Wilbur | MCM System

"the only arguments people that are anti endos use is just regurgitated transmed arguments" literally no. That sounds like the arguments people use for TransIDS. You're drawing comparisons for two entirely seperate things.

The reason you can't have a system without trauma is the same reason you can't transition to be a different race.

Trans people like us exist because gender is a social construct only. That's why we have people who are trans, who are valid, who don't medically transition.

I see something good from them, something I agree with and my brain decides "oh, then they must not be that bad!"

But then when I look at their other stuff, they are just as bad as they were before, as bad as I thought. They've just had a rare moment of goodness and my brain doesn't understand it.

It's not very cool or nice to be honest

• amnesia

• confusion

• headaches

• nausea

• repeated childhood trauma

• anxiety

• spikes in fear. Anger. Or shame

• mood swings from parts

• body dysphoria

• depersonalization

• derealization

• self puzzlement

• loss of control

• flashbacks

• dizziness

And more.

TLDR; You do NOT need to remember trauma to have a CDD/be a system and you SHOULD NOT try to remember it or force yourself to remember it if you dont remember, it is very harmful.

Endos DNI = endos & their supporters

I just don’t like it in the context of systems. I believe trauma is the only origin of a system (alongside all the other requirements ofc) so it just seems silly to say someone’s traumagenic. And it feels like such an endo word now, pro endo systems will call themselves traumagenic, I’ve seen endos say traumagenics are entitled because of their trauma. I just do not like the word because of how I’ve seen it used and the community that commonly used it

Hey mentalcrisismvder! It's not a silly ask don't worry, it's something we've found through the fact we've just enjoyed doing research on subjects for years. So, we have some good tips. 1. Always look into where your getting research from. Is the person doing the study someone trustworthy, or have they been known to cause issues/make outlandish claims (someone like Dr. Simone Reinders vs Colin Ross (we respect Dr. Reinders. Colin Ross is a fucking joke)). Is the group who did the research reliable and go about the experiment ethically, or no? 2. If a study says "this study explained", it never hurts to go look into that study as well. We could claim a study said that the sky is actually blood red and we have no evidence. Always always always check sources that studies may talk about. 3. If you have access to it, check for peer reviewed articles! They are more likely to be caught for any falsified information and are generally considered extremely trust worthy. 4. This may sound stupid but check the URL of what your researching if it's online. There is a major difference between a .com, .edu, even .org. Each one has different purposes and are something to keep a close eye on. 5. If you have access, talk to professionals in the subject. We recently did a research paper for one of our college classes. We frequently spoke to the professor if we had any potential for misunderstanding, if we were unsure if the source was extremely reliable, everything. In cases of subjects like DID, therapists, psychologists/psychiatrists, if you know any like college professors of subjects like dissociative disorders or psychology in general, people like that

Very strange to kick and scream and throw a fit over littles deciding to engage in syscourse, especially considering that, for a lot of systems/collectives, headmates that aren't fronting can't control or influence what the fronter is doing, or if you're like us, the fronter's judgement being impaired affects everyone, not just the fronter(s), as if littles aren't also their own headmates that can make their own decisions just like anyone else, and that they're nothing more than tools to be used. That's a very strange assumption to make, and is an extremely unhealthy way of viewing littles.