sysmed-supreme

[sysmed-supreme]

why do i have to take care of this idiot (me) every single day cant she do anything on her own

[sysmed-supreme]

*experiences symptoms when no one is around to see me* I have got to stop faking for attention

[sysmed-supreme]

The "medical reality" is that dissociative identity disorder and other recognized conditions involving identity alteration are trauma-based. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove a negative; it's on you to show that plurality exists outside of dissociation and trauma in a way that is comparable to DID or OSDD. Show me peer-reviewed, empirical research demonstrating non-trauma-based "systems" function in the same way as clinically recognized dissociative disorders. Until then, you're making claims without evidence and expecting everyone else to take your word for it.

A lot of you seem really eager to compare "sysmedicalism" to conservatism, transmedicalism, and every other bogeyman you can think of. But let's be clear: refusing to redefine dissociative disorders to accommodate internet subcultures is not oppression. It is not conservatism. It is not gatekeeping access to identity. It is just stating medical reality.

The way some of you are twisting "exclusion" into a form of systemic harm would be laughable if it weren’t so transparent. If the only way you can justify your stance is by pretending that acknowledging the diagnostic criteria of a disorder is the same as right-wing fearmongering, then you’ve already lost the argument.

DID and OSDD are trauma-based disorders. No amount of political rhetoric is going to change that.

[sysmed-supreme]

Dissociation as a general phenomenon is not the same as DID or OSDD, and "non-pathological plurality" is not the same as being a system in the clinical sense. Ross discussing dissociation outside of disorder does not validate endogenic systemhood as a legitimate, comparable experience. And yes, cultural practices may involve dissociation, but they are not interchangeable with a dissociative disorder. The fact that "system" appears in other psychological contexts does not justify its use for self-identified plurality that lacks a dissociative basis.

Trauma makes systems. Full stop. This blog is for clinically recognized dissociative disorders, not roleplay, not spirituality, not "self-discovery." If you don’t have trauma, you don’t have DID or OSDD. This is not a safe space. It’s a reality check.

[sysmed-supreme]

Your response is long-winded, but it boils down to the same circular argument that always comes up in this discourse: "Disorders are just normal experiences taken to an extreme, so really, we're all having the same kind of experience!" No, we're not.

You keep trying to blur the line between trauma-based dissociation and non-disordered experiences by reducing everything to broad generalities. Yes, dissociation exists on a spectrum. Yes, personality states shift in different contexts. None of that changes the fact that DID and OSDD are trauma-based conditions with distinct diagnostic criteria, not just "one end of the spectrum" of plurality. You can't flatten the experiences of people with dissociative disorders into a catch-all "plurality" umbrella just because some surface-level similarities exist. That is like saying schizophrenia and daydreaming are fundamentally the same because they both involve altered perception.

And as for harm? You are acting like language and perception do not shape real-world consequences. They do. When the public, medical professionals, and even therapists are inundated with the idea that plurality is just a fun, natural variation of human experience, it delegitimizes the reality of DID and OSDD. It creates more skepticism toward people who actually need treatment and resources. It contributes to the rise of people who conflate clinically significant dissociation with something they "manifested" through introspection.

I get that you want unity. But unity built on erasing fundamental distinctions is not solidarity, it is assimilation at the expense of those who cannot just "opt out" of their condition. We do not need to lump all experiences of identity variation under the same label to push for better treatment and understanding. What we do need is for people to stop treating a clinical disorder like just another way to exist.

If you want to call yourself plural, go ahead. But do not try to redefine what DID and OSDD actually are in the process.

creating an imaginary friend or plural part outside of trauma is not only possible but so completely normal. writers frequently discuss their characters gaining some form of autonomy. people talk about the "angel and devil on their shoulders." some people think of characters they like encouraging them throughout their day. taking those impulses further and making a fully autonomous personality inside your head is perfectly healthy, "valid," and normal :)

doing so is not "claiming" DID or OSDD, you don't have to pursue a diagnosis to have alters or headmates, and the sysmeds on here that make non-traumatic plurality out to be people faking DID are only driving more people to fake it in order to put labels and community on the experiences they're having (autonomous internal parts). the reason the fakeclaims push it is because they want to be part of a community that understands their experiences and has language to describe it, but feel driven out because they aren't diagnosed, or don't feel like a DID diagnosis is right for them; if you feel like that you can just be a tulpamancer, or endogenic, or whatever!

[sysmed-supreme]

"System" originated in medical discourse to describe the structure of identity in dissociative disorders. It was not coined for broad, non-clinical plurality. And yes, you can experience identity alteration without being a system, hence why not all dissociative disorders are DID or OSDD. That does not mean endogenic "systems" have any claim to the term in a clinical context. The issue is the push to normalize self-identified plurality as equivalent to trauma-based dissociation, which actively erases the realities of people with DID and OSDD.

Trauma makes systems. Full stop. This blog is for clinically recognized dissociative disorders, not roleplay, not spirituality, not "self-discovery." If you don’t have trauma, you don’t have DID or OSDD. This is not a safe space. It’s a reality check.

[sysmed-supreme]

Funny how every time someone brings up the medical reality of DID and OSDD, the response is some variation of "you're just like transmeds" or "you're a reactionary." It’s almost like there’s no actual argument against the fact that these are trauma-based dissociative disorders, so instead of engaging with that, people reach for the closest insult that sounds bad enough to make the discussion stop.

Insisting on clear distinctions between clinical dissociation and non-clinical plurality is not oppression. It’s not gatekeeping an "identity," it’s maintaining the integrity of well-documented, heavily researched conditions. If you acknowledge that DID and OSDD are disorders caused by trauma, then you already understand why trying to group them together with non-disordered experiences under the same language is a problem.

If plurality is a separate thing, then why do so many insist on using terminology that comes from dissociative disorders? Why is it always "just a word" until someone asks for that distinction to be respected?

[sysmed-supreme]

Why do you think you know what goes on in the minds of others more than they themselves? What makes you the arbiter of human or plural experiences?

Idk, maybe the science that says that CDD experiences aren't the fucking same as those without them? Maybe the fact that the idea of someone without a CDD has experiences similar enough to those with CDDs that they can just call themselves one of us is fucking ridiculous??

We're just saying that comparing endo experiences to CDD experiences is extremely fucking stupid, they aren't at all the same, and the idea that they're as similar as pro endos think they are is fucking stupid. We're just saying they need to use different terms, because they're invading our damn spaces and warping the meaning of our words to be whatever the fuck they want it to be.

"They're not claiming to have CDDS!!11!!" They're fucking acting like they're just like us. They're claiming to experience the same damn thing as us. With them using our terms and shit and inserting themselves into conversations about CDDs and making shit about them, they might as well be. Not to mention so many of them insist that origin is the only difference, and that other than that they're EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME. Also the amount that say that anything a CDD system can experience, an endo can too, nevermind one has a fucking disorder and the other doesn't.

-Reesa

[sysmed-supreme]

And yet, endogenics continue to demand recognition under the same language and framework as trauma-based systems. You say systemhood is "only defined by being multiple," but multiple what? Dissociative identity states? No, because endogenics do not have clinically significant dissociation. So what, then? Imagination? Spirituality? Social identity? Those things are not what "system" originally meant.

If endogenics are "non-disordered," then there is no reason for them to be in discussions about disorders. Trying to redefine the meaning of systemhood to fit non-disordered experiences only causes confusion. If you are not a DID/OSDD system, then stop acting like the language applies to you.

Trauma makes systems. Full stop. This blog is for clinically recognized dissociative disorders, not roleplay, not spirituality, not "self-discovery." If you don’t have trauma, you don’t have DID or OSDD. This is not a safe space. It’s a reality check.

[sysmed-supreme]

If endogenics are not claiming to have dissociative disorders, then why are they trying to redefine language that originates from dissociative disorders? "System" was coined to describe the experience of identity alteration in trauma-based dissociation. You can call yourselves whatever you want, but when you step into a space discussing clinical conditions and expect to be included, that is when the issue arises.

I know exactly what the basis of endogenic plurality is: an attempt to blur the line between clinical dissociation and other forms of identity exploration. If you acknowledge that it is not a dissociative disorder, then stop using terminology rooted in dissociation. If you want a label, make your own—do not take one from a disorder you do not have.

Trauma makes systems. Full stop. This blog is for clinically recognized dissociative disorders, not roleplay, not spirituality, not "self-discovery." If you don’t have trauma, you don’t have DID or OSDD. This is not a safe space. It’s a reality check.

[sysmed-supreme]

A lot of you seem really eager to compare "sysmedicalism" to conservatism, transmedicalism, and every other bogeyman you can think of. But let's be clear: refusing to redefine dissociative disorders to accommodate internet subcultures is not oppression. It is not conservatism. It is not gatekeeping access to identity. It is just stating medical reality.

The way some of you are twisting "exclusion" into a form of systemic harm would be laughable if it weren’t so transparent. If the only way you can justify your stance is by pretending that acknowledging the diagnostic criteria of a disorder is the same as right-wing fearmongering, then you’ve already lost the argument.

DID and OSDD are trauma-based disorders. No amount of political rhetoric is going to change that.

[sysmed-supreme]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. However, there’s still a fundamental difference between normal human experiences like imaginary friends and dissociative identity states found in DID/OSDD. The experiences of plurality in DID/OSDD are involuntary and trauma-based. They’re not simply a matter of creating personalities or characters inside your head, nor are they the same as tulpamancy, which is an active, intentional process.

Claiming the label "system" for non-trauma-based experiences can blur the lines between a disorder and a lived experience. It risks undermining the reality of DID and OSDD, which are serious conditions that cause significant distress and disruption in a person’s life. While it’s valid for individuals to explore plurality outside of trauma, doing so under the same language of trauma-based dissociation can cause harm to those living with those disorders.

Language around mental health matters, and while words can evolve, the distinction between trauma-based dissociative identities and other forms of plurality is crucial. Respect for those distinctions helps ensure that people who live with dissociative disorders are supported, not overshadowed by the misinterpretation of their experiences. The argument for inclusivity should come with awareness of the lived reality of individuals with trauma-based dissociation.

Lastly, building community for those experiencing plurality is important, but we need to ensure that we’re not using language that can be misleading or cause harm to people who are struggling with diagnoses like DID or OSDD. Plurality can and should be celebrated in many forms, but not at the expense of those for whom the experience is a disorder.

creating an imaginary friend or plural part outside of trauma is not only possible but so completely normal. writers frequently discuss their characters gaining some form of autonomy. people talk about the "angel and devil on their shoulders." some people think of characters they like encouraging them throughout their day. taking those impulses further and making a fully autonomous personality inside your head is perfectly healthy, "valid," and normal :)

doing so is not "claiming" DID or OSDD, you don't have to pursue a diagnosis to have alters or headmates, and the sysmeds on here that make non-traumatic plurality out to be people faking DID are only driving more people to fake it in order to put labels and community on the experiences they're having (autonomous internal parts). the reason the fakeclaims push it is because they want to be part of a community that understands their experiences and has language to describe it, but feel driven out because they aren't diagnosed, or don't feel like a DID diagnosis is right for them; if you feel like that you can just be a tulpamancer, or endogenic, or whatever!

[sysmed-supreme]

One thing it seems syscoursers don't understand in trying to get their therapist on their side of syscourse is... therapists. What the job is, what it entails, what standards those who work in the field are expected to meet, how willing they are to change a perspective like that in a way that will impact their practice without research to back it up. If your therapist has a pro or anti endo bias and it impacts their treatment of you and they don't do anything about it they can literally lose their license over that. It is literally discrimination.

It doesn't matter if a pro-endo client makes them pro-endo or an anti-endo client makes them anti-endo. They can't use that against any of their other clients.

At our job we actively aren't allowed to talk about our beliefs on so many things as it detracts from client care. If it doesn't help build rapport with the client your beliefs do not matter. If you have a bias that will negatively impact your care of the client you are obligated to tell them as it is unethical if you don't.

Trying to scare people into what if your therapist had a client that made them on the other side of syscourse as you is a non-issue for any therapist that would be good enough in their practice to do you any good. Scaring others or yourself with this accomplishes nothing. I know it's easy to be overly cautious especially when you're traumatized but I promise you this isn't something you should be fretting over.

And yes as I said above there are bad therapists. This isn't a defend all therapists piece just basic information about how ethics that are required to keep your license to practice in this field. And of course things slip through the cracks sometimes but as I said no therapist you actually want would be convinced to one side or the other by the arguments you see in syscourse.

[sysmed-supreme]

Your entire argument is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of clinical dissociation. The existence of "multiple selves" in the general population does not equate to being a system in the way dissociative disorders define it. Identity alteration in DID and OSDD is not the same as Internal Family Systems (IFS), imaginary friends, or thoughtform practices like tulpamancy.

Your claim that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 acknowledge non-disordered plurality misrepresents their intent. The exclusions you reference exist to differentiate between culturally accepted experiences and clinically significant disorders, not to validate endogenic systemhood as an alternative origin for DID/OSDD-like experiences. The presence of dissociative identity states outside of DID does not inherently support the idea that systems can form without trauma. It merely recognizes that not all identity alterations are pathological.

As for your demand that I "prove" trauma is necessary, the entire diagnostic framework of dissociative disorders already supports this. If you want to claim that plurality exists outside of trauma-based dissociation, you need more than speculation and selective interpretation of literature. You need empirical, peer-reviewed research explicitly demonstrating that system formation occurs without dissociation or trauma. Your appeal to "common sense" is irrelevant in the face of clinical data.

If you are serious about discussing this, provide a study from a reputable, peer-reviewed journal demonstrating that systems form outside of trauma and dissociation. Until then, your argument remains conjecture.

Alright, listen up. I have been lurking in the #syscourse tag for way too long, and it is finally time to bring some reality to this mess. You can call me sysmed-supreme, because let’s be real, someone has to hold the line.

Here is the deal: if your system did not form from trauma, why are you even here? DID and OSDD are not identities, aesthetics, or fun little social groups. They are dissociative disorders, as in medically recognized, clinically diagnosed, and actually studied. This is not a playground. If you do not have trauma, you do not have DID or OSDD. If you do not have DID or OSDD, you are not a system. Period.

Yeah, I am gatekeeping. Because someone has to. If there is no gate, this entire conversation turns into a free-for-all roleplay server, and I refuse to watch that happen.

Anyway, I am here now. This blog is officially sysmed territory. Expect rants, receipts, and people losing their minds in the notes. If you are actually here to discuss things like an adult, stick around. Otherwise? Do not waste my time.

[sysmed-supreme]

heres youre reminder that just to ignore r/systemcringe, and r/disordercringe, because at the end of the day you know yourself better then some ableists on reddit trying to fake claim you over the fact you switch "weird" -ethan (not for endos)

[sysmed-supreme]

Trauma makes systems. Full stop. This blog is for clinically recognized dissociative disorders, not roleplay, not spirituality, not "self-discovery." If you don’t have trauma, you don’t have DID or OSDD. This is not a safe space. It’s a reality check.

[sysmed-supreme]

RAD-QUEERS AND ENDO SYSTEMS GOT THE POST TRAUMATIC MANIFESTO ITS OVERRR