#origincourse

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.

And today this dichotomy made me laugh as a quoigenic plural.

My origin? Trauma had its impact, but there's also other aspects which you would call endogenic. I don't know, you can say I'm a traumaendo, a mixed origin or something like that, and maybe you'd be right. But everything is so confusing and thinking about it too much makes my head hurt, so I've stopped overthinking and took quoigenic label.

For me, my origin doesn't really matter. All my plural experiences just happen, and I accept them because it's just the way I function.

But when I see stuff like, you know, "endos are inherently ableist/harmful/not real", I can't help but wonder if I'd be put in "endogenic" category if it was personal, face-to-face.

I am a traumatized person. My plurality helps me to cope with traumatic responses and function normally without serious consequences. Am I ableist for that? Or would I get a pass because I'm traumatized? Or would I get asked to stop indulging delusions?

I also barely interact with communities. Am I inherently harmful? But we're just a collective who wants to exist.

I don't know. Sometimes I'd like to know. Sometimes not really.

Do you have to agree with it? No. Heck we don’t even like 90% of origin labels, and the rest 10% are on thin ice. But thats doesn’t mean we can just say incorrect information about them.

For example. The term endogenic.

For a VERY long time we assumed that the definition of endogenic is being “born a system” because back when we were vehemently anti endo, this was the sort of information we were exposed to. No one corrected us until recently. We talked to other syscourse ppl who later corrected us by telling us that the “born a system” definition is for protogenic, and not endogenic.

Endogenic is an umbrella term for formation other than trauma

An umbrella term. It does not necessarily have a specific singular definition. It is not just “system without trauma”, though that is largely a part of it. And it’s not just used for system origin.

Once I realized that, it started to make sense on why some folks identify as traumaendo or mixed origin. It’s not always that they are “just ableist singlets in disguise” or “systems who don’t believe that they are traumatized enough” no. Origin labels are literally just labels. They have no genuine basis in science, they are community labels that people can use in their own way. They literally just give people an alternative way to interpret their experiences

I may call some of my alters ANPs because thats what they are scientifically and its how I interpret , but another person might refer to them as endogenic headmates and identify as traumaendo. Do I agree with their interpretation. No. Do I have to? Also no. I don’t use origin labels that way and that’s fine. Its how I manage. Having a different interpretation and understanding of your system doesn’t automatically make someone non disordered.

Learning this completely changed how I even view the non disordered plural community. It also made me realize how many CDD systems are getting scrutinized over using different community labels and are getting fakeclaimed.

It’s why we no longer actively use origin label language if we need to refer to a specific collective. It’s not accurate, it causes issues with nuance, and ultimately forces out the people who don’t deserve to be forced out.

If we want to talk about CDDs, we will talk about it. If we want to talk about non disordered plurality, we will talk about it. But we will not actively use origin labels if we can help it (though sometimes its impossible especially for dni tags, using popular dni tags work better than using the less popular ones)

I need syscourse ppl, ESPECIALLY ANTI ENDOS, to understand this crucial aspect of origin labels. So much of misunderstandings about non disordered plurality exist because anti endos dont know what they are talking about. The same pressure thats put on pro endos to educate themselves about CDDs is not put on anti endos for non disordered plurality and how it actually even works.

You can bend over backwards writing a meaningful reblog breaking down every point you don't agree with. And the OP can block you and then write a vague post in "all of you ____ are stupid" style. And they will block everyone who disagrees. And they will reblog everyone who agrees with them.

And you have no active way to make a change without being accused in harassment.

Origincourse is stupid because a lot of times it's "I've decided this is the truth, the only right position in this discourse, and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and should educate themselves."

What's the point in posting in #syscourse and blocking everyone who disagrees with you, who brings up arguments but gets your opinion slightly wrong from what you meant to say.

What's the point in trying to reason with this kind of people if you'll get blocked and the effort put in your reblog will vanish.

What's the point when you can simply refuse to see another perspective, when you claim everyone wrong and fake.

Ough. Ouch. Ow-ow-ow talking to syscourse stances? Dang... I don't even look in there too often. I don't spend much time in plural/system spaces in general.

And do you have any idea how much I'm scared of saying something wrong and insensitive out of unawareness?

But I'll try.

Pro endo: In your attempt to advocate for endogenic plurality be careful with comparisons and parallels, sometimes they turn out ableist.

Anti endo: I could say something like "don't be so narrow-minded, dismissive and hateful!!!" but it's stupid, IMO. But the thing is that someone else's experience is not commentary on your own life. Maybe I'd like this side of syscourse to consider why exactly they feel this way, what exactly hurts them.

Endo neutral: Chat, you're cool, you don't deserve the negative treatment from any of the sides.

Syscourse unaligned: Chat, you're also cool, I appreciate you can be honest with yourself and include nuance.

To everyone: Never harass people for different opinions. And no one has to pick a stance. If they don't want to pick a side, you can't force them.