>>54019968And that doesn't matter. People here have a hard time grasping that given the way Pokémon are constructed that doesn't change anything. Do the deer in the Bambi novel stop being forest critters because they can articulate complex ideas and thoughts? No, because the context conceptualizes them as forest critters. Does being able to cast magic or have a different physical apperance omit a fictional character from being a person? No given that said character is presented as such.
In media all these points are not uncommon, Snoopy being able to write a novel and act as a psychiatrist, Courage being able to use a computer, Scoobs being able to talk and so on but despite this they aren't conceptualized as people, they're still critters. Pokémon does this but with a more fantasy take, hence why Takeshi Shudo recognized that despite Pokémon having a wide array of inspiration, such as those of plants, objects and minerals, these creatures are critters and as to why our sources make a distinction between real critters and Pokémon without taking Pokémon out of the concept of what a critter is.
Which is why Pokémon as a series has no trouble doing both, having Pokémon do people stuff but also having them do critter and pet actions as well. A Pokémon is not a person, it's not a romanceable partner, it is a cute, innocent magical critter constructed for children and out of Tajiri's childhood in nature. This is picked up easily by people, a response to a bunch of Pokémon being in the top 100 of the most sexualized opened the dialouge of why there's so much animals on that list, verily so Pokémon rise in that context has a lot to do with this construction and their popularity in a subculture that revolves around critters.
