#plurmisia

Any of your friends or family members could be part of a system. Any of your classmates or coworkers could, too. Even your partner could be a system.

Plural systems usually do not announce our plurality. Because of the massive stigma around plurality, we try to pass as singlets. My system does this every day. My headmates have friends they've known for a decade who don't know we're plural.

It's said that dissociative disorders are very rare, but they're not. Trauma can and does happen to anyone. And many systems don't have dissociative disorders at all.

We're extremely sick of otherwise decent people who contribute actively to a culture of sysmedicalism through their silence, aka beinf so-called "endo-neutral" — you're a fucking sysmedicalist if you aren't actively helping us against our oppression as systems, and actively accepting of all system origins ever. That includes endogenics. You cannot be neutral on weather or not a marginalized group even exists or not.

Again, for an extremely apt comparison here — would you say "transgender men don't exist" and make yourself sound like a radfem? Would you ever say "I'm anti-men because men are inherently badmeanies and don't belong in our spaces and we need 100% gender segregated spaces" lol? If you're the kind of person who acknowledges transandromisia exists then you can make the next step to admitting endomisia exists, because it is INCREDIBLY similar to transandromisia.

We're afraid of being buried in our grave as as singlet but we're also afraid of being buried in our grave as a traumagenic or mixed origin system.

Addition/Edit: Not to even mention while we consider endogenic and protogenic to be one and the same, somesys COULD use mixed origins to mean endogenic-protogenic. Like. As another example. We would just say endogenic because we're us, but somesys could use mixed origin to mean multiple endogenic origins that happened at the same time, such as joiegenic and spingenic. Y'all seem to treat mixed origin systems as if traumaendo is the ONLY option mixed origin systems have. Traumaendo systems = they exist and are systems; Traunaendo systems being the only mixed origin systems out there = NOT fucking it in the slightest, bad take, do not pass go do not collect 500.

We're afraid of being institutionalized because we report personal problems to a shrink but they decided endogenic systems can't possibly be real and we're secretly just delusional (1. we have known we are an endogenic system since literally elementary school; 2. we should not have to have known since elementary school to be treated as a legitimate endogenic system). On the other side, just flat out being denied care if we refuse a CDD diagnosis because yes, psychiatrists ARE also cops and the oppressors of neurodivergent folks.

Related to the above, we're afraid of the active erasure of endogenic systems from even the so-called "pro-endogenic" the community because of their equating endogenic to non-CDD systems (thus only allowing those who are mixed origin at best to be disordered systems) and to willogenic/tulpa/created systems. We're afraid of the laws that would only protect us if we WERE a disordered system, and state nothing about neurotype beyond the DSM. Among other such things.

We're afraid nobody will ever see an endogenic system in history generations down, and endogenic systems will have to dig up their whole history AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN because of the active ongoing and systemic lack of acknowledgement that endogebic systems, SPECIFICALLY ENDOGENIC SYSTEMS, have.

That's not even the end of it. There's SO MUCH MORE than that, that's similar to the transandromisia discourse, we probably aren't even touching the surface and we aren't even being elegant about it tbh.

Jeezus.

If you can state transandromisia/transandrophobia exists, you can state endognimisia and discrimination against endogenics exists. If you can stand up for transgender men and transmasculine people, you can stand up for endogenic systems and be a pro-endogenic.

SERIOUSLY, we are fucking giving you permission as an endogenic system to fucking do this if you are a singlet. You are not an ableist for acknowledging not all systems are traumagenic.

I hear this take a lot, that everyone has things they need to work through in therapy. It's a bad take that ignores that therapists bring their own personal biases and opinions to the table.

I'm a fictive in a system. Theoretically, it would help me to work through my trauma. But every therapist we've seen has been biased against plural systems. We recently had to fire a therapist for saying that we're not plural, we just have an "active imagination."

For some people, going to therapy means being disbelieved, or not taken seriously, or even harmed.

We've gotten into the habit of reading the clinical notes every time we have an appointment because we don't like the idea of people talking behind our backs. This morning we found out that our therapist told our psychiatrist that we're not having dissociation but just have a "big imagination."

This stings so much.

I know we don't fit the classic DID stereotype of having a host who's unaware of their alters and has complete amnesia. We still have severe memory loss though!

Our system developed due to emotional abuse and verbal abuse instead of the kind of severe physical or sexual child abuse that most people associate with DID. It feels like our therapist is saying that this kind of trauma doesn't even count as being trauma. Besides that, it's possible to have a system that doesn't stem from trauma at all!

We've been plural since we were 12 and our therapist thinks we've just had imaginary friends this entire time????

Another example we can think of is like....that time we were at university and that women's university group was able to acknowledge "my body my choice" but was unwilling to examine the undercurrent of eugenics that often belies pro-choice movements. Analyzing the problems in your own movement does not, in fact, make you anti-choice. We think thet were called the AWU, if anyone wants to join us in some good old name-and-shaming?

Anyways. AGAIN. Our point is: analyzing problems in your own movements/causes does not make you anti- those movements or causes. It makes you a better person for taking those things into consideration.

there's not really a joke to explain. op made a humorous observation. comic books don't necessarily draw from real life. having an evil alter-ego might be reminiscent of DID experiences, and that's valid to feel. but to say that every single fan of hulk is repressing/unaware of their own DID makes no sense. because that's just not true- more people like hulk than have DID, because as relatable as he may seem to systems, he's also relatable to other people as well.

the op was saying that white guys who act like heisenberg is a separate person from walter white- a protectir, someone who takes over for him- are basing that reading of heisenberg on their experiences with other media- namely, comic books. this was written in the post. op said 'white guys who read comic books are applying schema of separate personas to other media, and it's silly- those who watch the show with a lens of analysis can see that heisenberg is a self-made, self-perpetuated alter ego that has no separation in mind or body at all'.

then, you not only claimed that the reference to personas was because of the aforementioned white guys' DID, a diagnosis that's inappropriate to apply to wide swathes of people without more knowledge of them- and of the context. but you ALSO did it in such a way that insinuated the op was being cruel, malicious, or targeting those with DID, diagnosed or not-yet diagnosed.

this was inappropriate because you did not use the context available in the post, and, in addition, did not acknowledge you are missing some outside context (breaking bad, comic book culture) that would have made either research, asking questions, or not commenting better options for you. further, your comment was inappropriate because you passive-aggressively ascribed mal-intent to a stranger online, publicly. again, without having the context needed to see if your comment was legitimate based on the post and not your assumptions.

thanks for the explanation.

i did not say "everybody who reads this media this way has DID". i said that i saw plurality in that take. not all plurality comes from complex dissociative disorders.

the post read to me like "these people are wrong and laughable for seeing plurality in their media" where it isn't made clear to be actual plurality (and where plurality likely wasn't even intended or considered) but like uhmmm. have u seen the amount of plurality representation? there's nothing to see. many people don't even know about plurality at all, other than stereotypes about DID, so many people don't know to ever consider they might be plural.