randosyscourseblog848

[randosyscourseblog848]

Additional clarification: The fourth paragraph does not necessarily contradict the next section. The OSDD-2 diagnosis does not make any claim that identity changes are exclusive to this disorder, just that this presentation combined with that trauma makes OSDD-2 distinct and diagnosable.

The DID and OSDD-1 diagnoses are similar. It does not make claim that any one of the symptoms is exclusive to that disorder, but that the cluster of them together has a label, some possible risk factors, a suggested treatment path, and potential complications. That's what the DSM is for.

I find the sysmed argument of "we can't have studies that solidly prove our point because we would have to traumatize children for science"... odd.

How would exposing children to trauma prove that plurality can only develop through trauma? At most, it would prove only that plurality CAN be caused by trauma, which was never up for debate.

A much better indicator would be to have several trials where a LARGE sample of young children were randomly selected, and continuously provided therapy or interviews through to adulthood. The correlation between traumatic events and presentation of plurality-indicating symptoms would be written down. Of course, this method would still be DEEPLY flawed- even aside from the obvious moral implications of simply observing a child that may be undergoing trauma, even if it's something like a natural disaster or medical trauma, there would be massive issues with parental interference and participant retention.

It's an argument designed to appeal to the emotions and shut down the burden of proof. "X can only be caused by Y" is a flawed claim on the face of it and this is the argument they use to obscure that. Absolutes do not hold up under scrutiny.

Additionally, this is often tossed out when people point out the vague language used in the DSM-V in relation to DID and OSDD-1. However, we already have an example of a dissociative disorder that is attributed to a specific cause, and the language they use to communicate that. OSDD-2 and OSDD-3 are attributed to "prolonged and intense coercive persuasion" and "reactions to stressful events" respectively. For OSDD-2, instead of describing the disorder first and stating that it is associated with certain causes, it states that

Individuals who have been subjected to intense coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, indoctrination while captive, torture, long-term political imprisonment, recruitment by sects/cults or by terror organizations) may present with prolonged changes in, or conscious questioning of, their identity.

It specifies the circumstances that cause it first, centering that. The wording used in the DSM-V is very, very deliberate. Did they expose people to brainwashing and torture in order to determine this? Of course not. It is a direct and conscious choice to attribute this label to a trauma cause, and one with specific parameters at that. It does not say "some presentations of this disorder happen in people who experience X", it says "some people who experience X will develop this", and that is a very important distinction.

It is not conclusive, it is not 'scientifically proven'. If the scientific consensus of the DSM-V believed that disordered presentations of multiplicity could only form in response to intense, repeated childhood trauma before a certain age, it would have said so.

---

Note: this post is setting aside nondisordered plurality for now, as this is focusing on the language used in the DSM for DID and OSDD-1. It should be noted that there is zero support for the idea that DID and OSDD-1 are the only manifestations of 'multiple people living in one head', but this has already been addressed a lot by other syscoursers.

[randosyscourseblog848]

I find the sysmed argument of "we can't have studies that solidly prove our point because we would have to traumatize children for science"... odd.

How would exposing children to trauma prove that plurality can only develop through trauma? At most, it would prove only that plurality CAN be caused by trauma, which was never up for debate.

A much better indicator would be to have several trials where a LARGE sample of young children were randomly selected, and continuously provided therapy or interviews through to adulthood. The correlation between traumatic events and presentation of plurality-indicating symptoms would be written down. Of course, this method would still be DEEPLY flawed- even aside from the obvious moral implications of simply observing a child that may be undergoing trauma, even if it's something like a natural disaster or medical trauma, there would be massive issues with parental interference and participant retention.

It's an argument designed to appeal to the emotions and shut down the burden of proof. "X can only be caused by Y" is a flawed claim on the face of it and this is the argument they use to obscure that. Absolutes do not hold up under scrutiny.

Additionally, this is often tossed out when people point out the vague language used in the DSM-V in relation to DID and OSDD-1. However, we already have an example of a dissociative disorder that is attributed to a specific cause, and the language they use to communicate that. OSDD-2 and OSDD-3 are attributed to "prolonged and intense coercive persuasion" and "reactions to stressful events" respectively. For OSDD-2, instead of describing the disorder first and stating that it is associated with certain causes, it states that

Individuals who have been subjected to intense coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, indoctrination while captive, torture, long-term political imprisonment, recruitment by sects/cults or by terror organizations) may present with prolonged changes in, or conscious questioning of, their identity.

It specifies the circumstances that cause it first, centering that. The wording used in the DSM-V is very, very deliberate. Did they expose people to brainwashing and torture in order to determine this? Of course not. It is a direct and conscious choice to attribute this label to a trauma cause, and one with specific parameters at that. It does not say "some presentations of this disorder happen in people who experience X", it says "some people who experience X will develop this", and that is a very important distinction.

It is not conclusive, it is not 'scientifically proven'. If the scientific consensus of the DSM-V believed that disordered presentations of multiplicity could only form in response to intense, repeated childhood trauma before a certain age, it would have said so.

---

Note: this post is setting aside nondisordered plurality for now, as this is focusing on the language used in the DSM for DID and OSDD-1. It should be noted that there is zero support for the idea that DID and OSDD-1 are the only manifestations of 'multiple people living in one head', but this has already been addressed a lot by other syscoursers.

[randosyscourseblog848]

Aww, I just got my first anon hate. Although, it's definitely not what I expected- nonnie, I think you got the wrong blog. Please direct your transphobia to @city-of-rain-and-lights instead! This blog is about syscourse only ☺️

[randosyscourseblog848]

Hey, sysmeds, what’s your opinion on autistic systems that developed because of autism?

[randosyscourseblog848]

Did you know that "headmate", "fictive", and "factive" were coined by the endogenic/inclusive community? Specifically, by soulbonders. I find it quite ironic that you're accusing non-traumagenic systems of using OSDDID terms and spaces, when many of the terms you use were made by non-traumagenics to avoid using medical language.

You act like every term we use was created by or for traumagenics and we've just been borrowing it. But the plural community has been creating and sharing terms regardless of origin since the days of 80s email listings and 90s personal websites. No amount of exclusionist attempts to divide us will change that foundation, or the bulk of the plural community that has grown from it.

You cannot demand that we leave a house we all own together just because you have a room in it.

🌻 Terms For Endos🌻

Fellow endos, I support you. But we must remember that, since we (most of us) are not medical, we should not use medical terms. That could cause confusion- say, you tell a doctor you are a system. They misinterpret that as you saying you have DID/OSDD/UDD and set you up with a therapist dedicated to those conditions. This would be not only be now what you need, but also taking away from DID/OSDD/UDD patients. So we've made a list of terms that don't have medical connotations that endos should use more! We also added alternative words for "Tulpa" because that is sometimes considered cultural appropriation. System -> collective, plural, community Alter -> headmate, mindmate, headfriend, member Fronting -> in control, in front Switching -> changing, transferring consciousness Inner World -> headspace Tulpa -> Thoughtform, mindform, mental creation

You aren't 'invalid' if you don't use these terms but we highly recommend doing so!

[randosyscourseblog848]

Personally, I think the funniest part about the Tupperbox thing is that the original bot, Tupperware, came from the tulpa community. "Tupper" is a common affectionate name for tulpas, and so "tupperware" is a community joke. They made that bot FOR the tulpa community. Tupperbox is just a recreation of that since the original bot went down a few years ago. It's open for anyone to use for anything, but implying that it's a DID/OSDD tool is laughable at best and deliberately ignorant of the online plural community's history at worst.

An even hotter take; Part 1: Endogenics (our official stance).

Our stance on endogenics.

I’m sure you’ve all seen my “HOT TAKE I’M NOT ANTI-ENDO I’M ANTI-ENDO-ACTING-A-CERTAIN-WAY” post, and I’d like to address that in this one. We will be breaking down our current thoughts and opinions about these things in this post. Read on if you’re comfortable with this.

        Let’s talk about Endogenic systems. There is the fact that DID/OSDD is a dissociative disorder that stems from trauma suggests that endogenic systems are not in fact real and therefore morally shouldn’t be posing as a system.

The key term in this however is “Morally”. Maybe my morals differ from others. Maybe it’s in actuality ok for a non-scientific system to say that they are a system. And maybe, just maybe we as a system are just gatekeeping others from using terms they identify with. Which we are VERY against.

What do we think endogenics are if not systems?

BPD, systems in denial of their trauma, kids who think it’s cool, uneducated people, and the list goes on. Anything really, but this list doesn’t include “Malicious idiots” or anything similar. 

What are you going to do about endogenics?

Nothing, now. Well, that’s not entirely true, we’re going to ask them to stop using ableist slurs like “Traumascum” and “Sysmed” as they come from transphobic slurs and yelling stuff like that is never ok (even if/when we do it. It is not ok. Call us out for it). 

Endogenics are real here’s proof!

Show us! Please! We’d love the science, we love science. What we don’t want is non-factual opinions, non-scientific sources, a google doc, a carrd, a tumblr post. Give us something that I can show a psychologist or psychiatrist. Something not nitpicked something that will without a doubt prove me wrong. I’d honestly love to hear it. /g

 You said you didn’t want endos to use system terms which is gatekeeping.

We were very upset and felt attacked, therefore attacked back. The reason we didn’t want that is because endos aren’t proven to exist to our knowledge and we wanted a separation between church and state per say. We no longer hold this opinion. Please use the terms if you identify with them. If it digs at you this much we invite you to do two things. 1, prove us wrong, show us with science endos are real systems. And 2, know that we have changed our mind with this. Endos in our minds may use “DID/OSDD terms”, this is for many reasons but the biggest is… what’s so important about a WORD that I need it all for MYSELF?

So what’s your biggest problem with endos? The fact they’re “Non-scientific”?

Nope! That’s far from our biggest problem. We have 2 problems and that one is the MINOR one. By far. The only thing we demand is … for the love of all things in nature… stop using terms like “Sysmed” and “Traumascum”. They’re slurs. They’re attacking. They’re ableist. Please don’t use them.

           We chose to change, not because somebody told us something or we agreed or disagreed with somebody, but because we wanted a healthier us. Permission to be yourself is important, but just know you can get it from you. Not from me, or anyone else.

So use Pluralkit, Tupperbox, go get a diagnosis, feel free to not get a diagnosis or use those tools. Be a system, we have no right to fakeclaim you, maybe the science just hasn’t come out yet and I was wrong all along!! We support whatever choice you make. We made a mistake by attacking other people in the past. We are fixing that, and recommending you do not take part in attacking others as well.

Thank you for reading, and thank you for understanding.

[randosyscourseblog848]

Ableism is the systemic and societal discrimination against divergency, either of ability or experience. It is a refusal to properly acommodate, accept, or account for variances in the human condition. This affects people whether they consider themselves disabled or not.

Someone with dyslexia may not consider themself disabled, but still experience ableism in that a slower reading speed can draw judgement, and dyslexia-friendly fonts can be seen as "unprofessional" or inappropriate.

An autistic person may not consider themselves disabled, but may still experience ableism by being taught to mask stims and having their sensory issues disrespected.

Someone with chronic pain or muscle strength issues may not consider themselves disabled, but can experience ableism with not being allowed to use mobility aids in the workplace or being told that their issues don't matter because they can still technically perform their duties.

Ableism can also manifest in the pathologization and medicalization of these variances, which inevitably ends up in people losing rights or pressured into treatments they don't want. A forced autism diagnosis can allow abusive parents to exert control through guardianship with no recourse. A forced DID diagnosis can lose someone their driver's license in some areas, causing them to lose their jobs or freedom. Forced diagnosis in physical disabilities can do the same.

How exact do endos define ablism

[randosyscourseblog848]

All after Rouke convinced someone to go cold turkey off their OCD meds.

This is a dangerous person.

[randosyscourseblog848]

Okay. I'm going to point something out here.

Notice how you just moved the goalposts? Y'all's original accusation was "Rouke caused someone seizures by telling them to quit their meds." When that was disproved, as well as your insistence that it deleted its posts, you changed it to "It may not have said it directly, but it didn't stop anon from quitting their meds."

That isn't okay. That is a tactic used by reactionaries. I'm sure it wasn't on purpose, but it is very important to recognize.

If you want to learn more about this tactic, how it is largely used by the right, and how to recognize it when you or others use it, I can't recommend this video and the rest of this series enough. Mind the TWs, though, it talks about SA through the allegations against Trump.

However, I do still want to address the moved goalposts.

OCD anon sent one ask saying that Rouke's posting about its experiences inspired them to cancel therapy, explaining that they no longer felt like it was helping them. Rouke responded with genuine advice on things they could do on their own to replace things in therapy that might still be helpful outside of it.

This is NOT toxic behavior. Toxic behavior would have been to tell anon to stay in therapy no matter what, because we have absolutely no idea what is going on behind the scenes. What if the therapist was abusive? What if they needed the money they were spending on therapy for something else? It's not Rouke's responsibility or even its right to tell an anonymous asker on the internet that their decision was wrong.

Then, the next day, OCD anon says they flushed their zoloft down the toilet because they were manic. There was no indication in the first ask that this would happen. There was no way for Rouke to have stopped it, they did not send an ask saying "I'm going to flush my meds", they had already done it. And Rouke's immediate response to this development was to give advice on zoloft withdrawal and to talk to their doctor about an emergency prescription.

Your version of the story assumes that Rouke is some omnipotent being with the power to see every detail of an anon's life and stop them from committing an act it did not know would happen.

That is blatantly untrue.

I encourage you to examine the way you talk about people, whether they're people you like or people you don't. Examine your assumptions about them. Examine where you get your information, and your rhetoric, and the way you argue. Nobody is infallible.

So. QA is gonna kill someone if it doesn’t stop right this very fucking second. Seizures are no joke and telling someone to get off their meds is fucked up.

@queerautism I hope you realize what you’re doing is stupid and someone is going to die. OCD anon almost did

[randosyscourseblog848]

Rather interesting, then, that by searching "ocd" on its blog, I was able to find both of the original asks sent by that anon, as well as its response to the first person to criticize that. And I'm on mobile, which is notorious for broken searching. Here's the links.

Original ask:

https://queerautism.tumblr.com/post/682366036340768768/youve-inspired-me-to-stop-going-to-therapy-gen

Response to criticism:

https://queerautism.tumblr.com/post/682437437807640576/rouke-if-you-dont-have-ocd-please-do-not-support

Response to anon's original med announcement:

https://queerautism.tumblr.com/post/682451795883294720/i-flushed-my-zoloft-down-the-toilet-because-i-was

If you could kindly point me to where in these first interactions it had with them that it encouraged them to stop their meds, that would be great.

So. QA is gonna kill someone if it doesn’t stop right this very fucking second. Seizures are no joke and telling someone to get off their meds is fucked up.

@queerautism I hope you realize what you’re doing is stupid and someone is going to die. OCD anon almost did

[randosyscourseblog848]

Normally I don't like interacting directly, but... seriously?

How many levels deep in blinding hatred are you that you can include this screenshot...

... and think Rouke told someone to go off of their medication?

It gently reassured them that they weren't going to die, and advised them to GET an emergency prescription. Your own "evidence" is in direct and total opposition to your claim. This is a genuinely unhealthy dedication to framing someone.

So. QA is gonna kill someone if it doesn’t stop right this very fucking second. Seizures are no joke and telling someone to get off their meds is fucked up.

@queerautism I hope you realize what you’re doing is stupid and someone is going to die. OCD anon almost did

[randosyscourseblog848]

Hey, the link on fixing-sysmed-posts led here when someone asked about the word sysmed. Was that intentional?

Honestly, I wasn't aware that blog existed- I don't really search out syscourse stuff, I only follow a few people and just see what lands on my dash. I don't mind & linking to my post on the matter, but I wasn't involved beyond writing the post.

[randosyscourseblog848]

Sysmedicalist arguments map almost exactly onto transmedicalist ones. Both are medicalizing an internal identity, despite the fact that even in a clinical setting, most of the diagnostics are done through self-reporting. Both claim that this identity only exists in the context of an associated disorder. Both claim that this identity can only be formed due to specific circumstances, and both have a group-wide tendency to exclude even those who fit the actual medical model due to superficial differences (e.g. "too many fictives" or "too nonconforming"). Both believe that their exclusionist tendency is justified by virtue of being correct.

(Note for all readers: this is the cliffnotes version of the post, and does not include all of the details. If you wish to rebutt it, please take the time to read the original.)

I’ve seen a couple of people saying that the term “sysmed” is getting close to comparing being trans to a disorder. I, the trans host living in a transitioning body, have been using that term privately since way before it caught on publicly, expressly BECAUSE of the parallels between them and transmeds. Here’s my reasoning:

The transmedicalist point of view is that being transgender is synonymous with having gender dysphoria, and that this dysphoria is a mental disorder that requires transitioning as its treatment. That is the only reason transmeds believe someone can transition or identify as trans. This gender dysphoria has multiple theories on why it develops- some believe it is a variation of brain structure that causes the brain to form as a different gender than the body, some believe that it’s due to exposure to different hormones in-utero, but all of these theories point to a solely *external* cause for trans identity.

The main problem with this (and its insistence that it is “medical”) is that they ignore the DSM criterion that this dysphoria must, by definition, cause distress or dysfunction in the person’s life. The few who do acknowledge it will say that the mere existence of a desire to switch genders counts as distress- which is inherently not true. Those who therefore, fit the criterion of “desire to transition” but who rightfully do not call themselves dysphoric due to them not meeting the other criteria, are NOT trans and should not transition or call themselves transgender.

Most of them also use this equivocation to exclude nonbinary people, using the “brain studies” scans to imply that a person’s gender could be “proved” with a brain scan, and that nonbinary people don’t fit into this, therefore they cannot be real. They also use this to discount non-dysphoric trans people, accusing them of harming “real trans” people and stealing resources, because people insisting they have a medical condition without the medical condition is making the community look like fools. Being trans IS gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria IS a medical condition. Therefore, being trans IS a medical condition, and anyone who claims not to have dysphoria or be too GNC or be nonbinary or have a xenogender is fake and harmful to transgender people.

The sysmedicalist viewpoint is that being a system is synonymous with having DID/OSDD, and that DID/OSDD is a mental disorder that requires treatment via therapy and coming to terms with trauma. That is the only reason sysmeds believe someone can be plural or call themselves a system. DID/OSDD has multiple theories as to how it develops- some suggest that it’s a failure to integrate from childhood self-states due to trauma (Structural Dissociation), some believe it is a result of unreliable expectations by environments or authority figures causing different self-states to emerge (Disorganized Attachment), but all of these point to a solely *external* cause for plurality.

The main problem with this (and its insistence that it is “medical”) is that they ignore the DSM criterion that this disorder must, by definition, cause distress or dysfunction in the person’s life. The few who do acknowledge it will say that the mere existence of this criteria means that anyone who experiences plurality will fall under this disorder. Those who therefore, fit the criterion of “experiences multiple distinct personality states with their own perceptions, memories, thoughts, and identity” but who rightfully do not call themselves disordered because they do not meet the other criteria, are NOT plural and should not call themselves systems.

They use these theories about DID/OSDD to discount endogenic systems, despite the fact that most endogenics are non-disordered systems and therefore do not typically have reason to be studied medically. Medical studies prioritize mental *disorders* in order to figure out how to best treat them. And since non-disordered systems do not need medical treatment for a very specific condition that they *do not have….* But no. They accuse endogenic and non-disordered systems of harming “real systems” and stealing resources. Plurality IS DID/OSDD. Plurality IS a medical condition. Claiming to have plurality without a disorder is making the community look like fools, and we are fake and harmful to systems.

The problem is, both systems and trans people have nothing to prove. It is an INTERNAL experience, nearly all experiences of both are self-reported and cannot be objectively, directly observed. Medical science looks for explanations for people who need help and treatment, because those are the people it needs to focus on. We don’t *need* explanations for trans people who aren’t dysphoric, we don’t *need* explanations for endogenic and non-disordered systems, and our experiences should be believed because there is no possible fucking way we can look into their brains and say “ah, yes, I diagnose you with cis/singlet”.

Plurality is a COMPONENT of DID/OSDD. Being transgender is a COMPONENT of gender dysphoria. There are people who believe the disorder causes those components, and those people are entirely valid in their assessments FOR THEMSELVES, because we do not dictate your experiences. But an equally valid view of both is that those COMPONENTS, “being multiple people in one body” and “being a different gender than they were assigned at birth”, can be stable identities, and the parts that make it a disorder are the parts that are distressing- amnesia and trauma components for DID/OSDD, distress regarding body parts or socially presenting as an incorrect gender for dysphoria. These can be treated. The core components do not have to be, and they can exist outside of the distressing disorder.

We are not comparing transness to a mental disorder. We are comparing transness to plurality. It is not our fault that you are conflating plurality with disorder.

[randosyscourseblog848]

https://why-endos-are-bad.carrd.co/

This not only mentions the harm endos do to people who actually have DID/OSDD, It also debunks myths about systems, the harm it can cause to people trying to form a system, gives resources, cultural appropriation, etc.

[randosyscourseblog848]

"say they're doing it for you" bruh they're now going after people who have barely ever even heard of Rouke, and never interacted with it. anything they say about it being on Rouke's behalf or them finding people through its blog is a bold-faced lie meant to start shit.

really sorry to ask like this, but can you PLEASE say that dia isnt harassing you and tell your followers off / that doxxing isnt ok? a LITTLE in that system just got slurs and rape threats. this needs to stop and that anon isn't going to listen to anyone but you. they regularly name drop you, say they're doing it for you like some bizarre call for positive attention from you. you hold the most power here.

Please stop. I have said doxxing is bad a million times, I have asked people not to send anon hate, I have said I do not want people who would do those things here. At this point it's obvious I do not have any power to make it stop, and there's no reason for this person to keep mentioning me unless they're trying to bring negative attention my way too.

[randosyscourseblog848]

If you are anti-endo or neutral/unengaged and in any circles that have contact with anti-endos, I recommend you turn off anon. At least for now.

The doxxer is now targeting people who aren't even engaged with syscourse.

If you are the doxxer(s):

Sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, FUCK YOU. I am no longer under the pretense that you have good intentions or are on anyone's "side". My partner did not deserve this. Nobody who has been doxxed deserves this. Not anti-endos, not neutrals, not people who simply choose not to engage for their mental health. You are a piece of shit who is doing nothing but tearing the plural community apart, and I now fully believe that is your sole intention.

If you have been doxxed:

Use a VPN if you can. Report and block the anon recieved before you delete it, if you can. You are not alone and it is not your fault. This is a fucking crime and it cannot be justified. You deserve protection and safety. Do not believe anything the doxxer(s) say- they are not affiliated with or supported by us. They are not our friends. This is not "helping" us nor are we under any impressions otherwise.

[randosyscourseblog848]

The doxxer is now targeting people who aren't even engaged with syscourse.

If you are the doxxer(s):

Sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, FUCK YOU. I am no longer under the pretense that you have good intentions or are on anyone's "side". My partner did not deserve this. Nobody who has been doxxed deserves this. Not anti-endos, not neutrals, not people who simply choose not to engage for their mental health. You are a piece of shit who is doing nothing but tearing the plural community apart, and I now fully believe that is your sole intention.

If you have been doxxed:

Use a VPN if you can. Report and block the anon recieved before you delete it, if you can. You are not alone and it is not your fault. This is a fucking crime and it cannot be justified. You deserve protection and safety. Do not believe anything the doxxer(s) say- they are not affiliated with or supported by us. They are not our friends. This is not "helping" us nor are we under any impressions otherwise.