The definitions I put forth in the original post http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5640372/ seem to themselves be arbitrary, and given that they're arbitrary everyone gets to decide for themselves what they like, but I don't know if them simply acknowledging these points are arbitrary is the end goal.

Usually, we have a premise of expectations when it comes to our definitions. This is going to be more conjecture than the original post, which was closer to direct reporting.

So what do we believe furry IS when we say something is furry or not furry? I think I ended up making three larger distinctions with smaller gradients inside each, because each of these will usually vary widely between people.

A. Furry-As-Fandom-Membership
Furry is almost always treated like a fan definition rather than a professional one. Someone can then claim membership or non-membership, but to a certain degree, one can also deny membership despite having all the other hallmarks. Hallmarks usually include, as its premise of the fandom membership, being a fan of anthropomorphism (usually of animals, depending on your other definitions). I think some people drag this a bit too far--if you ever liked Bugs Bunny at all you MUST be a furry (in which case my dad would be a furry and you'd have to stretch that definition REALLY REALLY HARD).

I think most people in the fandom would reasonably assume that if you're a fan of a property DUE TO the presence of anthropomorphism, and that said presence could reliably predict your enjoyment of other properties, then you are probably a furry, as in, IF you were to seek out a fandom that covers your interests, this one would be it. Creating a new fandom just to avoid the word "furry" is in this case redundant, despite what one might believe to be its inherent flaws. After all, one can be a gamer and not associate AT ALL with the abuses that go on in tournament play fanbases even if they're the largest fanbases that gaming currently has--it doesn't make one LESS of a gamer to do things differently.

B. Furry-As-Fandom-Clusivity
Clusivity is the distinction between being either inclusive or exclusive. This means whether or not we call works made outside the fandom "furry". Since furry is a fan-definition, unless somehow furries creep into the professional world, occasionally when people say "Furry" they mean fan-created work only, and not professional work that happens to have fans in the furry fandom.

Fandom-centric work, that is, media specifically made for furry consumption and not general public, is often seen as pandering. But most furries first established their interest in the furry fandom from work that was not fan-media (Sonic, Lion King, Star Fox, D&D, TMNT, Rescue Rangers, werewolves, Looney Tunes, MLP, a random character from any media that doesn't even focus on anthro, etc). While each of these usually have their own fandoms that are not furry--that is, fans of these properties for reasons other than their anthropomorphic fixation--it seems odd that membership in the furry fandom ought to instantly exclude the non-fandom properties that attracted their fans in the first place.

But as I have said it is a fan definition only--the furry fandom is sizable but not so much that it's a demographic with considerable buying power, or else the market would be more sustainable than it currently is. So, most properties, unless they are made by people who identify with the fandom, would not be considered to be geared for the furry market in particular, but would nonetheless find fans in the furry fandom who will think of it as furry, regardless of whether or not it's "furry" in this sense of the word.

(Also, this occurs whether or not they appreciate the considerable amount of porn they're invariably going to generate.)

C. Furry-As-Fandom-Composition
This is the one that is more up-in-the-air because we're usually running on definitions of furry that are simultaneously paired and also exclusive from one another. This is not to say these definitions do not have crossover demographics--they do, and to a considerable degree. But it has caused consternation and confusion in the past when, say, How To Train Your Dragon AND Toy Story 3 were both nominated for an Ursa Major Award in 2011.

When we say "furry" there's almost no question whether a fox person who stands on two legs and talks is counted as a furry or not. It's almost the literal definition, as any definition of furry would be hard-pressed to exclude a bipedal fox character from the definition. So, this one is usually easy--it's when we move out from this into the more vague areas of the definition that it gets harder for some people to agree whether it is "furry" or not.

For instance, is the movie Cars "furry" (if we were to speak inclusively)? As in, would you really expect it to appeal to the exact same demographic that sees the bipedal fox as the most basic ideal? When put up like this, it's easier to see where one might and might not agree to these being in the same fandom, because to an extent they are not.

Besides the narrower technical definitions (machines with human bodies, taurs, whether lizards should be furry or "scaley") there's often a divide in the fandom I have noticed, and it starts from basic premises. None of these premises are "more right" than any other because, just like the narrower technical definitions, they rely entirely on the taste of the individual.

We COULD mean 1)"furry" is JUST the house style of anthropomorphic animals and animal-like things, 2)"furry" is all animals-in-media regardless of degree of anthropomorphism, or 3)"furry" is the same as anthropomorphism of any kind so long as it's not 'just human' (or sometimes even 'just animal') and therefore shouldn't favor premise 1 over any other.

These are all radically different premises. Nominating How To Train Your Dragon confuses both 1 and, to a degree, 3, because the movie goes out of its way to make sure its dragon characters are seen as animals, even if they're a BIT idealized for humans. It confuses 1 all the way because there's not even a BIT of funny-animal going on, even if they LIKE the movie (though they'll usually show their appreciation by MAKING the animal characters sufficiently furry). People who start from definition 2, because they see the fandom as a base for appreciation of any animals in media whatsoever, wouldn't see any problem with the nomination.

Nominating Toy Story 3 confuses both 1 and 2, even though by all technical accounts it fits into premise 3 which we PRESUME to be the full scope of the fandom. Even if Lotso might technically push the definition, he doesn't make it a furry story by premises 1 and 2 any more than Alan Rickman makes Die Hard a British film.

Now, this is mostly conjecture on my part of where I think a lot of confusion and dissension crops up in the fandom based on my analysis of how the word furry is used--that is, what we think we're saying when we say "furry" and the sorts of expectations we have of the fandom as a result. You might not even think of furry as being premise 1 2 OR 3 exclusively, but if you find something "off" when something like Cars is brought up in discussion of furry, it MIGHT help to understand which definition you're basing your assumptions off of.

Personally, I think that there's a large part of the fandom that runs off of premises 1 and 2 and are bothered that 3 always needs to be dragged in even when they're not interested, but they can't go off and play with their own definitions because we have to acknowledge 3 all the time, like we're nodding and saying "yes, I suppose I'm part of the fandom that finds Lightning McQueen sexy thinks anthropomorphic cars are inherently neat" and actually thinking maybe they belong somewhere else.