"I don't like meaningless words and letting everyone have their own definition of furry makes it meaningless."
I would argue the complete opposite. In fact, I would say that people having their own definitions of furry is itself one of the defining qualities of furry fandom. Have you never considered WHY furries insist on wrapping the language around themselves? Because that's not a practice common in other fandoms. There are lots of people who identify as fans of science-fiction, but almost no one tries to make the language of science-fiction itself personal to themselves.
Language is memetic. No one person really has control of it and gets to say, "This is what that word means." New words and new meanings only take hold in the zeitgeist if people look at it and say, "This word/meaning is useful to me, therefore I have an incentive to use it in future." If thousands of people are ignoring your definition of furry, what they're really saying is, "Your definition is useless to me. It does not represent my identity or my interests."
So instead of words, let's look at the BEHAVIOUR of furries. Because if you understand that behaviour, then you'll understand why the language is what it is. And I think this is where hobbyist furries seem to stumble; they recognise that a lot of furries self-identify physically/spiritually/sexually with animal attributes but they don't really empathise with them. I can tell a hobbyist furry that my furry identity is as core as my gender identity and sexual identity, and the response is usually a dismissive, "Whatever, I don't really care what you get up to." Even if you can't feel that particular experience, the failure to even engage with the idea of furry as a core identity is where the conversation within furry fandom stalls.
And yet that core self-identification is a big part of why furries wrap the language around themselves. A person cannot bend their gender or sexuality around the interests or needs of their community, and likewise I cannot bend my zoomorphic furry identity around the interests or needs of furry fandom. I cannot change myself to fit into furry, so I make furry fit into me, hence my own definition of furry. And as someone who sees a lot of like-minded people in furry fandom apparently behaving in the same way, then I refuse to separate my identity from that of furry fandom, not even on the relatively trivial basis of language.
And this is where I think JoeStrike has a point, even if I'm more vague about the idea of a "furry gene" than he is (we don't even really know what causes homosexuality yet). You suggest that the number of people who have a core physical or spiritual furry identity is too small to be worthy of significant consideration. And yet in reality, the number of core-identity furries is so great that they have completely removed your ability to define the language. And the numbers are certainly going to grow as understanding and acceptance of furry grows. Again, this is not a thing that happens in other fandoms. Maybe there are a handful of people in the world who believe themselves to be part-robot, just enough to meet up in a small chat room online. But core-identity furry is something much bigger and there are increasingly repeated instances of people "coming out" in one way or another. Maybe it will all turn out to be just a "shared delusion", but what I think we're seeing is the exploration of an entirely new sphere of psychology.
Also, for the record, I'd like to point out a contradiction in your thinking. You've said that you want to define what furry "generally is" for the sake of non-furries and I think that's a noble goal. But you haven't been doing that; you've been defining what IS and ISN'T furry in very fixed terms. Furry IS people who are interested in anthropomorphised animals, but furry ISN'T therians, otherkin or zoomorphic furries like myself.
But you really don't need to do this. Even though furries like to have their own personal definitions, we still all have a general understanding of what furry is. Like, nobody is trying to define furry as being about robots or plants. Furries are happy with a vague definition because in this case, vagueness is actually more useful than exactness. If you've got the gist of furry and are open-minded to other people's preferences, then that's all you really need.
Again, language is memetic. Observe the behaviour of furries and mould the language accordingly. If you try and force the language, people are just going to ignore you.
"I don't like meaningless words and letting everyone have their own definition of furry makes it meaningless."
I would argue the complete opposite. In fact, I would say that people having their own definitions of furry is itself one of the defining qualities of furry fandom. Have you never considered WHY furries insist on wrapping the language around themselves? Because that's not a practice common in other fandoms. There are lots of people who identify as fans of science-fiction, but almost no one tries to make the language of science-fiction itself personal to themselves.
Language is memetic. No one person really has control of it and gets to say, "This is what that word means." New words and new meanings only take hold in the zeitgeist if people look at it and say, "This word/meaning is useful to me, therefore I have an incentive to use it in future." If thousands of people are ignoring your definition of furry, what they're really saying is, "Your definition is useless to me. It does not represent my identity or my interests."
So instead of words, let's look at the BEHAVIOUR of furries. Because if you understand that behaviour, then you'll understand why the language is what it is. And I think this is where hobbyist furries seem to stumble; they recognise that a lot of furries self-identify physically/spiritually/sexually with animal attributes but they don't really empathise with them. I can tell a hobbyist furry that my furry identity is as core as my gender identity and sexual identity, and the response is usually a dismissive, "Whatever, I don't really care what you get up to." Even if you can't feel that particular experience, the failure to even engage with the idea of furry as a core identity is where the conversation within furry fandom stalls.
And yet that core self-identification is a big part of why furries wrap the language around themselves. A person cannot bend their gender or sexuality around the interests or needs of their community, and likewise I cannot bend my zoomorphic furry identity around the interests or needs of furry fandom. I cannot change myself to fit into furry, so I make furry fit into me, hence my own definition of furry. And as someone who sees a lot of like-minded people in furry fandom apparently behaving in the same way, then I refuse to separate my identity from that of furry fandom, not even on the relatively trivial basis of language.
And this is where I think JoeStrike has a point, even if I'm more vague about the idea of a "furry gene" than he is (we don't even really know what causes homosexuality yet). You suggest that the number of people who have a core physical or spiritual furry identity is too small to be worthy of significant consideration. And yet in reality, the number of core-identity furries is so great that they have completely removed your ability to define the language. And the numbers are certainly going to grow as understanding and acceptance of furry grows. Again, this is not a thing that happens in other fandoms. Maybe there are a handful of people in the world who believe themselves to be part-robot, just enough to meet up in a small chat room online. But core-identity furry is something much bigger and there are increasingly repeated instances of people "coming out" in one way or another. Maybe it will all turn out to be just a "shared delusion", but what I think we're seeing is the exploration of an entirely new sphere of psychology.
Also, for the record, I'd like to point out a contradiction in your thinking. You've said that you want to define what furry "generally is" for the sake of non-furries and I think that's a noble goal. But you haven't been doing that; you've been defining what IS and ISN'T furry in very fixed terms. Furry IS people who are interested in anthropomorphised animals, but furry ISN'T therians, otherkin or zoomorphic furries like myself.
But you really don't need to do this. Even though furries like to have their own personal definitions, we still all have a general understanding of what furry is. Like, nobody is trying to define furry as being about robots or plants. Furries are happy with a vague definition because in this case, vagueness is actually more useful than exactness. If you've got the gist of furry and are open-minded to other people's preferences, then that's all you really need.
Again, language is memetic. Observe the behaviour of furries and mould the language accordingly. If you try and force the language, people are just going to ignore you.