Togetherness

We’re the ones who coined the original bunch of -genic terminology regarding system origins. (Endogenic, protogenic, etc.) We are an adaptive system with DID, not a singlet.

It was not coined on 4Chan, lmao.

We didn’t coin it to “mock” anyone. We coined them in response to sysmed bullshit– to give both trauma-formed and non-traumagenic systems non-medicalized terms to use. “Endogenic” was also an attempt to move away from the term “natural system”.

We support all system origins.

We did not coin the term “alterhuman”? Not sure where people got that idea, but that 100% wasn’t us.

“The word alterhuman was coined as a solution to prohibitive identity politics in the otherkin community. It was first defined by phasmovore here in 2014 and has since been expanded. Mordecai has written a treatise on a more modern definition here, and this is the definition we work with at Alt+H. To quote the article:

You are alterhuman if you decide to call yourself alterhuman. You may decide to call yourself alterhuman if you experience an internal identity that is beyond the scope of what is traditionally considered ‘being human’. “

mord of Alt+H however was the major person involved in actually refining the concept and actually using it. I had just started college at the time, so I was way too busy to really do much by way of interacting with the community.

For context the main community I was part of at the time was the otherkin community, but I saw a lot of overlap between it and other communities - plural communities, therian, soulbonder, daemonism, etc, and at the time these communities would often rip into each other out of what I can only imagine was a desire to be considered the one that was legitimate in comparison to others that were looked down upon socially. In reality of course, they each have their own place, and everyone benefited from understanding what similarities were there and celebrating what differences were there, so I tried to come up with something to help connect the commonalities between these disparate groups as well as give a word for anyone who didn’t feel just one - or any - represented them properly.

Of course it’s not perfect, and it probably wouldn’t have gotten off the ground without mord’s intervention, but I’m proud of the fact that clearly there was and is something there that these different but similar groups could connect with rather than fight over.

Communities have changed over time, and yet things are also very similar to the past. I am extremely happy that I got to see some mending between those groups that were in conflict before - but now I am here primarily within the plural community and I see a lot of similar infighting. Unfortunately I don’t think a change in terminology will likely fix it - but I have to hope that a change will come with time as well. That said, in regards to the OP of this post - I think that despite the current conflicts among the plural community, the terms the Lunastus Co came up with were a great step forward from what had existed before. So I relate to them a lot, in that sense.

It already is, that's what I'm saying. In intent it's already an opt-in label. You're not being forced into it if you don't want to be (and I agree the way it's currently being used isn't always in accordance with it being opt-in), but it's supposed to be an opt-in label. In the coining post it says it's opt in. From the start it was opt in.

"AHPI identities may include, as per personal discretion:

-Therian, phytanthrope, otherkin, and fictionkin identities

-Multiple, plural, median, and walk-in identities

-Spiritual self-identities which may still include degrees of humanity such as angelics, celestials, starseeds, god shards, reincarnated gods, vampires, etc

-Identities involving shared self-identification with nonhuman or other alternative human entities/concepts such as animal-hearted, godspouse, soulbond, and spiritual medium identities

-Identities of alternative humanity through disassociation, trauma response, or non-neurotypical mental status

Of course, all of these may either agree with or deny identification as AHPI, depending on personal discretion. Don’t feel a need to subscribe to any one label just because it exists. Do what makes you feel good!"

By making alterhumananity an umbrella term, you are declaring that plurals are alterhuman unless they decide to specifically opt out. That's the problem my post was about.

The coining post seems to agree with me here as it specifies that plurality may be included. The wording does not imply that all plurals are alterhuman but merely all plurals who see their plurality as alterhuman are welcome into the label. This is wonderful! I see no problem with this.

And you're also missing the point - that those of us who are alterhuman solely due to our plurality, or partially because of it, are being constantly pushed out and defined out by anti-endos and people who act as if they own the community. You're missing the point that we (as in we alterhuman plurals) can claim to be alterhuman just based on our plurality alone. You're missing the point that it seems to be nearly exclusively anti-endos who think that endogenic systems are invaders to the term alterhuman, when we've been allowed in since the beginning. I'm emphasizing that plurals are allowed in and are under the term because people are trying to push us out.

You can be alterhuman solely because of plurality. Plurals of all origins can be alterhuman. Established we agree on that.

It already is, that's what I'm saying. In intent it's already an opt-in label. You're not being forced into it if you don't want to be (and I agree the way it's currently being used isn't always in accordance with it being opt-in), but it's supposed to be an opt-in label. In the coining post it says it's opt in. From the start it was opt in.

"AHPI identities may include, as per personal discretion:

-Therian, phytanthrope, otherkin, and fictionkin identities

-Multiple, plural, median, and walk-in identities

-Spiritual self-identities which may still include degrees of humanity such as angelics, celestials, starseeds, god shards, reincarnated gods, vampires, etc

-Identities involving shared self-identification with nonhuman or other alternative human entities/concepts such as animal-hearted, godspouse, soulbond, and spiritual medium identities

-Identities of alternative humanity through disassociation, trauma response, or non-neurotypical mental status

Of course, all of these may either agree with or deny identification as AHPI, depending on personal discretion. Don’t feel a need to subscribe to any one label just because it exists. Do what makes you feel good!"

By making alterhumananity an umbrella term, you are declaring that plurals are alterhuman unless they decide to specifically opt out. That's the problem my post was about.

The coining post seems to agree with me here as it specifies that plurality may be included. The wording does not imply that all plurals are alterhuman but merely all plurals who see their plurality as alterhuman are welcome into the label. This is wonderful! I see no problem with this.

And you're also missing the point - that those of us who are alterhuman solely due to our plurality, or partially because of it, are being constantly pushed out and defined out by anti-endos and people who act as if they own the community. You're missing the point that we (as in we alterhuman plurals) can claim to be alterhuman just based on our plurality alone. You're missing the point that it seems to be nearly exclusively anti-endos who think that endogenic systems are invaders to the term alterhuman, when we've been allowed in since the beginning. I'm emphasizing that plurals are allowed in and are under the term because people are trying to push us out.

It already is, that's what I'm saying. In intent it's already an opt-in label. You're not being forced into it if you don't want to be (and I agree the way it's currently being used isn't always in accordance with it being opt-in), but it's supposed to be an opt-in label. In the coining post it says it's opt in. From the start it was opt in.

"AHPI identities may include, as per personal discretion:

-Therian, phytanthrope, otherkin, and fictionkin identities

-Multiple, plural, median, and walk-in identities

-Spiritual self-identities which may still include degrees of humanity such as angelics, celestials, starseeds, god shards, reincarnated gods, vampires, etc

-Identities involving shared self-identification with nonhuman or other alternative human entities/concepts such as animal-hearted, godspouse, soulbond, and spiritual medium identities

-Identities of alternative humanity through disassociation, trauma response, or non-neurotypical mental status

Of course, all of these may either agree with or deny identification as AHPI, depending on personal discretion. Don’t feel a need to subscribe to any one label just because it exists. Do what makes you feel good!"

BUT.

I'm really uncomfortable with the "willogenic" label. It was coined in 2021 explicitly to "[describe] our experience without there being ANY connection to [tulpamancy] at all." I can't know for sure what that anon's intentions were, but that sounds like the sort of talk you hear from anti tulpa exclusionists. The sort of people who repeat that baseless anti-endo myth that tulpas are cultural appropriation. That we're problematic just because of what we call ourselves, or because of the community we were formed in.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that willogenic/willomancy/etc. is, by design, anti-tulpa language. As a tulpa myself, seeing it get so popular lately is really upsetting.

This is why! I'm responding to a long dead discourse argument, but if you don't explicitly put your support for endogenic/tulpamancy systems out there, anti-endos will come and invade your communities. This is why I consider "alterhumanity should not include plurality" to be a fundamentally anti-endo argument.

Even outside of that, multiple/plural systems and otherkin have shared enough spaces to where it would be cruel not to include us. It's the same argument people like to use for trans people - "oh the LGB(T) community is for sexualities, trans people shouldn't be included" and while that may be true on a very literal sorting level, the communities have enough overlap to where if you said you denied one but not the other it wouldn't make sense.

Also plurality isn't a neurodivergence. Specific forms of plurality are, like DID/OSDD are neurodivergences, but plurality in particular is not a neurodivergence, because not everyone believes it is one. Saying that we shouldn't be included because it's a neurodivergence is like saying autism explains therianthropy, so they shouldn't be included in the alterhuman umbrella. Yeah, certain forms of therianthropy are autistic, but not everyone who is a therian will identify it as autism, a neurodivergence, or even as an aspiritual thing.

The only argument I've heard that has merit is the idea that it's lumping trauma survivors into a label that implies that they're less than human, but alterhumanity doesn't mean that - it just refers to ideas and communities that are contrary to the social definition of what it means to be human. Plenty of humans are in the community, and alterhumanity doesn't negate current humanity. Furries are also lumped into alterhumanity by virtue of people who wear an animal suit, and choose to portray themselves as nonhuman despite being human. Tulpamancers are also alterhuman, despite being humans (and tulpas not having a set form most of the time). Human identities are allowed in the community, and the idea that only nonhumans are allowed in the community is one the community has been trying to fight against.

I find my practice of tulpamancy to be especially human, and a celebration of the human experience. It feels dehumanizing in a way thats non-affirming to be told that I'm automatically alterhuman for being a tulpamancer.

I completely stand by what I said. Sysmeds aren't welcome in the alterhuman community. The label is explicitly supportive of endogenic plurality, with many forms of endogenic plurality being covered in the coining post, and the coiner being expressly opposed to sysmeds.

Sysmeds, radnormals included, are not welcome in the alterhuman community for the same reason transphobic gay people aren't welcome in the LGBT community.

Exclusionists aren't welcome in spaces that are inclusive to the groups they're excluding.

Harassment is your word.

I'm publicly calling out a group of bigots.

I'm not spamming Shelix's inbox though, the way Shelix's community did to mine. I haven't even interacted with Shelix directly since my one and only post that tagged the Radnormal blog.

In fact, most of the radnormals I've interacted with directly are ones who interacted with me first.

I don't mind saying that I'm going to keep coming after the radnormals as a group though.

Why keep that a secret?

I'm not ashamed of what I'm doing.

And I very much want them to know.

Also if they tried to join any alterhuman forum they'd be kicked out for making unverifiable claims or for trying to police what's going on inside someone's own head. Werelist has a claim against extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence (and that goes for stating that non-traumagenic multiplicity is impossible without proof) and Nonhuman National Park welcomes all.

They don't have expiration dates

This feels very much like splitting hairs, to be honest.

Let's take it from the top.

Kluft is describing a study conducted by Ross showing up 3.1% of people met the diagnostic criteria for DID (in the DSM-IV).

Kluft describes how only 1% were actually clinical dissociative identity disorder patients.

The other two-thirds are NOT clinical DID patients despite meeting the diagnostic criteria at the time.

Kluft speculates one possible reason for this could be that there are non-pathological forms of dissociative identity disorder. Meaning variations that are not actually a disorder.

It should be noted that when Kluft wrote this, the DSM-5 had not come out yet, so the point about the 3.1% meeting the criteria was referring to the DSM-IV criteria which did not include the line about cultural practices.

It also did not include the "clinically significant distress or impairment" criterion, which would have disqualified them.

That still leaves you with a population which meets the rest of the criteria under the DSM-IV, with multiple distinct identities/personality states with enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to and thinking about the self, with each taking recurrent control of the system's behavior. This population is twice the size of those who actually had what Kluft describes as "clinical dissociative identity disorder."

You still have Kluft speculating that this could be nonpathological endogenous variations of the disorder which would meet the DSM-IV criteria.

here is full quote for everyone. "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."

I mean, I could... you already know the Ross and Yarbrough sources that you'd make up excuses for... and I could snag some others... but I don't wanna. 🤷‍♀️

Look, if you are on the side that is claiming non-disordered plurality isn't real or can't exist... and your side is actively bigoted against people who experience non-disordered plurality... and the top professionals in the field are even just saying this might exist... the burden of proof is on you to justify your bigotry.

Putting aside ones like Yarbrough who have explicitly said you can be plural without trauma or a mental disorder, even just the hypothesis from Kluft that there could be endogenous nonpathological forms of DID makes the sysmed position that spreads hate against these groups, and actively lies by claiming they're scientifically impossible, morally reprehensible.

calling me bigoted while the endo movement started out as a hate group and still is continuing to be one proven by you ! klutft also provided reasons too as said it was unclear, problems with the diagnostic instrument, problems with the diagnostic criteria and the possibility of nonpathological forms of DID. Yes you guys are the bigoted ones and ableist ones

Non-disordered psychological plurality is a neurodivergence.

Bigotry directed towards non-disordered psychological plurals is hating them for their neurodivergence.

The fact that you have an unrelated neurodivergence is not relevant.

And while we're at it, bigotry directed towards spiritual plurals is bigotry based on religious and spiritual beliefs, and is still very much bigotry.

You have also not debunked Yarbrough. You have simply asserted that you don't consider him or his book that was reviewed and published by the American Psychiatric Association a reliable source because he does not specialize in studying dissociative disorders.

This is a stupid assertion because the topic is about people who do not have dissociative disorders, and there should be no reason why a professional would need to be a specialist in dissociative disorders for their expertise to matter.

You are inventing criteria to dismiss a renowned psychiatrist for disagreeing with your actual hate group.

When you say, "I will only trust a psychiatrist's opinion on non-disordered plurality who exclusively works with trauma survivors and people with dissociative disorders, rather than being in a position where they would be exposed to non-disordered systems," that's a manipulative and intellectually dishonest position.

You've created a criteria for researchers you would consider trustworthy for confirming the existence of non-disordered plurality that excludes everyone who would be working with non-disordered plurals.

And then you get mad when your intellectually dishonest bad faith criteria is treated as bad faith.

And even when that criteria is met by somebody like Colin Ross, who does specialize in dissociative disorders and is the single most prolific author of clinical research into DID, you invent excuses to dismiss him as well.

You are not interested in discussing the academic literature or expert opinions on non-disordered and non-traumagenic plurality.

When provided a source, you will move to attacking the history of the doctors with ad homonems or you will move the goal posts for what the criteria is for a source to be trustworthy.

All while you are consistently incapable of providing any doctors who have said non-disordered plurality is impossible. Which is the claim system medicalism is built on.

And as for the hate group projection from your side, where the actual hate group is latching on to whatever tenuous arguments they could find to point the finger at their victims, I have addressed this and you can see my post on it here.

Put simply, the biggest problem with this claim is that it is conflating several different groups related to the natural multiples, and most of it hinges on groups that didn't even form until more than half a decade after natural multiplicity was coined.

And this assumes in the first place that non-disordered plurals who didn't want to be treated as if their plurality was a disorder were a hate group for wanting it removed from the DSM. Personally, I think that's a tough sell since you could just as easily argue that trans people who wanted gender identity disorder removed from the DSM were a hate group against people with gender dysphoria. It would be the same terrible logic.

While I'm ignoring the majority of the messages from the radnormals who have been harassing me, I'm posting this publicly to let people know that radnormals are sending suibait now.

This behavior shouldn't come as a surprise at all if you saw the creator of the radnormal label originally say radnormals are neutral on harassment.

I've said it before and will repeat... radnormals are a nothing more than a hate group...

For anyone who would like to block them, here are their other blog

@/fenziesparkles

@/illu404notfound

@/illucakeiscanon

Anyway, polymind community should be aware of this too.

They don't have expiration dates

I think it's important to remember that ableism can be much more complex than just discrimination against people with mental or physical disabilities. You can use ableist slurs or insults against someone who doesn't have those conditions and that's still ableism - like antis often call endogenics delusional as an insult and reason to dismiss their experiences, and that's ableist.