#autism symptom holder | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

urfavoritesecretadmirer · 3 months

Text

Stuff that would get us fake claimed bc this trend is so amazing in my eyes

(And no I'm not asking to get fake claimed bc apparently I'm not allowed to make jokes)

High alter count

We don’t have an exact number, but our overall estimation is pretty high (not in the thousands but yk 100-150).

Not being able to control switches

We can’t control when we switch but it’s usually in stressful/negative situations. We also can’t control who takes front.

Alter variety

Istg, people are weird when it comes to alter variety. It’s always “oh your alters are all similar? Fake!!” Or “oh your alters are all very different? Fake!!” Our system has a lot of variety.

Has a TikTok account

“Omg, a system with social media?! Fake!!” Believe it or not, we only started our TikTok in late June of last year. We’ve known we are a system since way before that. So yes, systems can have TikTok accounts. Because I guarantee there are thousands of systems on TikTok who are not open to being a system that you will never know about.

Posts about system stuff

Damn, I didn’t know it was illegal for systems to be open about being a system. I didn’t know my literal existence, labels I choose to use, etc were taking away from the “real systems”. My apologies, Mr/ms high and mighty ceo of Reddit moderation as your 9-5.

Has simply plural

“Omg an app for systems?! And you’re using it?! As a system?! Fake!!” I’m not allowed to use one of the few useful apps that can log switches, keep track of members, send messages, help you meet other systems, make polls, make your layout look pretty if you want, etc without getting fakeclaimed. It’s almost like it’s an app for systems, and systems use it. Shocker.

Uses pluralkit

“A system using a meaningful way of communication and another good way to keep track of members?! Fake!!” Apparently redditors think that pluralkit worsens amnesia barriers and derealization. Is this true?? If so tell me, but it doesn’t happen for us. Because obviously, I’m not fronting all the time. How am I supposed to feel derealization if I’m not there?? Also it’s not like our main account profile is by default the host. Our user has <3 and our systag in the name for christs sake.

Goes to school

I know, shocker, I have a life. I’m not physically incapable of having an education as a system. And believe it or not, I have decent grades too. Systems are traumatized, not stupid (directed at that one boy at my old school).

Doesn’t want final fusion

Excuse you, but this system has been here for me and has been around since I was five (I think). I’ve only now fully accepted the fact I’m a system. I think it’d be a bit rude to just say “alr you can go now” like I don’t wanna be alone tf.

Introjects

We ain’t Introject heavy, but ig even having two introjects makes you fake. This may be a shocker, but it’s more common to have other disorders alongside DID/OSDD than to not. This, and again, this may be a shocker, but it includes ADHD and autism.

In sys relationships

Me, the host, has personally never been in an in-sys relationship. But I think in our system there’s like, two? And then there’s a lot of ‘it’s complicated’ or ‘situationship’.

Decent communication

Obviously, it could be better, but we overall have decent and healthy ways of communicating with each other. Usually it’s talking out loud or leaving little notes.

Alter intros

Because apparently it’s a crime against being neurodivergent to share about your alters. We obviously can’t share everything for obvious reasons but we want yall to get to know us.

DNI alters

This may be a hard pill to swallow, but DNI doesn’t always mean the alter is some dangerous monster. It can mean that alter is too little to be online, it could mean that alter is a social anxiety symptom holder, it could mean that alter just doesn’t like talking to people outside the system/at all. These are just a few examples. Or maybe, that alter just doesn’t wanna be fuckin interacted with. But these alters should still be acknowledged. Why? Because healing is a thing. Locking them away isn’t healthy. Maybe they want people to know not to interact with them. But noooo, all DNI alters are awful people apparently.

Other mental health disorders

We have anxiety and depression (diagnosed and genetic), medically recognized ADHD, and tics. And yes, all of our alters have tics because it's caused by your brain and we share the same brain.

52 notes · View notes

disabledunitypunk · 4 months

Text

The irony of this post having the ableism tag when it's ableist against intellectual and cognitive disabilities and openly sanist:

(It reads: i hate "acoustic" jokes. you can't do something plain stupid and say oh im so acoustic. no. you're just stupid.

i hate "i have adhd today". no you don't have adhd if you're "crazy" and moving a lot. stop.

"oh im so delulu" no. you're not delusional. it's not funny.

stop using disabilities as a 1. joke 2. as an excuse when someone tells you to stop being annoying or acting stupid. stop.

with the tags "ableism", "disability" and "actually disabled")

Let's go point by point.

"i hate "acoustic" jokes. you can't do something plain stupid and say oh im so acoustic. no. you're just stupid."

I'm not sure if this is meant to say autistic, or if it's about actual autistic people being silly about their autism and misspelling it on purpose for that reason.

But autism often co-occurs with intellectual disability. It also is commonly comorbid with disorders that cause cognitive disabilities. It is itself a developmental disability.

This means that being unintelligent is a common, neutral component of many people's autism. It's not a bad thing. It's important to unpack the ableism of why you think being "stupid" is a bad thing. Why is a part of your identity and existence that you have no control over, can't change, and is most often less present due to specific disabilities causing it to be so, a bad thing?

Why are you, as an (assumed) autistic person so desperate to distance yourself from autistic people who are not intelligent and who have intellectual disabilities?

"i hate "i have adhd today". no you don't have adhd if you're "crazy" and moving a lot. stop."

I will admit, "I have ADHD today" is not correct.

(I am not sure, to be fair, if systems can experience only some alters having ADHD. I know autism is structural, so even if symptom holders experience it more acutely, every member will have a physically autistic brain still. With ADHD in large part being based in the behavior of neuroreceptors and production of specific neurotransmitters, I can't say that I know enough to say whether the actual mechanisms driving ADHD are structural or not.)

But hyperactivity is a common symptom of one subtype of ADHD, and can cause "moving a lot". I don't know if the use of "crazy" in quotes is how the people saying "I have ADHD today" are describing themselves, or if it's a label the original poster is putting on themselves, but it's honestly not great either way.

I'm not going to police who can reclaim the word, as someone with several classic "insane" diagnoses - schizophrenia, DID, MaDD, and multiple cluster B disorders. There are people, especially people with more severe ADHD, who have absolutely faced awful sanism regularly for their ADHD.

But I do think that describing a person you believe is not neurodivergent in the specific way you're talking about as "acting crazy" is just reinforcing sanism. It's positing "craziness" as an inherently negative thing, especially in the largest context of essentially fakeclaiming and whining about neurodivergent "trenders" "making real neurodivergent people look bad".

Craziness - having beliefs that don't align with consensus reality (the reality most people experience), or acting in ways other people believe are "irrational" or "don't make sense" - is not an inherently bad thing.

It has, however, been weaponized against the majority of neurodivergent people for centuries if not millenia to justify both suppression of harmless neurodivergent traits. It has also been used to justify violent subjugation over traits defined as harmful (including ones that actually are) that cause us significantly more distress and dysfunction than they cause harm to those around us. Instead of supporting compassionate, consensual, rehabilitative care, we have had our human rights stripped and our autonomy violated "for our own good" and in the name of "fixing us" for both "our" sakes and those of "sane" people.

Everything from hostility towards functional multiplicity and person-based understandings of plurality; to forced medication of schizophrenia and trying to discourage us from neutral, pleasant, and even helpful harmless delusions; to the erasure of both immersive and maladaptive daydreaming; to the pathologization and stigmatization of personality disorders - that's all because people believe being "irrational" is bad.

And "sane" people get to decide and write the books on what is "rational, good, and normal" and what is "crazy, insane, irrational, and bad". Completely rational trauma responses, even in children, are pathologized. Craziness is also conflating with being "noncompliant", being inherently more likely to be violent and to be more violent than average, and essentially to be an inherently "bad" person who has to try to be "sane" in order to be "good".

Finally, " "oh im so delulu" no. you're not delusional. it's not funny."

Honestly, I've never seen an actual delusional person use "delulu". I don't think it's in the reclamation stage and don't know if it ever will be. No notes here basically, we're in agreement. I would simply note if an actual person who experiences delusions describes themself as such, that is their right, and it's a good idea not to assume without further context.

So, "stop using disabilities as a 1. joke 2. as an excuse when someone tells you to stop being annoying or acting stupid. stop."

1. Joking about your own disabilities is fine. It can even be an important coping skill. Joking about disabilities you don't have is going to be inappropriate and harmful in most circumstances, so unless you've educated yourself on the rare exceptions it's better to refrain from doing so. However, I have had the experience of trusted friends making harmless jokes about my disabilities, so I won't say it's never possible.

This is however "joking about" disabilities and not "treating the entire existence of the disability as a joke". We agree that the latter is unacceptable.

2. Reasons for being disabled are not excuses, and if you can't handle disabled people being "annoying", let alone unintelligent, you're already deeply ableist. Disabled people are going to have conflicting access needs, coping mechanisms, and simple symptoms of their disability that WILL annoy you.

Annoyance is not harm. You don't get to demand someone not be annoying for your convenience, but especially when that annoyance is a result of disability. Even in the case of an actual need based on your own disabilities (such as a sensory seeking person sending a sensory avoidant person into a state of overwhelm and meltdown or shutdown), the responsibility is as much on you to remove yourself from the situation or find a compromise that works for both of you as it is on them.

But annoyance? Sometimes disabled people are annoying. It's not ableism to say so. I am annoying as a result of my disabilities. I stim loudly. I have bad body odor. I infodump. I am uncontrollably hyperverbal.

The posts about "people like autistic people until they show symptoms of autism" are about this person. They're about people who demand that disabled people never inconvenience them or be unpalatable in harmless ways due to their disabilities.

And of course, once again, being against unintelligence is inherently ableist. It doesn't matter if you are intellectually and/or cognitively abled. It doesn't matter if you've never been annoying in your life (I can guarantee you have. The OP of the screenshotted post very much has. Do I have a right to demand they not make that post because it annoys me, and to say they are using their disabilities as an excuse for the abject ableism present within it?)

The issue is not a simple issue of poor wording or awkward language. It is the ideas behind the language that are actively harmful.

I actually don't take issue with people using words like "crazy" or even rarely "stupid" in a positive or neutral context. "That concert was crazy", "I had a crazy day", or even "that steak was stupid good" are not inherently harmful. It's not about policing language, it's about interrogating the ideas behind the language you use.

Admittedly, I even take less issue with people who are "crazy" or "stupid" (who choose to reclaim such terms, or have been labeled as such by others) choosing to use the terms in a negative context when not directed at other people. I don't like the reinforcement of such things as inherently negative and find it can still be ableist, but at the minimum context matters. If I say "my car had a crazy engine failure" that's a lot different than "my boss was acting crazy", even.

Not using the terms negatively is a good rule of thumb, though. Different words have different negative connotations and have been used differently against disabled people, as well. The variation in stigma means that how you handle one word doesn't work for any other word. Note that my example for negative usage only included "crazy". I don't think I am capable of determining what negative usage of "stupid" or similar is appropriate, if any.

Basically, it's not bad to be unintelligent or crazy, which are usually themselves a result of disability. You can be annoying and unintelligent as a result of disability. Acknowledging that is not ableism, but throwing those people under the bus is. People are allowed to be annoying, especially as a result of disability, because you are not entitled to not being annoyed. Annoyance is not harm, and it's not "making excuses for it" to attribute it to disability, in part because you don't need to justify your right to exist in a way that other people don't like if you aren't harming anyone. You also don't need a reason to be unintelligent, but disability is a valid reason.

#ableism #disability #actually disabled

30 notes · View notes

always-almost-never · 2 months

Text

Anyone else feel like their symptom holders dont really hold those symptoms, but rather are pulled to front when the system is dealing with them?

Like Frog is our main autism symptom holder, but it feels more like he's pulled to front to handle situations where we are dealing with more difficult/obvious symptoms than usual. Hence why he was the host during the year we had bad autistic burnout and couldnt mask at all really, but doesnt really show up in the summer.

This might be just cause we dont have an innerworld, so the only sense we have of different alters is when theyre fronting, but idk

#sysblr #plurality #symptom holder #system stuff

10 notes · View notes

aspd-culture · 3 months

Note

i’m kind of confused as another system, ik you said you might just delete asks but i hope this is okay bc i’m genuinely trying to understand your point and sincerely confused and asking for clarification

i see your point about neurological disorders being hardware and stuff but at the same time like. i’m autistic and i was diagnosed with autism because i display autistic symptoms. one of my alters displays no autistic symptoms and would not be diagnosed with autism if he individually was tested. so how does it make sense to say he’s autistic?

in the same vein one of my alters displays all the symptoms for dpd and was diagnosed with it when he was out while being tested, but i display none of them and don’t relate to it at all. how does it make sense to say i have dpd?

we share the same brain yes but if one of us shows and relates to no symptoms of a disorder then imo it doesn’t track at all to say we still have it because the host or brain or other alters do. same vein as i’m anorexic but if another alter comes out and has zero issue with eating or the concept of food it wouldn’t make sense to call them anorexic, but it doesn’t make me less anorexic

This one was in the drafts. I really don’t want to get into this again, but I think it’s only fair to post it as I had taken the time to write this anon and answer so I don’t feel I can say “this is too much for me to deal with” when all I need to do is format it and hit post. As mentioned previously, I will ignore or delete asks if they only pertain to this discourse (unrelated in any other way to ASPD) at my discretion. I pretty much never have had to do that, just a couple ableist people telling me how terrible pwASPD are. I don’t intent to do it often, and don’t want to do it at all, but I won’t drain myself to continue explaining why alters inside the same body cannot physically alter the structure of the brain by switching out.

Not displaying symptoms is different than not having them. A symptom holder is an alter who shows the most symptoms of the disorder, generally because they end up pushed to the front in situations that flare the disorder. But the symptoms are not occurring because that alter is out, that alter is out because those symptoms are occurring and that alter knows best how to handle them.

Just like an alter who fronts during a certain kind of abuse every time it happens is not the only one *being* abused, the whole system is, an alter who takes on the symptoms of a neurological condition is not the only one who has it.

Beyond that, it's difficult to notice internally whether symptoms of neurological disorders disorders are present. Most people making this declaration that their alter doesn’t have the disorder are going off the concept that they perceive an alter to not have symptoms of the disorder, ignoring that before getting diagnosed, they likely also believed they had no symptoms of that disorder, at least for a time, or even worse, that the alter shows symptoms, but not enough to qualify for a diagnosis. That diagnosis is not individual, it is related to every alter using the brain. Showing different symptoms of a neurological disorder at different times is completely typical and does not mean you don’t have it, because different situations stimulate different parts of the brain and thus based on the situation the person will be affected differently by that disorder that they very much still have. If anyone on the opposite side of this discourse happens to have a good professional who knows about their system and their neurodivergence, try and ask them if you stop being autistic just because you switched and now aren’t noticing symptoms.

If you look into autism, you'll find it is literally a difference in the brain (neurodivergence). At the end of the day, symptoms or not, if you use an autistic brain, you are autistic, because autism is not actually a set of symptoms. Autism is a difference in the brain that we notice and diagnose using symptoms. Hence why it is a spectrum where two autistic people can literally have entirely different symptoms with no overlap. The same goes for any neurological difference - it is *not* a set of symptoms, we use those symptoms to recognize and identify the difference in their brain.

Anorexia, however, is not always neurological. I think it can be, but it is also sometimes a body image issue or a trauma issue, etc. So yes, some alters can be anorexic while others are not.

Let me say it another way and see if this helps make sense of it. If a system gets accommodations in school like longer test taking or more time to turn in homework, does the teacher have the responsibility to remove those and ignore the IEP or 504 plan because said alter shows few enough symptoms that they wouldn’t be considered to have that disorder alone? Or are those disability accommodations legally protected at all times regardless of who is out?

Should a system that has work accommodations for a disorder lose those if another alter is out? Should your boss be able to, if you have accommodations that say for example that you have more leeway on being late to work, be allowed to ask you who was out and punish you like they would a fully neurologically abled person if it was an alter capable of getting there on time?

Or if the body of a system has,a degenerative brain disease, and an alter who shows less symptoms of it were to end up frontstuck, should they stop taking their medication? Or do they still have a disease affecting the brain that they need to keep treating regardless of who is out? The same goes for Autism, ASPD, ADHD, any disorder that affects the physical function of the brain since they all have the same one.

And if you think they should stop taking meds or lose legal rights to accommodations, where’s the line? Who gets to say if the alter is symptomatic enough? It would be so messy and confusing if those things were allowed because they make no sense. Same brain = same neurology = same neurological disorders.

It's getting frustrating repeating myself here over and over, which is the point of me saying I may delete asks about this specific discourse if I don’t have the spoons for it.

Plain text below the cut:

Anorexia, however, is not always neurological. I think it can be, but it is also sometimes a body image issue or a trauma issue, etc. So yes, some alters can be anorexic while others are not.

It's getting frustrating repeating myself here over and over, which is the point of me saying I may delete asks about this specific discourse if I don’t have the spoons for it.

#aspd-culture-is #not aspd #system discourse

14 notes · View notes