There's quite a few groups out there that have done full scale, studies on furries.
One reported an Asperger's rate within the fandom of about 4%, compared with a general population of 1.5%.
So sure it's quite a bit more common, but 4% is still a small figure, and there's a huge stretch from "4%" to "all furries are autistic"
Perceiving the latter is likely a combination of confirmation bias and vocal minority. Or perhaps just willful ignorance.
In sum, generally speaking, there is little relationship between furries and clinical diagnoses of psychological dysfunction. Across a number of different conditions, furries did not differ significantly from the general population with regard to the prevalence of psychological conditions. In those instances where there were significant differences, they tended to be particularly small effects. Furthermore, follow-up brown townyses have suggested that identification with the furry fandom, despite any relationships to psychological conditions, nonetheless is marginally associated with psychological and relationship well-being (B = .062-.063, p = .083-.079). As such, it is incorrect to define or “try to explain furries” by the presence of any particular psychological condition or through any type of psychological dysfunction.
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/anthropomorphicresearch/past-results/anthrocon-2013
you just proved it's a special interest. If the reason for people liking it wasn't loveual, it wouldn't overrepresent any loveual orientations
It's not quite that simple. Correlation =/= causation.
IMO the most likely explanation is just "a bunch of cute fuzzy animals is more likely to attract feminine men then masculine men"
oh and also
No one is arguing that there's no loveual interest at all, just that there's more to it then that.
That very quote you're posting proves that for a 2/3 majority, the loveual interest is minor at most
Poll