Ehh, I don't mind bringing this up again. I think it was an interesting discussion. This isn't so much about "Stung" as it is about what's considered a TF. I had the same thought when trying to mentally classify Juliette's transformation in
The Thing (2011).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYepXJu031E
For those who don't know,
the Thing consumes a victim, replacing each of the victim's cells with one of its own, allowing it to create a replica of the victim (who then proceeds to go all Cronenbergy at the dramatically appropriate moment). But is it the victim who's been turned into a part of the Thing, or is it just the Thing using the victim's biomass to fuel its own growth?
Here's another iffy one for me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvmaiPK-rmU
Is the character turning into a monster or his her body just being consumed by a monster?
For something to be considered a TF, in my mind, it's not enough to say that the matter that made up that human victim is now matter that makes up the monster. I mean, a lot of the material that makes up my body was once part of other plants and animals that I ate, but I'm not claiming to have been a tomato at any point in my life.
I think there has to be some degree of mental consistency. Even if the end result is just a slavering beast and there's nothing left of the original personality, we still implicitly understand that the character's mind has been transformed, not destroyed and replaced. This could be shown with a gradual change in behaviour, or it could just be shown by demonstrating that the character has mental control over TFed parts of their body throughout the transformation - all those neural connections are still there, or in the case of new appendages, new connections are being formed.
Then again, I know that there are some people here who would see the slavering beast as the death of the original character (if the change is permanent), even if the TF was gradual. I don't include myself, but I certainly get where they're coming from.