For Endogenic System Awareness Day (Which is April 15th)
What are Endogenic Systems?
(This is to clear up the misinformation about endogenic systems)
Endogenic systems are systems who become plural though natural neurodevelopment, not because of any traumatic events, intentional acts (tulpamancy), or spiritual experiences or beliefs. Note that this does not necessarily mean an endogenic system never gone through trauma, never attempted tulamancy, or does not have spiritual beliefs, but only that these things are not the cause of becoming a system.
(In the case of tulpamancy, it means they were already plural before adding tuplas to the system, though some may consider the act to re-classify them as a “mixed” system).
Various hypotheses and explanations have been put out by endogenic and non-endogenic systems alike, including theories of dissociation and human neurology, but as of now we don’t have any concrete answers as to how it happens, only that it must be possible because my systems already live this way. I have heard there’s a study happening with tulpamancy, which if true, also may led to studies of other system types.
What’s the difference between endogenic systems and non-endogenic systems?
Endogenic systems, by definition, did not become systems because of trauma, intentional acts, or spiritual experiences, so they do not meet the definition of traumagenic, tupla, spiritual systems. However it is possible for a “mixed” system to have both endogenic and traumagenic members, both endogenic and spiritual, etc.
Do Endogenic systems choose to be systems?
Most Endogenic systems have existed as systems for as long as they can remember in early childhood, before their brain could let them make such decisions. Choosing to create a headmate through psychological (or less commonly spiritual) means is tulpamancy, thoughtform, a paragenic system, which are a whole different part of the plural community.
Are Endogenic systems dangerous or a*usive?
Not as a category. Of course there are some endogenic systems who a*use other, just as there are non-endogenic systems and singlets who a*use others. But there is no reason to think that just because someone is in an endogenic system that they will automatically be any more dangerous than an non-endogenic system or a singlet.
Why do you say “endogenic systems” every time? Why not just “endos”?
“Endo” is already short for endometriosis and endocrinologist, which can cause confusion. In addition, abbreviating “endogenic” to “endo” was polarized by anti-endogenic elocutionists attempting to turn endogenic into a slur, not by endogenic systems themselves.
Why do endogenic systems use DID/OSDD terminology? Why not make their own terms?
Most modern system terminology (such as plural, multiple, system, traumagenic/endogenic, fictive/factive, and so on) was coined by endogenic or spiritual systems, and then graciously shared with the DID/OSDD community. If a traumagenic system claims to own the word traumagenic, they are in fact the ones committing an act of appropriation. If an endogenic system does feel compelled to or comfortable using DID/OSDD terms (such as introject or alter) it is because systems of various origins have more commonalities than differences, and this we, think, should be celebrated.
“Remember all systems are valid and deserving of love and understanding, and acceptance.”
