Instead of blacking out anti-endo hate, we are rewriting their posts into positivity! Plural includes all systems and always will. This blog is ANTI-RADQUEER, DO NOT INTERACT IF YOU ARE ONE. IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR POSTS ON THIS BLOG, PLEASE LEARN HOW TO USE THE BLOCK BUTTON! IT'S THAT EASY AND FREE! ANTI-ENDOS NEED TO LEARN HOW TO BLOCK AND MOVE ON!
We're a 38-year old system that has DID, making us traumagenic with a CDD. We're also pro-endogenic because we literally don't see a reason to hate on endogenic systems for existing. We've felt more welcome in mixed origin communities than we do around anti-endos, and believe me, we've been in their spaces before. Sending us hate over our age and the gimmick of this blog is reaching because it's not meant to be taken so seriously. (taken from intro pinned on our main blog because anti-endos keep assuming this account is run by an endogenic system)
We edit anti-endo posts to make them pro-endo around here. Some of these posts end up sounding more aggressive, but that's because they wrote it that way.
Yes, @noxthesynners is our main if you haven't figured that out already. We also run @pluralhottakes. @noxsynpositivity is also our blog. Feel free to follow all of them.
Anyway, we don't tag or mention what blogs these posts come from, but if you look at the anti-endo tags you can probably guess.
We got inspired to make this blog after seeing @shitty-proendo-blackout-posts and even sending them posts to edit on our main blog so you can totally thank them for this blog.
Anyway, we figured we needed to have a pinned post. We always get asked about resources so we are going to link a big collection for folks who are honestly curious. Please note that you will NOT see endogenic in documents of research because it is a COMMUNITY term.
Posts that we edit: anti-endo hate in the plural tags, as well as hate posted in the syscourse tag (people post in a tag that is meant for debate and get mad when people they're talking mad shit about respond) we also edit especially hateful posts that are suibait as well. If you post hate about them in the DID tags we will edit it because we're TIRED OF SEEING HATE IN THE TAGS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USED TO DISCUSS CDD experiences. We repost relatable posts that have tags that exclude people or claim they don't exist. If you don't want to be seen by us, block @noxthesynners. It's not that hard. Blocking is free. Sending hate over posts here just gets you blocked/reported/called out to protect others. Just don't.
(PRO)RADQUEERS DO NOT INTERACT. WE DO NOT LIKE Y'ALL. YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
Link to a post discussing some misinformation about the term endogenic via Cambrian Crew and the coiner of Endogenic!
Link to a really big collection of research done by a pro-endo system that has DID.
Link to a post that defines common plural community terms in a simple and straightforward manner.
LINK TO A POST THAT EXPLAINS THAT IT ISN'T HARD TO FIND RESEARCH ON OTHER PLURALITY TYPES!
YET ANOTHER POST WITH SOURCES AND LINKS SUPPORTING THE FACT THAT PLURALITY IS NOT CAUSED BY CDDs ALONE
PLURALITY CONCEPTS FROM PEER REVIEWED SOURCES
Remember, if an anti-endo says endogenic systems form without trauma, they're wrong, and that's MISINFORMATION.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I kinda love how every anti endo post can be edited into a pro endo post and it Make Sense. Antis are projecting soooo hard. Methinks theyre jealous,,,
Yeah, literally most of their posts can be edited to be nicer, less hateful posts. But some posts I keep the hateful tone to show how aggressive and unnecessary an anti-endo post is. Ha, thank you for noticing, anon.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Endos are so stupid to me because the fuck you mean you can have the trauma disorder..
Without the trauma bit.
Like. its a trauma disorder for a reason??
And then they sit there and go tee hee tee hee i have friends in my head :) they're so silly and we're all best friends :). Having memory gaps? Whats that? Having *any symptoms* other than alters? Nahhh
Bring back roleplaying and stop larping disorders.
It's almost like, they're not doing what you're claiming they do. It's as if, symptoms and experiences exist in non-pathalogical forms, without requiring a disorder.
You don't appear to know/understand what:
-An endogenic system is (not someone claiming to have DID without trauma)
“It was and still is horrible to see the misinterpretation of these terms, considering that we ourselves are survivors of abuse. “Endogenic” wasn’t created to mean “DID without the trauma”. It was created to mean systems that felt their plurality was due to a neurodivergence, from a psychological cause other than DID/OSDD, from some sort of spiritual cause, with a friendly outlook towards tulpamancy or soulbonding. Literally, it’s inclusive of any and all systems or plural folk that do not attribute their plurality to trauma. It has nothing to do with pretending to have a clinical disorder, or mocking anyone. It is simply a single word for many, many ways to be plural.“
"Multiplicity experiences ‘just happening to develop’ was a common narrative, often noted by participants as being “endogenic multiplicity”, as opposed to “traumagenic multiplicity” which the community often refer to those whose experiences have a traumatic origin. Endogenic in this context describes people’s experiences which do not have a basis in trauma. This is often used as a catch-all term to describe the various other specific reasons which are not focused on trauma. [] The understanding presented within this research relates to the notion of ‘endogenic’ multiplicity; people who do not have trauma histories that are of relevance. Participants noted that for some, there was history of trauma, but they did not feel that their trauma was the origin of their multiplicity, and instead felt that they would be a multiple system regardless of their background. Christensen (2022) indicated that endogenic forms of multiplicity are distinct experiences, which concurs with the present project. They argued that endogenic multiples often have more “elaborate inner worlds, with relationships rich in detail where all parts of the system seem to have knowledge and access, as well as awareness to where they do not have access and why” (p. 3). This echoed respondent’s narratives, who discussed their awareness of other selves, the shared memory space, and ability to navigate the internal world. Christensen went on to note “…often the development of the inner world and relationships between parts is something that plurals enjoy and find soothing, which is distinguished from those with dissociative disorders, who are generally phobic of both their inner world and interaction with other parts” "
"Then there are “natural” or “endogenic” systems. Some say that they were just always multiple people, without ever having experienced childhood trauma of the sort that is generally believed to be the precipitating factor for DID and without having intentionally and effortfully created headmates in the way that tulpamancers do; other natural systems say that while they have experienced such trauma—just as have many singlets—they were already multiple by that time. Natural systems’ causal origins could perhaps just be some kind of neurobiological difference (or abnormality); alternatively, several systems I spoke to expressed the belief that authors may sometimes inadvertently create headmates in the process of vividly imagining fictional characters (see, on this note, Taylor, Hodges, and Kohányi [2003]). Note that this could be viewed either as inadvertent tulpamancy or—from the standpoint of a narrative account of the self—as just the same sort of process by which a singlet brain “creates” one person (Dennett 1992)."
"Countering the clinical view, others have decried what they allege are attempts at the medicalization of plurality. This position is well represented within the plural community, where many ‘endogenic’ systems refute clinical expectations of underlying trauma. Further, even among trauma-based systems, many experience no distress or impairment on account of their plurality, and thus neither consider themselves to be disordered, nor see integration as a therapeutic goal. While such understandings undoubtedly originate within the plural community itself, they can also increasingly be found in academic literature; recent treatments of plurality have viewed it as non-pathological and phenomenologically-distinct from dissociative identity disorder. Despite this, existing research on multiplicity-spectrum experiences is often undermined by imprecise definitions and mistaken understandings that conflate non-pathological manifestations of plurality with those properly described by dissociative disorders, obscuring the scope and applicability of such research, and of its findings. In consideration whereof, further reference to ‘plurality’ in this article shall consider only holistic, non-pathological manifestations of the phenomenon."
-Plurality, multiplicity, and systemhood are (not the same things as a complex dissociative disorder)
"Some multiples with DID experience themselves as being psychologically multiple but do not seem to believe that they are; many identify, in some ultimate sense, with all of their “parts”—or, if they really don’t identify with them, they don’t, at least, view them as persons. Note that this may not be because of, say, any differences in basic phenomenology between plurals and non‐plurals with DID. The classic clinical perspective, after all, is that DID involves a single fragmented person, rather than a multiplicity of genuine people, and that healing consists of the progressive integration of this person into a psychic whole, and many human beings with DID have adopted this clinical perspective. This perspective is of course precisely what plurals reject. Many multiples with DID therefore are not plurals. Conversely, there are plurals who do not have DID. Of those plurals who don’t have DID, many once met diagnostic criteria but no longer do, while remaining multiple. They may cease to meet criteria because they no longer meet the distress/impairment criterion; on clinicians’ parts, the judgment as to whether or not a multiple merits the diagnosis of DID will probably especially often concern whether the client’s multiplicity per se is impairing them. But plurals may also not meet diagnostic criteria because they no longer meet the amnesia criterion as the latter is framed, since multiple headmates may share their knowledge and experiences with each other. Some plurals identify with the diagnosis to the extent that they believe that their system was produced by trauma—a major factor in the etiology of DID—but claim that they never strictly met diagnostic criteria.”
"Plurality and dissociative identity disorder are not exactly the same. Being plural, or having two or more people existing in one body or space, is just one part of the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. Many people who are plural do not experience distress from the existence of others within themselves although dissociative identity disorder and plurality are frequently associated with trauma, there are those who are plural and report no history of trauma. [] Plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis [DID] and does not necessarily cause distress. Although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not.”
"Not all multiplicity is based in trauma: [] there is a lack of understanding regarding how multiplicity develops without a basis in trauma. For respondents who did not have a trauma history, they described feeling ‘left out of the conversation’ and ‘unable to access support’ or resources. Many people discussed multiplicity in terms of being an experience and a part of their lives, rather than being a ‘disorder’ which needs to be treated or cured.”
“Findings were consistent with preliminary research exploring the experience of emerging multiplicity as its own distinct experience, outside the lens of clinical criteria. This included the understanding that those who identify as multiple can, and often do, live well as a member of a system comprising of multiple selves. Participants discussed having awareness of other system members internally, the importance of developing positive communication between selves, and the utility of sharing the body with members who wish to front.”
"Dissociative identity disorder and depersonalization–derealization have attracted research and clinical interest, facilitating greater understanding. However, little is known about the experience of multiplicity of self outside of traumagenic or illness constructs. Consequently, this systematic review explored how people identifying as having multiple selves conceptualize their experiences and identity. [] Multiplicity can encompass various presentations as described in this review. Continuum within this context can be defined as a range of experiences that involve similar characteristics from ‘subclinical’ expressions to clinically significant symptoms, which are typically observed in individuals diagnosed with disorders such as DID. The experiences of those who identify as multiple vary widely from distressing and life threatening when identities lack communication and engage in harmful behaviours, to life saving or enhancing through internal support and positive relationships."
"In terms of differentiating between the terms DID and multiplicity, DID is associated with high levels of distress and reduced functioning within most diagnostic conceptualisations. However, many people with multiplicity function well in terms of consciousness, memory, identity and perception of the environment, and appreciate the value of their multiple selves as a coping response to adversity and relational traumas. The absence of distress experienced by systems identifying as multiple may suggest that DID and multiplicity vary in experience, and the dominance of DID in research highlights a fundamental limitation in the understanding of multiplicity.”
"Plural identity is a self-reported identity, not a specific clinical diagnosis. Some, but not all, plural people dissociate, or have a psychiatric diagnosis of dissociation such as dissociative identity disorder (DID), or other specified dissociative disorder (OSDD). There is a diversity of experiences within plurals/systems, such that members of a system may have different gender identities and salience of gender; ages/experience of age; perceived internal appearances; varied beliefs, memories, feelings, and thoughts; and complex interrelationships with other system members."
"A subset of scientific literature recognizes that experiences of multiplicity manifest in non-pathological presentations, and has found value in a holistic or non-pathological approach to dissociation. A recent literature review by Eve, Heyes, & Parry conceptualized a continuum of multiplicity experiences ranging from nonpathological multiplicity to clinical DID. They noted that professional ignorance of nonpathological or subclinical multiplicity resulted in the over-medicalization of participants’ experiences. [] The present study uses the term ‘plurality,’ which emerged from the advocacy community of multiples, and recently has been incorporated into the scientific literature. This newer, more inclusive term describes a broad range of pathological and non-pathological multiplicity, denoting those who have more than one person or entity sharing one body as a ‘plural system.’. While the term ‘plural’ includes those in clinical distress and diagnosed with a dissociative disorder (DID or OSDD), authors have noted that many identifying with plurality found ways to live well with dissociation or did not experience distress from plural experiences.”
"As for those who may identify as Plural but report no trauma history, there is valid concern on several counts. One, is that reports of Plurality without traumagenic origin could undermine the most recent research that defends DID as a trauma-based disorder against those who have dismissed it for far too long, despite so much research and evidence already. However, even within the Plural community, Plurality is a broader concept than DID, and that is understood by Plurals who claim no trauma history. Furthermore, the research confirming DID as a trauma-based disorder is doing just that: confirming traumagenic DID, the disorder, not Plurality, the identity. Reinders’ (2020) research demonstrating diagnostic capability with fMRI differentiates already between DID and personality disorders, as well as DID and malingering, as do the common assessments available for dissociative disorders. Distinguishing between the two does not need to invalidate either."
-What a mental disorder actually is (a collection of symptoms that cause distress, and the same symptoms also exist separately without distress)
"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or development processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g. political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above. [] The DSM-5 wording indicates that mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or impairment. The word ‘usually’ may be technically accurate, in that on rare occasions, a mental disorder is listed in DSM-5, and there is no ‘clinical criterion’. However, given that psychiatric symptoms are often on a continuum with normality, the clinical criterion is one key way of providing a relatively valid and reliable marker of underlying dysfunction, so lessening the risk of false positives and over-medicalization.”
“It can be boiled down to several categories. 1. DID and OSDD as defined by DSM-5 - which require distress and dysfunction. Neither of these require trauma by DSM-5 rules but there virtually always is trauma. 2. Other DSM-5 dissociative disorders. 3. People with parts and trauma but no distress or dysfunction. 4. People with parts but no trauma, and no distress or dysfunction. - Like everything in DSM-5 there are mild versions that don't meet full criteria and don't have distress or dysfunction. One of the problems in the discussion is that people often have fixed ideas and rules about 'how it has to be' - unfortunately for them, the real world doesn't always follow those rules.”
”What you’re describing is much more somebody who is emitting symptoms consistent with Dissociative Identity Disorder, and without interviewing her, I would wonder if that’s what’s occurring and this creates a way that she can experience herself without distress. But again, if she is not distressed, by definition it’s not a disorder.”
“It's when they are unable to meet their obligations in real life and are unable to advance their goals in life, when they are experiencing internal strife and conflict and are paralyzed and unable to conduct their lives effectively [that it’s a disorder]. That's in the functioning domain. That's one criteria, a very important criteria. Scholastic, academic, work, family relations, functioning and all that, if it's not impaired, then there's no problem. That's the objective criteria. And then the subjective criteria is distress. So if you're not bothered by multiplicity in the sense that you don't feel that you're being taken over against your will, if you're not losing time, if there's no depression and anxiety associated with this disorder, if some parts are sort of leaking distress to other parts. That subjective criteria is another important indication that one needs help. But in other situations where these two criteria are not met, a person can be completely dissociative in the sense that they are functioning as a system and still not meet even the DSM criteria. Because in the DSM, for almost each and every diagnostic entity there is a condition that it must impair functioning or create distress. And unless this condition is met, then there is no diagnosis.”
Used to dislike syscourse until it clicked that anti-endos are really really shit and I think we should all collectively hate ableists and exclusionists.
People who get mad when people correct them piss me the fuck off. Like, hate on endos all you want, but at least understand the actual definition of it if you're hating on them. Don't get all pissy at ME for saying your definition was incorrect. Long story short: If you're gonna be a hater, be an educated hater
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
wait i have a questions (as pro-endo system with mixed origins)
On your pinned it says "Remember, if an anti-endo says endogenic systems form without trauma, they're wrong, and that's MISINFORMATION."
I thought the whole difference between the two were that endogenic systems formed from means other than trauma? that's what it says on most other places (iirc), if its okay could you explain what it means then? /genq (sorry if this comes off as weird or passive aggressive, we will always support all systems no matter what the terms mean)
Anti-endos say that endogenic systems form without trauma.
The actual meaning is a system formed for reasons OTHER THAN trauma.
Endogenic systems can and do have trauma it just is not the reason why their system exists.
It's so funny to me that proably 2-3 years later "anti-endo" systems will realise it's so exhausting to fakeclaim and gatekeep people they know nothing about 24/7 and they'll just go "ermmmm guyzzz sowwwyyy for being exclusionist gatekeeping fakeclaimers 👉👈👉👈👉🥺🥺😢"
Can't wait to see them drop by 80% by next years (ik new ones proably will appear, still good riddance tho)
I genuinely do not understand how "people with CDDs should have access to CDD spaces regardless of their stance on endogenic systems" became a hot take.
Some of y'all have spent so much time arguing online that you've lost sight of what the real problems are. Endos and whether they are real or not is not the problem. They don't even come close to being the problem.
People with CDDs commonly experience profound interpersonal difficulties, significant functional impairment, and high rates of self-harm and suicidality. That is a real problem that needs addressing. Many people with CDDs spend 5-12 years in the mental health system before receiving an accurate diagnosis, often receiving multiple misdiagnoses along the way. That's another real problem. Trauma survivors with dissociative disorders are at increased risk of experiencing further victimization. That's a huge fucking problem that I've personally experienced countless times that the anti vs pro debate never helped me with. Let's not overlook how substance use disorders are a common comorbidity. Also something I personally struggled with.
Want a source for all of this? Here you go.
Don't wanna click the link? Here's screenshots with ALT text:
You don't have to agree with someone's opinions to recognize that they deserve support. Excluding someone with a CDD from community or resources because they disagree with you about a controversial and ultimately unwinnable discourse topic doesn't make the community healthier. All you're doing is leaving one more traumatized person without a place to turn.
If we care about people with CDDs, these real issues should come before winning discourse. Love people with CDDs more than you hate endos.
If I see one more relatable post that has the anti-endo hate tags telling people they arent real or to fuck off, I will be making it my life's mission to rewrite ALL of them and post them with the inclusive tags, don't post relatable shit then gatekeep from people because you don't like how their system functions. It's not about science, you're an exclusionist.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Its always the anti-endos who have "no syscourse!" In their bios. Brother, you believe real living people don't exist because they experience plurality differently than you do. You ARE the syscourse.
