#dissociative disorders are only ONE cause of plurality | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sophieinwonderland · 1 month

Text

Here's Ableist AspenFrostEN Trying To Pack as Much Misinformation and Ableism As She Can Into One Minute:

This sentence is, perhaps, the one and only true thing in this entire video.

Oh, please do enlighten me, Aspen!

I mean, sure, created systems are a thing. Tulpas are the main example of this and the ones that have been studied the most. But there are created systems that aren't tulpas, such as in daemonism.

Also, plenty of traumagenic DID systems have intentionally created alters too, so it's weird to make "people who believe that you can force yourself to have alters" an endogenic system thing.

ALSO, basically no tulpagenic system I know actually uses the word "alter" to describe their headmates.

While most endogenic systems are plural without a disorder, it's bizarre to use this as your definition instead of just "an endogenic systems is plural without trauma" as it's actually defined.

Founded entirely on Tumblr???

Aspen, dear...

Are you... capable of reading? Here's the paragraphs you're looking at. Notice how it says natural system predated the word endogenic?

Yes, the word endogenic was first used on Tumblr... as a replacement of "natural system" or "natural multiple" that dated back to the 90s, before you were even born!

Here's one site mentioning natural multiples in their glossary in 2003:

And here's the origin in a page dated for 1998:

You clearly know NOTHING about the plural history that you're rambling on about.

And how am I only 20 second into this???

What do you consider a medical consensus again?

The World Health Organization's ICD-11, the diagnostic handbook used around the world, explicitly states that you can experience multiple "distinct personality states," the characterizing feature of DID according to it, without having a mental disorder:

That's the World Health Organization's official handbook!!!

I'm not sure what more of a consensus you need.

But I'll add that Tulpamancy is acknowledged as a real psychological phenomenon by Dr. Samuel Veissiere, psychiatry professor at McGill University.

And Dr Eric Yarbough, Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association has stated that you can be plural without trauma or a disorder in a book reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

And these claims are undisputed. There is no peer reviewed paper by any psychiatrist that has claimed you need trauma or a mental disorder to be plural.

Now, onto the next round of misinformation!

I recognize that page! That's DID-research! A glorified blog that convinced an entire generation that OSDD-1a and OSDD-1b were actual medical terms for disorders they could be diagnosed with!

(Spoiler: The aren't!)

Is that so?

It would probably be really inconvenient for this narrative if the creators of the theory of structural dissociation ALSO have said it may be possible people to form self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality without trauma, huh?

I mean, something like that would just completely destroy everything you're trying to sell and make you look even more like a hack who has no idea what she's talking about, wouldn't it?

...

This paper is by two of the authors of the Haunted Self, which I probably shouldn't need to tell you since you're so knowledgeable about plurality, is the book that created the theory of structural dissociation of the personality.

Even the creators of the theory you're citing are saying plurality could have other causes.

Wouldn't that require you to actually know what endogenic systems actually believe? Or, you know, literally anything about plural history? Or anything at all? 🤔

Now we're back to ableist Aspen having no idea what Schizophrenia is and using it as an insult. 🙄

Aspen is not hiding her intent. Her goal is to spread hate, to come into our communities and bully us.

Aspen is a liar, a bully and an abuser.

But I hope I've also demonstrated pretty thoroughly that on top of that, she also incredibly ignorant.

She's ignorant of psychiatry. She's ignorant of plural history.

Every word out of her mouth on this topic is a lie she made up, and hopes her followers will be gullible enough to swallow, because while she may act confident in her misinformation, the fact is that she doesn't know anything about what she's talking about.

187 notes · View notes

420d0gt33th · 26 days

Text

The Future Shouldn't Have to be Plural.

Yes, system positivity is good.

Yes, there should be more acceptance of systems, resources and safe havens for them.

But no, the future should not be plural.

Yes we should have doctors that listen

Yes we should have people with lived experience w osddid in treatment fields

But no, the future shouldn't have to be plural.

No, there shouldn't be more systems

No child should have to go through the trauma that makes a child a system.

This is not positivity

This is purely toxic

This spreads misinformation

This is romanticization of what can only be described as pure hell at times.

I wouldn't wish it on anyone, yes there can be positive aspects in your experience - but at the end of the day, having a alters is a disorder. It inherently causes distress.

Wanting to make more children split etc is a dangerous idealogy

Why would you want someone to be a system?

And I will repeat it again

The future shouldn't have to be plural. Children shouldn't have to be forced to cope with severe chronic dissociation, but they are. DID isn't formed under normal life circumstances. The world is incredibly unfair. No one should have to be a system.

86 notes · View notes

anti-endo-haven · 2 months

Note

i find it really funny how pro endos are always like “anti endos don’t give sources!!”

“anti-endos dont give out sources!” ok then:

https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/did#:~:text=Once%20referred%20to%20as%20multiple,portrayed%20incorrectly%20in%20popular%20media.

https://psychcentral.com/disorders/dissociative-identity-disorder/dissociative-identity-disorder-causes

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dissociative-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20355215

https://www.rethink.org/advice-and-information/about-mental-illness/learn-more-about-conditions/dissociation-and-dissociative-identity-disorder-did/

https://did-research.org/origin/

https://www.sane.org/information-and-resources/facts-and-guides/dissociative-identity-disorder

https://namimi.org/mental-illness/dissociative-disorder/didfactsheet

https://thepsychpractice.com/plog/dissociative-identity-disorder

https://www.nami.org/About-Mental-Illness/Mental-Health-Conditions/Dissociative-Disorders

(idk if any of the links r broken i’m typing this one mobile)

they whine that the only sources we supposedly give out are tumblr posts and carrds.. when they’re the ones giving out tumblr posts and carrds as to why endos are “valid”

they’re all like “well- snort- errmm scientists are actually doing- snort- research on other origins for plurality!! 🤓🤓🤓” can u give me a source for that? oh? it’s just a tumblr post with no links nor sources? okay buddy… maybe it’s time to get you some sunlight… maybe go outside? touch grass? pat a dog?

we do give out sources. pro endos just don’t wanna listen cuz then they’ll have to face the facts they can’t have “cool head friends” anymore 😞😞😞 so sad… /sarc

-🪐🫀

Yeah. The Carrds being a constant go-to for endos/pro-endos is getting really annoying.

It’s also just… not the best when they also want to say the anti-endos “don’t need a safe place” when anyone that is anti-endo is constantly hounded at times and being told to change their mind because they’re not agreeing with endos/pro-endos.

I just wish more people would understand how harmful endos and their supporters are. Even in OSDDID spaces and RAMCOA spaces. It’s not some fun game.

All the links work. Kudos for you doing all of that on mobile!

#🪐🫀#anti endo #did system #system #osddid #endos dni #traumagenic system #actually did #endos not for you #actually traumagenic #did plural #did plurality #osdd plural #osdd plurality

99 notes · View notes

tfemlyla · 1 month

Text

Why are anti-endos' only resource the theory of structural dissociation? It's either that or carrds 😭.

Like... you realize the theory of structural dissociation was written by a guy who abused his plural patients, right? Why are we... using that as a resource?

If you want to follow that; then you also have to believe in and follow the part where it says that therapists should only speak to the 'real' one in the system. And then you should also follow the part where it talks about how all traumatized people have dissociative parts of the brain; not just those with DIDOSDD. So therefore people with PTSD and other disorders commonly associated or caused by trauma would also be considered plural, correct?

Oh but I forgot, you only like to cherry pick the information that specifically helps you.

Update: Thank you all who have reblogged and corrected us / educated us 🫶. I may not have the energy to reply to everyone but thank u!! Also I will keep this post up for those who want to read through it, but I'm adding this so others can see and potentionally read through the reblogs if they want to!

#syscourse tw #pro endogenic #pro endo #pluralgang #syscourse #actually plural #did osdd #actually dissociative #endo safe #endo friendly

106 notes · View notes

anomalymon · 3 months

Text

Addressing Anti-Endogenics in the Alterhuman Community

I keep seeing posts about being baffled by anti-endogenic alterhumans, but I haven't actually seen too many posts which address why being an anti-endogenic alterhuman doesn't make sense. Nor have I seen many which don't talk down to anti-endogenics or intentionally piss them off, which I think is counter-productive in this. I'm on an essay writing kick so I might as well.

This isn't to try to prove endogenic systems. There are already many who have done this. I'd recommend looking through Endogenic & Non-Traumagenic Plurality Resources by Guardians System. I don't agree with the use of sysmed, but for a link collection, it's very effective. Rather, this is to explain why there is an overlap and why some are concerned.

Because I feel this essay is important, I will be making a bulleted list first, and you can read further if you want the elaboration. I understand not everyone wants to read an over 1,500 word essay.

What is endogenic?: Endogenic for systems means being a system for a reason other than trauma - endogenic systems can still have trauma and dissociation, and the belief of cause can be literally anything including neurological, spirituality, or intentional creation. Many subcultures, some unrelated, exist under it.

System/Otherkin Historical Overlap: Plurality and kin have overlapped for over twenty years. Otherkin was used to mean nonhumans in systems, and fictive came from soulbonding which was/is a very fictionkin-dominant space.

Terminology: System is not DID only and has been used predominantly by endogenic systems since the early 90s. Most plural groups have historically shared terminology and the gatekeeping of such is very recent. This is concerningly close to paralleling what we're seeing with therianthropy gatekeeping.

Subjective Experiences: Trying to explain your subjective experiences to anti-endogenics and anti-kin are alike in being difficult and people not always being receptive to actual studies or arguments.

Similar Spirituality: Spiritual endogenic system origins are very similar to many spiritual alterhuman origins with the difference being level of separation and indiviudality between host/'type or different 'types.

Similar Experiences in Psych: Both alterhumans and endogenic systems have gaps in research and similarities with how we experience degradation from a psychological standpoint or being "insane". What is an endogenic system? This may be the most important thing to get out of the way - as I've noticed many people who are anti-endogenic don't actually know what endogenic means.

Endogenic just means a system that formed for a reason other than trauma. It doesn't say anything about having no trauma at all nor anything about dissociative experiences, and it can be anything from neurological, spiritual, intentionally created, or seemingly random odds. There are several subcultures under this umbrella - including some that don't even use endogenic or origin terminology, or ones that don't use system terminology.

Endogenic systems can have trauma later in life, they can also still have dissociative disorders from that trauma. Endogenic systems can still be diagnosed with DID.

It is a poor binary - but the reason it exists is most conversations surrounding systems have to do with trauma. Origin doesn't always matter when it comes to systems and that is a separate topic, however, it surrounds validation discussion and discourse.

The otherkin and plural communities have overlaped for over twenty years

For a long time there has been a huge overlap between otherkin and fictionkin with plurality in particular - at least for as long as both groups have been making websites and likely longer.

To highlight this the best, the overlap was to the point that "otherkin" was used for nonhuman system members in the past. Dark Personalities circa 2001 defined otherkin as "People in a multiple system who are not human. Often they are walk-ins, claiming to be older than the body in which they reside, and having physical traits very different from the body itself. Multiples are often hosts to otherkin." Source, Kinhost had an otherkin multiple FAQ since 2001 Source, and it even appeared in a list of DID terminology in 2013 Source.

On top of that, the term "fictive" originated within fictionkin-dominant soulbonding spaces. I'd recommend A Timeline of the Fictionkin Community by House of Chimeras for further reading on this.

The overlap exists in many ways in addition to what we have historically. What we deal with when it comes to certain types of discourse is simular, dealing with people against our subjective experiences has the same level of frustration, we have very similar spiritual beliefs in particular, and there are similarities with what we go through in the field of psychology.

Terminology out of the way: "but system is DID only!"

The simple answer is that it's not. I'd highly recommend reading A Brief History of the Use of "System" in Non-DID Spaces by LB-Lee on this subject, as they have been around for longer than my system has and this is a well-researched article. "System" is just a noun for a group of entities that exist in a body.

Terminology has historically been shared between both groups as they're needed. Fictive and headmate for example originated from endogenic groups while "host" seemingly cropped up multiple times independently - and terms like switching and fronting are needed because there isn't a better alternative. This didn't become an "issue" until about 2015 or so.

From a sociological standpoint however, something very similar has almost happened to the therianthropy and otherkin communities and arguably there is a similar problem already happening. There are those who claim that therian and otherkin are spiritual only and completely exclude and gatekeep psychological experiences - or cry someone with clinical lycanthropy using terms like shifting is appropriation. While they can normally be disproved, there are those who double down that this is spiritual-only. These communities are even developing their own binary - spiritual vs. psychological.

While this is a bit of a reverse to what happened with the plural community, that is a note of why these beliefs can be concerning within the alterhuman community. We are getting a bit too close for comfort to restricting and gatekeeping terminology based on a binary, and also teeter on the edge of expecting "proof" of an experience that's very hard to prove.

The nightmare of trying to explain your subjective experiences

As this is an essay for the alterhuman community, I am sure most of you reading this have encountered the scenario of trying to explain your subjective experience to some anti-kin or other group that is not having it. You can try to discuss your nonhuman experiences, cite historical and academic sources, insist with everything you have that what you're experiencing is real, but if someone is set in not believing you, it's ultimately a waste of time. The same thing applies here.

I could give you a long, detailed explanation about why we know we are a system. Many other systems would also be able to do the same thing - and many have tried. Ultimately it's up to you if you want to believe someone's subjective experiences or not - and if you don't believe it, it's up to you if you want to respect them or not.

To also claim that one is appropriating experiences is ridiculous. Are therianthropes appropriating from those with clinical lycanthropy, fictionkin appropriating from delusional misidentification, or otherlinkers appropriating from copinglinkers? There is a broad overlap and some shared terminology for convince over what can be subjectively a very similar experience - and you can't claim with certainty or in good faith that someone's experiences in and of themself are appropriating someone else.

Spiritually, you're likely very close to believing in endogenic systems

While not every otherkin, therian, or other identity inherently believes in spirituality, there is usually some coexistence or respect for others with beliefs different from you as spirituality can be a large element of the community. Most of these spiritual beliefs are already close to how spiritual endogenic systems might experience things.

Almost the exact same mechanisms which create spiritual alterhumanity is the same for spiritual systems. Various terms are already shared between spiritual alterhuman and spiritual system communities (and even non-spiritual system communities): walk-in for spiritual events and source vs. canon for fiction-based identities for example.

Additionally, several experiences are shared between these two groups. Existing in the astral plane or having experiences travelling through the astral for one. Communicating with spirits can also be a part of both - and that's where communities like soulbonding existed in tandum with fictionkin and even created the term fictive itself.

If someone believes in reincarnation and they can talk to and interact with their past selves - that is plural and can be considered an endogenic system. Same for if someone feels that their body at birth gave host to multiple souls. The difference between these experiences and polykin beliefs is just degree of individuality.

In the field of psychology, we are allies

Much of alterhumanity is arguably even less recognized by psychology. There are studies which showcase them of course, but there are also studies which showcase endogenic systems. Neither has many studies for similar reasons - we don't usually have a clinical need for help, and if we do, it can be extremely difficult to get it.

The potential for psych abuse or degradation in psychological settings exists for both of us - with how ridiculous it is to have abnormal other than human experiences, or how insane it is to be a system without fitting the DID model. The otherkin and therian communities in particular have a known saying along the lines of "If someone outside the community asks you for an interview: run" and it can be the same for endogenic systems.

Accusing others of faking their experiences only does harm to all of us. Giving our oppressors and ableists - in the sense of those who mock or degrade experiences for deeming them "insane" - an excuse to do so means they will take it and will use it to turn against others. If someone doesn't believe someone for something like being more than one entity in a physical body for any reason other than trauma, why should they believe you for identifying as nonhuman?

Conclusion

The endogenic and alterhuman communities are intertwined and respect of alterhumanity is in most of the steps the way to respecting all systems. The purpose of this essay is to get anti-endogenic alterhumans to reflect on their beliefs, and I hope that this was successful in doing that.

Others have made essays trying to argue for proof of their existence, and the sources are out there. I'd still implore you to get to know endogenic systems and remember that we are people and not just a discourse topic. Reflecting on our similarities in discourse, spirituality, ableism can help us move forward as communities.

#alterhuman #otherkin #therian #fictionkin #alterhuman essay #Not using plural tags because if the syscoursers find this and try to include counter arguments for a 1874 word essay in our fuckin reblogs

107 notes · View notes

sysmedsaresexist · 6 days

Note

As someone with OSDD (if I’m right) what’s the worst misinfo about DID that us endos discuss in our spaces? /genq

JCYDJFCYS I love this question, I want my mods to jump in, too, but I'm going to spice it up with the worst misinformation from both sides.

For me, Dude, the worst I've seen in endo circles... is that DID is the same thing as mediumship. This is going to seem like I'm vagueing one of two people, but it's not you two (you'll know who you are). There's actually someone from before them that gave me the worst taste for that discourse, and probably made me a lot more angry about it.

In anti circles, it's got to be that dissociation is solely trauma-based. It's the most fundamental misunderstanding that leaks into everything else

I think those are my two biggest peeves.

Mod Quill here to say FFFFFF I HATE MISINFO. Gosh it really is in all the communities, too.

In endogenic spaces, it’s hard for me to decide, but I think it’s the idea that the ToSD is ableist because “it supports final fusion” (which is its own can of worms, which I think Mod Robo might touch on, if my guess is correct). The ToSD doesn’t even fucking mention final fusion get off it. I hear about the ToSD being ableist constantly, and genuinely, it seems like just being medical at all in any way is considered ableist…

Meanwhile, anti-endos? Good lord. The worst misinfo I see is the gatekeeping of trauma. “You can’t develop DID from XYZ” — congrats! You’re a fakeclaimer who doesn’t understand how trauma works. I pray no newly discovered systems find you.

Mod Robo here! Oh gosh, what misinfo haven't I seen? I swear I've seen the wildest shit!

Some of the worst stuff from pro-endos was them claiming or implying that CDDs are just the "broken" versions of endogenic plurality. I've seen people claim that DID doesn't require trauma, that the DID diagnosis only exists to stigmatize endogenic plurals, and that CDD systems who use terms like "parts" or "alters" just want to dehumanize ourselves and others.

Around 2019, a pro-endo started spreading a rumor that MPD was renamed to DID in order to stigmatize plurals which is just so horribly incorrect. Multiple dissociative disorders were renamed at the same time to have the word 'dissociation' in them, and it was done by a team of researchers. The pro-endo used the previous DSM chairman's ableism to spread lies and drag innocent DID systems into discourse.

Like mod Quill said, there's been a ton of misinfo from pro-endos over ToSD (theory of structural dissociation). I've seen people claim that it's completely bunk because one of the researchers who worked on it (there were multiple) lost his medical license for abusing a patient. I've also seen pro-endos try to apply ToSD to endogenic plurality and conclude that ToSD must be bunk because it doesn't fit? It just makes no sense to me because the theory was created to explain trauma-related dissociation caused by disorders like PTSD and DID, etc... It has nothing to do with plurality.

I've also seen tooons of horrible shit from pro-endos AND anti-endos about final fusion and fused alters/systems. I've seen people say it's comparable to grooming or suicide, or that these systems are just secretly "pluralphobic" and trying to become singlets. Honestly, the hatred and misinfo I've seen people say about fused systems is some of the worst.

As for anti-endos, I've seen lots of bad misinfo too... One of the worst things is gatekeeping common CDD things based on trauma type. For example, saying that nonhuman alters are only possible in systems who experienced ritual abuse. Other common CDD things I've seen anti-endos say can only happen due to ritual abuse: gatekeeper alters, subsystems, polyfragmentation, alters with number names or color names, switching due to triggers, alters who feel loyal to their abusers, alters that other alters can front through, certain headspace stuff like checkered floor tiles, having a headspace in general, etc.

I could say more but my reply is already longer than both Dude's and Quill's combined. I'll just leave it off here!

Mod Signal: I like this ask a lot lol. It shows genuine curiosity and a desire to improve spaces. Misinfo collects like dirt around syscourse. We all have to sweep regularly to make sure that shit gets thrown out.

On the pro-endo side, the worst I've seen is endo systems attempting to lean into the fantasy model of CDDs to support their own plurality. That model has been debunked for quite a while, and it has hurt so many goddamn people. CDDs are trauma-based, we don't have to reverse scientific progress or fakeclaim some of the first cases of recorded CDDs to support endo systems.

On the anti-endo side, my least favorite bit of misinformation is the idea that the TOSD shows how different people's trauma ranks in the trauma Olympics. The idea that someone with polyfragmented DID must have had things worse than an OSDD 1B system who must have had things worse than someone with BPD, etc. The level of dissociation required for each label in the DSM relies on so many more factors than just "who had it worse". There are biological dispositions to dissociation to take into account, there's the reminder that what's traumatic to a child isn't always considered traumatic to an adult, there's attachment styles to take into play. There is so much more to the science than "I had it worse than you and I have the diagnosis to prove it".

Everyone is welcome to reblog and add their own. This could be a good learning opportunity for people to go, "wait, that's not true??"

#syscourse #mod dude #mod quill #mod robo #mod signal #team effort #answered asks #pro syscourse conversation #anti endo #pro endo #system safe

57 notes · View notes

xxlovelynovaxx · 6 months

Text

Listening to Epic the Musical and went to join the discord server, only to find this:

I'd like to preface this by saying I am a member of a DID system that experienced intense childhood trauma. We identify as "mixed origin", meaning in our case we do not believe trauma was the ONLY cause of our system, but we do believe it likely played a part in the formation of our multiplicity. Now, onto talking about this screenshot.

1. Pluralkit's creators are inclusive of nondisordered systems. It's one thing to say "no OCs" (which pluralkit is fine with, but some servers simply aren't for purposes of ACTUAL roleplay and that's fine), but to say "only OSDD/DID systems are allowed to use this" and imply that all other systems are "roleplaying" is just bog-standard anti-endo bigotry. Also, UDD and other lesser-known disordered systems are of course excluded.

A reminder that the creators of the Theory of Structural Dissociation, the DSM-V-TR, the ICD-11, and the APA all recognize the existence of nondisordered systems, and that they haven't met a high enough standard of proof to claim explicit causation via trauma of dissociative disorders. At this juncture, every actual scientist abides by the cardinal rule of statistics - correlation is not causation - and another important basic rule of logic - that "x causes y" does not prove "ONLY x causes y". Or in other words, neither the converse nor inverse of a true statement are automatically true. In mathematics, these logical fallacies are referred to "affirming the consequent" and "fallacy of the inverse".

2. Short of someone actively telling you "I am faking a mental illness", you CANNOT tell if they are. It's not possible even for psychiatric professionals to determine this, let alone random laypeople. Even screenshots "admitting" faking could be photoshopped, but more than that - that rule makes the server unsafe for every SINGLE system, even those with OSDD or DID. On what grounds do they claim a system is faking? Having the audacity to claim that our narrative of our own experiences is most reliable and that we are capable of determining our own origins? Having too many or too few alters? Enjoying aspects of even disordered systemhood? Achieving functional multiplicity?

Fakeclaiming when done to any kind of system, but ESPECIALLY disordered systems, will often severely worsen dissociation and internal communication and can even make amnesia more severe. Even most professionally diagnosed disordered traumagenic systems struggle a lot with doubt, in part due to the very nature of the disorder, which often is a response formed as coping skill for severe trauma which masks itself from both external and internal scrutiny for safety.

It is not worth risking this harm to "protect" systems this doesn't even help, much like it's not worth say, denying SSI to 90 percent of people who need it just to keep the extremely small fraction of a percentage of fraudsters (who are willing to try to live in conditions of extreme poverty without ever being able to marry or save money) from getting it.

(It also seems to stem in part from a pluralmisic society which obscures and erases the very experience of plurality, so that many of us don't discover the labels for our experiences until late enough in life that it shatters a long-held view of ourselves that we then have to contend with as a fundamental shift in our understanding of ourselves. A similar thing occurs with trans people in transphobic societies doubting our transness due to spending our whole lives thinking we were cis, but just in the wrong way, and that everyone is miserable trying to be their assigned gender at birth.)

3. "Alters under age 13 are not permitted to speak in this server as per Discord TOS." Discord's TOS is entirely dependent on legal age and therefore bodily age. Littles and middles are childlike entities in an adult brain and body, and it is therefore up to each system to determine what is safe for their own non-adult members to handle. While some littles and middles may be very like actual children and therefore their systems restrict their activity, some systems have littles and middles that are perfectly capable of using the adult brains' faculties to safely navigate normal interactions. Note that this isn't a restriction on nsfw interaction, which is strictly prohibited in the server iwrc, which while offensive when done "for littles' safety" is at least something reasonable to refuse consent to interact in that capacity with a little for your own personal comfort.

4. "Factive alters sourced from EPIC collaborators are required to speak through an anonymous proxy or base profile when interacting with the server". So, essentially, the comfort of singlets is more important than the health, functionality, and safety of systems. It can be destabilizing to have to mask or pretend to front as someone else.

It is also saying "it's not okay to be openly an entirely separate individual with your own life, consciousness, and experiences, simply because you were unintentionally created by someone's brain based on a different living individual". In this case, the people saying this also believe the only possible reason for this unintentional influence on an alter's existence is due to a severe mental disorder - that they likely believe is only caused by trauma. (They likely consequently believe alters can only be SPLIT through trauma!)

So what they are in effect saying is "if trauma caused a person to exist inside your brain whose formation was influenced by one of us and who therefore shares a name and maybe mannerisms with one of us, they are not allowed to be openly themselves around us". Imagine if an autistic person who often mirrored mannerisms shared a name with them!

5. Re: the last point. They claim that people using pluralkit are people, but notably, they only recognize them as individuals. They do not recognize the personhood of non-parts based systems. "When speaking with someONE who uses pluralkit, remember you are speaking with A real PERSON". Now, they could be referring to the individual alter fronting at the time (and just not acknowledging cofronting out of ignorance or forgetfulness). Except for the damning line:

6. "Please note that Pluralkit is a bot used by INDIVIDUALS with DID/OSDD to facilitate communication". Now, I wanted to touch on, once again, that pluralkit's creators are open to and even intend for the bot to be used by nondisordered systems and even roleplayers. Once again, I have no issue with servers not allowing its use for roleplay purposes, since that doesn't dehumanize any actual systems nor refuse to recognize the personhood of individuals within any systems. But also... they literally are refusing to recognize the existence of actual DID and OSDD systems who identify as multiple people, not individuals!

While it is possible that the creators of Epic the Musical were simply trying to create a safe space for systems and are simply ignorant to the harm that sysmedicalism and creating a culture where fakeclaiming is allowed and even encouraged DOES, I find it more likely that a moderator, creator, or system that is close to one of the above is a sysmedicalist.

Below the cut for brevity of this post is a primer on system discourse (syscourse) and sysmedicalism for those that may not be immersed in the plural community.

Tl;dr of the part above the cut: This server is unsafe for even DID/OSDD systems, discriminates against and violates the autonomy of littles and factives (misunderstanding what littles and factives actually ARE in the process), and does not recognize the actual personhood of alters and headmates and multiplicity of disordered systems. This is just ableism, and extremely disappointing as a DID system that is a fan of the musical.

For those that don't know, sysmedicalists are plurality's version of transmedicalists. They believe that the only way to be many people or parts in one body (which is what plurality is) is to have a severe mental disorder that causes extreme distress and dysfunction, as a result of severe long-term childhood trauma, usually between the arbitrarily named ages of 9 and 12. Like transmedicalists, they believe that multiplicity is inherently a mental illness, and that you can't be plural if you don't experience extreme distress around it.

To be a [identity]medicalist is to pathologize and medicalize an experience that is not inherently either to the point of claiming all nonpathological and nonmedical forms of the experience don't exist, and usually also involves defining an identity primarily by the severe distress it CAN cause in some individuals, staging an arbitrary standard of suffering as a prerequisite that if not met is grounds for fakeclaiming anyone who derives any happiness or positivity of any kind from said identity.

They claim that a term coined and primarily used by trans systems is transphobic, because "transness isn't a mental disorder and systemhood is!" They fail to recognize that like transmedicalists truly believing transness is only a mental disorder incorrectly, they are also clinging to a claim that only the disordered form of a wider experience of being "many in one" is valid or real, and that everyone else are just "fakers" "stealing resources from real trans people/systems".

See iirc @livseses wonderful post for further similarities on transmed and sysmed arguments, which I will link later if I can find.

On the other hand, even psychiatric professionals, in an industry known for disregarding the experiences of neurodivergent and mentally ill people in favor of the narratives that neurotypicals with degrees in the subjects of our lives make up based on their external experiences of us, agree that nondisordered systems can exist. Most now also believe that trauma is not a prerequisite for plurality.

The DSM acknowledges cultural experiences such as mediumship (not all of which are from closed practices), and the ICD goes further to state that the same experience of "two or more distinct personality states" they describe as one of the requirements for DID does not "indicate the presence of a mental disorder". They also use cultural multiplicity as one example, clearly stating that the same experience of multiplicity present in DID can be present in the absence of a disorder.

These disorders are also very purposely not categorized in the "trauma disorder" section of diagnostic manuals, but rather in a section for "dissociative disorders". Even personality disorders, which are well-recognized as being mostly traumagenic in origin, are also not categorized as trauma disorders, for the same reasons of both lacking a high enough standard of proof that trauma is the only possible cause, as well as for the simple reason that dissociative and personality disorders are much more highly self-similar than they are to trauma disorders. Anyone claiming that "DID/OSDD are trauma disorders" and that to claim to the contrary is misinformation is themselves spreading anti-scientific misinformation.

It is also worth noting that by all modern definitions of disorderedness, a mental disorder requires either distress or dysfunction (and in some cases, both). Therefore, a DID or OSDD system that achieved functional multiplicity would not longer be considered functionally disordered.

Traumagenic is the term used to describe systems formed due to trauma. There is zero proof whatsoever that the trauma that forms a system is required to occur in childhood, and in fact seemingly previously healthy war veterans have been acknowledged in medical literature as displaying symptoms of complex dissociative disorders. While there is not a high enough burden of proof to discount the possibility that every single case was just a covert system's presentation made overt by the recurrence of trauma or development of PTSD, there is likewise not proof that trauma that occurs later in life (particularly for neurodivergent individuals with developmental disorders, as the parts of our brain involved in multiplicity often develop in different orders or at different rates.

Endogenic is the term used to describe systems formed for reasons other than trauma (and by most members of the community, for mixed origin systems that were not FULLY formed from trauma. The coiner maintains that full lack of trauma is required for "correct" use of the label; see my previous posts about the harm of prescriptivism and the ludicrousness of defining a term for an identity you don't claim and a community you are not in).

Endogenic does not necessarily mean nondisordered, as anything from trauma occurring after initial system formation to simply the brain's "wires" getting crossed, so to speak, may be able to cause a dissociative disorder even in the absence of the usual stimuli of trauma. Basically, if your brain has a "push in case of emergency" button, there's always a possibility however many failsafes are built to prevent this happening that it will accidentally be set off in the absence of an emergency. Likewise, traumagenic does not inherently mean disordered, as in the case of previously disordered systems who achieved functional multiplicity, or again, weirdness in an extremely complex organ we barely understand causing the brain to push the emergency button but only part of the stuff that is supposed to be caused by the button happening.

Plurality is simply a form of neurodivergence. People can be multiple consciousnesses or "people" (the defining of which falls more under the purview of philosophy than psychiatry) in one body without there needing to be a reason. Assuming singlecy (being a singlet, a nonsystem) is the default is as based in pluralmisia as assuming being straight is the default is based in homophobia.

It's also worth noting that the majority of psychiatry and psychology, as soft sciences, are based entirely in self-reporting. While yes, dissociative disorders can obscure knowledge of trauma until a system is ready to process said trauma, in the absence of any other notable amnesia or other disordered symptoms, it's actually more likely just from a logical standpoint alone that a person is simply right about saying "there are multiple people in this body" than they are unaware of trauma, let alone just "roleplaying" or "faking". There are simply too many endogenic systems for that to be the case.

Why would total amnesia around exactly the chronological bounds of the trauma, despite a system not having any periods of time missing from their memory, be the ONLY symptom experienced? In a society where even if you HAVE a disorder treatment is often inaccesibly expensive and the majority of people regard anyone who identifies as multiple as "insane" at best and "dangerous and needing to be locked up" at worst, what is to be gained from identifying as plural if that's not truly who you feel you are? It's the same tired arguments of nonbinary and nondysphoric/nontransitioning trans people in general just "pretending to be trans for fun". No one does that!

Also, traumatized people are not helpless crazy people that need "help" being paternalistically told what our "actual" experiences are because we're too ill to ever be right about our own lives and ESPECIALLY our subjective internal thoughts, emotions, and ways of experiencing the world and our selves. That's just extremely basic foundational sanism.

Some will claim it's not "for fun" but as a result of delusions or other mental illness that endogenic systems "claim to exist". They claim that delusional and mentally ill people need to be forced into treatment "for our own good", even if the alleged delusions are neither causing distress for us, dysfunction in our lives, or influencing us to act in ways which cause any material or quantifiable harm to others. And no, being offended by the existence of a subgroup of people within a marginalized group is not harm. That's just bog-standard bigotry.

This is also just basic sanism. It's the idea that if someone holds uncommon beliefs or is in any way abnormal, that those beliefs and abnormalities need to be suppressed and stamped out for "our" own good and for the good of society. It's the same (fascist) rhetoric that causes everything from autism [Coolsville sucks] spe/aks seeking a eugenicist "cure" for autism to white supremacy. Note: neither autistic people nor nonwhite people nor any other marginalized group are inherently "abnormal". They are simply minorities LABELED as such by those in power.

I know someone might try to take that line out of context to claim that I AGREE that marginalized peoples are abnormal, coolsville-sucks-style, hence my clarification and inclusion of that in brackets to make any bad faith actors have to at least black it out if they want to screenshot that out of context. That way, anyone bothering to actually fact-check will see immediately that they are twisting my words and acting in bad faith. I've been around the syscourse block long enough to know people WILL do this.

There's further arguments to be made that "normality" is simply a descriptor for things that do not significantly deviate from arbitrary averages and that abnormality itself is therefore morally neutral, but I digress.

I do however, want to encourage people to look into the subject of "mad liberation" for more on questioning and challenging the assumptions that anyone with any mental disorders or trauma is incapable of being a reliable source on their own experiences and existence.

Anyway, plurality has existed for as long as humans have been recognizably human. Many past and present peoples acknowledge forms of it, both in open and closed cultures. Most reputable psychiatrists and psychologists acknowledge the existence of nondisordered and endogenic systems, and further studies are being done into this form of neurodivergence already. The few professionals that don't are typically those like the ones present in the video released by McLean Hospital which fakeclaimed actual professionally-diagnosed disordered systems (which also goes to show just how fakeclaiming only ever ends up harming the people it's claiming to be used to try to protect).

Finally, "plural" is a term coined specifically to be inclusive of all systems, regardless of origin or disordered status. Plural was never a term that belonged only to disordered traumagenic systems, and to claim so is to actively speak over the inclusive systems responsible for coining the term and spread misinformation.

Tl;dr Endogenic and nondisordered systems exist, are valid, and should be believed about the ways they experience their own consciousnesses and brain. This is backed even by doctors in the field of "dismiss people who have abnormal experience of consciousness and supplant their narratives with what neurotypicals THINK is going on based on how we experience the actions of neurodivergent people. Trauma is not the only way to form a system, and intensely distressing mental illness is not the only way to BE a system.

The Epic the Musical server is unsafe for any systems, which as a DID system, makes us feel sad and angry and hurt.

Anti-en/dos, just block us. Even if you can come up with a new argument instead of the same repetitive and inane misinterpretations of scientific literature (or those actively disproven by scientific literature, no less) and pseudoreligious baseless beliefs about plurality, all I would do is tear apart the foundation of the new "argument" for bigoted exclusionism. I've already weighed more evidence than you've ever read, and I won't be convinced that this time the group just trying to live their lives and be accepted as they are is ACTUALLY harmful evil invaders faking and stealing resources because trust you bro. We also know more about our own mixed origins than you as a stranger are capable of ever discerning.

We've been harmed enough by fakeclaiming as a multiply physically disabled and neurodivergent queer traumaendo DID system to ALWAYS side with the people against fakeclaiming anyway, we BELIEVE minorities and especially neurodivergent people about what's going on inside their heads, and quite frankly, we just don't like exclusionist bigots (like you) and don't want exclusionist bigots (like you) interacting with our posts.

#epic the musical #ableism #traumagenic #endogenic #ant//i end//os DNFI #discourse cw #sanism #mad liberation #madpunk #pluralpunk #plural

96 notes · View notes

thornfield987-blog · 3 months

Text

I know this has been done before but here’s my headcanons for LU Chronic illness/Disability boys:

Legend(he/they): Hypermobile type Ehlers Danlos syndrome. Frequently dislocates joints and doesn’t see why the others make such a big deal about it, it happens all the time! Primarily suffers from widespread join pain, instability and chronic fatigue. Has as many different mobility aids as they have magical artifacts.

Time(he/him?): Early onset osteoarthritis and partially blind. All of the time travel and shifting forms was not kind to his joints, so the connective tissue was damaged and BOOM. Arthritis. The old man jokes are becoming less and less of a joke every day. Also experiences debilitating migraines.

Hyrule(they/he): Sensory Processing Disorder (often associated with autism but can be caused by other conditions). Their magic sensitivity can often cause overstimulation in their other senses, and they are very sensitive to light, sound, smell and touch. They are semi-verbal because even his own voice can overstimulate him sometimes, but they don’t know sign very well. Also has anemia.

Wild(genderfluid he/she/they): hypertrophic contractural scarring, partially deaf, semi-verbal because of vocal cord scarring. Also prosthetic arm(set after TOTK). She switches between sign and speaking, whichever is easiest for him that day. They have to perform daily stretches and apply scar lotion to be functional, but they aren’t very good at remembering to do so. Often blows out his voice because he gets excited, but can’t tell how loud he is speaking.

Four(plural they/them): Dissociative Identity Disorder(but not really because of magical reasons), damaged growth plates because of Minish magic. They have very similar symptoms to DID, but there are slight differences because it was caused magically and traumatically, not like in the real world. They sometimes struggle to walk correctly because their growth plates are damaged, causing their legs to be slightly different lengths. They wear adaptive shoes to correct this.

Sky(he/him): POTS(Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome), chronic fatigue. He struggles to breathe the denser air on the Surface, but he struggled with it on Skyloft as well. He has a chronically higher heart rate that causes dizziness and (rarely) passing out when moving from sitting to standing, after eating, and after adrenaline rushes. This causes his stamina to be fairly low, and also causes chronic fatigue.

Twilight(he/him): RRMS(Relapse/Remission Multiple Sclerosis). This is caused magically by the Twilight curse eating away at his body’s nerves, but is kept mostly under control by his shadow crystal. Occasionally, he goes through relapses and experiences anything from tingling and numbness in a limb to temporary loss of vision in one or both eyes, balance issues, vertigo and slurred speech. These flares are almost always debilitating, but thankfully they only happen every couple of months and last from a few days to about a week.

Wind(he/him?): A little cliche, but he has a peg leg. He likes to tell outlandish stories about it getting bit off by a kraken or eaten by a cannibal, but the truth is that he got an infection, couldn’t treat it in time and had to amputate. This happened sometime after his quests had finished, and he’s still a little ashamed of the actual circumstances, so he doesn’t open up often.

(edit) I FORGOT WARRIORS

Warriors(he/him): Speaking Disfluency (Stutter). Often repeats sounds, such as “G-g-g-guys”, or extends sounds; “Llllllll-Iove you”. He grew up poor, so he was never able to get treatment for it, so he communicates using sign while Proxi translates verbally, though this isn’t as necessary with the Chain since most of them know sign.

#legend of zelda #linked universe #linkeduniverse #Lu chronic illness #linked universe headcanons

70 notes · View notes

cambriancrew · 4 days

Text

It's not a "complex trauma disorder". It's a complex dissociative disorder commonly associated with trauma. Big difference.

If someone is having problems, they're going to seek out help for those problems. Doesn't matter if you think you're endogenic or traumagenic. Also, seeing your plurality as endogenic is NOT the same as thinking you have no trauma at all. The vast majority of endogenics have trauma, as most people in general do, and are very aware of their trauma history. There are even endogenic systems with professionally diagnosed DID who are in treatment for it.

So no, the idea of endogenic plurality is absolutely NOT "anti-recovery".

Also, it's not the fault of endogenics that some traumagenic people look at endogenics and feel invalid. Some trans people look at gnc cis people and feel invalid, is that the fault of the gnc people? Some athletes look at Olympic Games participants and feel invalid, is that the fault of the Olympians? Some infertile people who adopted their children look at families with kids they had themselves and feel invalid, you gonna hate on people with biological kids like that? Of course not. If other people existing makes you feel bad, that's not those other people's fault. Now if they go to you and say to your face that you're invalid, THAT'S harmful and entirely their fault.

Which is not something that the vast majority of endogenics are doing - but it IS something anti-endos do to traumagenics ALL THE TIME. "Oh, you support endogenics? You must be one of them, you faker." "Oh, your trauma was what I consider to be less valid? You're a faker." "Oh, you view some of your systemmates as having a spiritual origin? You're faking.”

Also, there's research and experts who say that the theory of structural dissociation of the personality doesn't dictate the only way plurality can form. This even includes the DSM-V-TR, which states specifically that DID "may or may not be preceded by exposure to a traumatic event." The ICD-11, used more broadly around the world than the DSM, including in the USA, says that if dissociative identities aren't causing distress or dysfunction, it's not DID or any other disorder, and uses spiritual plurality as one example of non-aversive plurality. The American Psychiatric Association published a book for healthcare providers that states that while plurality can be caused by trauma, that isn't an exclusive reason for it. And also that plurality is one part of DID and can exist outside of it. Two of the authors of the theory of structural dissociation said in a research paper that there can be dissociative identities like in DID for other reasons.

Meanwhile, there's literally not a single reputable source saying otherwise. Not one.

#syscourse

34 notes · View notes

multiplicity-positivity · 7 months

Text

Coming Out! As Plural!

[ Acknowledgements: Thank you so much to everyone who shared their experiences, tips, and advice regarding coming out as a system! We read all of your responses and incorporated much of the info shared into this post. Again, thanks for all your help! ]

Sharing awareness of your system with others can be a deeply beneficial, freeing, and rewarding experience. However, it can also be risky, heart-wrenching, and potentially dangerous! Remember, you do not owe anyone any private or personal information about yourself, including your system or experience with plurality! That said, if there’s someone in your life you want to tell about your system, here are some DO’s and DON’T’s on how to do it safely!

DO plenty of research!

Regardless of your system origins, it will likely be a good idea to research all sorts of different forms of plurality before coming out to loved ones. Many singlets have likely never heard of plurality, or have only heard of dissociative identity disorder through media that portrays this illness as something to be feared. So understanding dissociative disorders along with non-trauma-formed plurality could really help when it comes to talking to someone else about your system - especially if your system is endogenic in nature!

We recommend checking out our resource post for questioning systems, which has lots of links to helpful articles on many different forms of plurality.

DON’T come unprepared!

It shouldn’t be all on you to explain every aspect of plurality to your loved ones. It can be a huge burden trying to completely educate someone who isn’t fully aware of plurality and how it manifests! We recommend finding a few articles that help explain plurality that have helped you in the past, and sharing them with the folks you’re coming out to. As a DID system, here are the articles we brought with us every time we’ve come out about our system:

A Definition of Plurality and Overview of the Community by Plurality Resource

DID Myths and Misconceptions by Beauty After Bruises

Supporting a Person Who Lives with Dissociative Identities by the ISSTD

It may be necessary to be ready and willing to stand up for other forms of plurality, debunk misinformation and misconceptions, and set the record straight when it comes to any ableism the person you’re coming out to may have picked up consciously or unconsciously. There are no wrong systems, and society often paints us in a negative light, so be prepared to contradict misconceptions as soon as you hear or suspect them!

DO know your audience!

If the person/people you’re hoping to come out to are close-minded, unkind to those who are different from them, or unwilling to learn about or try to understand the worldviews of different people, coming out to them may cause more harm than good. You don’t want to come out to someone who will only judge you for your system and disrespect you while not accepting you for who you are! Similarly, if you are an endogenic system or a system who did not form from trauma, knowing your audience and their views on nontraumagenic plurality before coming out could potentially save you a world of heartache.

DON’T assume the worst in others!

Just because someone doesn’t know anything about plurality doesn’t mean they’ll always be quick to judge you for being a system! When coming out, you set the pace and control what information you share and when. It’s important to try and understand the difference between willful or bigoted ignorance, and ignorance simply because someone hasn’t been exposed to an experience like yours yet. If you’re attempting to come out to someone close to you, and they’ve expressed kindness and understanding towards, say, people who are very different from them, people who are neurodivergent, and other sorts of diversity in other folks, they may be more willing to learn about and accept your plurality!

DO take your time and avoid distractions!

Try to make sure that your moment of coming out is not rushed or spent in a busy environment. While you certainly don’t owe anyone any explanations about your plurality, if you’re coming out to a singlet, it’s normal to expect that they might be confused and have lots of questions! Allowing yourself time to slow down, explain your plurality in your own terms, and answer some questions that your loved one may have could certainly help them reach a better understanding of your system.

DON’T be too hasty or rush to come out to everyone!

When first learning about your system, it may seem all so new and exciting, and you might feel the urge to quickly come out to everyone in your life about your system. We don’t recommend doing this! Rather, it’s probably best to start with one person who you trust fully, and work your way up slowly from there. In fact, you may decide in the future that there’s only a small circle of folks who you want to know about your system. Avoiding haste, using your own discretion, and being hesitant and cautious when coming out to new people may save your system a lot of pain in the long run.

Take it from us: we came out to a few people in our life as soon as we received our DID diagnosis, and we really wish we hadn’t! We had folks who either didn’t believe us, feigned acceptance while going on to ignore our plurality, or downright cut us off as a person in their lives. If we had been a bit more cautious when choosing who to come out to, we wouldn’t have lost so many members of our support system.

DO manage your expectations!

We’re only human, and the same goes for our loved ones! So it’s best to manage expectations when you’re coming out to someone else. People may struggle to understand or come to terms with plurality. They may struggle with using your system’s name or any new pronouns you provide. They may have difficulties telling who’s fronting, or they may go on to treat your system the same as they did before you came out. We’d recommend having patience and understanding for your loved ones in the weeks and months following coming out. You can gently remind them about your system or help them when they’re having trouble figuríng out who’s fronting. Remember, they might not always have malicious intentions if they forget about your plurality or struggle to keep your system straight. And hopefully, with time and practice, they can grow to become great allies to your system and plural folks everywhere!

DON’T come out without testing the waters first!

No matter how well you’re expecting someone to take the news of your plurality, it may be a good idea to test the waters first before fully coming out. This may include a number of different things you can do, such as:

- Off handedly mention plurality or system experiences

- Mention a plural influencer or creative you admire such as Aimkid or Left at London

- Bring up unique or interesting forms of plurality like paromancy or the plurality of writers

- Talk about “a friend you know” who’s plural (can be real or imagined, but keep it anonymous if you talk about someone you actually know!)

By discussing plurality without explicitly outing yourself as a system, you may be able to get a feel for your loved ones’ attitudes towards systemhood and plural experience. If they react negatively, it may be best to play it safe and avoid coming out to them in order to better protect your system!

DO consult the rest of your system before coming out!

It’s always a good idea to check in with the rest of your headmates before coming out to anyone about your system. Your headmates deserve the right to have input on who knows about them! Some headmates may feel nervous or uncomfortable about coming out, or may have some reservations that need to be worked out before they’d feel comfortable with others knowing about them. And that’s okay! It’s so important to respect your headmates, and respect often means listening to them and not breaking their boundaries if they don’t want others to know about your system for any reason. Show your headmates that you value their opinions and care about their worries or concerns by discussing coming out with them before you actually tell anyone else about your system!

In Conclusion

While coming out as a system can be an incredibly beneficial experience, it’s best to take proper precautions before and during your coming out to ensure the safety of your whole system.

Not all of these tips will be useful for all systems of all sorts! Please use your best judgement and your own discretion when deciding when and how to come out as plural to your loved ones.

We’re wishing each and every one of you a safe, comfortable, and peaceful experience coming out to other folks in your life! Please remember that, even if you are scorned or invalidated for coming out, that is in no way reflective of your system, how real it is, or how you function. You have the right to let others know about your plurality, or to keep it a secret! Whatever your system decides to do, know that we’re rooting for you and we want to support and uplift you however we can. Please take care of each other, and thanks so much for reading!

#multiplicity #plurality #pluralgang #actuallyplural #system positivity #plural positivity #plural pride #system pride #long post #coming out #coming out plural

79 notes · View notes

pluralpcs · 9 months

Text

So You're a Singlet and Want to Play a Plural PC?

We see this come up from time to time. A singlet wants to play a character with "multiple personalities" or something like that.

We think that's really cool! The advice and information on this blog is free for anyone to use to have fun!

But there's likely a few things to consider if you're singular and are trying to play a plural character.

For the Edge!

We are not fans of considering things "cringe". We definitely cause people to cringe at our self expression. Hell, this entire sideblog could wind up on a cringe subreddit some day. So we are not against making "edgy" characters.

But we do have to admit that there are players out there who make characters for what seem to be the sole reason of being edgy. And that in and of itself isn't wrong or bad (we have some real edgelords in our character portfolio). It just happens to be the case that sometimes these players won't mesh well with the rest of their table, or they might stray into the territory of mockery.

Dissociative Identity Disorder and Otherwise Specified Dissociative Disorder type 1 (or Multiple Personality Disorder if you're getting old school with your language) are stigmatized disorders, which in turn means that there will be players that slap them onto their characters to make the character more tragic, serious, or otherwise edgy. These aren't the only ways to be plural, or for plural characters to exist, but they are probably the most popular depictions.

So it might be tempting to just give a character an edgy alternate personality state. But it's important to not make a caricature. Just like you shouldn't make stereotypes of other identities and disorders, you should be kind with your plural ones. Don't rely on stereotypes or negative media depictions. Consider the fact that DID and OSDD-1 are common enough that you have probably met people with those disorders. Yes it's an extreme disorder for some of us, but for others it's just kinda, part of our lives (and for many it's somewhere in between).

Do Some Research

Simple as. This follows from avoiding stereotypes and caricatures. Look up other plural blogs. Read some threads on r/plurals. Listen to plural folk about our experiences. Hell, if you know some systems maybe talk to them about the idea for a character. Keep an open mind. Be willing to change your concepts about your character and plurality around.

Be a Few Team Players

A lot of advice for working with a group of other players will likely apply well to your plural character. It sucks ass to have that one character that's always trying to roll to pick pocket the other PCs. It still sucks when that character is a headmate of a plural PC. Keep in mind that you're playing a game with a group of other people, even if your playing a group of people sharing a body.

Our best advice for playing plural characters is the same as our general advice to other real life plurals: to think of the collective as being an internal team. Try to make sure that the different headmates of your PC are not at each others' throats constantly. When one headmate makes a promise to another PC, the other headmates should take responsibility with keeping that promise. If your plural PC is adventuring with a group of other PCs, then all of the headmates should be to some extent on board with this.

Of course, this advice can always be broken when it's worth it to the group and the story. Just like it can be fun and narratively appropriate for two PCs to get into a fight with each other, it can be fun and narratively appropriate for two headmates to come into conflict.

Something Special

There's something to be said about wanting to be special. People want to be special. And when they make characters, they want those characters to be special. And oftentimes those things are thrown at people as an accusation to grind them down and make them shut up. But everyone's special. Everyone has a whole ass life that they've lived that has uniqueness and commonality to it.

This is true of PCs as well. If you make a plural character, you're making a character that's special. And so are your singular PCs. It's likely the assumption that your character is singular, so it feels special or rare to make one that's explicitly plural. But all of the characters at your table are in some way special or rare. That's true by virtue of the fact that they're the characters your story and game focuses on.

So if you're playing a plural character, remember that while they are special, they are no more special than the rest of the PCs at the table. Share the spotlight. Engage with each other. Invest in everyone's story. Lift each other up.

#ttrpg #tabletop rpgs #roleplaying games #endo safe #plurality #plural system #system stuff

105 notes · View notes

sophieinwonderland · 1 month

Text

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)

145 notes · View notes

livseses · 7 months

Text

Idk, there's something that always bugs us about the statement "endos claiming to have DID/OSDD-1" instead of something like "DID/OSDD-1 systems who are endogenic" or "endogenic systems with DID/OSDD-1".

Okay I lied, I do know. It's the "claim" part. It's always that the hypothetical system is endogenic first and foremost. It's always a given. That goes without question (okay it's definitely questioned but I'll get back to that).

But they only claim to have DID/OSDD-1. When this phrasing is trotted out its never a given that the system has DID/OSDD-1. It's never believed that a system can exist prior to developing a dissociative disorder. Or that a system with a dissociative disorder can discover or recognize how they came to be and not ascribe that to trauma. It implies that the system doesn't have the disorder that they have.

And that framing is really unfair.

Wouldn't it be shitty if we did the same thing elsewhere? If someone said "this adult who claims to be autistic"? Or "this woman who claims to be a lesbian"? Or "this non-binary person who claims to be trans"? Or "this traumagenic system that claims to have DID/OSDD-1"?

We've seen all of those tossed around for the same reason. That last one is said (not in those words of course) by folks I think most of us would generally agree are being shitty. It's said by people who will fakeclaim any system for any reason. It's said by those that will fakeclaim a system for being queer or online. That's really bad company to have.

The usual response we see in defense of endogenic systems is "Most endogenic systems don't claim to have DID/OOSDD-1." Which is true, yes! We can't help but feel like that's talking about this on the fakeclaimer's terms though. We aren't asking folks to change how they respond of course, because we don't really know a better way to reject the accusation.

But those endogenic systems with DID/OSDD-1 aren't simply "claiming" to have DID/OSDD-1 any more than traumagenic systems are "claiming" to. They just have those disorders and are sharing that information about themselves.

While "endos are claiming to have DID/OSDD-1" puts the endogenic part first, implicitly leaving the diagnosis up for questioning, there is a flip side (see, I'm getting back to it).

To compliment the above, fakeclaimers will say that disordered endogenic systems just really don't know about their trauma; essentially that these DID/OSDD-1 systems are just claiming to be endogenic. Of course, we don't see it phrased that way. It's usually trying to be nicer. These poor misguided systems were tricked into thinking that they're endogenic. Or these foolish systems don't really know their origin. Or these crazy systems can't be trusted with their own experiences, cause that's what DID/OSDD-1 does to you.

It's patronizing. It's invalidating. It's disrespectful. It's sanism. It is opposed to disability rights and mad liberation. It speaks over DID/OSDD-1 systems.

These two claims compliment each other. They both feed into the idea that plurality (or at least DID/OSDD-1) can only exist for traumagenic systems. Anyone who disputes that with their lived experiences are either malicious fakers doing some stolen valor shit and invading spaces, or poor "real" systems that are just manipulated/ignorant/crazy.

Huh? That sounds familiar. Reminds me of attacks on trans folk that paint us as dangerous predatory invaders or poor deluded children falling for peer pressure... I would say it's strange or surprising, but we've gotten pretty used to attacks on systems having analogues in transphobia.

Anyways, endogenic systems aren't "claiming" to have DID/OSDD-1. Most endogenic systems don't have DID/OSDD-1, and they never said they do. Some endogenic systems do have DID/OSDD-1, and they share that part of their lives. Some DID/OSDD-1 systems are endogenic, and they have just as much right and ability to determine what caused their system to form and talk about it as any other system.

-Faye

#faye rambles #syscourse #anti endos dni

78 notes · View notes

theinfernalcollective · 5 days

Note

hey I was just wondering... why are your posts tagged with "not endo safe"? what's the problem with being endo?

people can have hallucinations from having schizophrenia, psychosis, taking drugs, not sleeping for too long, or just not hydrating enough... you don't see people with schizophrenia tagging their posts with "not dehydration safe" and invalidating and "fakeclaiming" people who get hallucinations from reasons other than their disorder, despite being a symptom of their disorder...

so why is it different with plurality? why is it that the symptom is not allowed to exist outside of the disorder?

in fact there is not a single symptom of any disorder that can't exist outside of the disorder(s) it accompanies. people can dissociate without having a dissociative disorder, can hallucinate without having psychosis, can have anxiety without having an anxiety disorder. disorders are never about having symptoms that dont exist outside of them, but about the severity and why they happen. why is plurality, a symptom of DID/OSDD isn't allowed to exist outside of the disorder?

being dehydrated is different from having schizophrenia, the comparison feels silly cause it is, but both can cause hallucinations despite one being a disorder and one being accidental, sometimes even intentional. doesn't mean that the symptom is somehow only valid when caused by one of them... being endogenic is different from having DID/OSDD, the comparison feels silly because it is, both can cause plurality despite one being a disorder and one being accidental, sometimes even intentional.

as a traumagenic system, we've/I've been through way too much to have the energy to worry about people different than me experience life differently than us... don't know how you have the extra energy for that. every traumagenic system is so different, why would we expect other systems to experience plurality the same way we do? and expect people without the disorder to experience this symptom the exact way as we do? no thank you, we have hobbies for when we're bored. hope you're able to find hobbies soon as well

The problem with endogenics is they claim to have DID or OSDD without any childhood trauma which is medically and psychologically impossible. Or they claim that the trauma they experienced as a child wasn't the cause of their trauma, which is also wrong. DID and other dissociative disorders are a PTSD trauma response and solely a PTSD trauma response. In simple, you don't have trauma. You don't have DID or OSDD, we have spoken to our therapist about this topic and she wholeheartedly agrees. - Vayu

#system #did #did system #dissociative identity disorder #dissociative system #did osdd #traumagenic system #osdd #actually did #not endo safe

21 notes · View notes

antimisinfo · 1 month

Note

as someone who has maladaptive daydreaming disorder this pisses me off so FUCKING BAD. im too shakey to type much less read this fully but oh my fucking god. oh my god. what the FUCK. how fucking DARE this person take MY DISORDER and twist it to conform to their DISGUSTING ABLEIST BELIEFS?? im reFUCKINGvolted

https://www.tumblr.com/alyssasmaddworld/741046067507904512/theres-this-level-of-dissociation-that-goes-hand?source=share

i- this post is a lot, but i'll try deconstruct each point here.. i'll be focusing on points that i can debate here / can disprove or try to disprove here because otherwise this will be a really long post,, longer than it already is. also i'll be referring to maladaptive daydreaming as MD for simplicity's sake. if i get any information on MD wrong please let me know as i do not have this disorder(?) nor do i know much about it outside of the research done for this post.

the source linked here does say that it is a dissociative disorder and it does say that it might not be caused purely by trauma " Although trauma may be one causal factor, we indicate several other etiological pathways to the development of MD. We discuss associations with related concepts and suggest directions for future research " so there isn't much for me to say here other than the part about plurality, but we'll go more into depth on that below.

this.. the source they used is pluralpedia.. which used the source of a tumblr blog.. so lets get into this. the first source also mentions maladaptive characters / MD characters but it also says that it is not like DID " We discuss and exemplify with clinical vignettes the shared phenomenological characteristics between MD and dissociative phenomena, such as double consciousness, vivid visual imagery, and the creation of internally narrated characters. MD characters can be experienced as somewhat independently-agentic, although unlike dissociative identity disorder (DID), they typically do not take control over the daydreamer’s behavior "

so lets look into MD characters, shall we? the only source i can find on MD characters ((other than the one they linked / tumblr posts)) consider them more of a form/type of daydreaming (experiencing the daydream as yourself or as a character, daydreaming about a character, ect). these characters are not at all similar to alters and the "closest" i found was the foreign character

" For those who heavily engage in maladaptive daydreaming, they often will begin to develop "The Foreign Character" type of maladaptive daydreaming. In this type, you daydream about a central character who you believe is yourself, but who is fundamentally different in almost all respects. " — maladaptivedaydreaming.org

however these are not at all similar to alters which are

" two or more separate identities called “alters.” They control your behavior at various times. Each alter has its own personal history, traits, likes, and dislikes " — WebMD

the same source on foreign characters also states that " The reality is that for most people, they engage in these kinds of daydreams because they want to daydream about things entirely devoid from themselves and their real world experience. They don't want to daydream about themselves being a doctor or being better looking (to use the prior examples I used), but instead they want to dream about themselves being entirely different people so they can escape from who they really are. ". other than that source there is very little evidence on these characters being separate identities, even then it's important to keep in mind that it is not the same as having a split identity as it only appears during daydreams i would assume and would not be able to control you, how you think, how you behave, ect. ((which the first source literally said,, do endos even read their sources??)) i would also like to add that if these characters feel real and you believe all your daydreams to be real then it might actually be a delusion. there's nothing wrong with having delusions but it is also important to recognise that it's not real and that it does not at all compare to being a system.

the first source they used to claim that having MD is the same as being plural is a pro endo source, it defines being plural as " The most simplified definition of the term plural that includes all people who take the label is “someone who shares the same physical body with other individuals.” Such a group is sometimes referred to as a system, though many plural groups use different terminology. " which,, again having daydreams are is not the same as having separate identities, so really this source means nothing.. and the second source is.. just insane really. its a study done on the experiences of those with multiple identities. they did two things, one was an online survey that had 200-300 results and then 6 interviews.. which is definitely not enough evidence, since they cannot know if people are lying on those online surveys and 6 people are not enough to make it a reliable source. but lets focus on the part they pointed out, which was:

" Empirical measurement of multiplicity is sparse. The first inventory published in the field was the Plural Self Scale (Altrocchi, 1999), which assesses the structure of the personality. High scores indicate that thoughts and feelings are different through time and situations. The other inventory to assess multiplicity was developed by Carter (2008) and consists of 20 items, such as “Does your handwriting change noticeably at different times?” or “Do you swing suddenly from one mood to another for no apparent reason?.” However, these scales measure the integrity of the self and rely on the assumption that there is a “you” or “I” who is able to self-reflect. Individuals who consider themselves multiple refer to themselves as a group of selves (“we”). Thus, questionnaires that assess the extent of self-integration fail to assess the experience of individuals who claim to have multiple selves who all have different thoughts, feelings, motivations, and levels of complexity. " which-- just isn't much of a criteria other than the questions, of which are "does your handwriting change at different times" and " do you swing from one mood to another with no apparent reason", but it literally says this fails to asses those who claim to be plural-- so i don't see what their point was here really. it just seems like they're saying words for the sake of saying words.

i don't think this person realises what closed culture is.. tulpulmacy is not a form of being plural nor should it be considered that, thoughtforms are usually used purely for meditation or for your spiritual journey, not for fun,, unlike "tupla systems" which are often not even Buddhists, which is the main issue. a closed practise, which is what tulpulmacy is, is a "practice in which you can only take part in their craft if you were specifically born into the practice, or went through an initiation process.". while i'm not 100% sure what exactly they mean with the last part there isn't much for me to say here other than the fact that tulpulmacy is not the same as being plural and we did have a former Buddhist actually talk to us about this here! and while it isn't exactly sourced i feel its still an important read.

i believe they're speaking about the word plural here,, which wasn't made by endos?? the word plural just refers to more then one. unless they mean traumagenic?? which then confuses me because their source doesn't really mention it--

culture is dynamic yes, but some cultures are closed and it's important to understand that-- just because the culture is shifting doesn't mean you can steal closed practises.

"endogenic sphere" makes me shiver but okay, lets talk about this too. there isn't a lot of research on MD, so i cannot say what the direct cause is. "Experts don’t know exactly why maladaptive daydreaming happens. However, they suspect it happens because maladaptive daydreaming can be a coping mechanism for problems like anxiety, depression and other mental health conditions."

no?? what?? as i said above, many times, having MD is not the same as having DID / being a system and also the image only refers to feeling disconnected from the body and sense of identity which is pretty common with dissociation and doesn't exactly prove anything related to endogenic systems..

i- ?? i mean as i said before we don't know what exactly causes MD but i don't believe people chose to do this?? not really??

" maladaptive daydreaming is often compulsive, which means a person feels like they need to do it. Because the need to daydream is similar to an addiction, daydreaming more often can make it a strong habit, so it’s very hard to stop doing it. That’s why seeking mental healthcare for it sooner rather than later is important. "

but all being said, its not a vaild form of plurality because its nothing like having separate identities?? sure when daydreaming you might identify as a different person but you're still you. your overall identity is intact and i'm pretty sure most people with MD do not think their daydreams are real, i believe that would be a delusion instead of a daydream-- and an important separation is these characters would only show up in daydreams i assume, while alters are always there, infact in DID you yourself is an alter but in MD one of you is a person and the other is a character created through daydreams,, which is not comparable to genuine parts / alters. ((also please do not harass the person who made the original post, our post / response is purely meant to educate and correct misinformation and we do not intend for people to go to the op's blog and send them things))

#sourced #kind of sourced #requested info #answered asks #anti endo #endos dni #system #did osdd #osddid #plural #system stuff #did #traumagenic system

37 notes · View notes