Change my mind

He used a word that can be translated into the English "endogenic." But even then, the more common translation is still "endogenous" rather than endogenic. And when talking about mental disorders having internal causes, "endogenous" was the word that's historically been used.

Endogenic, while maybe not quite a mistranslation, is at least a very uncommon one.

I don't agree at all with the premise that endogenous itself is harmful either. It's a descriptive word used to describe things arising from internal causes.

The idea that endogenous would be harmful when applied to phenomena it's objectively describing because it's been misapplied under some theories... it's just ludicrous. That's not how words or language works. Past psychiatrists theorizing that hysteria could have endogenous causes doesn't make endogenous a bad word.

Like, those are the same thing. Endogenous and endogenic are directly related. They're slightly different variations of the same concept. Like saying I come and I came (nice). It's just how you're using the word in a sentence.

But here's the thing.

We're not talking about genic/genous. We're talking about endo in the context of psychology.

And that means "from within", and in psychology, and specifically in regards to systems (at the time, the diagnosis was known as hysteria), endo has been used to counter the trauma theory of DID.

Specifically.

Like Freud was specifically countering Janet's theories about trauma by saying it was an internal problem (endo) of repression and caused by weak mindedness.

I get where lunastusco is coming from about how they chose the word, but can you stop twisting the argument and just acknowledge the history of the word endo, specifically in regards to psychology?

Because I know you're going to come back with, "what about endometriosis," and you're going to give yourself a high five and think you're trampling on your "oppressors", but... You're really just being a misleading dick at this point.

Sure... and trans and the t-slur have the same literal meanings with the same root words and prefix, but one is a harmful slur while the other is a neutral descriptor because of the history of that specific word. Just because a relation between words exists doesn't make them the same word, nor does it mean you can use the history of one word as evidence another is a bad.

And if your point of contention is that they're variations of the same concept, then isn't the real problem you have with the concept itself rather than the word?

Would any combination of words meaning that a system has an internal origin be acceptable?

Because every single one is going to be relying on the same exact concept as "endogenic." And many basic words like "inner," and "internal" have been used the same way as endogenous.

So are these words off limits too? Should we also say that it's ableist for systems to be described as "internal" by this same reasoning? After all, internal has a long history of being used to invalidate DID systems, apparently.

We're not talking about genic/genous. We're talking about endo in the context of psychology.

Oh? Is that where the goalposts have moved to now? The entire "endo-" prefix is ableist, you've decided?

I didn't realize the goalposts had move all the way over there.

Just a reminder for anyone having trouble keeping up, these were the original claims that were made:

As anyone can see, this is clearly talking about a specific term. Not a prefix.

Because I know you're going to come back with, "what about endometriosis,"

My first thought was actually endoskeleton after that one anon. Although, since you want to talk about psychology specifically, my next thought was endorphins. Wait, how about the Endocrine System!? It even has "endo" and "system" in the same term! 😲

I'm sorry if it seems I'm not treating this subject with the seriousness and respect it deserves, but I assure you that I am... because it really doesn't deserve any.

It's not a legitimate argument. It's not in good faith. And it shouldn't be taken the slightest bit seriously by anyone.

Going back to "endogenic," the word "endogenic" itself has been used for everything in psychology from the origin of happiness...

"Happiness underlying factors are considerable from two dimensions: endogenic factors (biological, cognitive, personality and ethical sub-factors) and exogenic factors (behavioral, socialcultural, economical, geographical, life events and aesthetics sub-factors). Among all endogenic factors, biological sub-factors are the significant predictors of happiness."

To Endogenic Psychoses.

To the origin of knowledge.

Social constructionism (as proposed chiefly by Kenneth Gergen) focuses explicitly on the role of social processes in the construction of meaning. Consequently, Gergen rejected both exogenic and endogenic epistemologies. Endogenic epistemologies are those that emphasize the role of the individual mind in the construction of meaning, while exogenic epistemologies emphasize the role of external reality. Social constructionism places knowledge neither within individual minds nor outside them, but between people. In other words, according to social constructionism, knowledge is generated by people interacting and collectively negotiating a set of shared meanings. By rejecting the objectivist conception of knowledge as an internal representation, social constructionism shares the view of knowledge as a construction—a social construction in this case.

(This is from The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology Volume 1. I don't think links will work with it but that's the source.)

With all of these very different uses of the specific word "endogenic," in psychology, not just words that happen to share a prefix, do you know what wasn't referred to as endogenic before 2014? Plural systems! DID! MPD!

You fucking coward. Get the hell out of spaces you don't belong. You are a tulpa. You do not belong in Endo or DID spaces. You are not an authority. Grow the fuck up, learn how to act like a human instead of a self absorbed dick hat, and get the hell off the internet. Spend time around actual people instead of staring at a screen and scream crying about the evil evil hate group that.... (checks notes) wants people to treat their disorder like the disorder it is and not a fun game or something to be debated.

God. How are you so far up your own ass? Did you find your heart, crawling that far? Or is it gone, chased away, shrivelled and rotten from the horrific treatment you've given everybody?

Including trans people.

I hope your followers start waking up and realizing how fucking vile you are. You are on nobodys side but your own. You benefit nobody and no community.

Disclaimer: This analysis ignores the existence of spiritual systems, as the crossroads between religion and psychology is very tricky to understand, and we believe we’re not qualified to write on that subject. This analysis also only covers the DID diagnosis itself, whether it applies to endogenic or traumagenic systems. It mentions but does not extensively cover systems without a DID diagnosis, which are valid in their own right and may have achieved functional multiplicity.

1) you're misunderstanding criteria c, incorrectly assuming the cause, presentation, and resolution of distress and dysfunction. You ignore that function changes on a day to day basis and the DSM accounts for this with specific wording that allows someone to carry a diagnosis regardless of final fusion or functionality (including healthy multiplicity). The ability to split again later in life, or experience a resurgence in symptoms is highly probable (your own sources acknowledge this). You don't fluctuate in and out of being disordered. You ARE disordered, with varying levels of functionality, from high to low. Your entire mindset is ablist, treating being disordered like it's something bad or undesirable, or negative, and treating it like it's something to be cured from. DID is a lifelong disorder. It never goes away, regardless of fusion or integration, and acting like it does is going to set a lot of people up for failure-- a lot of, "I thought I was cured, but I wasn't!" No shit, and the only people making you feel like a failure for not being "cured" are people like OP.

You can choose to no longer identify with the label, but pushing the idea that you can lose the diagnosis and ascend to this higher state is... Gross. And weird.

2) You're misunderstanding the amnesia criteria. The actual criteria for amnesia is a lot more loose than you think. Amnesia doesn't even need to be current, if you EVER experienced amnesia, it counts toward a DID diagnosis. A lot of people think you can move between OSDD 1 and DID based on amnesia, but that's incorrect. The actual diagnostic language for DID allows for someone to resolve amnesia barriers and still maintain their diagnosis, because it's lifelong.

3) There's more the DSM entry for DID than just the criteria, and the REST of the entry talks about childhood trauma as a cause. Here's researchers talking about the creation of DSM 5, and proposed changes from IV to 5 (hint, it's STILL understood this way, no change).

There's actually good reason trauma isn't listed as a criteria-- because the point is to hide trauma, and that's included under criteria B.

Your post is going to hurt people through misinformation.

I got to see a DID specialist today. Previously, our therapist had agreed that we were at least dissociative and that she had spoken to multiple of us in the past. I've been really severely struggling with accepting the system and that we aren't faking it (though the others are fine with it) and it had been bugging me for a while. The specialist and I (with Jason cheering me on in the background) talked about basic things but I came out of the meeting with some important information.

Believing that you're faking/the system isn't real/etc is normal and expected. In fact it's in the diagnostic criteria. It takes a long time to accept and understand what happened to you all and that's okay.

You don't need to know all your trauma in order to be "traumatised enough." I thought I knew everything there was to know about our life and trauma, only for the doctor to end the session with "I think there's a lot more trauma you don't remember." Which is scary, but it's okay.

You don't need to be actively in a bad situation to have OSDDID. We are in a stable situation and aren't being actively traumatised. This is good! Wanting or feeling like you need more trauma is understandable, but I promise you don't. What you went through was bad enough, you don't need more to be hurting.

Being young doesn't make you wrong. We are minor bodied and we only discovered our system recently. We have healthy, good communication and we know a lot about one another. I thought this would immediately get us fake-claimed by the specialist but she was praising and asked if we were considered highly intelligent at our school.

I'm really tired so I'm going to sleep now, but I'll reblog and add more when I remember. Hope everyone has a good day/night/etc.

Transabled- a term used by people who want to be disabled.

Endogenic- a community who claim to have 'non disordered plurality'

Now I know what you're thinking: How can endos be transabled if they don't claim to have a disorder?'

YOU CAN NOT HAVE ALTERS AND NOT HAVE A DISSOCIATIVE DISORDER

Literally you type 'can I have alters with out a disociative disorder' and EVERY MEDICAL/PROFESSIONAL site will say no as well as years of research, documentation, ect.

Basically you guys are claiming a 'desirable' medical symptom and claiming that its not inherently medical 🤔 seems pretty transabled to us.

Extra rant/points:

Endogenics use medical terms (ie system, alter, ect) and also take up a lot of system spaces because 'were the same uwu' as well as trying to demedicalise a disorder that requires a LOT of medical attention.

Hello everyone! I'm Pos, an adult-bodied system who is tired of syscourse! I plan to invade the syscourse tag from time to time with check ins, positivity, and good vibes. Syscourse, in my eyes, is a life-threatening online discourse that is largely pointless. I think we can all benefit from some positivity!

I hope you don't mind me tagging a few big syscourse individuals!

@sophieinwonderland @justanothersyscourse @syscurse @circulars-reasoning @sysmemes @dissociativediscourse @delgado-master