OK but it's mostly a sex thing, and calling it art doesn't change that. A lot of e.g. BDSM practice has significant artistic value, but doing it around nonconsenting members of the general public is stil something to be avoided.

> we only relegate a group of people into an outsider identity when it’s easy to do so; when they are outwardly different, literally wearing a costume that sets them apart, we pin more badges of eccentricity onto them.

Isn't that entirely reasonable? People who act normal in public get treated normally in public, people who go out of their way to look weird in public get treated as weird in public. Surely that's fair and correct.

  Replace the word “fursuit” in the last few paragraphs with the word “painting” 
   or “sculpture,” and suddenly it’s normal again. Suddenly you’re not raising your 
   eyebrows. Suddenly, Millican is an artist to the skeptic, as if they haven’t been 
  this whole time.

I love that logic. Replace the word with "homicide" with "cuddle" and it's suddenly normal. Yes that's how it works. If you change the subject of a sentence you change the meaning of the sentence...

That's not a dig at furries just a dig at the authors logic.

The author spends half the article saying it isn’t about sex; but then has this gem:

> Hell, who are you to define what constitutes “weird sex stuff”?

In other words, “It isn’t sex, I swear! But even if it is, it wouldn’t be a problem!” Not a very convincing argument. It’s also ridiculous because every society has a line for when “weird sex stuff” goes too far - do I need to show my credentials to condemn consensual incest?

How soon at this rate of moral turpitude do we have the leather suits in public…