What I don't understand about syscourse
So far I've seen only three positions in the syscourse:
1) Systems who think that endogenic plurality does not exist, period. If you don't have trauma then you're not valid, your experience isn't real and you're romanticizing and turning a disorder into a cosplay
2) Systems who think that endogenic plurality does exist, tend to include all types of plurality under the same terms, and think that traumagenic only spaces are discriminatory and pluralphobic
3) Systems that have no opinion and/or just want to be left alone
But I've never seen a position we ourselves tend to have. You see, we don't think that endos experiences aren't real or valid. The human mind is insanely complex and diverse, a lot of its mechanisms we're yet to understand and it can create fascinating things. But I don't think that we should necessarily put dissociative disorders under the same umbrella as, for example, tulpas. I just genuinely can't see the point in it. The origins and the processes behind those states of, so to say, multiplicity are so vastly different that I don't believe it to be similar enough for this broad inclusive category of plurality to even exist
I myself benefit from spaces that are open only for systems with dissociative disorders. Every alter we have is tied to some trauma response. All of our mechanisms, coping strategies, all advices that have ever helped us are exclusive to folks with trauma based dissociative disorders. I know that the line can be a bit blurry especially for systems who worked to be less disordered and more harmonious, or for systems with better communication, or for systems whose alters aren't so related to particular trauma responses or events. But I still see no benefit in mixing terms and spaces so much. I don't know why should we use identical terms to folks with very different experiences and I'm not really comfortable with, for example, mixing dissociative alters with tulpas as though they are almost the same thing. Of course, extremely closed spaces with no interaction with each other and no options beside that aren't great, but imo it is mostly due to the fact that learning about others' experiences in general is beneficial, no matter how different or similar they are to yours. And because the origin can be unknown and systems who identified as endogenic can learn that they actually have DID/OSDD, so it can be crucial for them to have the access to information about these disorders before they realize they have it. I don't see how gatekeeping information can be beneficial
This is not a definitive statement. If you identify as a system of any origin and see benefits and/or clear reasons for using the same terms, sharing the same spaces and using identities under the same umbrella as systems of different origins, please share it. If you think that separating our spaces and terminology would cause harm in any way, please explain why. I'm open to changing my position. But please be polite and kind, talking about such things is difficult enough for us
P.S. you can see a contradiction in me arguing for separation yet using terms like "systems" and "multiplicity" both for those with dissociative disorders and for those who identify as endos, but to clarify I use them not because I like them, but because they are recognizable, regularly used and convey my thought as shortly as possible. If I knew terms that are more separative and yet clear, I would've used them instead
