Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26184563-20130421015649/@comment-995426-20160429024653

I did check my facts and logic.

I mean, consider Splinter. Is he a rat? Before you answer that question, keep in mind that he was born a human, but became a mutant rat who straddles both the life of a human and the life of a rat. To call Splinter a rat is not all that controversial, but if he maintains part of what he came from, then it is still accurate to say he's human, at least partially.

So, if Splinter has become part rat, then haven't the turtles become part human, straddling both the lives of turtles and the lives of humans? It's a fair logical comparison. See the inconsistency? There is human-ness in both those equations, and yet one can be reluctant to call either of those beings humans. And why? Is it because we think of humans as people who look like people in the real world? If they cross a threshold of appearance, do we stop considering them human, even if they act, talk, think and feel just as humans do?
 * Human develops rodentoid characteristics. We call him a rat.
 * Turtle develops humanoid characteristics. We call him...a turtle?

So yes, I'm strongly asserting that if a mutant from Earth is humanoid, they almost certainly have a human-influenced mutation, becoming at least partially human in form and function, though not necessarily human in every way across the board. If Splinter can be called a rat, and Jason can be called a gecko, and Rockwell can be called a monkey, then the turtles or Leatherhead can be called humans. But Splinter is also human, and Jason is also human, and Rockwell is also human, and the turtles are also turtles, and Leatherhead is also an alligator.