nameless-syscourse - Tumblr blog

[nameless-syscourse]

It might come as a surprise to some of y’all that most plural-specific tags are not “safe spaces,” and especially not such away from “endos.”

If you want a “safe space” away from “endos,” then use the “anti endo” or “endos dni” tags; most of them will block you or already have those tags blocked.

It also may come as a surprise to some of y’all that a lot of systems are multigenic. Sources for traumagenic systems don’t automatically bar endogenic systems and vice versa. An endogenic system can still have trauma, and headmates can still have roles to deal with said trauma. In any case, a system being endogenic doesn’t mean they’re not traumagenic.

That said, don’t fucking get mad at people posting about endogenic systems in traumagenic tags. Don’t fucking get mad at people posting about traumagenic systems in endogenic tags. You don’t know their reasoning. Hush.

[nameless-syscourse]

it is incredibly exhausting to go through tags for a disorder i have been diagnosed with and see almost every post say “endos dni” “i hate endos” “endos fuck off” like oh my fucking god can you not make a single post about being disordered without sticking it to the endos or whatever

like hi hello, i am both diagnosed with OSDD and i identify as an praesigenic system because i dont care why my system formed and you shouldnt care why my system formed (and also bc people were breaking their own dni by following me, an endo supporter). you are creating a hostile space and alienating parts of your community because you refuse to understand that others can have different life experiences

its also really exhuasting when im looking for posts about OSDDID and everything is either a coining post telling endos to fuck off or a post bitching about endogenic systems existing.

i am just so tired and angry about it. disordered endogenic systems exist. endogenic systems diagnosed with OSDDID exist.

[nameless-syscourse]

Really disappointing and sad to see some random hiding behind the grey circle of cowardice spreading useless hate and bigotry to someone who won’t change their mind.

“Sad to see you supporting people who are different” yeah…… that’s not a good look, dicknips.

[nameless-syscourse]

We’ve seen that post before this is just the first I (🍷🦇) am seeing it with my own demonic little eyes… still pisses me off!

"Nobody ever gets demonic or angelic headmates before Hazbin Hotel!"

My guardian demon chilling in the corner:

...

...

It's frankly just silly that this even needs to be rebuked!

As long as I've been in the community, I've seen countless demons and religious-based headmates! Some straight from the religions, and others from different media like the last anon.

[nameless-syscourse]

I’m sorry, no one ever WHAT

So I guess I, a vampire demon alter who came around when the body was 12, in 2008, am an introject of a random vampire demon from a decade into the future! Wow!

There are REASONS for demonic alters other than fiction or religion, you know!!

"Nobody ever gets demonic or angelic headmates before Hazbin Hotel!"

My guardian demon chilling in the corner:

...

...

It's frankly just silly that this even needs to be rebuked!

As long as I've been in the community, I've seen countless demons and religious-based headmates! Some straight from the religions, and others from different media like the last anon.

[nameless-syscourse]

I fully support Evil Sophie, what you say is just as hilarious as it is accurate.

I found an anti-endo post saying they don't understand why endogenic systems and anti endos are still fighting because endogenic systems have our spaces and anti-endos have theirs, and I feel that take fundamentally misunderstands the real conflict in syscourse.

This isn't about being satisfied with having our own little isolated corners of the internet. It's about being able to be open wherever we are. In the past anti-endos would complain about endogenic systems invading traumagenic spaces. (Which by and large is a lie. Even many pro-endo traumagenic systems are made to feel unwelcome in traumagenic spaces, and purely endogenic systems practically never venture into them) But one thing I've been seeing a lot lately is them being angry at endogenic systems existing in other spaces. Like this post from an anti-endo vent blog...

This is where the real battleground is!

We aren't just fighting to have an isolated corner of the internet. Though we have been fighting for that too with anti-endos constantly invading our spaces to spread hate against us.

But what we're really fighting for is acceptance in every space. And what anti-endos are doing is trying to push us out of those spaces.

And look, I'll admit I'm greedy... I won't be satisfied until we've taken everything. Autism spaces, neurodivergent spaces, queer spaces, fandom spaces, gaming spaces, schools and even churches.

I genuinely don't care if anti-endos have their own spaces that are isolated and shutoff from the rest of the internet where they can talk about how much they hate us in private. Those isolated corners don't matter to me.

What does matter to me is endogenic systems who are queer being have disorders being accepted into spaces of people with those disorder. What matters is queer endogenic systems being accepted into the queer community.

These spaces are OUR spaces, and as long as anti-endos exist in them and try to push us out of them, we will always be in conflict.

[nameless-syscourse]

Congrats Sophie you have your own flair 🙄

The fact that that line was obviously a half-joke to get that exact reaction is GOLD

I found an anti-endo post saying they don't understand why endogenic systems and anti endos are still fighting because endogenic systems have our spaces and anti-endos have theirs, and I feel that take fundamentally misunderstands the real conflict in syscourse.

This isn't about being satisfied with having our own little isolated corners of the internet. It's about being able to be open wherever we are. In the past anti-endos would complain about endogenic systems invading traumagenic spaces. (Which by and large is a lie. Even many pro-endo traumagenic systems are made to feel unwelcome in traumagenic spaces, and purely endogenic systems practically never venture into them) But one thing I've been seeing a lot lately is them being angry at endogenic systems existing in other spaces. Like this post from an anti-endo vent blog...

This is where the real battleground is!

We aren't just fighting to have an isolated corner of the internet. Though we have been fighting for that too with anti-endos constantly invading our spaces to spread hate against us.

But what we're really fighting for is acceptance in every space. And what anti-endos are doing is trying to push us out of those spaces.

And look, I'll admit I'm greedy... I won't be satisfied until we've taken everything. Autism spaces, neurodivergent spaces, queer spaces, fandom spaces, gaming spaces, schools and even churches.

I genuinely don't care if anti-endos have their own spaces that are isolated and shutoff from the rest of the internet where they can talk about how much they hate us in private. Those isolated corners don't matter to me.

What does matter to me is endogenic systems who are queer being have disorders being accepted into spaces of people with those disorder. What matters is queer endogenic systems being accepted into the queer community.

These spaces are OUR spaces, and as long as anti-endos exist in them and try to push us out of them, we will always be in conflict.

[nameless-syscourse]

r/systemscringe's self-proclaimed "Tumblr Lore Historian" spewing mass amounts of misinformation

Why? Why can't you coordinate alters like this?

It's pretty well-known that alters can communicate internally. Everyone with even a basic understanding of DID is aware of this.

And researchers have had alters voluntarily switch in an fMRI machine!

There is neurological proof of DID systems being able to control switches!

"I don't know if this is possible or not but I don't like you talking about your experiences with your own mental illness in a funny way."

(Is this even about DID? I don't know if it's from a good plural culture blog or an anti-endo one. I'm just going to talk about it as if it were about DID.)

Also... this is actually about a negative experience. Sure, it's presented in a lighthearted way and is intended to be humorous... but it's not a good or positive experience.

And this makes the whole thing feel ableist for far more reasons than just the normal pluralphobic ones. This seems aimed at policing people with disorders of all kinds being able to joke about their own disorders!

Because to these ableists, even joking about negative aspects of your disorder is somehow glamorizing it.

The only emotion these people think you should be able to express towards your disorders is self-loathing.

And WHY WOULDN'T THIS BE POSSIBLE?

All they're describing is one alter waking up and turning the alarm off, and someone else fronting later.

Having multiple alters who switch throughout the day is the defining characteristic of DID!

Do you know anything about DID?

Yes, yes. You're ableist and hate people with disorders making jokes about them. We established that above.

More importantly, have you opened the DSM? Because alters of gods and spirits isn't that weird!

Yes, DID systems form alters based on religions! You should know this!

What is your obsession with Hazbin Hotel?

Again, religious alters are common enough experiences that they're literally described in the DSM itself.

Yes? That sounds like what they're describing.

Why not?

We already established in the beginning that some systems can control who is fronting. This has been proven for a fact with fMRI scans.

So why wouldn't a system be able to turn things into a game to see who could do their tasks the quickest?

Maybe. Maybe it's because you're a bitter person who hates people ever enjoying themselves and being happy. 🤷‍♀️

I think if you're scrolling through and getting irrationally angry at people not being miserable, you should actually analyze why you're feeling that way before you make posts making fun of them.

(Also, the tone here isn't "funny." It's excited at actually being recognized by a friend.)

Oh? Why don't you prove it then?

Like you said, you're not a professional!

So cite one! If you think alters can't form that easily, back that opinion up with someone who actually does know what they're talking about!

"I'm just someone who knows..."

No. You don't! You haven't studied this. You aren't relying on information from anyone who actually has. You're confidently shouting your uneducated and wrong opinions about a disorder you've demonstrated time and time again that you know NOTHING about, based entirely on what you've heard from other equally uneducated people on the internet!

I think we can tell the difference between a fictional character we have control over, and something that is completely autonomous, regularly interacts with us directly, and has autobiographical memories of those interactions.

Also, while there are many disorders that can cause voice hearing and seeing a doctor is a good idea if you can, it's worth noting that voice hearing in children is more associated with DID than psychotic disorders.

90% of DID systems start hearing their alters before the age of 18, compared to 28% of schizophrenic people with maltreatment and 38% with maltreatment.

But of course, having people in your head also isn't a disorder, and if you think you have a sentient voice in your head that isn't yours, you can check out my test to find out:

Notably, your average writing character should NOT be able to pass this test.

[nameless-syscourse]

petition for people to stop implying endogenic systems can't be traumatized.

a system being endogenic says nothing about their history with trauma other then it didn't cause their system

there isn't some magic barrier that stops endogenic systems from being traumatized, yes this includes ongoing and complex trauma because again endogenic just means trauma didn't cause the system not "has never experienced trauma"

-smile/Scarlet

[nameless-syscourse]

S.I.N.E

We coined a phrase in 2021: Subjective Internal Neurodivergent Experience.

Subjective: Based on personal thought, feeling, or experience; open to interpretation.

Internal: Happening in the mind and/or body of the person in question.

Neurodivergent: “Differing in mental or neurological function from what is considered typical or normal.”

The definition: When a person (or people) experiences a divergence in the mind or brain, that is not observed easily or at all from the outside, and can’t be objectively proven or disproven. Examples include autism, ADHD, OCD, ©PTSD, plurality, and a whole lot more.

It can be anything experienced that people can’t see happening, and can’t be proven “faked” because (a) it’s such an internal thing, and/or (b) science hasn’t figured out how to “tell” 100% of the time. This can include spiritual experiences, kinfolk, etc, if people choose. 

While there are often outward expressions of these experiences (stimming in autism, compulsions in OCD, changes in voice in plurality, etc) it’s like an iceberg. What someone sees on the outside is just the surface of what is happening inside the person(s) internal landscape.

We coined this because we feel like it’s more and more important to draw emphasis to the fact that these experiences aren’t something people “on the outside” can just prove/disprove. And on the fact that science can’t just “prove” someone is or isn’t having those experiences. 

By its very nature, a SINE isn’t something anyone can tell you that you’re faking, because they can’t see what’s going on inside your head. Randos, doctors, psychs, scientists. No one can prove without a shadow of a doubt that you ARE or AREN’T experiencing these things. And though medical conditions can be SINEs, the concept itself isn’t– and cannot be– medicalized. They don’t fit into neat, perfect boxes, and can’t always be “scientifically proven” in an individual. Even if science can tell something is happening via brain scans, for example, it’s not 100%. 

As long as:

1. You are claiming something in good faith.

2. You fit the basic concept of whatever it is you’re claiming.

3. It really isn’t something you can just get a medical test to confirm you do/don’t have for sure.

Then that’s a SINE.

Those guidelines are to rule out bad faith arguments, mostly. And to gently point out that things like brain tumors may be internal but aren’t subjective. It’s also important for people to not claim an experience if they don’t fit the definition of that experience AT ALL. (And yes, people can be evaluated for autism and such. But they’re ALSO subjective tests that ask someone outside of you to basically guess at if what you’re experiencing matches current understanding of the condition. Said evaluations can be wrong.)

Anyways, if you feel like this is a useful term to use, you can use it. Just don’t use it to exclude, fakeclaim, insult, harass, or otherwise harm anyone.  This term IS SPECIFICALLY against the attitudes of exclusionists and medicalists of all types. 

This is being brought to y'all by a trauma-formed system with DID and autism, who supports nontraumagenic systems and wants a term that emphasizes why exclusionism is fucking ugly. For us, plurality is a SINE. And that’s okay. It doesn’t have to be “proven” in ever single case. It can’t be.

[nameless-syscourse]

syscourse and “but science SAYS--”

If there’s one thing in syscourse we could convince people to accept, it’d be:

 Requiring “scientific proof” of a subjective internal experience is more ableist, anti-science, and harmful than that experience could ever be.

Science isn’t meant to be an ideological attack dog.

“What do you mean, TLC?”

Science falls into three branches: natural, social, formal. Natural = earth/space, biology, physics, etc. Social = psychology, history, etc. Formal = math, computers, etc. Applied sciences are things like medicine. Formal sciences aren’t empirical.

Let’s focus on natural and social sciences for now, since they do the empirical evidence thing. Natural science is about what you can see, taste, touch, hear, and put into a lab to study. It involves hypotheses, and being able to test them, retest, replicate results, etc. 

This is why science doesn’t really play with things like religion. It can’t prove there is or isn’t a god, because it can’t– at present– put “god” into a lab and study them. It can however stick a human in a lab and see what the brain does when people pray! 

Religion is a subjective internal experience, but science CAN test physical stuff like brains. Science can see what parts of the brain light up when you do, feel, or think XYZ. Science can’t always tell you what that data MEANS… but it can get the data and move on to guesswork. 

A hypothesis is a guess. Testing is what scientists do to see if it’s right. If the data shows the guess might be correct, they retest and see if the data can be replicated. They then report findings. A visual: 

If it can be replicated consistently, a hypothesis might become a theory. Or even a law! Here’s another visual: 

This is how we got the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, Newton’s first law of motion, etc. Because science took things that could be seen, tested it to death, and either made logical inferences from buttloads of evidence or actually observed the thing in action. 

Social science is a bit more wiggly, but the same idea applies– it’s something that was seen and recorded (history) or that can be put in a lab (psychology) and studied. Let’s focus on psychology, for reasons. :P Psychology, as a science, focuses on a few things. 

What they can see on brain scan and blood work– ruling out tumors, toxins, etc, or seeing how a brain reacts to XYZ, for example. What they can see in behavior– if someone is agitated, catatonic, harming themselves, etc. What that person reports– hearing things, losing time. 

The first two things are physical stuff that can be seen, recorded, studied. The last? Nope. If someone claims to hear things, you can get a brain scan of what’s going on when they hear things. But you can’t say they are or aren’t hearing things, because you’re not in their head. 

How does all this apply to plurality? We’re in the hypothesis stage. Science hasn’t “proven” much of anything about plurality. Yes, some systems have been put in a lab and studied as much as they could be studied, but there’s a lot of data that is internal experiences– 

And there’s a lot of aspects that can’t ethically be studied. For example, the concept that only trauma causes systems to form. It would be difficult to study for a lot of reasons, but ethics is a huge hurdle there. Traumatizing kids on purpose is usually frowned upon. 

What CAN science do? They can take traumagenic and endogenic systems, and scan their brains during things like switching, or see what it looks like when parogenic systems focus on creating a system member, or compare all that to (self-proclaimed) singlets. 

But science can’t prove that a system didn’t form the way the system claims it formed. Science can take down the system’s history, and observe their brain and their behaviors, but they can’t see what’s going on inside the system’s head and how or why they operate as they do. 

The best science can do is “this system reports a history of no trauma, their brain scans are consistent to what we see with switching in other systems, and we can observe changes between system members”… for now, anyways. 

None of what science currently has on plurality is enough to push any one idea past the hypothesis stage. Science can, and does, say that trauma is “usually associated” with disorders like DID and OSDD. But that’s correlation, and– 

Only in regards to systems who have, for some reason or another, ended up in a medial setting.

Science has yet to fully explore beyond plurality as it exists in medical settings, because there’s been little reason or demand for it to do so. Why waste the money and time?

Thus, there’s little “scientific proof” of nontraumagenic systems… not because they don’t exist, but because the studies haven’t been done yet. There’s been no reason to study systems who, by and large, don’t seek medical help for their plurality. 

Requiring systems to “scientifically prove” their existence is absurd, at best. SCIENCE doesn’t even require “scientific proof”– all that is required is self reporting, because science accepts “yeah this is probably a thing” and that it’s mostly outside science’s wheelhouse. 

Demanding “scientific proof” of a system’s existence is ableist because it implies that only things that can be physically studied are “good enough” to “count”. It implies self-reporting isn’t good enough, and that internal experiences don’t “count”. 

Demanding “scientific proof” is anti-science because it displays a serious lack of understanding in [1] what counts as scientific proof, [2] what can be scientifically proven, and [3] the entire scientific method. It’s a fundamental ignorance of what science can and can’t do. 

Demanding “scientific proof” is harmful because it does nothing to help systems, the plural community, or singlets truly seeking to understand. It just sows division, hatred, misinformation… and does bigots’ work for them. Not to mention the distress over being fakeclaimed. 

And ultimately, it can be turned on “system exclusionists”, too. Because guess what. There’s little “scientific proof” ANY type of system exists. Again, most “proof” of systems existing at all is held together by self-reporting, duct tape, and tiny pool of good therapists. 

Trauma-formed, not trauma-formed, y'all are in the same leaky boat heading towards sharp rocks. “Science proves” that systems are probably a thing, because systems SAY SO and because there are some funky brain scans showing SOMETHING going on that singlets don’t usually have. 

Science is supposed to be for examining the physical things we CAN study, and helping us understand the world around us. It is beautiful, but it has limits, too. Sometimes those limits shrink as science evolves, and gets better funding and better tools. Sometimes not. 

Regardless, it doesn’t exist and function as a weapon to be used against people who have something going on in their heads that science can’t fully see or study– and probably never fully will. Science isn’t something to unleash on fellow systems as a “gotcha”. 

Especially considering the fact that NO SYSTEM is in any position to do so.

 "Scientific proof" puts ALL systems of ALL origins in the same damn boat. And y'all can either start handing out lifejackets and start paddling, or sink.

Your call.

[nameless-syscourse]

"Endogenesis" is a "Conspiracy Theory" According to r/systemscringe...

It finally happened. The hate subreddit, r/systemscringe, has made their hit list of acceptable targets to post uncensored.

If anyone is here from that sub because I was added to that hit list... first... hi! 👋

Second, I found this funny in their criteria for who qualifies...

I briefly touched on them considering RAMCOA a conspiracy theory in another post so I'm not going to address that here. I'll leave that up to others who are more familiar with and educated on the topic than I.

No, I want to talk about the "endogenesis" part of that.

One may ask, who are all these whacky conspiracy theorists who believe you can have multiple agents, distinct personality states or "dissociative parts" with no trauma or mental disorders present?

Well, we can start with Richard Kluft, an expert in dissociative identity disorder, who referred to a possibility that there exists a nonpathological "endogenous" form of dissociative identity disorder back in 2001.

While a one-off mention, this reference to a possible endogenous form of DID predated the adoption of the term "endogenic" by the plural community by a solid 13 years.

For more explicit support, there is Eric Yarbrough, who holds the highest honor from the American Psychiatric Association, as a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

This book that explicitly acknowledges non-disordered and non-traumagenic plurality was reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association themselves.

We have Samuel Veissiere, professor of psychiatry at McGill University, who has written on the personhood of tulpas, a primarily psychological type of created headmate.

This was from a book that was peer reviewed and published by the highly reputable Oxford University Press.

We have the authors of the Haunted Self and creators of the Theory of Structural Dissociation, who have suggested hypnosis and mediumship may involve "self-conscious" "dissociated parts of the personality."

While they don't explicitly say for certain they are, they do acknowledge the possibility and encourage further research.

And then you have the ICD-11 by the World Health Organization which states you can experience the presence of multiple distinct identity states without a disorder:

"Distinct Identity States" is the term the ICD-11 uses for alters earlier on.

And these are only to name a few.

At this point, endogenic and non-disordered plurality has been acknowledged and supported by numerous psychologists and psychiatrists.

It's been acknowledged as a possibility that needs to be researched by the creators of the Theory of Structural Dissociation.

It's been explicitly acknowledged in a book reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

It's been supported in the ICD-11 by the World Health Organization.

According to anti-science hate-subreddit r/systemscringe, all these people and institutions are conspiracy theorists.

One has to ask then who the real conspiracy theorists are? Are they the endogenic systems saying "look, this is what the scientists and major academic and medical institutions have said," or are they the people who just shout to the rooftops that the ones they disagree with are wrong? The ones who have encouraged a prominent psychiatrist to have their license revoked just for supporting endogenic systems in academic literature, the same exact way COVID-deniers attacked doctors who supported mask mandates?

[nameless-syscourse]

Debunking r/systemscringe's DID Lies!

For those who aren't aware, r/systemscringe is an ableist hate subreddit, and is one of the greatest sources of misinformation about dissociative disorders and plurality on the internet.

Today, I'd like to go over some of their most prominent excuses for fakeclaiming DID and OSDD systems, and why those reasons are contradicted by actual research by actual psychiatrists.

"Alters Can't Talk To Each Other"

This is one of the most easily-debunked lies I've seen to excuse fakeclaiming. It can take a few different forms. But generally, when a system talks about speaking to their alters, r/systemscringe users will say that it's impossible and that DID doesn't work like that.

This isn't just a little false. It completely contradicts all known research into DID.

Hearing voices of alters is directly mentioned in the DSM-5 as a symptom.

This isn't even uncommon. Voce hearing is more common in DID than in schizophrenia, experienced in about 80% of cases of dissociative disorders.

Now, it does need to be noted that just because 80% do, that doesn't mean it's true of everyone. 20% is still a big number, and systems who can't communicate internally are still valid.

But the fact of the matter is that most systems can communicate this way.

"You Need (Years of) Therapy to be Able to Communicate With Alters"

Failing the first one, another popular claim is that alters can't possibly communicate without therapy. Usually, people will claim this requires "years" of therapy to build communication.

So is this true?

Turns out, not in the slightest. In fact, in a study comparing DID voice hearers to schizophrenic voice hearers, it was found that 90% of the DID voice hearers started hearing voices before the age of 18.

This is in comparison to a Schizophrenic group that consisted of 28% without maltreatment and 38% with maltreatment that started before the age of 18.

Given that DID notoriously takes years to get correctly diagnosed with and most patients aren't diagnosed until adulthood, it should be obvious that most of these 90% didn't have to undergo years of therapy before being able to hear the voices of their alters.

"Alters Can't Be Friends"

Let's be 100% clear here. Dissociative Identity Disorder is absolutely a disorder. It couldn't be diagnosed if it didn't come with some level of distress or impairment. That's a fundamental part of the criteria.

But when that same study I posted above asked the DID and Schizophrenic groups if they would miss the voices if they were gone, a huge 69% of the DID group said they would.

The truth is that DID is more complicated and nuanced than "having alters bad."

Sometimes the distress or impairment has less to do with the other alters and more to do with the other dissociative symptoms, such as the DP/DR and the amnesia.

And sometimes, you can have positive relationships with some alters and negative relationships with others. And yes, there is that 31% who say they wouldn't miss hearing their alters if they no longer heard them. That's valid too.

But this does show that a majority of DID systems do feel a close attachment to the other alters in their systems.

"Systems Can't Control When They Switch"

Like above, this is nuanced. The truth is some systems can't control switching. Others can only control it some of the time. And some have full control.

There has actually been a study on a DID patient voluntarily switching in and MRI machine:

This study literally couldn't have been done were it not possible to voluntarily switch.

"Fictives Aren't Real"

Okay, now let's tackle one of the biggest lies to justify fakeclaiming. Fictional introjects or "Fictives" are alters or headmates based on fictional characters. r/systemscringe and other fakeclaimers love to fakeclaim systems for being fictive heavy or even having any fictives at all.

And like most of r/systemscringe's claims, this is nonsense. Here is one account of fictives from 1988.

Furthermore, in the book The Haunted Self, which is responsible for the Theory of Structural Dissociation of the Personality, one case study is referenced of someone who had many fictives based off of Start Trek characters.

This also serves to debunk other reasons for fakeclaiming I've seen from r/systemscringe. That a system has too many fictive, is all fictives, or that their fictives all come from the same source. Because as we see above, this is a very real documented presentation of dissociative identity disorder.

Closing:

I'm likely not done with this post. I plan to add to this list of misinformation that I've seen repeatedly peddled by the hate subreddit and used to justify attacking systems. There is A LOT there!

But here's the bottom line. r/systemcringe is a hate sub peddling division and bigotry against systems... often for normal system things that have been well-documented in academic literature.

If you're here from r/systemscringe, I'm sure you've seen all or most of the above lies I debunked above posted there. And if you're a system, I would ask you why you would stand by a subreddit that so blatantly spreads misinformation about other systems with the intent of hurting them? With the intent of hurting people like you?

Because if you think that they're your friends, I have watched them turn on systems that joined in with their fakeclaiming so many times, and fakeclaiming fellow members of that subreddit. And I can promise that they will turn on you too.

Click here for my debunk of their claims that endogenic systems are a "conspiracy theory."

[nameless-syscourse]

There definitely like Are systems who thought they were endogenic but realized they were traumagenic but the anti-endo rhetoric of "even if you think you're not traumatized you must actually be secretly traumatized and just repressed it otherwise you're an ableist and a faker and an attention seeker" is uh, Profoundly Fucked Up, Actually

Going up to strangers who say they experience multiple people living in their head and saying "actually you must have some horrific mind-shattering trauma you don't remember" is, well, I just don't think it's very good for them, best case scenario is they're truly endogenic and know better than to believe some random asshole online, worst case scenario is they go digging and unearth trauma they were not ready to process and have a mental health crisis, all just so randos online can deem them "uwu valid"

[nameless-syscourse]

One thing I hate more than people outright saying that endos are 'invalid' are the people who are like 'oh they're just in denial of their trauma if they're really systems!' because it's so backhanded. It's painted as though it's in good faith, but it's still denying the existence of an entire group of systems that they clearly don't want to understand. It's condescending: "it's okay, you're just in denial! You'll figure it out soon!" It's a downright wolf in sheep's clothing situation. Even if it's certainly possible for an endo system to realize they're actually mixed origin or even strictly traumagenic, it's so pretentious to assume every endogenic system is just a traumagenic system in denial or they're faking.

[nameless-syscourse]

Reminder: there are not two equal sides to syscourse.

There is a hate group that attacks and bullies people for their neurodivergencies or spiritual beliefs. That denies all science and the opinions of literally every academic paper that's affirmed the existence of endogenic and non-disordered plurality.

And then there are the endogenic and mixed origin plurals who are fighting for our right just to exist without being harassed by said hate group.

[nameless-syscourse]

I hate it when people think that just because we’re a DID system, we’re anti-endo. No you can’t talk to me about those “stupid endos,” they’re my friends, go away.