#even i recognized how it hurt my sysmates | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

xxlovelynovaxx · 1 year

Text

I'm also going to talk about this:

"Why do systems need special terms for normal experiences" sounds a lot like my mom saying "why do you need to label yourself" about my queer identity.

One, because it helps me understand myself. But more importantly, because my experiences ARE fundamentally altered (hehe) by my plurality. Some of us are fragments and NOT full people. Some of us are symptom holders, trauma holders, or otherwise dealing with stuff compartmentalized to that headmate because that's how many forms of plurality work.

No, most of us AREN'T persecutors OR protectors. Many of us can't be that. Some were unintentionally in that role before our plurality became apparent. Those people have stepped down and been able to heal because they are not in that role. Others explicitly consented to keeping or taking up that role. I'm gonna come back to this.

"Because we still see ourselves as not normal" - Do you think being abnormal is bad? Do you? Do you think the terms neurodivergent and neurotypical are bad because they imply a norm and a divergence from it? Do you think it's untrue that systems have unique experiences from singlets?

Because if so, that's big "a trans person talking about how their experience of gender is different than the corresponding cis gender because of their transness is transphobia". Real "transmascs who use the lesbian label are misgendering themselves" energy. Truly "using queer implies you're odd so you can't reclaim it". Absolute "everyone's on the spectrum" vibes. Real "I don't see color" bullshit.

I don't feel the need to be normal because I'm not an assimilationist, actually. Acceptance doesn't come of making everything normal, acceptance comes of teaching everyone to respect when something diverges from typical experiences.

Also actually, it's fairly common to use labels for people that only sometimes have aspects of a role. Have you ever heard of a career? What about moods? Is someone not a "cheerful" person if they are sad sometimes? Not funny if 10 percent of their jokes flop? Singlets absolutely take on labels that describe things they sometimes embody.

Part of the reason there's not a one to one singlet label is because singlets have the same "fronter" all the time. If a persecutor behaves in that role even thirty percent of the time, and fronts ten percent of the time that they do, others only see the system behaving that way THREE percent of the time. As opposed to the singlet, who would be seen behaving that way... thirty percent of the time. Wow! Math!

Us using a role to describe ourselves is not us dehumanizing ourselves any more than using it/its pronouns is. We are people, who are ALSO our roles. Role kinda... implies that it is neither the whole person nor permanent. Actors who play roles, roles in a company/project... none of those are describing the whole of a person. Imagine saying "you can't call yourself a video editor, you're more than that". -_-

When it is a choice, that we consent to... you call it a "recipe for disaster" and "a self-fulfilling prophecy". Do you think that we can't CHOOSE whether or not we want to fulfill that role, and when we want to? Do you think we'll just go "oh well we're a persecutor guess we have to be shitty to others/ourselves"?

While any of us can sometimes lash out when triggered, we specifically have an agreement that the persecutor most able and willing to handle a situation will do so with the permission of the host and other affected sysmates. There are times we need someone who isn't afraid to be an ass to people that are hurting us - while using their best judgment about it, of course.

This is also a term that has helped those who had unintentionally stepped into the role process their own trauma and triggers. We had a few people get triggered by our partner at separate points in time.

When they recognized that they were behaving as persecutors, that 1. their actions would affect everyone 2. that when not triggered they would feel bad about us and our loved ones being hurt by them and 3. that when we recognized certain system members fronting while upset we might be triggered and need to use our coping mechanisms... it made a huge positive difference for us. We were able to negotiate that we would let them protect us when it WAS needed if they would trust us to call them when it was.

So, as for an example:

Demonia. She picked the name. She is a demon. She enjoys hurting people - she is a sadist by nature. She gets that in two ways - 1. by consensual kink play and 2. by dishing it right back out to neo///nazis, te///rfs, abusers, and the like - within limits, because she understands that her actions affect everyone in the system, and there are lines that many of us won't cross. (Most of those lines are actually the same for her, but there's a few minor ones she otherwise wouldn't care about.)

She also, while still figuring out her identity, seems to like certain -dere anime tropes, video games, and media with angels/demons in it (for the most part, she says). She is relatively laid back otherwise and has a great sense of humor. She's often one to cheer me up when I'm feeling down and need a pick me up. If you think I see her as just a persecutor - that's HER label that she's takes pride in. She is proud that she has sharp teeth to defend us with when it's needed.

She also would be free to step down from the role at any time - an idea that currently is distasteful to her, but she does know that it's her choice and wouldn't have it any other way.

Lastly, the fact that it's largely used by DID/disordered systems IS relevant. While I'll never gatekeep terms based on origin or disordered status, these terms specifically speak to a phenomenon that is MORE common for us, BECAUSE OF our trauma. The dissociative barriers we have compartmentalize us to a more significant degree than in healthy multiplicity.

For us, this is especially true, as recognizing that one of us was acting in that role due to trauma or similar, was the exact reason they were able to start addressing those issues, heal, and become more than that. Saying "hey, you've been acting as a persecutor, is that a role you want?" has lowered the dissociative barriers that HAD boxed them into that role.

Trauma can cause headmates to form differently. It can cause them to inadvertently take on roles. That's a HUGE part of why the role labels are important! To recognize when the brain split a headmate in response to harm we faced - whether a caregiver, protector, persecutor, or otherwise - and examine if the role that was given to them at the time is now healthy or fulfilling for them. It's similar to examining whether coping skills formed in response to trauma serve us anymore - except, this is a whole ass PERSON the brain made as a "coping skill".

⚔️: I was one of those former persecutors. Things were... really hard before we realized that's what was going on. I was really hurting and... and it was no one's fault, but... it was because of me having been shoved to the front to protect us so often without any of us realizing. That's part of us being disordered, y'know? Until we knew we had DID, we simply didn't have the knowledge or toolset or anything to KNOW that that was happening. Our dissociative disorder assigned me that role, but I was the one who got to decide not to keep it as soon as we realized that it had.

I've heard "you don't need to label yourself and pigeonhole yourself into a box" from queerphobes and ableists. I've heard "it's not 'normal' to call yourself [label] based on [traits]" from all manner of bigots. Obsession wirh normalcy itself is assimilationism at best and borders on fascism at worst. And saying the labels a person CHOOSES for themselves are "not normal" when equating abnormality to badness is not just offensive, it's cruel.

It would be one thing to say: we've seen people sometimes label their headmates persecutors without their consent/use a reductive or incorrect definition of persecutor/pigeonhole their headmates into that role. This can be hurtful, so please be careful if you are going to use this term.

✅ Respects the autonomy of the system using the term, allows for different feelings and views on the word, draws attention to not using it just as a label for "bad" headmates and reminds people to respect the wishes of their headmates.

It's another thing to say "this is not normal/we don't need a label for this because it's an experience singlets don't have/acknowledging or choosing a role is dehumanizing and ignoring the rest of their personhood".

❌ Projects one's own feelings about the word's usage onto every system, ignores how trauma especially in disordered plurality often causes roles to form inadvertently and how recognizing that is a step towards healthy multiplicity for many, conflates being normal with being good and being abnormal with being bad, ignores that systems DO have unique experiences that singlets don't have by virtue of being multiple, also misunderstand the fundamental difference between a role and an identity.

You can be a role and a person.

I actually think "don't turn temporary descriptors into absolutes" is a very good standalone point. You can label yourself as a role even when not actively in that role, but don't force yourself to fill it all the time and don't force yourself to stay in that role if you don't want to/need not to.

I think that one part is good. I just think the rest is utter garbage.

#this is a very triggering subject for us #there's a difference between 'be careful of how you use this label' and 'I mean you can ignore me but using this label is p much bad lol'#the way you view the word is not universal

0 notes