to softer, fuzzier borders, or instead considering dividing things into sub-genres (sci-fi certainly has enough disjoint sub-genres).
A couple posts have mentioned parallels between the definition of science fiction and furry, while others mention a need to improve the definition for sake of explaining furry to those not within the fandom. It is kind of interesting to compare the ledes from the respective Wikipedia articles though. The furry fandom lede, with only three sentences, manages to include the commonly stated definition, address an alternative use, and give examples of what anthropomorphic can mean (despite having its own article). While the science fiction lede is longer, but more vague, with a lot more talking in terms of abstracts, and a bullet list of examples.
This is not to say that the Wikipedia ledes are the best possible written introduction to the two things, but they do get the gist of the topics, and given the nature of stereotypical internet users, have been worked on a fair bit. And while one is referring to the genre and the other the fandom, they both seem to capture the subject of both as fandoms and as genres.
In this sense, in terms of simple, concise definition to give to someone outside the fandom, furry is doing quite well with the common definition, considering how people are able to pick up an idea of what sci-fi is by example and without as concrete of a definition.
Of course it means there will still be discussion of the details of defining characteristics, both from those trying to better understand the fandom, and from those just trying to make their interests look more true/authentic/better than someone else's. But I don't see why that would need a sharp border between what is and isn't furry, as opposed to softer, fuzzier borders, or instead considering dividing things into sub-genres (sci-fi certainly has enough disjoint sub-genres).