Debunking Anti(-endo's)Misinfo. AKA: How are anti-endos so bad at sources????
(The original)
Oh, well good on you for trying to cover everything! Nice of anti-endos to finally start trying to use science to prove their arguments. I'm sure these sources will totally be reliable and will prove your points beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that you won't just be falling flat on your face with every single attempt at basic reading comprehension, and end up repeatedly make a complete fool of yourself.
Let's go!
Off to a pretty strong start, acknowledging that many endogenic systems don't have DID or OSDD. Sadly, that basic fact is something that seems to escape most anti-endos. So with this in mind, I think it's safe to say the goal of this post is going to be to prove...
You can't possibly have DID without trauma.
You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.
You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.
Let's read through and see how they'll do at proving their points by the end. I promise you, the results... won't surprise you. 😉
Well, there goes that strong start.
The source here is a Carrd and so-called "common sense."
Meanwhile, in the World Health Organization's ICD-11, alters or dissociative identities are described as "distinct personality states." In the same page, it's stated that you can have multiple "distinct personality states" without a disorder.
This is information from the World Health Organization affirming that you can be plural without a disorder. And I think that prevails over your so-called "common sense."
See also these screenshots from the plurality chapter of Transgender Mental Health, a book published by the American Psychiatric Association:
Finally, I really want to put a focus on this line of logic: "you cannot have alters without having a disorder, this is common sense as it's not normal to have alters."
Normal has multiple meanings in different contexts. The ICD-11's boundary with normality uses normal to mean "non-pathological." But this post seems to be using "normal" in the lay way to mean "common."
And that makes this particular rhetoric extremely dangerous and harmful to many communities. "If it's not common, it's a mental illness," was the basis for homosexuality and being transgender being listed as mental illnesses. "Most people don't think this way, so there's something wrong with them."
This could also easily be used to pathologize Otherkin and other alterhumans as mentally ill because it's not "normal" to identify as an animal.
The modern World Health Organization and American Psychiatric Association recognize the fact that simply thinking unusually or differently isn't an illness or disorder.
Statements like yours do not exist within a vacuum, but harken back to decades past when any non-typical thinking would have you labeled as having a disorder that needed treated.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Let's be thankful to live in a world today where our differences aren't considered disorders. And let's not resort to ideologies that threaten to return us to those days past.
Wait... who suggests this? Who are they? I think I need more info...
So... "some researchers."
Also, can we talk about how this starts off with "sometimes called multiple personality disorder." I checked to see if this was before the name changed in the ICD (which I believe was 2015) and it doesn't seem to be! Oldest archive I can find is 2020!
Rethink.org is a charity.
These are not peer-reviewed papers.
The page references "some researchers" without names or sources.
I have no idea who authored this or if they're qualified at all in this field.
This is a terrible source. A web page by an anonymous author citing other unnamed authors with no reason to think anyone who wrote this had any idea what they were talking about!
This says DID is caused by many things, and lists trauma as only one that's included. This doesn't back up the idea DID/OSDD can only be caused by trauma, and suggests the opposite.
Oh, and "it's also known as split personality disorder." 😔
Go home WebMD.
Usually associated with doesn't mean it's a requirement, and in fact implies that it isn't always.
"Is associated with." "Can be a response to trauma."
Reiterating that the first two goals here were to prove you can't have DID or OSDD without trauma. And these aren't doing that.
An association doesn't mean there's a causation, and it doesn't mean that association is there in 100% of cases.
"often develop."
Like with "usually", you wouldn't use the word often if if something always happened. The choice of wording implies you can have dissociative disorders without trauma.
Are... they messing with us right now???
I swear, you can't have a post that sets out with the goal of disproving the existence of endogenic plurality, and then use quotes that seem to consistently imply there can be other causes for DID and not pick up on that theme!
Oh, yay! We finally got a quote that's actually trying to argue the point we started with.
But, again, this runs into a similar issue to the ReThink.org one. This is a random independent organization. There is no author for this article. It hasn't undergone peer review like an academic paper would.
There is no evidence the person who wrote this article is actually educated in dissociative disorders.
And finally back to "usually."
You must be so proud...
Source Round-Up
There was a lot here, so let's just recap.
6 out of 8 of these sources only say that DID is "usually" or "often" or "can be" caused by or associated with trauma. These actually imply there are cases where it's NOT caused by trauma, going against the original goals of this post.
Finally, there were two sources, Rethink and Mind.org, which did suggest DID is just caused by trauma, full stop. But both of these are extremely questionable as sources.
Neither named their authors. There's no indication what the review process is for their websites. And "Rethink" merely said this is what "some researchers" believe.
So let's double back to those goals set at the beginning.
You can't possibly have DID without trauma: One source says this, but the reliability of that source is questionable. Another source says some researchers are saying this but doesn't name any researchers or cite those sources. Meanwhile, the other six sources imply that it IS possible for DID to exist without trauma.
You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma: Neither of the two sources that suggest DID can only be caused by trauma mention OSDD at all.
You can't be a system without DID/OSDD: None of the sources suggest you need DID/OSDD to be a system or to be plural.
So far, you've failed to prove you can't be a system without DID or OSDD. You've failed to show you can't have OSDD without trauma. And the case for DID being exclusive to trauma frankly looks weaker than before you started talking.
Incredible work so far!!!
And I mean that in the way that nothing about this is remotely credible!
Ugh. There is SO much wrong here. First, no sources for their claims about tulpamancy.
Now, tulpamancy draws its name from a Tibetan Buddhist practice called sprul pa.
This is not the same practice though. And the Tibetan Buddhist practice is NOT CALLED TULPAMANCY.
Something which should be obvious to anyone who knows even the most basic facts about language, with the -mancy suffix being derived from Latin. And tulpamancy as a practice generally isn't religious.
From Dr. Samuel Veissiere of McGill University:
The community is primarily divided between so-called psychological and metaphysical explanatory principles. In the psychological community, neuroscience (or folk neuroscience) is the explanation of choice. Tulpas are understood as mental constructs that have achieved sentience. The metaphysical explanation holds that Tulpas are agents of supernatural origins that exist outside the hosts’ minds, and who come to communicate with them. Of 118 respondents queried on the question, 76.5% identified with the psychological explanation, 8.5% with the metaphysical, and 14% with a variety of “other” explanations, such as a mixture of psychological and metaphysical.
When discussing the research into tulpamancy, we're not discussing a religious or spiritual practice that's been validated by psychologists.
We're talking about a primarily psychological practice that's been validated by psychologists.
And as for the DSM quote, it confirms that religious practices aren't a disorder. Cool. But it also implies that religious practices can result in multiple distinct personality states. Hence why they needed that criterion. It's not stated as explicitly in the DSM as in the ICD, but the implication is there, especially when taken together.
Whether you call these "alters" or not is up to you. Most endogenic systems aren't using the word "alter" to describe their headmates.
But regardless of the word, what the research is showing is that there are multiple phenomena which can result in people having multiple self-conscious agents sharing the same body.
I mean, you've still done a really bad job at showing DID and OSDD form purely from trauma, with many of your sources straight up saying the opposite.
And remember, a lot of mixed origin systems will say that their other headmates aren't caused by or related to their disorder. And there are documented cases of people with DID both having alters associated with DID, and having non-aversive entities they commune with outside of that, as Kluft references in this paper:
The woman he describes here, who experienced ceding control to another entity who talked through her, would qualify as a mixed origin system in the modern plural community.
SIX OF YOUR EIGHT SOURCES LEFT THE DOOR OPEN FOR DID TO FORM WITHOUT TRAUMA!
NONE CLAIMED OSDD COULD ONLY COME FROM TRAUMA!
NONE CLAIMED YOU NEEDED DID OR OSDD TO BE PLURAL!
Your sources are NOT claiming what you think they're claiming!!!!!!!
If this is "all the proof you need," to say endogenic systems aren't valid, it's clear you were only ever interested in confirming your worldview.
But surely you can't seriously think this will convince anyone who isn't already indoctrinated!
Not even addressing this in full. It's such a blatant strawman that it's not worth my time.
There are similarities between plurality and being LGBTQ. Especially to the many trans systems out there who are seeing anti-endos use the same rhetoric that transmeds have. Or like you did earlier, are endorsing the same types of views that led to homosexuality being pathologized until the 70s. But nobody is saying it's the exactly the same!
I'm not sure what this is specifically referring to. But it might be about the line in the differential diagnosis for DID in the PTSD section where it's stated DID may not be preceded by trauma or have co-occurring PTSD symptoms.
It does also say in another section that DID is associated with trauma, but it never actually says that's the only way to get DID.
This is a straight-up lie. Most sources used by endogenic systems are less than a decade old, with some being as recent as 2023.
Here's the breakdown of some of the dates in @guardianssystem's doc, for reference:
I mean, I feel like part of the reason nobody has been able to disprove it is because a lot of its more specific claims have been really hard to test.
But that's neither here nor there.
The bigger issue you'll run into is that the creators of the theory you're citing have stated that there may be other ways for people to be plural. Or as they phrased it, having "conscious and self-conscious dissociated parts."
The above quote is from two of the three authors of The Haunted Self, the creators of the theory of the structural dissociation.
The TOSD is made to propose a way trauma can cause dissociative disorders to develop. But it does NOT suggest you need to have dissociative disorders to be plural, and I doubt the authors appreciated their work being twisted like that
Final Grade:
F-
This started with three goals.
Let's look back at them one last time.
You can't possibly have DID without trauma.
You can't possibly have OSDD without trauma.
You can't be a system without DID/OSDD.
By the end of this, have any of these claims successfully been proven?
I don't feel they have.
The first claim is what all the sources tried to focus on. But most of the sources didn't say that and didn't support it. All but two implied that DID could possibly form other ways.
And for the others? Nothing suggests OSDD can only be caused by trauma.
And you failed to provide any sources that suggested you couldn't be plural without DID and OSDD.
You completely and utterly failed to find decent sources to back up your claims, and to make a compelling case for them, at every conceivable juncture.
If I were you, I would be embarrassed to have put out something of such poor quality.
What have we learned:
Non-disordered and endogenic plurality has been supported and validated across the psychological field, including the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and Trasngender Mental Health which has been reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.
The creators of the theory of structural dissociation believe it might be possible that "self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality" might form without trauma and that this needs to be further researched.
Tulpamancy is a mostly psychological practice that has been studied and validated by psychologists.
Anti-endos are really bad at sources.
Conversely, the majority of endogenic sources are actual peer reviewed academic papers. And contrary to false claims here, many of the papers are actually very recent.
(Tagging some tags from the original post)
86 notes
·
View notes