Multiplicity And Inclusivity

People can be sad and experience sadness without having clinical depression, all we're saying is you can have plurality without having DID. Because DID is not just alters disorder, and the stuff that is distressing about it should be treated in whatever way is best for that specific system, whatever that happens to be. Which is, frankly, none of the rest of the community's business

no field can say 100%, that's not how science works

there's hypotheticals stopping it

Yes. Hypotheticals meaning the possibility that there are cases outside what is currently described. I… don’t understand how that’s a point against what Rouke’s saying. That’s exactly what it and the ask are saying. That there are likely cases outside of what’s described, even if it’s a small number of them, and because of that definitions are purposefully left open to deviance.

I don’t understand trying to gatekeep away the variance that the medical field isn’t even gatekeeping. That’s what’s going on here. You’re saying that those cases that might exist actually can’t and scientists just “aren’t allowed to say that?” Because that’s not what leaving room for variance means. It means that they acknowledge we don’t and maybe even can’t know everything there is to know about the brain and the mind, and so there are probably cases that exist outside of what’s defined.

It’s… a backwards way of looking at how hypotheses and theories work. They don’t say “well I’m completely sure that (in this rhetorical case) trauma is required, but I guess I should say ‘associated’ instead of a required diagnostic criteria, and that it’s 99% and not 100%, because The Science Man told us never to say 100%,” they leave that variance open because they specifically can’t prove that there aren’t cases outside of what’s described — and typically the rest of someone’s research after saying something is one way 99% of the time revolves around trying to find that 1% and see if it actually is more than the 1% predicted.

I suppose in internet arguments it seems like one of the biggest reasons people say “probably” or “mostly” and don’t make concrete assertions is to give themselves some plausible deniability on their claims, so internet randos have started assuming that’s what scientists do??

It’s even worse scientific practice to take those statements and tell the people giving them that they don’t understand their own experiences. 

Psychology is one of the few sciences where we can only really rely on personal anecdotal evidence because, as of yet, we haven’t developed a way to see the inner workings of someone’s mind. And the fact that so many sysmedicalists seem to think that psychology is comparable to other sciences which have “hard” evidence like medicine or biology -- we can prove that a certain medical disorder is caused by a certain chromosome or mutation, for example. But we actually can’t prove that trauma causes plurality -- not only because there is evidence that contradicts that hypothesis but because genuine proof is impossible for anything to do with psychology and the “cause” of any psychological condition. 

And frankly, I think that it is incredibly irresponsible and hypocritical, for a group that claims to support “the science” and believes that the only people who can define plurality are medical professionals, to have so many people who are not medical professionals trying to define another person’s experiences or mentality. 

Especially given that, a good psychologist/therapist/psychiatrist will not tell someone that they actually experienced something they have told the psych that they didn’t experience. If someone tells their therapist “I have this thing, but I didn’t experience this trauma” the therapist, if they’re any good at all, will not tell their patient that they actually did experience that trauma. Even if they describe something that is clearly that trauma -- because doing that, in itself can be a trauma of its own and worsen the pre-existing issues.

tl;dr: sysmeds are actually behaving like bad psychologists without even having the medical training to back them up.

Like sorry but reading the DSM doesn’t make you a therapist, having a disorder doesn’t make you a medical professional and it doesn’t make you qualified to tell someone else they’re not experiencing that thing just because you don’t identify with their experience.

(for the record: I don’t actually think the only people hwo can/should define plurality are (largely singlet) medical professionals and the psych industry is actually widely divided on if plurality even exists -- to the point that the man who originally defined MPD has stated that he believes everyone who claims to have it is lying so they can’t actually be relied on for any accurate information anyway. )

People with those opinions are still systems. They're not being excluded from the system community as a whole. They're being excluded from the community of systems with inclusive views.

It would be like an interfaith group that's welcoming to all like the Unitarian Universalists saying that anti-theists are welcome members - as a UUA member, that's not something we would tolerate. If your position is that people who travel a different path than you need to be stamped out, you don't belong in a community where the foundational value is that all paths are valid.

So there is some syscourse recently on Littles surrounding their age and how you shouldn't let a 4 year old use tumblr cause it's against the tos.

First off, if you knew anything about Littles you would know that they exist in the brain of an adult/older minor. They are going to be able to understand concepts that the brain does.

The brain just doesn't fully regress into the development of a child when a little fronts. Yes, they might not have access to everything, but that is on an alter by alter basis.

Obviously you shouldn't sexualise a little as well.... their appearance in innerworld is that of a child and often times they have childlike mannerisms.

However Littles are not always some helpless child who needs constant monitoring.

How Littles should be treated is up for the system to decide.

Also to the people saying they shouldn't be allowed on tumblr,

People are saying that system littles shouldn't get involved in discourse over adult topics, like kink and sexuality.

This is over a specific incident where a system little threatened violence against an adult in another system over its view on kink at Pride.

That was inappropriate behavior for the little in several ways. First, littles should not threatening violence. Secondly, they should not be interacting with adults who make them feel unsafe. Thirdly, they shouldn't be getting involved in discourse over adult topics if the little is too young to fully understand the nuance.

It doesn't matter if you can or can't control switching. There's other things you can do, like... Idk, TALKING to the little and helping the little understand that some things the little did were wrong to do?

That's the exact opposite of what the system in question did.

So. System littles may not always be at the same level as literal children, but if you're going to say things like "Hey, this person in my system is a little, don't talk to them about adult related topics" maaaaaybe that little shouldn't be getting involved in those topics to begin with and you need to start holding everyone in your system accountable instead of basically using the little as a shield, letting the little say violent things that you agree with and then deflecting any criticism of those things on account of the little's age.

That neither OSDD-1a nor OSDD-1b are actual official diagnoses? Never have been. They're not in the DSM, not in the ICD, in any version of either of those, and not in any of the research.

What there WAS was DD-NOS-1a and DD-NOS-1b. And when the DSM-V came out, and those categorizations were removed, some people updated their diagnoses to match.

But it doesn't change the fact that, per the diagnostic manuals, OSDD-1 is it. Nothing after it, no a, b, c, etc.

And anyone telling you bullshit like:

"people with OSDD-1a is literally not classified as being a system" are missing a crucial fact:

OSDD-1a isn't a classification that actually exists at all per the research and the diagnostic manuals. Nor is OSDD-1b.

Never said or even implied that it was a pro endo argument. That assumption is all from you. There's more to syscourse than anti vs pro endogenic. This particular one was in the vein of the argument over what is and isn't a system.

And OSDD-1a and OSDD-1b aren't in the DSM, the ICD, or even in any research*. OSDD-1 is, and DD-NOS-1a and DD-NOS-1b are.

It's literally a categorical distinction that doesn't officially exist according to the arbiters of what is and isn't a disorder.

So saying that one is a system and one isn't is absolutely ridiculous because neither officially exist.

Also, love that you demanded I "explain that to me" then blocked me. Nice job. Well done. /s

-----

That neither OSDD-1a nor OSDD-1b are actual official diagnoses? Never have been. They're not in the DSM, not in the ICD, in any version of either of those, and not in any of the research.

What there WAS was DD-NOS-1a and DD-NOS-1b. And when the DSM-V came out, and those categorizations were removed, some people updated their diagnoses to match.

But it doesn't change the fact that, per the diagnostic manuals, OSDD-1 is it. Nothing after it, no a, b, c, etc.

And anyone telling you bullshit like:

"people with OSDD-1a is literally not classified as being a system" are missing a crucial fact:

OSDD-1a isn't a classification that actually exists at all per the research and the diagnostic manuals. Nor is OSDD-1b.

🙄 Uh-huh.

“Ross (1991) studied the general population of Winnipeg searching for an indication of Dissociative Identity Disorder in the general population. He found 3.1% of respondents to an interview could fit the criteria of Dissociative Identity Disorder. However, of these 14 individuals (out of 454 participants), the majority (8) seemed to be radically different from Dissociative Identity Disorder patients in therapy. These individuals often did not report abuse history and often reported experiencing little psychopathology.[…] Ross describes a number of possibilities that explain these findings. He contemplates that the non-pathological group could be false positives, that the individuals could be amnesiac for abuse, that the Dissociative Identity Disorder could be in remission or that: 

“‘multiplicity exists in a non-pathological endogenous form in the general population. About 2% of people may be natural multiples who do not have dysfunctional posttraumatic MPD. They may simply have a highly dissociative psychic organization’ (Ross, 1991, p. 510).”

Source: Regan McClure, 1994. “Towards a theoretical framework of the etiology and structures of multiple personality.” A Thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts, Graduate Department of Applied Psychology, in the University of Toronto.

“Multiple Personality Disorder or Dissociative Identity Disorder is generally deemed to be the most severe dissociative disorder, in which trauma not only induces amnesia but also fragments personality [1-5]. Our own alternative thesis is that trauma only induces amnesia (in those who are predisposed to dissociate[6]) and that multiple personality without amnesia is a normal individual difference upon which dissociative reactions to trauma may be superimposed.[…] Our thesis predicts that many more, totally normal people with multiple personalities, but no amnesia, never even come to the attention of the clinical psychological establishment.[…] Present findings support our hypothesis that multiple personality, without amnesia, is a normal phenomenon.”

Source: Robert G. Kuzendorf, Melissa Crosson, Antoinette Zalaket, Jerold White, and Robert Enik. “Normal dimensions of multiple personality without amnesia.” Imagination, cognition, and personality, Vol. 18(2, pp. 205-220, 1998-99.

“‘There may be in the general population a large number of people with MPD who are high-functioning, relatively free of overt psychopathology, and no more in need of treatment than most of their peers. They may not have abuse histories and may have evolved a creative and adaptive multiplicity. If these people exist, virtually nothing is known about them.’ (Ross, 1989, p. 97) The phrase “if these people exist” expresses some doubt that there can be “high-functioning” individuals with multiple selves, continuing the discourse of dysfunction. However the phrase also highlights a gap in the scientific research. Functional individuals who live with multiplicity are most likely not documented because of the very fact that they are functional and do not seek therapy. At present, the only documented cases of functional multiplicity are self-documented, for example on internet pages. Although this is not persuasive evidence for the scientific community, such data cannot be summarily dismissed simply to hold to the dominant discourse.” 

Source: Kymbra Clayton. “Critiquing the Requirement of Oneness over Multiplicity: An Examination of Dissociative Identity (Disorder) in Five Clinical Texts.” E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Clinical Section. 1(2), pp. 9-19, 2005.

“[The theory of structural dissociation of the personality (TSDP)] is not perfect. Even the best of theories are mere tools. They do not reflect an objectively existing (i.e., subject-independent) reality, and the search for knowledge and wisdom is forever. This is what the term ‘wijsbegeerte’, the Dutch word for philosophy, expresses, the desire (begeerte) to gain wisdom (wijsheid). I am thus open to incessantly improving TSDP.”

Source: Ellert R.S. Nijenhuis, creator of the theory of structural dissociation (of the personality). “Boundaries on the concepts of dissociation and dissociative parts of the personality: required and viable.” Psichiatria e Psicoterapia, vol. 34, 1, pp. 55-85. 2015.

TL;DR: Theories, like the theory of structural dissociation, describe what is. Non-traumagenic, non-dysfunctional multiples have been hypothesized to exist for decades. With the prevalence of those claiming to be non-traumagenic, non-dysfunctional multiples increasing, “such data cannot be summarily dismissed simply to hold the dominant discourse” (Clayton 2005). 

whoa whoa whoa this came out of nowhere, who is behind this and why is it so good?? (i know it says right there who’s behind this, but we totally thought that the Young Voices Study wouldn’t address this!!)

We’re going to say ‘parts’ and ‘multiplicity’ to describe these experiences, only because it’s shorter than using all the different words. People use many words to describe their experiences- parts, persons, selves, alters, headmates, soulbonds, thoughtforms- or systems, plurals, multiples- and many, many more. No one experiences multiplicity in exactly the same way you do. We are all different, and trying to find the words to describe who we are can take time.

oh my god??

Why do people experience multiplicity? 

It depends. For some young people, it’s just who they are, and how they are in the world. For others, it’s something that’s linked to how they experience and understand their gender(s). For others, it’s how they connect to ancestors or the spiritual world. And for others, it’s related to difficult earlier experiences. Sometimes, when we are hurt or experience trauma, in order to cope, we dissociate: we switch out of the experience to escape it. It can be a really useful and sometimes life-saving survival strategy. Sometimes, when this happens, the part of us that couldn’t disconnect carries the memory of what happened, and doesn’t grow older. This can become a part.

(bolding mine because, wow, university-backed acknowledgement??)

whoa whoa whoa this came out of nowhere, who is behind this and why is it so good?? (i know it says right there who’s behind this, but we totally thought that the Young Voices Study wouldn’t address this!!)

We’re going to say ‘parts’ and ‘multiplicity’ to describe these experiences, only because it’s shorter than using all the different words. People use many words to describe their experiences- parts, persons, selves, alters, headmates, soulbonds, thoughtforms- or systems, plurals, multiples- and many, many more. No one experiences multiplicity in exactly the same way you do. We are all different, and trying to find the words to describe who we are can take time.

oh my god??

Why do people experience multiplicity? 

It depends. For some young people, it’s just who they are, and how they are in the world. For others, it’s something that’s linked to how they experience and understand their gender(s). For others, it’s how they connect to ancestors or the spiritual world. And for others, it’s related to difficult earlier experiences. Sometimes, when we are hurt or experience trauma, in order to cope, we dissociate: we switch out of the experience to escape it. It can be a really useful and sometimes life-saving survival strategy. Sometimes, when this happens, the part of us that couldn’t disconnect carries the memory of what happened, and doesn’t grow older. This can become a part.

(bolding mine because, wow, university-backed acknowledgement??)

Here’s my position:

Do whatever you want with yourself.

But to the general endogenic community? Stay out of our system spaces. Stop acting like you’re entitled to the same things actual literal trauma survivors with an often disabling disorder are. Stop appropriating our terminology. There’s nothing at all stopping you from sitting down for a few hours to make your own and spread that around your community. Stop claiming to be one in the same with us. It’s honestly ableist. Stop increasing confusion and stigma by letting yourselves into our community and leading confused singlets to think we’re equal. That’s a huge part of what makes them refuse to take us seriously as disordered systems.

There is good in some of you. You aren’t all like this, and we need more of that.

A significant chunk of your community are privileged people who just want to be “valid uwu” and insist on forcefully injecting themselves into our community. I’m not saying that all endos should die. I’m saying that those of you who are good, who aren’t forcing yourselves on traumagenic systems should do what you can to make a difference. Don’t let your community lump themselves in with ours. Change the system. Draw the line. End this chaos, for all of us.

2) What terminology do you think is just for people with DID or OSDD-1? Similarly to above, there's very very few terms that are and have always been strictly for DID systems. Contrary to what people on Tumblr will tell you, "system" is NOT one of those. It's been specifically shared since the early 1990s, before there was even any distinction at all in the MPD community between traumagenic or nontraumagenic. Because back then, the sole criteria for MPD were "Are you multiple people in one head? Do you share control of the body? If so, here have your diagnosis, have a nice life."

3) We ARE similar, that's just unavoidable. Not the same, and we do our best to make it very clear. But if there was no strong similarities, there wouldn't be so many endogenics who once thought they were traumagenic or vice versa, nor would there be quoigenics who identify as such because they're not sure which they are. (There's other reasons to ID as quoigenic, that's just one of them.) Plus you know, the whole "we all would have been considered as having MPD not all that long ago" thing.

4) Other people's confusion is not our fault. Some people are just ignorant and make assumptions and have done so for ages since long before we were a separate community and will continue to do so for ages no matter what we do.

There's still a lot of people who think DID and schizophrenia are one and the same and there's NO similarity there! (Hell, you mention lucid dreaming or synesthesia, both completely benign, fairly well-researched phenomenon, and there's people who think those things are signs of psychosis!)

The tulpa community was once entirely separate from multiplicity communities, and from the very beginning has had people assuming "Oh they're just confused and delusional people who actually have..." "...schizophrenia" or "...DID." Despite sharing NO terminology then, and very little now. And you even discuss it now in very general, plain English terms and people still assume it's schizophrenia or DID.

I was very clear with my (now ex-)husband and also our pastor/counselor that no, I didn't have the symptoms of a disorder, I just have other folks in my head. (Didn't use any system terminology at all, just a very basic explanation that I tried my best to be clear about.) They weren't familiar with the terminology. Hell, the counselor was still certain it was called Multiple Personality Disorder and it was shocking news to him when I corrected him, "No you mean Dissociative Identity Disorder. It hasn't been MPD in decades. And the criteria has changed, and while yes as you insist I would have fit the criteria when it was just "do you have others in your head who you share control of the body with" but there's a couple more things now.

Still he argued with me because he (as he said in a voice meant to be comforting/reassuring but did NOT come across as such) "has a certification in counseling" and "has treated other people with MPD before" and "helped them get rid of their alternate personalities"... Like no, dude. Neither you nor my ex have any clue how totally wrong you are.

And those were two college educated people who really should have known better but were still utterly wrong.

That's just how things are. Changing terminology does nothing because they're just as confused and wrong when they don't have a clue what the terminology is. Separating the communities further does nothing because they already assume that we endogenics must be dangerously crazy in one way or another.

Not because of anything we do. But because of what we insist we are, regardless of terms or community affiliation.

Because they think it's horribly wrong and inherently dangerous to not be a single mind in a single body and can't imagine how it can be a good helpful thing for any of us.

Because they see "different" and think "bad".

Look at it this way. The word “discord” has been around for a very long time. But the meaning of discord, in the sense of “a messaging system used to create servers” has not existed very long. Discord is an old word. Some of it’s meanings are new.

We don’t like posting a lot of syscourse stuff, but we wanted to address a few common arguments anti-endogenic folks make.

“You’re not allowed to use ‘system’!”

The term ‘system’– as in, a group of people sharing a body– has been an open-use term for over ten years now. Yes, the word system has been used in psychology for a long time, but the meaning is not the same. The current meaning is not medicalised, and was not created by/for those with DID/OSDD only.

“You’re roleplaying!”

This is because anti-endogenic people assume all endogenic systems are faking, I guess, but it’s a bizarre argument anyways. Many endogenic systems are 20+ years old, and have known about their system for many years. We, ourselves are 30, and have known about being a system for 15+ years. If we were roleplaying, we’d be master LARPers at this point, having “kept up” such a “cover” 24/7 for over 15 years.Similar can be said of other endogenic systems. It’s not feasible, and it’s just not the truth.

“Endogenics are just confused teenagers!”

All systems were teenagers at some point. That doesn’t make their experiences any less real or valid. Quite a lot of systems, however, are over 18. Including many endogenic systems. Downplaying them as “silly kids who don’t know anything” (because let’s be real, that’s what is happening when you chalk something up to someone being young) is wrong. Furthermore, downplaying anyone as being “confused” just because their experiences are different is not okay.

“Endogenics are abusive!”

… How? It’s true that some endogenic systems behave abusively. Of course. They’re people, just like anyone else. However, traumagenic systems, mixed systems, and other types of systems are just as capable of being abusive. For example, several traumagenic systems have sent people death threats or told them to harm themselves. That is abusive behavior. Similarly, ANY system telling another system that they’re not real, don’t exist, etc, is behaving abusively. But no system is abusive just for existing.

Our stance has always been, and will always be: If you see a system behaving abusively, regardless of their origins, confront them (if possible). Report them as needed. Block them. 

“You can’t be a system without trauma!”

We are unaware of any diagnostic criteria that specifically demands trauma as a qualifier for being a system. While DID/OSDD is currently theorized to be caused by trauma, it isn’t actually part of the diagnostic criteria, and “multiplicity” in general does not require a DID diagnosis. We have heard stories of many different psychologists or therapists who affirm a system’s multiplicity while admitting the system isn’t, and doesn’t have to be, diagnosed with a disorder. We have experienced this twice ourselves, including a psychiatrist who outright said that “DID usually requires trauma, but…” It is definitely possible that multiplicity could be just another way a brain forms, like other neurodivergencies. Science doesn’t know yet.

“Endogenic systems don’t know what trauma is like!”

Many endogenic systems have experienced trauma in their lives. It just isn’t what caused their multiplicity.

“Well if they experienced trauma, they must be traumagenic!”

No… Because for most endogenic systems who also have experienced trauma, their multiplicity existed before the trauma. Trauma can’t retroactively cause multiplicity. However, it could be possible to have system members caused by trauma, even in endogenic systems.

“You can’t have DID if you’re endogenic!”

Many (if not most) endogenic systems absolutely do NOT seek any sort of clinical diagnosis of DID/OSDD. Most endogenic systems do not claim to have DID/OSDD. That is why the terms endogenic/traumagenic came to exist in the first place. As a way to say “I am a system that was not formed from trauma”. That being said… again, DID/OSDD does not list trauma as a criteria for diagnosis. Is it possible that an endogenic system could be diagnosed with DID/OSDD? Yes, absolutely. We have heard of at least one case where this happened. We ourselves almost got diagnosed with DID, because even though we did not form from trauma, we have experienced trauma that has impaired our function to the point where we sought mental health help. This is especially likely if the therapist must enter a diagnostic code, and DID/OSDD is the closest “fit”. But by and large, endogenic systems do not claim to have DID/OSS, and don’t even seek a diagnosis out.

“Endogenics are just traumagenic and don’t remember!”

Telling any system that their memories are wrong, and that they aren’t what they think they are, is despicable. Stop doing that. Even if a system is traumagenic and doesn’t remember, taunting anyone with possible trauma is horrible, and forcing them to try to remember (especially by causing an existential crisis with “everything you think you know is wrong”) is not at all helpful.

“Endogenics harm traumagenic systems!”

How? How does it hurt a traumagenic system for us, as an example, to sit here and just say we exist? Endogenic systems do not usually put themselves in traumagenic-only spaces. Most do not use traumagenic-only terms. Most do not seek confrontation with traumagenic systems, and only want to exist in peace and have their existence acknowledged as valid/real. Some endogenic systems do seek out the help of a therapist, but so do a lot of singlets, and an endogenic system in Ohio seeing a therapist isn’t going to harm the chances of a traumagenic system in Canda from seeing a therapist. Some claim endogenic systems “make” therapists not believe traumagenic systems, but no good therapist would do that. If a therapist doesn’t believe you, that is the fault of the therapist. Similarly, singlets in general are to blame for singlets not believing traumagenic systems; many singlets don’t believe in multiplicity at all, and are shitty about any sort of it. Again, if a singlet refuses to believe you, or is shitty about DID/OSDD, then they are at fault. They could chose to be more educated and understanding. They choose not to be. Blaming people within a community for the hatred and ignorance of those outside the community is just victim-blaming flavored nonsense.

“Endogenics don’t exist!”

We think it’s reasonable to wonder why endogenic systems exist. And we can definitely understand having skepticism of systems that claim spiritual origins, if you’re already skeptical of spirituality. But there is little excuse for ever claiming that a system is “fake”, and there is never a reason to be rude and hateful to a system just for their stated origins. Regardless of how any system came to be, if they are here and talking and interacting and know they’re a system, then they exist; maybe they are mistaken about their origins, but that is for them to discover on their own. Endogenic systems exist simply by going “we’re an endogenic system”. The only reason to claim endogenic systems can’t exist, is if you’re claiming multiplicity can only be caused by trauma, which is completely untrue. 

Multiplicity has accepted people of various origins for over 15 years now, across many different communities. We have helped each other, defended each other, and befriended each other. There have always been problems, of course, but for the most part, all different types of systems have welcomed one another into the community with love and acceptance. There is no reason that cannot happen here on tumblr, and other communities where conflict has been created. We can create a whole, healthy community with all types of systems. 

I don’t know where you heard this, but this is blatantly untrue.

The term “median” apparently came around in 2002. It literally means “between singlet and multiple” and nothing more. It was explicitly created to be a term accessible to both those who dissociate and those who don’t. In fact, it seems to have been created as a contrast to “midcontinuum,” which was the casual term that was at the time of its creation solely meant for (but not necessarily solely used by) dissociative systems. See this page on it. See also the Amorpha System’s post on the matter.

All of these claims support what I remember noticing over the years. When I first learned about my DID, I was far more open to the idea of natural multiplicity and so took a vague interest in seeing how natural multiples conceptualized their experiences. That’s how I was introduced to the term, and for a long time I saw it being used almost exclusively in spaces for natural multiples (including by soulbonders). When DID or DDNOS systems used it, it usually indicated that they were on good terms with natural multiples, considered themself an ally, spent a lot of time in shared spaces, or so on. It was absolutely not seen as an OSDD / DDNOS term. 

It’s only very recently that OSDD and some DID systems have begun claiming that it’s their term and / or that natural / endogenic multiples have no right to it. This claim has absolutely no basis in fact. As far as I’m aware, “median” didn’t even begin to grow popular as a term in dissociative circles until some individuals with BPD started using it (completely misunderstanding multiplicity in the process. Individuals with BPD, unless they also have DID / OSDD, are not multiple at all).

It’s similar to what happened with the word “fictive.” That was also not a term used by DID/OSDD systems until a few years ago. Introject is the clinical term and the term that trauma survivor communities used (and that most still use!). Yet, seemingly out of nowhere, it started being rapidly absorbed by DID/OSDD communities here, and now there are even people who attack natural / endogenic systems for using fictive, which, again, was their term to begin with. 

Please, for god’s sake, at least do a cursory google search before spreading this kind of misinformation. It does no one any favors when DID/OSDD systems take natural multiplicity terms. It falsely conflates the communities. It gives the wrong impression about how DID/OSDD work to individuals who are already familiar with the terms. It becomes almost laughably ahistorical when new community members inevitably become convinced that the terms were theirs to begin with. 

Since it’s interesting to see, we thought we’d post screenshots from an old multiplicity community. These are some of the oldest entries– and it makes it pretty clear that:

The idea of non-traumagenic systems

The idea of system members being born into the body

The idea of soulbonding being a type of plurality

Are at least 10 years old. And that people– traumagenic and otherwise– were applying the label “system” to them.

These ideas are not new. They weren’t “created by tumblr”. This wasn’t– and still isn’t– an honest, community-wide debate. All types of systems have been coexisting for ages. This whole drama over “fake systems” and stuff? It’s meaningless, and it holds no water. 

“Systems” have always been varied, in origins and in how they function.