#icd-11

DSM5-TR

ICD-11

( bonus )

The ICD-11 classification system for Personality Disorders is better than the DSM-5-TR one.

The system with Clusters and multiple Personality Disorders put people too much into strict boxes, while the one with 1 Personality Disorder diagnosis then a specified severity + Trait Specifiers is more accurate.

I think I've read there is something similar in the DSM-5-TR but is seems nobody use it.

is there a type of system where there is distinct alters, the host is always fronting, an no amnesia between alters?

I can't think of a community term off the top of my head, so I'm not sure what a non-disordered system would call themselves. On the pathological end though, it sounds like you're describing partial dissociative identity disorder.

Here, we see how Sophie uses a minor aspect of the criteria for excluding Dissociative Identity Disorder as a diagnosis to try and prove that 'natural' systems exist beyond the bounds of spiritual practices:

as experienced by ‘mediums’ or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners

Tulpamancy and mediumship are spiritual practices. This means that there is intentional effort to create a 'system'. This is not proof of 'natural' plurality. You are not a system just from these practices. You are a spiritual practitioner, because being a system is so much more than just headmates.

You are intentionally stretching the exclusion of spiritual practices in the DID criteria to include whatever you want.

The ICD-11 specifies culturally-accepted spiritual practices; the definition does not have hard limits because researchers acknowledge that they are not infallible. This applies to any type of scientific research. Using a very small loophole in an official source to try and insist that something is real on a technicality is a massive reach.

So, yes, the quoted section from the ICD-11 does exist. Sophie is twisting the definition to include all non-disordered systems when that is Clearly not the intention of the original criteria. Saying you're technically correct from a loophole when what you're claiming is obviously not what the authors were intending is a weak argument.

I believe that being scientifically accurate is more important than being right, and so I will acknowledge my own fallibility. You can say you were right, and I suppose you are. I'm saying that you still don't have enough evidence to challenge the amount of scientific, legitimate evidence against your claim.

From the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (2006):

From the DSM-IV-TR (2000) and the ICD-10 (2019):

Guntrip's core traits (1969):

In the SWAP-200 personality assessment:

From the DSM-5-TR (2022):

The ICD-11 (2022) doesn't have a specific schizoid diagnosis, but it's detachment trait domain in its personality disorder traits section is similar to SzPD:

The ICD-11 said that non-CDD plurality is not the same as having a CDD system. It did not say that those experiences were not the same as being a singlet. It just said it is not the same as having a CDD system, which is in fact what a lot of us have been saying for the entire time.

When people say "non-CDD plurals are not systems", they do in fact mean "non-CDD plurals are not CDD systems and don't have comparable experiences". Which is quite literally supported by what the ICD-11 said.

I do in fact believe in the experiences of non-disordered plurals. They just quite simply are not CDD systems. I respect people's experiences and your identities as plural and that does not change if plurality is actually something different from being a singlet or if it is a framework for understanding the complexities of the human mind. But that is the thing. We genuinely do not know if it is different from being a singlet. All we do know is it is different from being a CDD system.

I understand it is underresearched and that is no one's fault. However, spreading disinformation about your cause only makes people less likely to believe you and your experiences. You would be far better putting your energy into something else.