hi im just curious but how would you go about debating endos on certain points? i'm a mod in an anti-endo server and we just had a pro-endo join and try to debate us in the unverified chat. their points were:
"endos don't harm anyone"
"plurality doesn't need to stem from trauma to be valid"
"medical professionals back up the existence of non-traumagenic plurality"
the fact "traumaendos" exist
how the icd-11 backs up endos (it doesn't.)
how endogenic plurality is underresearched
how the brain is very complex
they also called us larpers (wow fakeclaiming no surprise) 💀 again just curious and want some advice for future reference!
I’d recommend looking through @awm-bookmarks for more, as a lot of endogenic talking points are recycled.
1. Endos have harmed several people before. The history of endogenic plurality as an anti-cdd movement as well as the many testimonies of ex pro endos and singlets and cdd systems who believed that they were endogenic are proof.
2. The methods in which endos define plurality will always be vague and useless. Theres no need debating them on “validity”, when their idea of what is and what isn’t systemhood is flawed.
3. Medical literature ties alter formation to trauma. The neurological process that causes alters and the process that causes self-states in PTSD and C-PTSD stem from the same process.
4. “Traumaendo” is another example of how harmful endogenic logic is to pwcdds. Some links a lovely anon sent me about it
5. This has been debunked five gazillion times I’m so tired of it. Here’s my favorite one.
6. Endogenic plurality exists in a nebulous state to pro endos where it is both too under researched to provide legitimate claims but also researched enough to where you have to believe it without any question.
7. Brains are complex but not stupid, and wouldn’t form dissociative barriers for no reason.
Imagine fakeclaiming as an endogenic plural… throw stones in glass houses much?
