So this might start being a thing where I just randomly go on a tangent about a variety of different subjects. The first one of these I was thinking of was when I was coming back from watching a recently released Disney movie. The first thing that came to my mind was that the Disney corporation had produced a rather intensive body of work centering on anthropomorphic characters and characters who are generally ostracized from their respective societies. Now this in and of itself is nothing new. The "Ugly Duckling" story archetype has been done so many times over the past two decades that it would be hard to go a year without seeing something that at least resembles it in some way. That aside, I was more curious as to why the furry community is summarily rejected by most of society and why Disney could consistently produce films in which anthro characters (talking animals included) were the main characters and have those films consistently succeed. Normally you could say that this is due to Disney knowing their audience, which is primarily children. However, this doesn't account for why film critics (most of whom are grown men and not furries) give these films positive reviews as both a kids movie and a good film for adults as well. Again you can point to the fact that these critics are keying in on the moral of the story or the story itself and how it is being conveyed. Here's the crux. Anthro characters are generally considered by the populace as being childish or being some sort of unholy hell spawn who's sole purpose is to defile what it mean to be human (insert argument about how the human condition is sancrosanct here). The latter is simple good old fashioned traditional zealotry and the former is some sort of sheltered misconception brought about by an underexposure to new ideas. I personally think that the misconception is far more common than the overzealous idealism, and here's why:
1. Most people in society are willing to stick with the first impression they get from something (ergo a kid's movie is childish)
2. Most people want a quick and simple way of explaining things, as such they end up with less of an understanding as to what the concept actually means or conveys
3. People are prone to every single logical fallacy in the book (this section is an entire philosophical argument by itself)

The first point is somewhat intuitive. If an adult sees a child watching a simplistic kid's movie where an anthro character is the protagonist they are going to associate the character with simplistic ideas and childhood (and childishness by extension)
The second point is a little less intuitive as it is a sin we all commit from time to time. We try to put things in simple terms so that it can be easily explained later or just condensed to save us some extra time and effort. The price of this is understanding. To understand something means that you have to have a complete grasp of the concept as well as it's implications. This doesn't sound hard at first but wait it gets way worse. Have you ever thought of what a broad subject like religion can have implication to? Politics, economics, sociology, psychology, warfare, science, existential philosophy to name a few (these concepts are extremely large as well and they also have their own implications). So using a short hand for things isn't bad but you need to know that you may leave something out every now and again. And doing so can affect how you perceive things and what you associate with those things.
The third point is by far the worse in terms of forming a misconception. A logical fallacy will usually result in an argument taking a stark and confusing turn for the worse for both sides. For example, an individual could say that they don't like furries because they are basement dwellers and contribute nothing to society. Even though this is far from the truth in most cases the individual may use someone they know who is that way to prove their point. You can see the issue here, just because you have one individual who fits the criteria does not make all individuals fit that criteria. There are literally hundreds of logical fallacies that occur like this on a daily basis which doesn't help the fandom or society's understanding at all.
So when you boil all of this down it turns out that what separates Disney from the fandom is a crockpot of misconceptions fueled by misunderstandings and assumptions.