#mild rant

I don't want people to be plural or have alters or whatever. I support willogenic origins. I do. However everything apart from that is ' disordered ' plurality. Okay it's not a bad childhood that made you have a headmate but it could be your mood disorder or even plain old stress. I have stressed formed / split a headmate before. I consider myself to be traumaendo and trying to be willo. I am at a very stressful time of my life so currently I don't want a new headmate because I have like 7 or more. From a group that was just 3 ( not counting non front / dormancy ) .

Would I take the cure for plurality ? No. I like being plural and I'm sure some people agree. I don't think people should be plural, including willogenic origins. It's just mildly pathetic and also really sad. Do you have no friends ? No family ? Not even a therapist ? Do you have no one to talk to and be on a personal level so deep you know each others feelings and actions ?

I don't have empathy nor that much of sympathy. So I do apologise if this is controversial. I'm just curious. Because I don't see the point in plurality but I won't opposition anyone who is or wants to be plural. As mentioned above that would be exclusionary to myself.

This is why! I'm responding to a long dead discourse argument, but if you don't explicitly put your support for endogenic/tulpamancy systems out there, anti-endos will come and invade your communities. This is why I consider "alterhumanity should not include plurality" to be a fundamentally anti-endo argument.

Even outside of that, multiple/plural systems and otherkin have shared enough spaces to where it would be cruel not to include us. It's the same argument people like to use for trans people - "oh the LGB(T) community is for sexualities, trans people shouldn't be included" and while that may be true on a very literal sorting level, the communities have enough overlap to where if you said you denied one but not the other it wouldn't make sense.

Also plurality isn't a neurodivergence. Specific forms of plurality are, like DID/OSDD are neurodivergences, but plurality in particular is not a neurodivergence, because not everyone believes it is one. Saying that we shouldn't be included because it's a neurodivergence is like saying autism explains therianthropy, so they shouldn't be included in the alterhuman umbrella. Yeah, certain forms of therianthropy are autistic, but not everyone who is a therian will identify it as autism, a neurodivergence, or even as an aspiritual thing.

The only argument I've heard that has merit is the idea that it's lumping trauma survivors into a label that implies that they're less than human, but alterhumanity doesn't mean that - it just refers to ideas and communities that are contrary to the social definition of what it means to be human. Plenty of humans are in the community, and alterhumanity doesn't negate current humanity. Furries are also lumped into alterhumanity by virtue of people who wear an animal suit, and choose to portray themselves as nonhuman despite being human. Tulpamancers are also alterhuman, despite being humans (and tulpas not having a set form most of the time). Human identities are allowed in the community, and the idea that only nonhumans are allowed in the community is one the community has been trying to fight against.

I know obesity is viewed neutrally/positively on here but i don’t think that rhetoric really exists for T2D, at least I’ve never seen it. And yet I’ve seen resistance to restriction applied to advice on diabetes, fear of continuous glucose monitors, the complete dismissal of pre-diabetes/insulin resistance (unless used as an excuse for weight gain), etc.