Talk:Repo Mantis (episode)/@comment-995426-20180723093550/@comment-995426-20180724091429

+It seems like humans tend to regard dissimilar people in two different ways: Society is full of both kinds of ways of seeing the world.
 * Either they see people for what they have in common, and see rights and dignity as things that uplift all, or
 * They see rights and resources as a finite resource in a zero-sum game, where the gain of one group necessarily comes at the loss of another. IDW Bishop is an extreme example of this.

So, while I can imagine human-born mutants might face some social opposition (or outright not be seen or treated like humans at all), it would seem likely that some statute or court would recognize that a former human with citizenship or permanent residency rights would not lose those rights when they change, especially if a person maintains documents and credentials of who they original were. And it's difficult not seeing their children inheriting that if it is recognized in their parents.

I can see the perception of an animal-born mutant overlapping to some degree with the perception of a human-born mutant, especially considering an observer might not be able to tell the difference unless they are told. And indeed, there would be many people who would rather extend the same rights and dignity to animal-born mutants that they would to human-born mutants, whether they means they extend them to both or to neither. However, some might see an animal-born as morally and legally equivalent to an ordinary animal, perhaps as a matter of feeling threatened as a human. And as there are certainly humans even in real life who treat fellow humans as subhuman, you can be sure that there would be people who treat animal-born mutants as not human, resting on a socially and legally disputed definition of personhood, amid a discussion tinged with deep insecurities about species and privilege.