#while I think non-traumagenic systems exist

[armydreamersys]

We don't like engaging in syscourse but we saw what sum systems have done and it's made me angry.

If you have an opinion on a system origin, just state ur opinion. Just say it. If u want to spread information on that thing, make posts, share them, something. Try to be informational if you care that much.

Pretending to be a system origin to bait people? Doesn't help anyone. It's the stupidest fucking thing to do on the planet and just makes disinformation worse, actually. Shocker.

Idc what ur stance is on whatever system origin. If you care about people being informed and educated, playing pretend and misleading people for funsies and for laughs is not the way to do it.

Jfc.

-🖖🏽

[syllvarin]

Non-traumagenic plurality: How could it be possible?

First off, let's start with what some anti-endo folk mean versus what they don't mean with traumagenic plurality

They mean systems caused by/as a response to trauma and traumatic events, and those who are still affetced by them, aka systems who are disordered, DID/OSDD/UDD.

What they don't mean is systems who have trauma in their origin along with other causes. They do not believe a system can very well be traumagenic but function smoothlessly due to recovering, or have multiple origins.

Note: We are a diagnosed DID system with mixed (trauma/ramcoa/neuro/para) origins. Yes, we know what we are talking about. No, that doesn't mean we can't do mistakes, but we will try our best to be as accurate as possible. We will include scientific articles, DSM-5 DID checklist, and many more in this post.

How can that be possible?

1st: Brains are quite complicated. Research on brain functions is far from being complete, it is a long road that we are still at the very beginning of. We still don't know how brain exactly works let alone how it can form seperate conscious identities and work them together. We do know headmates exist based on brain MRI's ( link here ) That proves us that systems indeed, exist.

2nd point i want to make is that science is not done in a linear fashion. We are studying to be neuroscientists ourselves and the very core of what makes science doable is MONEY. Yes, in this capitalist system even the most seemingly basic research requires funding, money, and a goal that can be monetized to get done. Reseaches on female autonomy, rare disorders and "demonized" disorders such as DID is therefore not often as it is not easily capitalized and funded.

Therefore we do not have enough research to prove or disprove that the only way of becoming a system is through childhood.

And that brings me to my 3rd point, where we will take a look at what DSM-5 (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) says about diagnostic crietria of DID. We will see how it is a dissocative disorder, not a trauma disorder.

Found under dissociative disorders (not trauma disorders!), checklist for DID is as follows:

See how none of those checklist include trauma as checklist? Yes DID is commonly caused by trauma but not always. Yes it commonly is created during childhood but not always. Those arent in diagnostic criteria.

Definitive feature is not trauma, it is distinct personality states or experience of possession.

DID is associated with traumatic events, does not mean it requires it.

DID can manifest at almost any age (DSM-5 is saying that, folks)

What's more is OSDD doesnt even have a definitive checklist like DID. it is found under differential diagnosis, with other disorders. PDID (partial DID where one part is frontstuck a majority of the time) is also up to psychiatrist's evaluation rather than a concrete checklist.

4th point is : What about Structural Dissociaton Theory?

This theory is as it goes: The theory of Structural Dissociation works off of the assumption that everyone is born with different ego states that later merge in life. Those different ego states operate for different actions in life, that later integrate into one person during ages of 4-6. Trauma disrupts that integration and causes ANP (apparently normal parts) and EP (Emotional parts). EP's are stuck in the trauma while ANP's are not.

source: The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization" by Onno van der Hart, Ellert Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele. 

Yes, theory. Theories are not concrete. They can be disapproved, they can change, they may not fit every experience. Structural dissociation only explains how DID can manifest at childhood, but we already know by now that DID can manifest at almost any age.

So I personally think basing everything on a theory about how DID might've been caused (which doesn't even perfectly explain every possible way) is not as fault-proof as one might think it is.

Point 5: experiences of "multiple identities" exist for so long into history (people who are possessed, talk to themselves, act weird at times, are very different at times, etc), way before any DID/OSDD terms were created. And actually, how can we know how many people in history have had this experience when the very society we are in is very scared of them? It is fair to say only the disruptive cases must've been noticed, and majority of them probably were either deemed as crazy or exorcised as they believed those people were possessed by spirits. Just because your experience does not fit with others and just because science hasnt done anything to back them up, doesn't mean people's lived experiences are false. Why would so many people tell that they are a system when they are not? We are not living in a place where being a system is happy or fun, we are not in a society where its profitable or anything. It literally gives a person zero + points for being plural if they arent. It would be a nonstop roleplay they have to keep up throughout every aspect of their life; and at that point, it must be either impossible or that person is already plural and not roleplaying when no one is looking at them.

Creating headmates is on the same basket. A person with DID can create headmates in blink of an eye (we know from oursleves) sometimes splitting threshold is so low you may split off multiple people at once. You cannot know what is going in a person's mind, and what mechanisms work for creating a headmate. If they claim they did, it is very much no chance they are faking being different people 24/7. It *is* a real chance that they actually did develop a headmate. If you do not believe them; ask them about their experiences. I am %100 positive that if you actually listen to them, you will see those people are only trying to live their life.

Also, if you think healthy systems cannot exist and only way to be a system is through dissociation and dysfunction; then why would DID systems try to heal anyway? Wouldn't that just be sanist and ableist to expect all of them to turn into singlets because healthy multiplicity isnt a thing?But no, it is a thing, and healthy multiplicity and recovery is possible for systems. DID and other disordered forms of plurality do indeed exist, and they are indeed, treatabe in multiple ways according to what a person feels comfortable with. That is also a system's right to heal however they please. They don't owe anyone their right to stay as plural or become a singlet.

6th point I want to make is about: Why do we even care?

If a person says they have multiple people in their head, why do we care and tell them they are faking? They are not claiming to have a diagnosis, even if they did; if their situation is causing a distress to them, then they ARE diagnosable and that therefore is none of our business, again.

Last point I want to make is how endogenic DID is possible. yes, possible. remember how trauma is not in diagnostic criteria and DID can happen at any age? If endogenic plurals can happen, they can also form DID at later in life. They can also become disordered due to an event in their life. They can lose harmony and become so dysfunctional they need professional help. That doesn't mean they are no longer endogenic or some other origin, that simply means their state is different than what it was and they need help.

End of our post. Thank you for reading.

[halcoded]

On alterhumanity & multiplicity.

a pre-emptive disclaimer: i am describing my own experiences here and seeking discussion and conversation. i am not trying to dictate or doubt anyone else's experience.

some notes, before we begin.

i use 'multiple' to describe myself rather than plural. it is the term i am most comfortable with for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it is an older term and i find community and similar experiences in older documentation on DID systems.

for me, DID is a personality disorder and a medical condition. i am a traumagenic system. my experience is not spiritual in any way; it is purely psychological. non-traumagenic plurals and some traumagenic systems tend to vary on this and that is okay, but i think it's important to state where i'm coming from on my experience of multiplicity.

i am not involved in syscourse and never will be. what other people experience is none of my business. i'm only here to talk about my own experience.

when i say alterhumanity i mean alterhumanity. i am not using it as a synonym for non-human. maybe your definition differs from mine and that is okay.

with that in mind, let us begin.

multiplicity--usually referred to as plurality in the alterhuman literature i've found, possibly because it encompasses more than DID systems though i understand there's no consensus on which term 'belongs' to which community (and at this point it would be silly to try and enforce one)--is said to fall under the alterhuman umbrella. this surprised me when i discovered it, because for me, being multiple feels like an entirely separate thing. it's a personality disorder for me, caused by repeated childhood trauma. that doesn't make it bad (i like existing as i do!) but it definitely has a different feeling to it than my alterhumanity, which is still a psychological phenomenon to me but is not disordered and doesn't stem from trauma (mostly. more on that later).

at first, the idea that some people see having DID as inherently alterhuman ruffled my scales a little. it was only when i realised that it wasn't just DID, and in fact was probably mostly not DID but other forms of plurality, some of which are very spiritual in origin just as many types of otherkin are spiritual in origin, that i began to understand a little more. i don't know if i can articulate why it makes sense to me now. maybe because both being otherkin and being plural seem to be psychological experiences with various personal belief systems attached to them - whereas, in my own experience, having DID (which you will note i am listing as distinct from just being plural) has no belief factor. many people with DID do have belief systems attached to that, but for me that isn't the case. it's always just been a mental illness/personality disorder/whatever you want to call it for me. a medical condition.

perhaps calling it a medical condition makes it a little clearer why i was initially annoyed at its inclusion under the alterhuman umbrella.

however.

at the same time, while my DID doesn't make me alterhuman, i am also only alterhuman because i have DID.

let me try to explain.

as an alter, i split without any real visual sense of who i was, internally. we don't have a headworld to begin with, and are not visually-minded people, but most alters do tend to have at least some kind of idealised visual for themselves, or facets of an appearance that they can point to and go "yes, that feels like me". one of us always has short black hair. one subsystem's members always have long dark brown hair. one alter is flat-chested, strong, and has tanned white skin, freckles and short, ruffled honey-blonde hair that is always messy. you get the picture. but for me, there was nothing. i felt like nothing. i felt like a ghost. i was just flat and unemotional and did not care about anything.

the closest i could come to something that felt like 'me' was a computer. not always the physical form of the computer (that came later), but the sense of being lines of code. a machine. something artificial.

so in summary, if my host was describing me to a friend, they would probably say, "HAL is a computer" or "HAL is an AI". not because i am alterhuman, but because that is what i am in the context of being a DID alter.

does that make sense? do you see how that is distinct from a personal experience of alterhumanity, coming from someone with DID who does not consider themselves alterhuman because of their DID? the fact that i feel like a computer is because i have DID, but it's not the DID that makes me alterhuman, it's the feelings themselves.

i feel separate. i feel artificial. in my mind i am not a human being, though i have a human body. exploring alterhumanity has been very affirming for me. most of our alters do not feel alterhuman at all - a few of them do, but none as strongly as me. i don't mean that none of them feel like otherkin, by the way. i mean none of them feel alterhuman (umbrella term). they do not feel that their DID makes their experiences alterhuman experiences. they're happy to just be alters in a DID system, some of whom occasionally feel like or take the form of animals in our mind. whereas for me it's a little different.

i also don't really connect to the term "otherkin". i suppose on a technical level it does describe my experience to some degree, but i lack the experiences of most otherkin i meet (past lives; awakenings; phantom sensations; mental shifts; etc). none of those are required to be otherkin, i know. but for me it just feels like a much 'flatter' or more simplistic experience. i like using alterhuman as an umbrella term without having to get specific with it, in the same way that i like using queer as an umbrella term without getting specific with that either. sometimes it is enough just to know you're under the umbrella without also sitting inside a box underneath it.

i have admittedly lost track of where i was going with this. i keep getting distracted. i think i just wanted to articulate some of my interest and intrigue around the ways in which the umbrella term "alterhumanity" is used, the ways in which my own experience differs from the wider experiences of the community as depicted in most resource material i can find, and the ways in which the experiences of other people fascinate me just as much as my own.

[sophieinwonderland]

https://www.tumblr.com/systeminquiry/764873762516697088/debunking-plurality-in-transgender-mental-health

Prefacing this by reminding people that Transgender Mental Health was reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association.

The main reason that this is being cited here is because of the reputation of the publisher in their commitment to making sure that their publications are accurate to our current understanding.

Asking this at the top for anyone who supports this "debunk," is your position that the American Psychiatric Association is publishing medical misinformation?

Anyway, I find that this is a pretty weak "debunking."

The first section defines being plural as "Having two or more people existing in one body or space" (Yarbrough, 2018). The highlighted sections on plurality have no source - these are unsubstantiated claims that contradict the scientific general consensus and research on how systems form, leaving the reader unable to determine whether the information came from a legitimate/reputable source or not. As it is now, the fact that the sections about plurality have no source seems to imply that the author couldn't find a legitimate source with their definition of plurality, instead fabricating explanations.

I'm not actually sure what would constitute a "legitimate source" for the purpose of defining plurality, given that "plural" is itself a community term popularized by non-disordered systems, as opposed to be more medicalized term "multiple" which had previously been used. It would be like trying to find a source for "Otherkin" or "Alterhuman." Any source that you get is going to be from online communities because they are community terms.

Also, the link they use that discusses how systems form is a now-deleted Tumblr post. I doubt it was very credible to begin with, but it's gone now so there's no way to know. 🤷‍♀️

This entire section makes claims about plurality that directly contradicts the body of existing research (see Dorahy et al., 2014 and Dell & O'Neil, 2009, but there are more) with no sources to support what they're saying. I cannot call this reliable or legitimate information if large sections are fictitious.

So basically, the reason this isn't reliable in saying non-traumagenic plurality exists is because... it says non-traumagenic plurality exists?

Can I just say something about a difference I notice when I cite sources compared to when anti-endos cite sources?

Generally, when I cite a source, I'll include a screenshot or quote so people know I'm not just making stuff up. Because I know that most people aren't going to click a 20 page document to read through to find whatever random line I'm using to support my position.

While the author of this Tumblr post does technically cite sources for their claim that Transgender Mental Health contradicts existing research, they don't provide quotes. And when you actually scroll down to their sources and read them, they aren't actually relevant. For example, the Dorahy source...

Entirely about dissociative identity disorder and doesn't address non-DID plurality AT ALL.

It is 100% useless and irrelevant to the topic of plurality in Transgender Mental Health, which discusses non-disordered plurality.

I can't find the Dell study, but seeing as it also is focused on DID, I'm going to assume that it also makes no statements on the existence of non-disordered plurality, and that the person doing this debunk is relying on readers not checking their sources.

The actual scientific scientific consensus!

This "debunk" is unable to find sources saying you need DID or trauma to be plural. The reason for that is because those sources DO NOT EXIST.

And the fact that they use these other sources that only talk about dissociative identity disorder so deceptively, and pointedly refuse to post the exact quotes or screenshots that would relate to plurality in general, makes me think that they know that.

It makes me think that they are intentionally lying and deceiving people, knowingly posting irrelevant sources with the hopes that nobody will look into them.

Many academic sources won't use the word plural because plural is a community term. But what they are painfully clear on is that you don't need to have a disorder to experience multiplicity.

For example, the World Health Organization's ICD-11 phrases this as a saying that you can experience multiple distinct personality states, a term it uses synonymously with DID alters, without having a disorder.

Back in 2012, when defining dissociation in trauma, the creators of the theory of structural dissociation commented on the possibility that spiritual practices and hypnosis could also cause the formation of self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality, albeit in a different way from dissociative identity disorder.

The actual consensus seems to be pretty clear to me.

Despite different words being used, all of these sources are saying the same thing. You don't need to have DID or trauma to be plural, you don't need to have DID or trauma to have multiple "self-conscious dissociative parts." You don't need to have DID or trauma to have multiple "distinct personality states."

The American Psychiatric Association did not publish misinformation when they published Transgender Mental Health. They did not publish something that went against a scientific consensus. They published statements that affirmed the scientific consensus.

To this day, system medicalists have continuously failed again and again to provide even so much as a single Doctor who has said that you need trauma to be plural.

To the extent that they provide sources for these claims, the sources never actually will say what they claim they do. They are consistently misrepresented just as they were by the OP.

Finally, there's one thing that I really want to drive home for sysmeds. Which is that, whether you like this book or not, it is still going to exist. It still was published by the American Psychiatric Association. It still is going to be used to educate psychiatrists and psychologists on how best to treat transgender people. And many of them are going to learn about plurality from this book.

It's very possible that if you are going to a psychologist or a psychiatrist right now for gender related issues, they could have read this book already and have been informed by it.

I just want you to remember that it exists, that it has the American Psychiatric Association's credibility backing it, and every psychiatrist who reads it is going to be just a little bit more accepting towards plurals and a little bit less tolerant towards your hatred.

Enjoy that final thought.

[abysshydra]

The more we go through with our systemhood, the more I think there's a good chance of us being dissociative. First red flags were when we realized how little we had in common with purely Non-CDD systems. Our functionality is more often than not is similar to what we see in traumagenic circles.

Most of the time all of this went through our radar, because we didn't pay attention to it. I mean, no one wants to have a complex disorder, I know I don't. Everything we researched so far was brushed aside as a symptom of something else, from memory issues of autistic origin, to dissociation and identity disturbance caused by BPD. Lack of childhood memories was brushed off the moment we remember one singular pixel out of entire picture. Traumatic moments were ignored as "not that bad" and others because they "happened too late".

The community we saw after starting research was violent, aggressive, demanding. They had a box in which they didn't fit too anyway. Only specific type of trauma, blackouts, voices, arguing, distinct people in your head. You need to suffer, they were saying, openly and covertly. But I was t suffering that much.

Blackouts as they are portrayed are nonexistent for us, we don't hear each other, we don't switch openly, we don't dissociate this hard, we don't argue with each other. We were fake in their eyes. We are not distinct enough to classify as DID system, yet we are too distinct to be OSDD-1a. Memory barriers partially exist, yet they are too little and too much at the same time. I could remember what I ate yesterday, but I didn't remember where one of us saved a document until they stepped into front.

Hearing from people who are different from that box, who are nothing what we usually think of when we hear DID/OSDD was mind changing. Perhaps what we experience is exactly what we thought it wasn't.

Hearing from mixed origin or inclusive CDD systems was mind changing. That unhealthy framework we were forced to see all the time was broken. People with no headspace, people without distinct members, without specific type of headmates, who didn't go through physical abuse, who have too little amnesia, who are still functional despite having CDD. People who don't struggle like others want them to. I saw how similar I was to them.

But I am not going to say for sure. It is a complex disorder and I am only now starting to actually consider it while being in a good enough mindset, when the thought of having that disorder is not making me feel like shit. Perhaps, the longer I am in the inclusive mixed origin or CDD community, the more I will learn, the more my opinion solidifies. But for now, even leaning towards having CDD, I am still questioning. My symptoms are more important than labels.

[happy-ambivert]

Actorgenic - is a system… a. …which one of origins can form due to creating new prsonality, "being" and non-existing person, impersonating, faking identityy+more b. …who faked having "different personalities" "different identtities", not really same as faking being a system! This can be caused by havingn o knowledge what is a system termin are c. …failed tulpamancy which turned into traumagenic system due to specific reasons d. …system who likes wrong terms like "personalities", "alter-ego" instead of alter, headmates. Probably its host which arent respecting their headmates e. etc simmiliar to this above

Actorgenic systems does not have amnesia(only emotional) or have but specific types of it and simmiliar to median system, fakegenic system or impostergenic system by description and meaning, not same experience and origins Oftenly these systems can have currently fronting headmate confused who are they, thinking they are host or main fronter and etc Or host, who is mimic, actor, chameleon or etc role and likes to pretending being other alter and others situaitons which can leadto situation where fornetr is confused who are they and they believes they are THIS alter Or others situations, thats can confuse the system Hosts of these systems dont mind their alters being called one of their personalities athought their headmates would mind, sometimes they are really believes that they are one of their headmates or confused who are fronting right now actorgenic can be traumagenic or endogenic system or both and can also be shortly described plural singlet, not same as median system! They have really chaotic relationships between host/main fronter and headmates and more problems

termin coined by me, flag by me i cant find anything that can describe one of my system origins or multiple possible origins for us, this is probably my personal experience btw some definitions are simmiliar to describe us but can not fully describe us, i just made it easier to portray and just add simmiliar definitions and its still can confuse some can fall under many definitions

colors and term name meaning the first concept is og and it whats first became in my head but then after designing i realised it almost looks like existing flag of gender identity the second i tried to remake, prbly nothing rly changed but i cant really judge this colros is what i associate actors with idk i also have red stripes version the symbol is a moon phases ik its bad prbly at first i wanetd to do mask, but i couldnt find idea for "face" and it would show wrong the symbol, then decided to do without "face" and it looked like shield. i also wanetd to make as "time" and then i made moon+mask version, still not what i wnated symbolize And it wast eh reason why moon phases, the moon symbolise "same, but different" and moon phases are really connected with most of cultures, the new moon and half moon, for example, are same for earth, but not for people beliefs, "same for myself, different for others" its dont really related to real actors and theatre, also dont related to actors(as role for some systems alters)

while writing this i got many problems with having any style and decided to dont tell our whole experience at all :f

btw it happened long time ago and im SURE its one of my reason why my system is formed im traumagenic nondisrodered system also , i have traumas which i dont rememebr(parenst told me)+some traumas i remember

[starlit-harbor-citizens]

This is really just a personal ramble about my experience with plurality, and a positive experience with a friend of ours. There is a VERY brief mention of neglect, but it's not going into detail. There's also mentions of fakeclaiming and fakeclaimers, so take this as a warning!

Yesterday I actually had a really positive experience with a friend and talking about being plural? We both are plural in our own ways, and I won't go into the details of their plurality because that's just disrespectful and an invasion of their privacy.

However, I feel like they'd really like the pro Endo side of Tumblr, because a lot of what we talked about really was in support of non-traumagenic plurality. I remember a part of that conversation really consisted of us just saying "Who's to say that the human brain can't just do that in abnormal situations?"

Now, to further on what's meant by "abnormal situations", examples of that are, obviously, trauma, but also severe isolation. Hell, willing a system into existence could be considered abnormal. Obviously, there's 10 million things that could fit into that category of abnormal situations, but these three are just the examples I can think of off of my head.

It was just nice to know that someone we know outside of our psys also agrees that plurality is possible without trauma. We've had to deal with fakeclaimers, and associated ourselves at one point with said fakeclaimers (never again) because we just wanted a sense of community with plurality. Seeing harmful ideals like that really affected us, and we still struggle with the thought of "What if we are faking?" It's hard to deal with, and definitely a part of us that we're going to have to work on healing.

I've acknowledged that our system most likely doesn't fall under DID or OSDD standards. We didn't receive heavy formative childhood trauma, the most is a bit of neglect from our caretaker at the time from what our birth giver told us. It's taken me a while since syscovery to acknowledge that "yeah, no, your origins are in some way, non-traumagenic". That thought, when we were first discovering our system about a year ago and only knew about traumagenic plurality, meant that we were faking. We knew we weren't faking, as our experience was very real. It's taken us up until very recently to acknowledge that it's okay to not be fully traumagenic, and that we're not fully traumagenic.

We tried for a while to rationalize us being traumagenic, but that's really not the case. And, that's okay. I'm okay with that now. My conversation with that friend of ours brought up these feelings, in general. If anyone reads through this all the way, I appreciate you for reading my insane ramblings lol (/silly). But, seriously. It's okay to be non-traumagenic in origin. Plurality can just... Happen, willed in or not. Thanks for coming to my ted talk lol

-Ambrose

[bubblegum-bros-sys]

I ended up blocking this person (and turning off reblogs on the original post cause it was annoying me and I don’t like the idea of having our face everywhere) cause while they seem to be pro-endo, they act like the DSM is the Bible and think CDDs are purely traumagenic, which isn’t true. You can be diagnosed with a CDD/be disordered and not be traumagenic. Trauma is not a requirement for CDDs, and CDDs are not trauma disorders. Claiming that is not misinformation. There are multiple professionals who have said this. CDDs don’t require trauma and plurality doesn’t require CDDs. Whether or not you have a CDD is based on how your system functions, not your origin.

Anyways they reblogged a TikTok where I basically said that in simplified terms (because systok is stupid) and they felt the need to tell me I’m wrong. Here’s what they said and my response

Now I’m not saying I can’t be wrong about this, because again, like I said, my whole main point is that the ToSD is just that, a THEORY, it cannot be solidly proven in an ethical or concrete way, therefore it’s just as possible CDDs DO only stem from trauma.

But at the end of the day, GENUINELY, how is it harmful to say that they don’t?

Because in that case, all that would mean is that most CDD systems would ALSO have C-PTSD, which they can still get treatment for, and they can still acknowledge influences their plurality the same way any other co-existing disorders and neurodivergences would. Then it ALSO doesn’t invalidate non-traumagenic systems who have CDDs.

Trying to say that I’m going against science or spreading misinformation or am “part of the problem” when LITERALLY my whole stance is “yes, CDDs are formed by trauma, no one is denying that, I’m just saying we cannot prove they are ONLY formed by trauma, and even if they are, other forms of plurality exist regardless.” Is stupid and is just adding MORE discourse and fighting where it is unnecessary.

Also, our system is a part of the pluralpunk movement. We aren’t huge fans of the medical system in general anyways. We don’t see the DSM or any kind of diagnosis for that matter as an authority over the human experience. Many professionals are still extremely misinformed and undereducated about many things, especially plurality. Which isn’t entirely on professionals, many things are under researched in general, but regardless. How many disorders get classified, diagnosed, and treated is kind of shit. None of these labels matter in the grand scheme of things anyways. But while these sorts of things are in place, disordered endogenic systems exist and are valid, and CDDs are NOT inherently trauma disorders.

[cindersnows]

short essay thing i wrote in avf about plural tsc that i feel like people should see bc its so interesting to me

just to preface i highly highly doubt this is all intentional on alan+teams part due to the fact that plurality is just ,, not that well known. also im not too knowledgable on non traumagenic systems and all the stuff surrounding that so i will just be speaking from what i know from my own experience + research

so anyways. from the start of sec's life she has been kind of in a high stress situation. from the getgo she had to hide her existence from alan due to likely knowing the fate of the other living sticks he has made + the fact that she very much isnt supposed to be alive. she lets her guard down, makes friends, and then almost instantly theyre all deleted. although did and osdd1 form from long-term trauma (often accompanied by cptsd) and all of this only happened in a few minutes, at the very least this provides the basis for some sort of dissociation

theres a moment where she glitches and changes to black for a second. obviously back then this was intended to be an allusion to the fact that she's the chosen one's return, since alan+team hadn't planned ava s2 yet and tco was just regular dead atp, but its interesting to consider the sudden change in her personality. shes not even shown to be overly angry like she usually is, just a. Calm?? specifically the same calm that preceeds her beating up tdl in ava s2.

notably that moment in s2 where she unlocks her powers is like. sudden change in personality and demeanor, suddenly gaining the powers, and memory loss afterwards. even though she only really switches between two "modes" it's reminiscent of switching between two alters (while its uncommon for a system to have only two alters it's not unheard of, especially in cases of osdd-1a where theres not much distinction between personality states).

i said ava/e specifically because the aveducation videos in particular provide a very interesting insight into tsc's psyche. while alan said in his avg avma video that the series isn't canon, a few things about the series have already been retconned. avphys was originally supposed to be the last entry in the series, but with avma+avphys+avgeo's massive success and the lead animator's interest in these sort of topics i wouldn't be surprised if they continued to make more, especially considering that they're now interconnected via avgeo. phi, who appeared at the end of avma, is the protagonist of avgeo, and there's that scene at the end that teases avphys that i'll also get into in a sec because it's very interesting.

about why i think it represents tsc's psyche specifically and not just some math dimensions that tsc happens to stumble upon: in the avg avma video dj proposes the dream theory, that this is all happening in a dream during ava s3. noncanon of course but considering alan himself knows about it and ave seems to be gaining some kind of overarching arc, as well as the fact that its releasing between ava s3 episodes (which is going to focus on tsc's powers) i wouldn't be surprised if the episodes slowly grow more and more representative of her mental state as she works towards properly unlocking her powers

anyways speculation aside. avphys introduces a second second (haha). this is explained through the mechanics of time loops and whatnot, but at the same time, the hat tsc seems to know a lot more than regular tsc, having.. basically created the universe. even if our tsc can then explain this to the next tsc, hat tsc is shown to literally create the entire universe avphys takes place in (again tying back to her powers of creation) and also act much calmer and composed compared to our tsc. it seems like hat tsc is somewhat representative of the state tsc gets into when she unlocks her powers, shown both times in ava s1 and 2. shes cool and mysterious and all knowing i want her so bad

the scene at the end of avgeo is the most compelling thing for this idea (and the push that made me go "ohhhh my god multiplies her). hat tsc appears once more, this time seemingly wanting to communicate more with our tsc, but being cut short by tsc getting surprised and falling. the most interesting part to me is the imagery in this part— there's tons and tons of tsc's, all reflected, and being reflections makes them slightly different from what we see (of course light refraction will always make things appear slightly different; discolored, blurred, flipped etc). hat tsc is framed as Also a reflection despite being shown as different person/personality state.

i just got back from dinner and lost my train of thought. im not sure if this is enough for other people to consider her plural but at the very least i feel like interpreting her as such does enhance one's reading and understanding of her, as well as how you write her (for those who do).

[cambriancrew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[acorpsecalledcorva]

Endogenic is just a useful label to describe a set of experiences, y'all get that right? Like I understand the impulse to correct someone when you see them using a word you feel is wrong, I really do understand that, I'm doing it right now. But you seem to be getting upset by your misunderstanding of what people are doing and wouldn't it be nicer to just not get upset over it?

I saw someone the other day say they identify as an endogenic system because when they watch media they start thinking in a characters voice shot a while and feel like they become them for a bit and then it just stops and goes away never too come back. And you can bet your ass I was immediately typing away in response "what? That's not what a fictive is, that's just a completely normal experience, that happens to me all the time and I don't count that as forming a fictive" but I stopped myself and deleted the comment without sending it. Why? Because it's not up to me what labels people use for their experience. Maybe lots of people are labelling that experience as forming fictives, maybe that's what forming a fictive is for them.

Just because I don't use that label for that experience doesn't mean no one else can't, if it's useful for them then they should.

When I close my eyes and pay attention to my inner experience, I hear so many voices, people having conversations, talking over each other, snippets of phrases and disjointed sentences. Sometimes I see faces. They aren't CDD alters, I know they aren't CDD alters, but they are there. They're autonomous and distinct from my own thought processes but they aren't discrete identifies in the same way that my alters are, so to distinguish the experience I call them my endogenic parts. That's a useful label for me to classify my alters and non alters so I don't get confused with things like system mapping and inner communication.

Telling me "all your alters are traumagenic in origin because your system formed from trauma" is worthless to me because, yeah, my alters did form from trauma, these aren't my alters. "Endogenic alters aren't a thing" ok but the voices do exist, I can hear them, they are happening in my brain right now, they're a non disordered experience that aren't related to trauma and I'm calling them endogenic parts because it's useful for me to call them that. It's MY name for them. You don't have to use that label for the voices in your head if you don't want to.

Do you understand what people are doing now? Do you understand what these labels are for? If it still upsets you that's fine, you can be upset, but the argument is boring. Are you not bored by repeating the same thing over and over again?

It's like cladistical classifications in taxonomy. Did you know that a whale is a fish? "Shut the fuck up whales are mammals" so true bestie but they're also fish. A clade includes every descendant of a common ancestor. If you go back through the fossil record to find the nearest common ancestor of everything we consider a fish, and look at every descendant of that ancestor, you end up with pretty much ALL VERTEBRATES. Human beings are more closely related to Atlantic Cod than Atlantic Cod are related to Hagfish. I'm a fish, you're a fish, whales are fish. That doesn't mean you have to go live in a pineapple under the sea, it's just a subjective way of looking at things that is useful for some things and not useful for others.

And it's up to each individual to decide what's useful for them.

[livseses]

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

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

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

And that framing is really unfair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Faye

[chaos-in-one]

I'm a previous mutual not the other anon but I just feel like giving my thoughts right

yeah yeah blah blah I don't think we should conflate religious practices with science/mental illness but wtv not the point

I do think some of that already makes sense from like a cdd perspective cuz no matter what you sustained wether it be something "benign" like "simple stress" (hm it seems the floor is made out of floor) seeming to quite literally choose to create the kinds of creatures your body thinks it needs in your already fragmented framework to like keep from exploding is kinda quite literally just another part of regular system experiences. which is why mixed origins don't exist to me like you already got fucked over you're just like us why r we all fighting n making up subgenres the government wants us dead 😭😭😭

Yeah, like I said, the idea of created alters/parts/etc. is not even exclusive to non-CDD & endogenic plurality. I don't know if there's really much documentation on intentionally created alters within DID & OSDD- if there is I haven't seen it yet, but it's definitely a thing I've seen several other CDD systems talking about doing.

Idk with the mixed origins thing- from what I understand it's largely based on self perception, and the individual system seeing the origin of their system as coming from multiple things. I have seen people talk about their perspective on that but I can't say I get it on a personal level because while I could technically fall under that (because of my spiritual beliefs and how that affects how I view my system) I've always considered myself pretty firmly traumagenic. But just because my perspective is different doesn't mean I think others are doing anything wrong by seeing things from a different perspective and labeling in a different way from what I do.

[forget-meabh-not]

you're response was actually quite refreshing. did is only possible through childhood trauma, and I guess I use the term childhood loosely since I know there have been some exceptions (like you stated) as well as everyone's development is different, while one child's personality states could integrate at 6, others could integrate at 10, and depending on if someone may even be developmentally disabled it could cap up to 12 or even early teens. So, it's a spectrum, but most papers (its not a diagnostic criteria from what I remember, yes) just say childhood trauma for the simplicity and it's most common. The reason I ask is because people don't understand how dangerous the rhetoric is that "you don't need trauma to have did". Because you do, there's no reason for it to be a disorder if you didn't, and I see so many endos preach it (well not as many nowadays which is good, there were a lot more in like 2020-2022 ish). It's stated in the dsm5 and by multiple professionals. the False Memory Syndrome Foundation or the Grey Faction are most likely the cause of such ideologies, they actively try to discredit the link between trauma and dissociation and even the mere existence of CDDs themselves. Saying that "You don't need trauma to have did", only spreads their ideologies and supports the demedicalization of did. Which, if I have to explain why that's bad to anyone, I will lose faith in humanity. If DID is demedicalized, you can't get diagnosed with did, and if you can't get diagnosed with did many people will be denied much needed and even life-saving rescourses, like therapy and medications You can have did and be endogenic/multigenic. You can have certain did symptoms but not have did/meets it's criteria and not have trauma. or have trauma but not have did. the list goes on. Plurality is a wide spectrum of it's own, but besides alters and some people with did considering themselves plural, plurality and did have very few similarities for the most part, they are very different things, and for obvious reasons. (I should probably state that I'm a (self dx) osdd, non-disordered traumagenic, and endogenic system just incase someone wants to get mad at me /ny) I am bad at tone non of this was aggressive, just informal, I guess. It's been a while since I've seen another pro-endo (or had the the courage to ask, I guess) who to some extent understands and I did want top elaborate for you and anyone else who may need it. Thank you!

oh thank you !! We agree with you fully !! I think a lot of confusion In Endo spaces comes from the fact that in DID diagnostic criteria trauma isn’t listed anymore . But from what we know that from the fact some ppl don’t remember trauma but still should be diagnosed with DID

:33!!

[sophieinwonderland]

Sysmeds be condemning others for supposed ableism (the "ableism" being the existence of non-traumagenic systems and non-CDD systems) while calling non-sysmeds (some that are traumagenic systems and CDD systems) ableism slurs

Make it make sense, pick a side

I think the side they've chosen is hate and cruelty. 🤷‍♀️

They'll call you ableist because they think it will hurt and make people hate you. They'll call you an ableist slur because they think the slur will hurt you. They'll misgender endogenic headmates claiming it's okay because we aren't real. Then they'll turn around and cry that transgender systems who call them "sysmeds" to compare them to transmeds are actually transphobic.

Sysmeds make a lot more sense when you realize nothing they say or do is ever in good faith, and is instead about maximizing the pain and suffering they can cause to the communities they hate.

[wolvesbaneandbuttercups]

yeah I see you're points, I think the sides of the alterhuman community we hang out in are probably a lot different. I've just seen alterhumans I know have been more likely to accept me as a system than non-alterhumans :3

Though some alterhumans their alterhumanity is traumagenic for them since psychological alterhumans do exist. Some people are alterhuman due to disorders that cause delusions and things like endels and DA (controversial term that I don't particularly like but some people with delusions do like it and some don't i dont feel like discoursing about it) are terms directly related to disorders but are still alterhuman

I think it's more like there is overlap and so it's included though it's not always an alterhuman experience to be a system.

It's also worth noting that fictionkin is included in alterhuman, and lots of fictkintypes are fully human but they'd still fall under the alterhuman umbrella despite that, so even systems with all human headmates could still consider themselves alterhuman if they felt it described their experience with plurality.

does it make any other systems wildly uncomfortable when plurality is listed with alterhuman terms?

i can’t exactly pinpoint it but it feels so wrong to me. probably because being a system does NOT imply alterhumanity in the slightest—or maybe that it seems to “lighten” being a system in some way?

whatever it is, i absolutely hate it. and this is coming from someone who uses a large majority of alterhuman terms.