uwu

*throws trauma in the air because that makes me valid uwu apparently*

Endogenics aren’t pushing their way into anyone’s community. They’ve always been here. The new kids on the block who find comfort in treating the DSM-5 – no, not even the DSM-5, did-research.org – like a holy book are trying to push them out.

Words like “plural” and “multiple” are about as far from medical terminology as you can get. “System” is used in psychology, but it refers to any parts of anyone’s psyche (e.g. Internal Family Systems). It’s true that for awhile, those with MPD were called multiples, but MPD was changed to DID/OSDD because “multiple personalities” came too close to implying that people alters like me are people. MPD also included those experiencing multiplicity without distress – and they existed then and now, as even garbage psychiatrists like Colin Ross recognized – so “multiple” belongs to all of us, because it was used to pathologize all of us.

Plurality has appeared across many cultures, in many forms, for thousands of years. “But spirit possession isn’t DID!” you say. And you’re right. But it can be, according to the DSM-5, because interpreted as a purely scientific phenomenon it’s perfectly analogous if it causes distress and amnesia. And many who live with what they interpret as spirits identify as plural.

Many who otherwise share their bodies with others identify as plural.

Gateway, endogenic, parogenic (tulpamancy), and quoigenic systems, with some inevitable exceptions, don’t claim to have DID.

They claim to be plural. They claim to be multiple. Multiple is and for decades has been an umbrella term for all those who share their bodies with other people. When psychiatry took two steps sideways, non-traumagenic systems remained, and they and their traumagenic allies have stood together since the dawn of the internet to create an inclusive community that will not falter.

You are exclusively entitled to a “person with DID” and “person with OSDD” community, using the words of a psychiatric establishment whose language equates me and those like me with parasites. And because the plural community is inclusive, you’re also entitled to identify as multiple and plural.

But you are not entitled to demand that a longstanding community warp itself to include you and only you. Because the plural community isn’t about having DID or OSDD; it’s about being plural.

If you don’t like the inclusive community, stay out of it. You’re not required to interact. Block us. Stay out of #endogenic, #quoigenic, etc., and Plural Hub, and create your own community. Believe me, we won’t want a part in it.

I was forced into it as a joke by (once again) my shitty ex as a joke which backfired hard on both of us, leading me to say some nasty shit and I regret it

What I don’t regret at all is sticking up for myself and my system-mates about our validity, to all those traumagenic systems that were so quick to write us off as fake just for using a label we aren’t even sure we own anymore.

It came to the point where even mentioning the word endogenic was dangerous because people would automatically go “that’s not real, and if you have a system and you’ve had trauma you obviously have DID or else you’re faking and you’re not real.” I’ve researched it a bit and I know with certainty that I do not have DID and the LAST THING I would want to do is fake a mental illness.

Traumagenic was coined by @the-lunastus-collective to mean “formed from trauma” – it doesn’t necessarily imply DID or OSDD. Most of our system identifies as non-DID/OSDD traumagenic. With that said there’s a recent and imo very good meta on why the very idea of traumagenic identity is a bad idea from LB Lee, and I tend to agree that the emphasis on system origin as identity is misguided. Did you mean that assuming someone identifies with the traumagenic label is wrong, or that an origin in trauma does not equal DID/OSDD, or something else entirely?

I ask because there’s been some recent syscourse about the word “traumagenic” and whether or not it’s A Bad Word because an originally endogenic DID system coined it, and I’m very curious what the -genic labels means to different people. 

I meant more in the case of our system for example, it did form from trauma sometime last year and with every new headmate has been a mix of arrivals, some traumagenic and some endogenic. I figured that if you have more endogenic arrivals than traumagenic, it would make more sense to label your system endogenic, but I’ve come to realize that if something like that can happen with anyone, no label should be placed on a system too quickly.

To us the labels just serve as classification as to how each system formed, and from our understanding, the word “traumagenic” felt reserved for only systems with traumagenic alters/headmates or systems formed entirely out of trauma. We used to think it was also only reserved for people with DID/OSDD, but are only recently finding out that isn’t necessarily the case.

There’s basically two perspectives I’ve seen – that origin labels are for how the system as a whole got started, or that origin labels are for individual headmates. The second perspective seems to have been more common in the past – the Multiple Code that existed in the early 2000s was created at a time where several origins seemed to be expected, and “trauma” vs “endo” was not a thing. I don’t know which perspective is “better”, but personally “how did you become a system?” without interest in individual members or a grey area seems a little more divisive, a little more us versus them :/ 

*throws trauma in the air because that makes me valid uwu apparently*

Endogenics aren’t pushing their way into anyone’s community. They’ve always been here. The new kids on the block who find comfort in treating the DSM-5 – no, not even the DSM-5, did-research.org – like a holy book are trying to push them out.

Words like “plural” and “multiple” are about as far from medical terminology as you can get. “System” is used in psychology, but it refers to any parts of anyone’s psyche (e.g. Internal Family Systems). It’s true that for awhile, those with MPD were called multiples, but MPD was changed to DID/OSDD because “multiple personalities” came too close to implying that people alters like me are people. MPD also included those experiencing multiplicity without distress – and they existed then and now, as even garbage psychiatrists like Colin Ross recognized – so “multiple” belongs to all of us, because it was used to pathologize all of us.

Plurality has appeared across many cultures, in many forms, for thousands of years. “But spirit possession isn’t DID!” you say. And you’re right. But it can be, according to the DSM-5, because interpreted as a purely scientific phenomenon it’s perfectly analogous if it causes distress and amnesia. And many who live with what they interpret as spirits identify as plural.

Many who otherwise share their bodies with others identify as plural.

Gateway, endogenic, parogenic (tulpamancy), and quoigenic systems, with some inevitable exceptions, don’t claim to have DID.

They claim to be plural. They claim to be multiple. Multiple is and for decades has been an umbrella term for all those who share their bodies with other people. When psychiatry took two steps sideways, non-traumagenic systems remained, and they and their traumagenic allies have stood together since the dawn of the internet to create an inclusive community that will not falter.

You are exclusively entitled to a “person with DID” and “person with OSDD” community, using the words of a psychiatric establishment whose language equates me and those like me with parasites. And because the plural community is inclusive, you’re also entitled to identify as multiple and plural.

But you are not entitled to demand that a longstanding community warp itself to include you and only you. Because the plural community isn’t about having DID or OSDD; it’s about being plural.

If you don’t like the inclusive community, stay out of it. You’re not required to interact. Block us. Stay out of #endogenic, #quoigenic, etc., and Plural Hub, and create your own community. Believe me, we won’t want a part in it.

I was forced into it as a joke by (once again) my shitty ex as a joke which backfired hard on both of us, leading me to say some nasty shit and I regret it

What I don’t regret at all is sticking up for myself and my system-mates about our validity, to all those traumagenic systems that were so quick to write us off as fake just for using a label we aren’t even sure we own anymore.

It came to the point where even mentioning the word endogenic was dangerous because people would automatically go “that’s not real, and if you have a system and you’ve had trauma you obviously have DID or else you’re faking and you’re not real.” I’ve researched it a bit and I know with certainty that I do not have DID and the LAST THING I would want to do is fake a mental illness.

Traumagenic was coined by @the-lunastus-collective to mean “formed from trauma” – it doesn’t necessarily imply DID or OSDD. Most of our system identifies as non-DID/OSDD traumagenic. With that said there’s a recent and imo very good meta on why the very idea of traumagenic identity is a bad idea from LB Lee, and I tend to agree that the emphasis on system origin as identity is misguided. Did you mean that assuming someone identifies with the traumagenic label is wrong, or that an origin in trauma does not equal DID/OSDD, or something else entirely?

I ask because there’s been some recent syscourse about the word “traumagenic” and whether or not it’s A Bad Word because an originally endogenic DID system coined it, and I’m very curious what the -genic labels means to different people. 

There is no “endo specific” system information. The only thing that makes endogenic systems unique from any other type of system is that they don’t believe their system formed from trauma. That is literally it.

If you took all the endogenic systems and asked them to list their experiences and beliefs, and asked all the traumagenic systems to do the same, there would be massive if not 100% overlap. Not because endogenic systems are “actually” traumagenic, but because multiplicity is a huge mess of experiences and beliefs, and any one thing an endogenic system experiences, at least one traumagenic system out there will also experience. Lost time? Yep. Amnesia? Sure. System members that fit certain roles? Yes. Spiritual beliefs? Absolutely. Psychological causes? You bet. No one experience or belief ONLY applies to one kind of system or another.

If you get sent to websites or are given information that doesn’t apply to you or your system, then that’s… because it just doesn’t apply to you or your system. Which means that, unfortunately, you have to send in more asks, talk to more people, or research a little harder. Not all information or advice will apply to all systems, of any origin, and that’s just the unfortunate truth.

Things that endos believe in that can not and will not physically ever happen to a traumagenic system include:

Alter death

Walk-ins

System hopping

Fusion

And many mooooooore

Spoilers: the “no true Scotsman” fallacy does not a great argument make.

Alter death: Did not originate with endogenic systems. Not all endogenic systems believe in this, and some traumagenic systems– including older systems who have been around the block FAR LONGER than y’all and us combined– DO believe in this. It is something we have seen traumagenic systems argue over. It is NOT endogenic specific.

Walk-ins: Again, not something all endogenic systems believe in, and not something all traumagenic systems DON’T believe in. It’s not an endogenic specific belief.

System hopping: Not endogenic specific, and can be a psychological thing just as much as it could be a spiritual concept. In our experience, a very good portion of endogenic systems are either VERY skeptical of this or don’t believe in it; not all endogenic systems are spiritual or spiritually inclined. Some traumagenic systems do believe in the idea.

Fusion: Not endogenic specific AT FUCKING ALL, and quite a few traumagenic systems experience this. Fusion is not much different than some forms of integration (two or more alters integrating permanently or temporarily), which any system type can experience, and we have heard that some polyfragmented systems (who are overwhelmingly traumagenic) experience this. Just because it has a less medicalized term doesn’t mean it’s always some woo woo concept. It’s not.

Did we say all systems FUNCTION THE SAME? We did NOT say that at ALL. ALL SYSTEMS function differently, ffs we’ve said that repeatedly. What we SAID was that if you take one (1) endogenic or traumagenic system and pick out a SINGLE THING they experience, such as amnesia, there will be at least one (1) traumagenic or endogenic system out there who also experiences that single thing.

As for “it would never ever apply to a traumagenic system”…

Alter death: Many traumagenic systems believe in this. (We, personally, do not.) Many have experienced this. It is not our place to say they “never ever” do. If an alter vanishes and never comes back, then that is reasonable to call “death”. Maybe they come back eventually, and that’s fantastic. But it is no one’s place to decide it’s not possible for ANY traumagenic system. Especially since there’s no scientific proof it’s impossible.

Walk-ins: It’s a spiritual concept, and any type of system can believe in spiritual concepts. If it’s somehow magically possible for endogenic systems, then it’s possible for traumagenic systems. We have met traumagenic systems who believe at least one of their alters has spiritual aspects.

System hopping: Depends on your explanation for it. If it’s spiritual, then again, you can’t really say it’s impossible, since that’s up to the individual system. But there are psychological explanations, too, which can apply to any type of system.

Fusion: Again, if a system is using the word to refer to a type of integration, then it absolutely can apply to traumagenic systems.

Lastly, the idea that it’s “dangerous” if traumagenic systems believed in such things…

Alter death: We actually can agree that a lack of information on alter death can be harmful. For the most part, what is seen as death is actually dormancy, and those alters can come back. It’s very important for system to know that, so they don’t worry without cause. However, there ARE systems– including traumagenic systems– who claim to have experienced this. And those systems need care and support, not to be told “oh well that’s impossible sweetie”. Highly unlikely? Yes. But we don’t know that it’s always and forever impossible for every single system.

Walk-ins: This isn’t dangerous at all. It’s a very simple, benign spiritual concept. If an alter shows up in someone’s system who claims to be from elsewhere and isn’t psychologically based, then… what does it really matter, if it’s not causing added dysfunction or distress? It’s not inherently harmful at all, any more than it’s inherently harmful for a singlet to believe in reincarnation.

System hopping: Now, this is another thing we can agree on AT LEAST in part. We personally feel that even if this was a real thing, systems need to be VERY VERY careful– and that goes for spiritual or psychological explanations. It is in fact easy to harm or abuse people with this concept. We don’t think it’s inherently dangerous, just on it’s own, but can it be used dangerously by harmful people? Absolutely.

Fusion: No more dangerous to believe in than integration, and a handy term for it if the word “integration” wigs a system out. Especially since fusions often come with the connotation of being temporary, which… most integration is, in general.

This “shit” has not been studied! We know next to nothing about it! Yes, people do need to be careful and do their own research on things before deciding they believe it (or not). But spiritual stuff can’t exactly be studied well, and even the psychological stuff has barely been touched upon in any thorough way. There needs to be more studies, and the only way ANY of us get there is by knocking off the divisive bullshit and working together to push for it.

A “walk-in” is literally just a spiritual belief about where a headmate came from. If you don’t believe in spiritual things, that doesn’t make them not real. This is the same illogic as “Santa Claus isn’t real, therefore Christmas presents real”. Of course DID and OSDD systems can have new alters appear seemingly out of nowhere.

I don’t believe in system-hopping. Maybe meeting up on the astral-plane, but as a trans guy if people could body swap I’m pretty sure we’d know about it. Still, “this system believes in system-hopping, therefore they aren’t real” is again a ridiculous leap of logic. Imagine saying “this person believes their depression is caused by demons, therefore they aren’t really depressed” – rood.

Fusion is just a non-medical word for integration, or another word for the also non-medical but significantly less “controversial” blendiness. People perceiving it as Steven Universe-like doesn’t mean it isn’t real. It means their mental imagery has been influenced by Steven Universe. 

What information is specific to systems with DID/OSDD, that NEVER applies to systems that do not have DID/OSDD?

What information is specific to systems that do not have DID/OSDD, that NEVER applies to systems with DID/OSDD?

1. Any type of system can be diagnosed with DID/OSDD, because they are a set of criteria. The hypothesis behind how and why it happens is just that– hypothesis. We do not know how multiplicity works each and every single time. There needs to be more research. If an endogenic system has amnesia and has marked distress/dysfunction related to being plural, they can be diagnosed with DID/OSDD.

2. DID/OSDD is not a synonym for “traumagenic”. There are traumagenic systems who do not have DID/OSDD, and there are non-traumagenic systems who do have DID/OSDD. “But DID/OSDD is caused by trauma!” YES, but the criteria does not specify that the trauma that caused the DID/OSDD be what caused the system. It just doesn’t.

3. The only constant difference between traumagenic systems and endogenic systems is the fact that traumagenic systems originated from trauma. Which could be thanks to structural dissociation, MAYBE, if that hypothesis is correct. (It’s not the only theory, and it’s not even proven to be true for every single traumagenic system out there.) So… yes, traumagenic systems could benefit from information about that, for sure, while endogenic systems might not. But stuff like splitting, fusion, dormancy, fictives/factives, amnesia, coping with CPTSD, black outs, lost time, shitty communication, inworld stuff, trying to find plural friendly therapists/doctors, stigma, system roles, system members holding memories of trauma, etc? Are things that can be experienced by any type of system, with or without DID/OSDD. Not all traumagenic systems deal with that stuff! Not all endogenic systems don’t! Not all systems with DID/OSDD, regardless of origin, experience the same things either!

No one is saying that information on DID/OSDD shouldn’t be readily available to anyone who needs it. Most systems, including systems who do not have DID/OSDD, have information they are more than happy to share if asked. Many have already shared it on tumblr, at the very least. Sometimes it can require a digging, but that’s the beauty of having a large, inclusive community where information is freely shared. If you can’t find something, ask.

Your information does get into real system spaces, FYI. When I started looking into being a system I saw a fuck ton of it without even knowing. I almost fell prey to misinformation.

I almost completely misattributed my symptoms to something else. I almost thought I was fake. I wanted medical information — verified, reputable sources on alters, and because I couldn’t find it, I was ready to go “ah, this is just me being imitative”.

2) “lack of significant representation” extensive research has concluded that endos don’t exist and either are lies or are misdiagnosed disorders. this is easily found from reputable sources.

2) Which is it? Easily found, or hard to find because of endos? This article and this one offer critiques of the idea that multiplicity is a disorder. The most recent article I found concludes that multiplicity is a label for severe identity-disturbance and future research is needed. Plenty of psychologists still think DID is either lies or misdiagnosis, by the way.

Actually read my point before you start arguing shit about stigma or oppression or whatever the hell else. This is about your community’s boundaries overlapping another’s, and the different resources being inaccurate to each other’s experiences causing people actual, real problems.

Personally we’ve found endo (tulpamancy) resources most helpful for fixing our issues, but you’re right that labeling things would be helpful. Experiences aren’t universal.

Your information does get into real system spaces, FYI. When I started looking into being a system I saw a fuck ton of it without even knowing. I almost fell prey to misinformation.

I almost completely misattributed my symptoms to something else. I almost thought I was fake. I wanted medical information — verified, reputable sources on alters, and because I couldn’t find it, I was ready to go “ah, this is just me being imitative”.

2) “lack of significant representation” extensive research has concluded that endos don’t exist and either are lies or are misdiagnosed disorders. this is easily found from reputable sources.

2) Which is it? Easily found, or hard to find because of endos? This article and this one offer critiques of the idea that multiplicity is a disorder. The most recent article I found concludes that multiplicity is a label for severe identity-disturbance and future research is needed. Plenty of psychologists still think DID is either lies or misdiagnosis, by the way.

Your information does get into real system spaces, FYI. When I started looking into being a system I saw a fuck ton of it without even knowing. I almost fell prey to misinformation.

I almost completely misattributed my symptoms to something else. I almost thought I was fake. I wanted medical information — verified, reputable sources on alters, and because I couldn’t find it, I was ready to go “ah, this is just me being imitative”.

*throws trauma in the air because that makes me valid uwu apparently*

Endogenics aren’t pushing their way into anyone’s community. They’ve always been here. The new kids on the block who find comfort in treating the DSM-5 – no, not even the DSM-5, did-research.org – like a holy book are trying to push them out.

Words like “plural” and “multiple” are about as far from medical terminology as you can get. “System” is used in psychology, but it refers to any parts of anyone’s psyche (e.g. Internal Family Systems). It’s true that for awhile, those with MPD were called multiples, but MPD was changed to DID/OSDD because “multiple personalities” came too close to implying that people alters like me are people. MPD also included those experiencing multiplicity without distress – and they existed then and now, as even garbage psychiatrists like Colin Ross recognized – so “multiple” belongs to all of us, because it was used to pathologize all of us.

Plurality has appeared across many cultures, in many forms, for thousands of years. “But spirit possession isn’t DID!” you say. And you’re right. But it can be, according to the DSM-5, because interpreted as a purely scientific phenomenon it’s perfectly analogous if it causes distress and amnesia. And many who live with what they interpret as spirits identify as plural.

Many who otherwise share their bodies with others identify as plural.

Gateway, endogenic, parogenic (tulpamancy), and quoigenic systems, with some inevitable exceptions, don’t claim to have DID.

They claim to be plural. They claim to be multiple. Multiple is and for decades has been an umbrella term for all those who share their bodies with other people. When psychiatry took two steps sideways, non-traumagenic systems remained, and they and their traumagenic allies have stood together since the dawn of the internet to create an inclusive community that will not falter.

You are exclusively entitled to a “person with DID” and “person with OSDD” community, using the words of a psychiatric establishment whose language equates me and those like me with parasites. And because the plural community is inclusive, you’re also entitled to identify as multiple and plural.

But you are not entitled to demand that a longstanding community warp itself to include you and only you. Because the plural community isn’t about having DID or OSDD; it’s about being plural.

If you don’t like the inclusive community, stay out of it. You’re not required to interact. Block us. Stay out of #endogenic, #quoigenic, etc., and Plural Hub, and create your own community. Believe me, we won’t want a part in it.

🙄 Uh-huh.

“Ross (1991) studied the general population of Winnipeg searching for an indication of Dissociative Identity Disorder in the general population. He found 3.1% of respondents to an interview could fit the criteria of Dissociative Identity Disorder. However, of these 14 individuals (out of 454 participants), the majority (8) seemed to be radically different from Dissociative Identity Disorder patients in therapy. These individuals often did not report abuse history and often reported experiencing little psychopathology.[…] Ross describes a number of possibilities that explain these findings. He contemplates that the non-pathological group could be false positives, that the individuals could be amnesiac for abuse, that the Dissociative Identity Disorder could be in remission or that: 

“‘multiplicity exists in a non-pathological endogenous form in the general population. About 2% of people may be natural multiples who do not have dysfunctional posttraumatic MPD. They may simply have a highly dissociative psychic organization’ (Ross, 1991, p. 510).”

Source: Regan McClure, 1994. “Towards a theoretical framework of the etiology and structures of multiple personality.” A Thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts, Graduate Department of Applied Psychology, in the University of Toronto.

“Multiple Personality Disorder or Dissociative Identity Disorder is generally deemed to be the most severe dissociative disorder, in which trauma not only induces amnesia but also fragments personality [1-5]. Our own alternative thesis is that trauma only induces amnesia (in those who are predisposed to dissociate[6]) and that multiple personality without amnesia is a normal individual difference upon which dissociative reactions to trauma may be superimposed.[…] Our thesis predicts that many more, totally normal people with multiple personalities, but no amnesia, never even come to the attention of the clinical psychological establishment.[…] Present findings support our hypothesis that multiple personality, without amnesia, is a normal phenomenon.”

Source: Robert G. Kuzendorf, Melissa Crosson, Antoinette Zalaket, Jerold White, and Robert Enik. “Normal dimensions of multiple personality without amnesia.” Imagination, cognition, and personality, Vol. 18(2, pp. 205-220, 1998-99.

“‘There may be in the general population a large number of people with MPD who are high-functioning, relatively free of overt psychopathology, and no more in need of treatment than most of their peers. They may not have abuse histories and may have evolved a creative and adaptive multiplicity. If these people exist, virtually nothing is known about them.’ (Ross, 1989, p. 97) The phrase “if these people exist” expresses some doubt that there can be “high-functioning” individuals with multiple selves, continuing the discourse of dysfunction. However the phrase also highlights a gap in the scientific research. Functional individuals who live with multiplicity are most likely not documented because of the very fact that they are functional and do not seek therapy. At present, the only documented cases of functional multiplicity are self-documented, for example on internet pages. Although this is not persuasive evidence for the scientific community, such data cannot be summarily dismissed simply to hold to the dominant discourse.” 

Source: Kymbra Clayton. “Critiquing the Requirement of Oneness over Multiplicity: An Examination of Dissociative Identity (Disorder) in Five Clinical Texts.” E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Clinical Section. 1(2), pp. 9-19, 2005.

“[The theory of structural dissociation of the personality (TSDP)] is not perfect. Even the best of theories are mere tools. They do not reflect an objectively existing (i.e., subject-independent) reality, and the search for knowledge and wisdom is forever. This is what the term ‘wijsbegeerte’, the Dutch word for philosophy, expresses, the desire (begeerte) to gain wisdom (wijsheid). I am thus open to incessantly improving TSDP.”

Source: Ellert R.S. Nijenhuis, creator of the theory of structural dissociation (of the personality). “Boundaries on the concepts of dissociation and dissociative parts of the personality: required and viable.” Psichiatria e Psicoterapia, vol. 34, 1, pp. 55-85. 2015.

TL;DR: Theories, like the theory of structural dissociation, describe what is. Non-traumagenic, non-dysfunctional multiples have been hypothesized to exist for decades. With the prevalence of those claiming to be non-traumagenic, non-dysfunctional multiples increasing, “such data cannot be summarily dismissed simply to hold the dominant discourse” (Clayton 2005).