booth

The evidence that was cited is a single sentence from a chapter by Richard Kluft on Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) in The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman (2001).

"It is unclear whether this reflects problems with the instrument or the diagnostic criteria, whether there are nonpathological endogenous forms of dissociative identity disorder, or whether patients remaining completely amnestic for childhood abuse were less symptomatic." Page 199, A. Epidemiology

Some people interpret this as Kluft affirming the existence of endogenic systems. However, this interpretation does not hold up when the statement is examined in its full context. The statement was speculation, not a conclusion. The most important thing to note is that Kluft was not presenting a finding. He was discussing the results of a population survey conducted by Ross and colleagues that appeared to identify more individuals meeting criteria for DID than expected. Rather than claiming to know why this discrepancy existed, Kluft explicitly stated that the reason was unclear. He then listed several possible explanations: - Problems with the diagnostic instrument. - Problems with the diagnostic criteria. - The possibility of nonpathological forms of DID. - The possibility that some individuals remained amnestic for childhood abuse and therefore appeared less symptomatic. In other words, Kluft was offering hypotheses, not conclusions. This contrast matters. When a researcher says that several explanations are possible, they are not endorsing any one of them as fact. To cite this sentence as proof that endogenic systems exist requires ignoring the fact that Kluft himself stated that the issue was unresolved. The most important thing here is that the rest of the chapter supports a trauma-based model! The broader context of the chapter makes the interpretation even more difficult to sustain. Immediately after discussing prevalence, Kluft turns to the question of etiology. There, he repeatedly describes DID as developing in children who are overwhelmed by experiences they cannot psychologically manage. He proceeded to write the following:

"Kluft's four-factor theory holds that dissociative identity disorder occurs in (factor 1) a dissociation prone child (a biological capacity) who experiences (factor 2) overwhelming stressors that cannot be managed with nondissociative defenses. While child abuse is the most frequent stressor in North American studies, this may not be universally the case. Exposure to death, vicarious traumatization (by witnessing the intentional or accidental death or mistreatment of others), the loss of significant persons, cultural dislocation, dysfunctional family pressures (often in the context of divorce), childhood illness and injury, and repeated childhood surgeries have been cited as instrumental overwhelming stressors as well. The child makes use of (factor 3) various shaping influences and substrates to form the kernel of the various alters. These may include life experiences and crucial persons in the child's life space via introjection, internalization, and identification), imaginary companionship, developmental lines, extrinsic interpersonal influences from childhood (encouragement of role-playing and acting, contradictory caretaker demands or reinforcement systems, or identification with a dissociative parent) and from contemporary sources (previous therapy, the media and literature, errors in technique, autohypnotic coping). Finally, the situation is reinforced by (factor 4) the inadequate provision of stimulus barriers and restorative experiences by significant others. This approach to etiology is consistent with clinical experience." Page 199-201, B. Etiology

Kluft further notes that studies consistently found histories of abuse among the overwhelming majority of DID patients. He cites research reporting childhood abuse histories in as many as 97–98% of cases and documented abuse in the vast majority of investigated patients. Far from arguing that DID commonly arises without trauma, the chapter presents childhood trauma and overwhelming stress as the central framework for understanding the disorder. If Kluft truly believed that non-traumatic DID was an established phenomenon, one would expect that position to be reflected consistently throughout the chapter's discussion of etiology. Instead, the opposite is true. Another common problem with this claim is that it projects modern internet terminology backward onto a text written in 2001. Kluft never mentions endogenic systems, natural plurality, tulpamancy, soulbonding, median systems, non-traumagenic plurality communities. None of these concepts appear in the chapter. As a result, using this sentence as evidence that Kluft was discussing contemporary endogenic identities is historically inaccurate. At most, he was briefly entertaining a hypothetical explanation for unexpected survey results. "Nonpathological DID" Is not the same as endogenicity either. Even if one assumes Kluft was seriously considering the possibility of nonpathological DID, this still would not automatically support modern endogenic claims. The discussion occurs in a section about prevalence and diagnosis. Kluft was attempting to explain why certain survey respondents appeared to meet DID criteria despite not presenting as obvious clinical cases. One possible interpretation of his statement is that some individuals might display DID-like traits without suffering from the level of impairment typically associated with psychiatric treatment populations. That is a very different claim from saying that individuals can naturally develop alters entirely independent of trauma, dissociation, or developmental disruption. In fact, Kluft never makes that argument anywhere in the chapter. The Diagnostic Criteria still required dissociative symptoms too. Kluft reproduces the DSM-IV criteria for DID, which require two or more distinct identities or personality states, recurrent control of behavior by at least two of those states, and significant amnesia that cannot be explained by ordinary forgetfulness. These are not descriptions of ordinary identity variation, roleplay, imagination, or healthy multiplicity. They are clinical dissociative symptoms. Consequently, even the phrase "nonpathological DID" creates a conceptual problem. DID is, by definition, a disorder. The presence of DID criteria implies clinically significant dissociative phenomena. This further suggests that Kluft's remark was exploratory and tentative rather than an attempt to establish a new diagnostic category. Throughout the text he repeatedly describes DID as a naturalistically occurring disorder. He connects its development to overwhelming childhood experiences, discusses trauma as the primary context in which DID emerges, notes the extremely high rates of documented abuse among DID patients, and supports treatment models designed around trauma processing and integration.

The chapter does not present evidence for endogenic systems. It does not establish non-traumatic DID. It does not validate modern endogenic theories.

Instead, it contains a single speculative sentence in which Kluft briefly considers several possible explanations for an unexpected survey result and explicitly states that the correct explanation is unknown.

So, here's your conclusion. The claim that Richard Kluft "proved" or "confirmed" endogenic systems in 2001 is based on a misreading of a single sentence removed from its context. The person who made this claim has stated before "I don't believe in context", so truly, can you believe someone making a claim without further context..? Regardless, Kluft did not conclude that nonpathological endogenous forms of DID exist. He merely listed that possibility among several competing explanations for unusual survey findings and explicitly stated that the matter was unresolved. When the remainder of the chapter is examined, Kluft's actual position becomes clear that DID is presented as a trauma-associated dissociative disorder arising in overwhelmed children, NOT as evidence for modern endogenic theories of plurality.

Remember, science is full of proposed explanations that were never supported by later evidence.

Read The Disorders: Specialty Articles From The Encyclopedia of Mental Health by Howard S. Friedman here (SPECIFICALLY ONLY RICHARD KLUFT'S ARTICLE, NO OTHERS ARE PROVIDED)! WORD COUNT: 14,207 WORDS EST. READING TIME: 1 HOUR, 11 MIN

taglist: @anti-willo-utsuro , @anti-willo-valerie , @anti-willo-siffrin , @anti-willo-purpleguy , @anti-willo-sonicexe , @anti-willo-2017x , @anti-willo-c00lkidd , @anti-willo-joker-junior , @anti-willo-miku , @dissociacho , @the--classifieds, @antiwilloheartcj , @anti-willo-darkiplier , @anti-willo-ticci-toby , @anti-endo-spencer , @anti-willo-stu-macher , @thesicksys , @anti-willo-mark-grayson , @the-rogues-gallery-sys , @anti-willo-kinger , @antiendoventing , @cidadepequenasystem , @sansland , @aka-collective , @anti-willo-stark

What you claim as your subjective experience is harmless to me. If you say "I meditated and met a god and now a dude lives in my brain" I can reasonably say, "Yeah, okay. Sounds interesting. That doesn't mimic a dissociative mechanism, but you do you diva"

But most of the issue is the community and how these experiences are framed. I've seen a lot of comment sections where someone goes "Oh I thought DID was the only way to have alters" and someone "corrects" them with "Well FYI you can make headmates, you can be born with them, anyone can just conjure them spiritually or just develop them spontaneously or because you have autism/ADHD/BPD/etc". That claim isn't really something that holds up under scrutiny, and is misinformation.

"Cool, where is the part where this hurts anyone?"

Aside from the copious misinformation, again, it's the consistent behavior of the community more than the belief itself. I mean I don't agree with the belief, but I won't harass or demean someone for believing it. However when you tell people they can be plural for reasons that aren't scientifically reasonable like being "born that way" when newborns don't even know their hands are attached to their body let alone have an identity to split, or from writing a character and feeling like that character sometimes? Or "you can make your own alters!" with instructional guides encouraging it? You can't say there's no influence on others there, including people who don't remember their trauma- which is a lot of pwCDDs.

Like that's not me making up a guy to point fingers at when there are so many guides and social reinforcement. Even with spirituality or religion most people can go "yes there's no scientific evidence, it's mostly anecdotal with a few possible instances of things that some may say aren't easily explainable by what we understand scientifically" and "it's my personal belief because it makes me happy" but not "you are anti science and bigoted for not following my beliefs that are not based in any scientific evidence or anything we know about neurology".

People with CDDs who don't remember trauma who hear that they can have all of these symptoms and a presentation that mirrors a CDD almost entirely (without trauma) will then believe that they can not destabilize. It would be assumed that they can freely explore their alters and ignore the severity of CDDs, and this is a potentially harmful experience that has been anecdotally reported (anecdotes aren't proof but it can support an overall point, before I am called a hypocrite for saying anecdotes=/=undeniable legitimacy) and is inevitable for some when people who are likely to repress/deny trauma are told that trauma does not always explain the symptoms of a CDD.

"What about IFS? That's plurality, sorta"

Internal family systems is a therapeutic model that assumes that everyone has "parts" outside of a dissociative context. When Schwartz (the founder of IFS) speaks of parts, he explicitly frames them as ego states, not as conscious or autonomous alternative states in the way that alters exist or function.

IFS is not "plurality" in the way typically described in plural spaces and if it were, then people without CDDs would be plural too. It is a model based on non independent parts of the psyche and works with existing subpersonalities that exist in those without DID (and even with it). Treatment looks very different in harmonizing parts in IFS vs integration in CDDs.

Yes, IFS can be applied to people with CDDs but only when adapted in a way that accommodates dissociative mechanisms. It does not imply that being treated with that modality "creates plurality".

"what about when plurality is spiritual/cultural? The criteria for DID implies that the symptoms can appear as part of a 'broadly accepted cultural or religious practice'"

Spirituality isn't pathological and someone believing in something for religious and cultural reasons can be respected without needing to validate and believe it as reality. If I don't believe in a spiritual concept, I can say "I don't believe in that, but you are free to" and that's not disrespectful or invalidating. You can have subjective religious experiences without insisting that others acknowledge it as fact with no credible research.

And if you are a member of a group of people that believes in something that resembles plurality, and don't claim to switch, be co-conscious, hold memories and affect/emotion, have distinct and adaptive functional roles, etc, I take no issue with that. But to claim those things is claiming something that as far as what is scientifically evident, only exists in the lens of structural dissociation. That structure and adaptation to meet functional needs is a response to trauma and/or disorganized attachment (which is also trauma, not non-disordered or plurality without trauma).

And in broadly practiced cultural contexts, what may seem like "plurality" is not (from what I've seen, I'm sure there's A Guy out there somewhere) viewed or described as adjacent to CDD experiences. System, headmates, switches, and the framework and structure and functional roles used to define how CDDs operate are irrelevant to culturally significant practices that bear resemblance to those mechanisms. A Tibetan Buddhist who practices traditional tulpamancy would not likely feel at home in the plural community. Most modern "tulpamancers" understand that it does not align with the traditional practice and have adapted it into it's own thing. I've never seen anyone in the plural community claim to be a part of a religion/culture that broadly practices it.

It is not disrespectful to say "this is not scientifically supported by any means" especially when so many people try (and fail) to use scientific explanations to support it, if not flat out pseudo science.

"But Eric Yarborough said-"

"Eric Yarborough said that plurality can exist without trauma" is a Textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy. He isn't an expert in trauma or dissociation, nor did he ever cite any source in validating "non disordered plurality". A professional saying something doesn't make it true or discredit the ones that don't agree. Some professionals will tell you that long covid is a liberal hoax. An infectious disease specialist will not.

I've seen some experts say they can't deny it as a possibility, but it's more that it's often not possible to prove something claimed isn't true. Maybe I can levitate and just don't want to show you. You can't prove me wrong, really. But you can say "that's not how humans work" and be skeptical and critical of this claim. (ik it's not a 1:1 comparison)

"There's so much we don't know about the human brain. How do you know that natural or willful plurality doesn't exist?"

I don't know that, but I do know that it is depicted in a way online that contradicts clinical evidence. Yes the medical system is flawed, but it still rejects current research and our understanding of why and how CDDs exist. Nothing suggests that the brain would mimic a dissociative survival mechanism without being one.

We also know enough to say that, as it is presented online, it goes against our understanding of brain structure and the development of CDDs through structural dissociation. EEG and fMRI studies on DID show unique and reproducible differences between alters. DID involves specific patterns of compartmentalized memory processing to function the way it does. No evidence suggests that one could willingly create an autonomous consciousness with agency, identity, and self awareness. To claim that alters enter consciousness, exist at birth/in utero, or can be willingly created without trauma or dissociation fundamentally misunderstands and/or ignores decades of research and the theory that best supports why DID exists.

And we still know a lot about the neurobiology of trauma, attachment, memory, and dissociation. We, in 2026 have a general understanding of why and how CDDs function even if it's not 100% understood yet.

Given current research, the logical conclusion is that "non disordered plurality" does not align with any existing scientific or clinical framework and therefore is anti-science.

"Fuck off, you are not in my brain. You can't tell me what I experience"

That's true. And I'm not telling you that you are flat out lying, only you would know that. But I'm saying that it's not a CDD adjacent experience. That saying that someone with dissociated parts with full or partial agency, switches, co-consciousness, survival based functions, different memories, different affect, internal and autonomous communication, different symptoms for other conditions, and different pain tolerance, is experiencing something that is not scientifically supported without giving the brain specific circumstances in which this is necessary for survival.

If proof came out through multiple sources, peer reviewed studies, evidence beyond anecdotes, and scientific explanations as to why and how nondisordered or otherwise endogenic plurality would occur in a non dissociative person, or the dissociation occurring through non problematic means despite being an adaptive dissociative survival mechanism that functions around meeting a child's functional needs, I will be interested and willing to hear it out. But that would take time and results that can be reproduced in different settings.

1989–1994: Early CDD Newsletters, Forums, and Online Communities

1989: Many Voices

Many Voices was established in 1989 as the first newsletter created specifically for people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Although it remains available online today, it is no longer actively updated.

1991: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery (ASAR)

The Usenet group alt.sexual.abuse.recovery was created in 1991. It became home to a large community of CDD systems.

1994: ASARian Incorporated

In 1994, alt.sexual.abuse.recovery evolved into ASARian Incorporated. ASARian provided peer support, web hosting, unix shell accounts, and resources for people with DID/MPD

1994: alt.support.dissociation

Also in 1994, the Usenet group alt.support.dissociation was created. It would go on to become the longest-running support group for people with dissociative disorders. The website remains active, but the last post was made in 2024 as Usenet had declined in its own usage.

1995–1997: Astraea's Web and the Emergence of Non-Disordered Plurality

Astraea's Website

In 1995, Astraea launched what is considered the first website dedicated to discussing non-disordered plurality. This was the first known website to explicitly address plurality outside of a clinical or disorder-based framework.

Coining of Natural Multiplicity

Around 1996, Astraea introduced the term natural multiplicity. The concept proposed that having multiple personalities was not inherently disordered. Instead, it was framed as a naturally occurring phenomenon that could arise spontaneously, rather than solely through trauma or dissociation. You can find the archive here.

Criticism of Astraea's Web

While initially appealing to some, Astraea's work has been heavily criticized. Critics argue that its sources and rhetoric reflect of extreme ableism, saneism, and dangerous ideological positions that have caused lasting harm There have also been highly credible claims of plagiarism, misattribution, and strong anti-psychiatry bias. Every source is here, here, here, and here

Astraea's Web is widely regarded as the starting point of what would later become the endogenic community.

1996–1999: The Development of Mid-Continuum

Sometime in 1996, an early internet plural named Vickis coined the term mid-continuum. The label quickly gained popularity among both dissociative and non-dissociative plural people.

Mid-continuum was rooted in the dissociative continuum model developed by Braun in 1988. Braun's model conceptualized dissociation as existing on a spectrum ranging from: normal experiences (such as daydreaming or zoning out) to polyfragmented DID at the far end. By 1997 and earlier, many DID-focused websites—including Astraea's Web—were sharing and discussing this model. Archive of article by Joan A. Turkus, M.D. (1997)

Proof that this article was shared on Astraea’s Web.

What Mid-Continuum Meant

1. It Was Based on a Psychological Model

Many people in the dissociative community identified with Braun's dissociative continuum. Vickis created the term for individuals who felt they fell somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. The label was referred to as 'mid-continuum dissociation' or simply mid-continuum for short. People using the label were often called mid-continuum dissociatives. Vickis later created a webpage devoted to the concept called The Wonderful World of the MidContinuum.

2. It Was Created for Dissociative People

In 1997, Vickis announced the new website on alt.support.dissociation. In that announcement, mid-continuum was explicitly described as a label for dissociative people who did not meet all criteria for DID. On the website, Vickis explained that mid-continuum applied to people who experienced dissociated parts, fell somewhere in the middle of Braun's dissociative continuum—This included experiences ranging from different roles in different situations, inner children, ego states, parts or fragments that did not feel like whole people, and having some, but not all, diagnostic criteria for DID.

A quote from the homepage:

“Everyone dissociates. At one end of the dissociative continuum is ‘normal’ or ‘common’ dissociation that nearly everyone engages in[…] At the other end are the behaviors that characterize ‘classical’ multiples, who may have large numbers of very distinct insiders with little internal communication, serious difficulties with time loss, amnesia, and so on.

Between these two extremes, there is a lot of gray. Ranging from having different ‘roles’ that you live out in different situations, to having an ‘inner child’ or ‘inner children’ with varying degrees of separateness, to having ‘ego states,’ ‘parts’ or ‘fragments’ that don’t seem to be whole people, to having some but not all of the diagnostic criteria for what is now known as DID[…]”

  Message Archive

Mid-Continuum Website Archive

3. It Was Created Out of Respect for People with DID

At the time, DID was still commonly referred to as MPD or simply multiplicity within online dissociative communities. Vickis and others believed it would be disrespectful to call themselves multiple if they did not have DID. They felt that doing so could minimize the struggles of people with DID. This was a major reason for creating the mid-continuum label. Vickis specifically noted that they did not experience time loss, had never experienced amnesia in that way, did not have communication barriers between parts, and did not face the same struggles as those further along the dissociative continuum Because of this, they did not want to equate their experiences with those of people living with DID.

From their essay on the subject (here):

“[…] someone elsewhere in this thread said something like ‘I don’t want to call myself multiple because I don’t want to minimize the sufferings of those who are really multiple’. And I can really relate to that. That’s why I say I’m not-quite-multiple usually. Because I don’t lose time and never have, I can’t possibly know what that’s like… I don’t have barriers that prevent communication between parts… I don’t have the struggles that people who are further down the continuum from me have, and I would never want to minimize their issues by claiming that my own are the same.”

4. Mid-Continuum and OSDD

Much of Vickis' writing strongly resembles what is now recognized as OSDD (formerly DDNOS). However, OSDD/DDNOS was rarely mentioned directly in their earlier work. It might've been due to the lack of research surrounding OSDD then—as it only was properly researched in the 2000's and 2010's—and Vickis wanting to use a less clinical term.

In 1999, Vickis remarked that people identifying as mid-continuum often received an OSDD diagnosis if they pursued formal evaluation. This was only mentioned briefly.

Late 1990's: The Precursor to Median

Over several years, mid-continuum became increasingly popular across the internet. It attracted a broad range of people within plural communities. As the label grew, anti-DID/OSDD and anti-psychiatry communities began objecting to it. Their objections were largely tied to mid-continuum's origins in dissociative theory and psychology.

Dark Personalities listed many psychological terms as derogatory to empowered and natural multiples, including DID, alter, and host. Mid-continuum itself also became a target of criticism.

The Push for a Replacement Term

Dark Personalities stated: "Since many people feel the idea of a continuum to be inaccurate, many are seeking a new term instead of mid-continuum." This effort to replace mid-continuum would eventually lead, in the 2000s, to the rise of the term median.

2000s: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum

An anti-DID/OSDD organization later coined the term median as a replacement for mid-continuum. Median became significantly more popular. As a result, mid-continuum gradually fell out of common use. On the Pavilion website, Astraea’s Web wrote an essay on the midcontinuum and why they came up with the median label to replace it.

“It’s important to allow the concept to be inclusive of everyone who fits, regardless of past abuse history or origins, much as is currently being done for ‘multiplicity.’ With its roots in the abuse-dissociation model, midcontinuum is too limiting; it is no longer useful to us. Median creates a certain measure of psychological distance and gives the concept a fresh start, without the dissociative baggage of the past, and embraces all who feel they are more than one.”

(X X X)

ARCHIVE , ALSO APPLIED TO BELOW TIMELINE; Pavillion's Policies Archive — "MPD/DID vs. Multiple" Pavillion's Library Archive — "A brief history of Midcontinuum" The Lancers' Codex — "Addressing the MPD/DID Issue"

2002–2007: The Rise of Median, Natural Multiplicity Activism, and Organized Anti-DID Campaigns

2003: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum

In 2003, the natural multiplicity organizations The Lancers and Pavilion Hall decided that mid-continuum was too rooted in psychology and dissociation. They argued that it was overly limiting because it was based on the abuse-dissociation model and did not adequately include people whose plurality was understood as non-traumagenic or non-dissociative.

As a result, they coined the term median to replace mid-continuum. Unlike mid-continuum, which was grounded in Braun's dissociative continuum model, median was intentionally broader and more abstract. Pavilion described plurality not as a linear spectrum, but as a sphere with infinitely many possible points, emphasizing fluidity, diversity, and nonlinear identity. According to their framework, someone could identify as median if they experienced themselves as multiple selves, but did not perceive those selves as fully independent.

This shift represented a significant philosophical departure. Mid-continuum had originally been created by dissociative people for dissociative people. Median, by contrast, was created by non-dissociative natural multiplicity advocates who believed mid-continuum was too psychologically grounded and insufficiently inclusive of their experiences.

Median and the Exclusion of DID/OSDD Systems

The Lancers and Pavilion Hall did not intend for people with DID or OSDD to use the median label. Their philosophy held that people with dissociative disorders were not truly plural, multiple, or median unless they no longer met diagnostic criteria. In their view, only "functional" and "non-disordered" individuals could properly claim these identities. If someone with DID or OSDD functioned according to their standards, they were considered no longer disordered.

Because their definitions of plurality and medianhood were often broad and vague, many people with DID and OSDD nevertheless identified with the concept despite the organizations' intentions.

1998–2014: Empowered Multiplicity, MultiGardens, and the Natural Multiplicity Movement

Empowered Multiplicity and MultiGardens

Out of the natural multiplicity movement emerged the concept of empowered multiplicity, which placed a strong emphasis on functionality and distinguished itself from what proponents called "survivor multiples."

In 1999, MultiGardens was established, though it was short-lived. Not long afterward, the person who coined the term "empowered multiplicity" stated that it had never been intended to exclude trauma survivors and that they had not meant to create so much conflict. Despite this, they continued to criticize survivors, as well as those who sought fusion or therapeutic treatment.

Natural Multiplicity as a Movement

By the early 2000s, natural multiplicity had evolved into a full-fledged movement. Its central aim was to establish that plural experiences were not inherently pathological. Many participants insisted that childhood trauma or abuse could not cause plurality or multiplicity. Even to this day, plurals insist that pwCDDs are looking to blame someone for something they already had—pushing the narrative that pwCDDs were multiple prior to abuse and would've been multiple if it hadn't happened—and that we have internalized pluralphobia because we 'hate ourselves'

Natural multiplicity was not simply about advocating for non-disordered plurality; it also positioned itself in opposition to people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Astraea and associated groups actively sought to challenge the legitimacy of DID and MPD as diagnoses, including attempts to have DID removed from the DSM.

Even after the term natural multiple began to be replaced by endogenic around 2014—largely because "natural" implied that systems with CDDs were somehow unnatural—the underlying ideological framework remained much the same. The earliest documented use of the term endogenic dates to 2014.

2000–2010s: The DID Boycott and Anti-Psychiatry Campaigns

For a whole decade, activists associated with the natural multiplicity and anti-psychiatry movements campaigned to challenge, revise, or remove the DID diagnosis from the DSM. This movement was deeply intertwined with both anti-psychology rhetoric and natural multiplicity ideology.

Prominent essays from this campaign included:

“Astraea’s Multiple Personality FAQ” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.

“No More…” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.

“Removing Diagnostic Labels” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.

“Why We Are Not MPD/DID” by Dark Personalities, archived in 2001.

“Some Thoughts on Verbiage” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.

“We don’t have Multiple Personality Disorder” by The Shire, archived in 2001.

“Terminology” by Those That Walk, archived in 2002.

“The Politics of Language” by Bent Spoons, archived in 2002.

“Fixing The DSM” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2003.

This boycott significantly harmed people with complex dissociative disorders. Boycotters frequently argued that pwCDDs were not real, or that their diagnoses should be removed from diagnostic manuals. Natural and empowered multiplicity communities often paired their advocacy with broader opposition to psychiatry and psychology.

At a time when DID research was already sparse, controversial, and often inaccurate, these campaigns further complicated public and clinical understanding of dissociative disorders.

2002–2003: "Fixing The DSM"

"Fixing The DSM" was an essay written by The Jinkies in 2002 and published on Astraea's Web in 2003. It had previously appeared on Pavilion Hall's LiveJournal forum and in Pavilion's library. (X X X)

The essay argued that the DID and OSDD diagnoses should either be revised to better represent non-dissociative plural experiences or removed from the DSM entirely.

Jinkies contended that people without DID or OSDD might feel excluded from plural identity because they did not meet diagnostic criteria. They criticized the DSM for defining DID and OSDD in terms of dissociation, arguing that this invalidated non-dissociative plural experiences.

The essay ultimately proposed replacing DID with the term Ego-Dystonic Plurality, a phrase coined by the creator of Astraea's Web. Modeled after the historical diagnosis of Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality, this proposed label would have stripped DID and OSDD of their established clinical frameworks.

Jinkies concluded by asserting that non-disordered experiences do not belong in the DSM. While that statement is true in itself, DID and OSDD are inherently disordered conditions, making the proposal fundamentally incompatible with the realities of those diagnoses.

2002: The Formation of The Lancers and Pavilion Hall

In June 2002, two sister organizations were formed: The Lancers and Pavilion Hall. Both were self-described natural multiplicity activist groups. Though inactive today, their influence remains substantial. Their last known activity appears to have been in 2015.

These organizations were responsible for coining the term median system, creating the Layman's Guide to Multiplicity, and popularizing the idea of plurality as an umbrella term. Their impact on modern plural terminology and discourse remains significant.

The Lancers

Formation and Purpose; The Lancers were founded to "resolve the conflict between plural and non-plural types" and to foster understanding between singlets, medians, and multiples. Despite this stated goal, they did not support DID or what they disparagingly referred to as "survivorwhine sites."

Membership Requirements; Membership was restricted to natural multiples. People with DID or OSDD were explicitly excluded.

Applicants were required to sign the In Essence Pledge—viewed here and here—affirming that they were functioning and sane. They were also expected to publicly display this pledge on their websites and follow the organization's codex. Failure to comply could result in removal.

The organization strongly emphasized appearing non-disordered. Prospective members who were not yet functioning well enough to present themselves as "strong, sane, and responsible" were discouraged from joining. They stated that if your system “cannot yet work functionally together in daily life, do not ask to join. If you wish to help the Lancers but haven't got things sufficiently together to be able to present to the world as strong, sane, and responsible, look elsewhere for help -- Astraea's is a good place to begin [...]” (X)

The Codex; The Lancers developed a body of internal theory known as the Codex, which outlined their views on natural multiplicity. Among its concepts were "paths," later renamed "fires," though these terms did not gain widespread use. Their most enduring contribution was the term median, which replaced mid-continuum.

Pavilion Hall

Formation and Purpose; Pavilion Hall was founded around the same time as The Lancers by the same group of people. Like The Lancers, Pavilion excluded people with DID and OSDD.

Pavilion described itself as an activist organization dedicated to promoting positive views of healthy multiplicity. Its goals included challenging the classification of multiplicity as a mental disorder, establishing common ground among plurals, and promoting natural multiplicity theories in both academic and non-academic settings. [X]

Membership; Members were expected to live as healthy multiples so as not to undermine their mission of ending the idea that multiplicity was a disorder. While signing the In Essence Pledge was encouraged, it was not mandatory. [X]

Hierarchy; You can read a more in-depth explanation of these positions on their page here

Pavilion had a five-tier organizational hierarchy:

Frontliners: The Frontliners’ main job was to seek out places where they could spread the word of natural multiplicity. This mainly included any space specifically centering around DID/OSDD—forums (discussed more below), websites (X), and articles (X), as well as mental health clinics (X), and even dissociative specialists such as from the ISSTD (X). They also occasionally sought out spiritual or unorthodox spaces to “convert,” such as a soulbonding forum. (X)They usually referred to this job as responding to “action alerts.” This part of Pavilion was surprisingly coordinated. You can find an action alerts page on their website here. You can also find an action alerts tag on their forums here.Another job for Frontliners was to “monitor” DID/OSDD forums, find people who they suspected didn’t actually have DID/OSDD, and bring them into the natural multiplicity community. (X X X) Here is a page they wrote on their justification behind this. The Pavilion website also had an entire section called The Armory, which was dedicated to hosting resources specifically for Frontliners to do this sort of work. (X)

Scholars: These were the members of Pavilion who wrote the essays that the Frontliners could use in their arguments or discourse. They also supported the organization through other means such as researching counterarguments against psychology, or creating new websites for Pavilion to spread their purpose.

Knights/Coordinators: This was a temporary position. Members became Coordinators for the duration that they were running a project for Pavilion. One example of a Pavilion project would be Project Bananarama (later renamed Paperchase), in which they mailed out over 200 Pavilion brochures to psychologists and dissociative specialists. (X)

Diplomats: These were the members who spread Pavilion’s purpose offline in real life areas. One example of Pavilion’s offline activism would be slipping notes about natural multiplicity inside of DID/OSDD books. (X)

Castles/Directors: This appeared to be the highest level of the hierarchy. Directors were the leaders of Pavilion who kept an eye on every other members’ activity and projects.

One notable Pavilion project, originally called Project Bananarama and later renamed Paperchase, involved mailing more than 200 brochures promoting natural multiplicity to psychologists and dissociative specialists. MEMBERS; An archived list of The Lancer’s members can be found here. An archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here. Another archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here.

Concerning Activities of The Lancers and Pavilion

Documented behaviors included:

Mailing hundreds of natural multiplicity brochures to dissociative specialists

Editing and vandalizing the DID Wikipedia page (SEE BELOW)

Arguing that people with DID could not truly be multiple until they were no longer "dysfunctional"  (X X)

Ridiculing PTSD- and DID-focused events, writings, and individuals (X X)

Joking about disrupting DID/OSDD conventions  (X)

Monitoring DID/OSDD forums for potential recruits (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)

Coordinating "action alerts" to target specific spaces or publications (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)

Joking about "converting" others to natural multiplicity (X)

Drawing inspiration from anti-DID groups such as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) (X)

Openly advocating for the removal of DID and OSDD from diagnostic manuals (X)

ARCHIVES

The Lancers’ Website Archive

The Lancers’ Public LiveJournal Forum

The Lancers’ Codex Archive

Pavilion’s Website Archive

Pavilions’ Public LiveJournal Forum

The Layman’s Guide to Multiplicity

Lancers/Pavilions’ Multiplicity Brochure

2003–2006: Pavilion and the DID Wikipedia Article

In February 2003, Pavilion members coordinated an effort to edit the Wikipedia article on Dissociative Identity Disorder.

Using Pavilion's "action alert" system, Astraea Household encouraged members to revise the article. Pavilion member Amorpha drafted and implemented substantial edits. You can read their rough draft here.

These changes shifted the article's focus toward controversy and introduced extensive material about "healthy multiplicity" (also called natural multiplicity). The revised article suggested that many multiples were not diagnosed, did not need therapy, did not have histories of childhood trauma, and did not wish to integrate

It also proposed that DID should be revised or removed from the DSM to accommodate natural multiples.

“Because such multiples do not experience their condition as disordered or sick in any way, some have proposed that the diagnosis of DID be removed from the DSM entirely, or revised to classify multiples who have difficulty communicating and sharing memories and/or wish to integrate.”

These additions remained in the article until 2006, when they were removed for lacking relevance to DID. Shortly afterward, the broader controversy section was also removed. Archive of natural/healthy multiplicity removal & reasoning. Archive of controversy removal & reasoning. archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article

2005–2007: The Natural/Healthy Multiplicity Wikipedia Article

A separate Wikipedia article on natural or healthy multiplicity was later created. This article blended concepts of natural multiplicity with the clinical treatment goal of healthy multiplicity (also called resolution). Here is an archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article.

It also reflected Pavilion's belief that people with DID or OSDD who cooperated well internally no longer truly had those disorders.

The article relied heavily on sources created by Pavilion members, including:

Astraea's Web

Collective Phenomenon

Their shared LiveJournal community

The Layman's Guide to Multiplicity

Pavilion Hall

The Lancers

In 2007, the article was nominated for deletion due to its reliance on blogs, forums, and original research rather than reliable secondary sources. The nomination was successful, and the article was deleted.

This deletion highlighted a central problem for natural multiplicity advocates: despite extensive searching, they were unable to find substantial professional or academic support for the concept as an innate, non-pathological state. You can read the thread about it here.  Amorpha expressed frustration towards the reasons for deletion, specifically regarding 'reliable' sources. They explained that no matter how much they searched the Internet for proof, they could not find any professionals discussing natural multiplicity. The only thing they could find on healthy multiplicity was, obviously, related to CDD treatment.

“We helped to work on that article. It was deleted for containing ‘too much original research’ and ‘not enough acceptable sources.’ The sources thing was the real problem-- we've really tried combing the Internet for that, but they're looking for ‘secondary sources’, aka articles by doctors or journalists or someone working in some ‘professional’ capacity. And there honestly just isn't much. Most of the professionally-written material we've come across that mentions healthy multiplicity in any way approached it from the standpoint that it's all MPD/DID, and proposing the ‘radical’ idea that multiples don't have to integrate (though, of course, it's always suggested that they're only supposed to be capable of living independently and non-integrated after being in therapy for years). I don't object to using those as sources, as I think a big point to be emphasized in the whole concept of healthy multiplicity is that a system can start out disordered and come to be healthy and stable in time, but what we needed and couldn't find were sources talking about it as a natural state of being-- not necessarily in terms of a pathological deviation from the norm[...]”

tag list: @anti-willo-utsuro , @anti-willo-valerie , @anti-willo-siffrin , @anti-willo-purpleguy , @anti-willo-sonicexe , @anti-willo-2017x , @anti-willo-c00lkidd , @anti-willo-joker-junior