#origin discourse

This isn't meant to be a callout post or a "gotcha" or anything hostile at all; it's really meant to be me pointing out a logical inconsistency I don't really get within the anti-endo perspective of things, because as someone who was once anti-endo and is now pro-endo (in the definition of "Endos are fine and I support them existing without harassment")

But I don't understand how you can both be anti-endo and support the practice and idea of Functional Multiplicity?

The idea of anti-endos is that one can't choose to be Plural, that someone can't become Plural, and that to be Plural you have to have dissociation and thus also have trauma.

But with that line of thought, what happens when a system with DID recovers to the point of having no dissociation?

If dissociation is required for plurality, under that logic, then can anyone who reaches functional multiplicity with a CDD truly call themselves healed? If so, are we really comfortable saying that functional multiplicity isn't a real or true form of healing?

Or alternatively, if we say that it is still a valid form of recovery / healing because PTSD symptoms are gone and the dissociation is still their albeit non-disruptive, are we going to just ignore the people who have recovered, gained functional multiplicity and claim to not have dissociation?

In that case, are we comfortable saying that people who have spent years in therapy working with their CDD don't know what dissociation is and what they feel and are incorrect in understanding their experiences?

If dissociation is required for plurality, under that logic, would recovery and the remission of dissociation require fusion into one whole? Because if plurality and dissociation are inherently tied and required, then should it not be possible to have plural experiences without dissociation? Thus if dissociation goes, then shouldn't everyone automatically fuse and cease to experience plurality?

I'm not asking this to play "gotcha" games with anti-endos, I'm asking it genuinely because honestly, these were things I really had to question as I recovered, hit functional multiplicity, final fusion, and then decided to choose to operate as plural whenever I felt like it and as a single fused whole at other times.

These questions are unironically a large reason I became heavily pro-endo (again in the "let them be, theyre not harming anyone and I think they should be allowed to be themselves" way, I still dont know much about endos as a community or subculture or whatever you want to label it). I've had these questions and thoughts for at least two or three years now, but I've never mentioned them on the account I didn't feel like I knew how to word it in a way that wasn't inflammatory in nature until now.

I could not rationalize how the trajectory of my recovery, my eventual reaching of functional multiplicity, my achieving of final fusion, and then my decision to still be plural could live side by side with my anti-endo then syscourse-neutral stance. I could not rationalize or find a genuinely good way to make both my experiences and my own actions to stay consistent with any real gripes or doubts I had about endogenic systems and created systemhood.

I guess one could say that people who had a CDD and recovered can do that because "system" is a CDD term and they have a right to that term, which to that I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't think system is a word people with CDDs own, even more so for the word "plural" and that disagreement hinges on that. If that's your stance, then feel free to just ignore this post because I'm not really interested in discussing semantics and word ownership right now, this post is just about opening discussion for people that do make the claim that dissociation is inherent to plurality and how their stance with that aligns with their views of Functional Multiplicity.

Also this is a judgement free and respectful space for BOTH opinion sides. If you are going to be mean or nasty to people in this conversation, also please leave this post alone.