@mahtan
"Anyway you wrote a lot and yet nothing in there disagree with what I wrote previously. There is no difference in a cat that is turned into a human with cat characteristics and a human that attain cat characteristics, the only difference is the specie it started with. As such the "anthropomorphic" part does not mean much as both are a mix of human with non-human animal."
I can now clearly confirm that you can work wonders as a spin doctor.
As for the term "anthropomorphic" which is the central part of your argument:
Mirriam-Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic
>described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
>ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
Oxford Dictionary:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/anthropomorphic
>Having human characteristics
Cambridge Dictionary:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anthropomorphic
>treating animals, gods, or objects as if they are human in appearance, character, and behavior
Collins Dictionary:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/anthropomorphic
>means relating to the idea that an animal, a god, or an object has feelings or characteristics like those of a human being.
Where in any of the reputable dictionaries out in the world did you get YOUR definition?
It's NON-HUMAN to human, not HUMAN to non-human, the whole central part of this argument as a whole. That person in the manga is a human with animal characteristics MORE THAN an animal with human with animal characteristics. The person depicted is clearly more human than non-human, with only appendages that are non-human (the ears are clear. Whether he has a tail or not is yet to be seen). So, by percentages, he is majority Human than non-human, which makes him a kemonomimi than a furry.
"But, alas, you again shows confusion by using the definition of a word as what it means when used as a genre, while furry has a meaning by itself with used as a genre it has another meaning that is more spread than just representing that which has fur. As it stands nowadays it is accepted as being from the furry genre anything that presents animal characteristics whether it was an animal before or not reaching it's final form does not matter."
The definition of the term is the accepted use of the term. If it is not it, then it is subject to the very confusion you're trying to propagate. It's the problem of the subculture not defining the full context of the term that we got people going around and saying something is a furry when they don't even give the meaning of it. What exactly is that meaning then? Can you honestly tell me what that meaning is, that, if I have a study and get the definition of the term, I'd get that same meaning of the term for a majority of furries out there? If you can't, then there is no basis for you to tell me that this is a furry outside of the bounds of what has been clearly defined by the subculture itself. Any loose definitions have to be invalidated.
"Lastly if we go by your wrong interpretation no real life "furry", those that are port of the furry community and dress as animals, would categorize as "furry" doesn't matter how they are dressed because they are humans with props to have animal characteristics and not animals with human characteristics."
And from where in my statements did you get this conjecture? You have a promising career as a spin doctor. Do not put words in my mouth. Frankly, just stop.