#cdd information

Please, please don't claim to be diagnosed with OSDD 1a, 1b, 1, 2, 3, or 4. Those are not diagnoses. You are diagnosed with OSDD. 1a and 1b aren't even in the DSM-V. 1-4 are examples of how OSDD can present, they are not the types of OSDD. OSDD is an other specified disorder which means "subcategory in systems of disease/disorder classification. It is used to note the presence of a condition where the symptoms presented indicate a general diagnosis within a family of disorders (e.g. depressive disorders, anxiety disorders), but don’t meet criteria established for specific diagnoses within that family." (from MHA)

In the DSM-V it even specifically says 1-4 are examples. "Examples of presentations that can be specified using the “other specified” designation include the following:" (from DSM-V)

In the DSM-V it clarifies how OSDD diagnoses would be presented and it isn't in a 1-4 format.

"The other specified dissociative disorder category is used in situations in which the clinician chooses to communicate the specific reason that the presentation does not meet the criteria for any specific dissociative disorder. This is done by recording “other specified dissociative disorder” followed by the specific reason (e.g., “dissociative trance”)."

OSDD 1a and 1b are outdated community terms from a disorder that is no longer a clinical diagnosis, DDNOS. OSDD 1-4 are community terms, not diagnostic terms, similar to polyfragmentation. OSDD can present in basically any way as long as you have "symptoms characteristic of a dissociative disorder that cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning predominate but do not meet the full criteria for any of the disorders in the dissociative disorders diagnostic class." Or, in other words, you have symptoms of a dissociative disorder that impair daily life and cause significant distress but do not fully match up with any one dissociative disorder.

This is not to say you cannot use these terms to explain your exact experiences, but please stop claiming to be diagnosed with things that are not diagnoses!!

There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with either of the terms, but there is inherent misinformation that comes with them.

OSDD 1a and 1b are not diagnostic terms, they are not medically recognized terms, and they are made up from a diagnosis that is no longer given and hasn’t been given in a decade and a half.

1a and 1b modifiers come from the former diagnosis DDNOS. Which does not and has never existed in the DSM-V because it’s outdated and more research was done on dissociative disorders to show that strict boxes like 1a, 1b, 2, 3, etc. are not accurate or helpful.

That’s why we have OSDD as it’s described now with no subtypes like this. Instead, the DSM-V details examples of how OSDD can present because it’s a catchall diagnosis.

Using modifiers like 1a and 1b spreads the misinformed notion that OSDD has subtypes. It also spreads the misinformation that dissociative disorders have to present in a very specific way to be considered disorders which is incredibly harmful.

There’s also the fact that these are community terms, professionals most likely will not know what you are referring to when you use these because they are so outdated and misinformed.

TL;DR, using terms like OSDD 1a and 1b spreads misinformation, causes confusion, supports outdated concepts, and just overall adds to the stigma of presenting in a way outside of the rigid boxes the CDD community has developed and imposed on itself.

I do already have a post on this that’s probably better worded, it has links to resources that are easy to understand in the comments, and quotes from sources are included in the post:

If. You. Don't. Know. About. Something. Don't. Try. To. Debate. About. It.

And especially don't try to debate about it to the people it affects and to the people that have educated themselves on the topic.

Second time this has happened now.

There is no scientific basis for the formation of multiple individual identities states without childhood trauma. I would like to introduce you to the theory of structural dissociation and the concepts of secondary and tertiary dissociation. If you want an in-depth explanation of them, there are several papers, sites, videos, and even posts on here explaining them. The concepts originate from the book "The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization."

For the most basic explanation, every child is born with separated states of identity or ego states, think simple things like basic emotions and needs. Without trauma, around the ages of 6-11 (depending on the study) the ego states integrate into a singular personality. With trauma, three different things are possible.

One, primary structural dissociation—found most often in PTSD and non-complex/simple dissociative disorders—is the presence of one emotional part (EP) and one apparently normal part (ANP) within an individual. This essentially means there are two different states of the individual's personality, one for dealing with daily life and one for holding traumatic memories, dissociative symptoms, and trauma responses.

Two, secondary structural dissociation—found most often in C-PTSD, OSDD, and BPD—is the presence of one ANP and multiple EP within an individual. Secondary forms instead of primary when the trauma begins younger, lasts longer, is perpetrated by a family member or guardian, or involves more extreme disorganized attachment. However, unlike how primary structural dissociation involves one EP that handles fight, flight, freeze, and submission as necessary, these multiple EP each handle unique and often conflicting aspects of the trauma.  Three, tertiary structural dissociation—only known to be found in DID and extreme presentations of OSDD—is the presence of multiple ANPs and multiple EPs within an individual. The main difference between secondary and tertiary is that tertiary is primarily found in individuals that are more naturally dissociative. These ANPs will have more specialized jobs or roles instead of a general "deals with everyday life."

Got it? Great, now, with that foundation, how exactly would plurality form without trauma if it is inherently traumagenic?

Now! Onto what your ask actually is talking about.

"Accidentally mimicking traits" is not what these people are doing. Side note, what does mimicking traits of disabilities even mean? What you are describing is a perfectly normal and average human experience and behavior. That does not need a label or diagnosis or any sort of pathologization.

What the mental breakdown—crazy thing to just dump in an ask btw—was actually caused by is identity confusion which, if causing that much distressed, is clinically significant and should be addressed with a professional. Mimicry and identity confusion are common and recognized symptoms of several actual disorders.

Once again, that is not what these people are claiming. They are claiming that they can have symptoms that are only caused by trauma, without the trauma or distress. Endos are claiming to have completely separate and fully realized parts that aren't caused by the thing that causes completely separate and fully realized parts. Which—guess what?—is ableism!

In conclusion, don't comment on things you know nothing about. Don't make me explain this shit again. Everyone is multifaceted. Not everyone has parts, those are caused exclusively by trauma. Mimicry and identity confusion, if causing distress that is clinically significant, are not normal. Endos claim to have a symptom of trauma disorders without the trauma or disorder. Endos are ableist.

I really tried to make this as simple as possible. If people can't understand this, I think I need to limit my vocabulary. And I swear if someone comments or reposts this saying "this isn't what I meant!" then I'm dropping the niceties and politeness that I have been trying so hard to preserve.

This has been horrid and I have been Misfit. Come back tomorrow for more dumb shit (pro)endos say. Lwk might make that a side blog

C-DID, HC-DID, and EC-DID are not medical terms. Why? Because DID is already a complex dissociative disorder and encompasses the highest forms of dissociation we are aware of.

You can’t have a complex-complex dissociative disorder.

You can’t have a highly complex-complex dissociative disorder.

You can’t have an extremely complex-complex dissociative disorder.

Please stop making modifiers for CDDs. I beg of you. If you need a modifier to better explain your experience and your system structure, polyfragmented is beginning to be recognized in a clinical setting. If you need a modifier to explain that you have a programmed structure, polyfragmented IS that term.

Polyfragmented explains systems with extremely complex structures, including those that originate from OA and RA.

But, using these modifiers on the internet is incredibly dangerous, even if you only say polyfragmented. It’s essentially putting out a big sign that says “I’m extremely traumatized and have a lot of amnesia.” Do you really feel safe telling complete strangers that?

I’m not here to tell people how to label their experiences, but please think about what you’re saying and what it means for more than five seconds before you put it out there for everyone to see. Especially if it’s not a medically recognized term. Not only does it spread misinformation, but it can be detrimental to your safety.