#syscouse

I've already debunked all of these, but sure, I can do it again, let's see if @debunkingsystemscringe will actually respond this time

So, the carrd

The card is extremely bad, it's misquoting an incredibly important paper by Ross. His was the first to acknowledge that not just abuse caused DID, but trauma. I hate seeing this one used by endos because it was a MASSIVE step for DID systems, and it's being misused and misquoted here.

"These individuals often did not report abuse history and often reported experiencing little psychopathology."

This was one of the first papers to look at functional multiplicity as a treatment path and "smaller" trauma as a cause. It's not meant for endogenics.

"About 2% of people may be natural multiples who do not have dysfunctional posttraumatic MPD. They may simply have a highly dissociative psychic organization’ (Ross, 1991, p. 510)."

This was a theory that was debunked with the idea of trauma as a cause, and "highly dissociative psychic organization" doesn't mean "alters". I don't even think that's the correct quote, which is hilarious.

What's funny here, is that they're not actually quoting Ross, because his paper doesn't say that shit. They're quoting a college dissertation by McClure, quoting Ross, because you have to double twist it in order to make it work.

McClure's paper also doesn't imply anything about endogenic systems. Here's my debunk on her and Ross.

Next: Transgender Mental Health

I've talked about this one before, and how it's being touted as more important than it is. It's actually a really good book! I support this book and the stuff in it. But a lot of people are blowing it way out of proportion.

First, it has one chapter on "plurals" and how to treat them for gender related issues. Cool. That's true, it happened. I support the book.

However, it's not supported or endorsed by the APA, it wasn't published by them -- it's an independent book and everything in it is the opinion of the author. Same with the next paper by Isler. Like, it's useless, it means nothing. It doesn't talk about how or why, it says, "these people say they exist and it's going to make treatment harder because of the intricacies." That's it. Still a good book, check it out.

Next: Tulpas and Mental Health (it’s a PDF, be careful opening on phones)

I’m trying to find my full debunk on this. Jacob Isler is a practicing tulpamancer and has done some REALLY shady stuff-- Reddit has basically turned on him and disowned him and all of his work. As soon as I find the sources, I’ll add. Just give me a bit.

Alright, we’re going to have to redo it, here we do.

Jacob Isler has a severe nonresponse bias. Survey sent to 365 people and only 68 got back? That’s too small. Negligible read. The entire paper is about how tulpamancers are mentally ill in other ways, and that creating a tulpa has a positive impact on their mental health. Fine and dandy. It discusses how those mental health issues might play a huge role in the tulpamancy phenomon, but purposefully tries to twist the connection between the two to be unrelated on a pathological level. It also states: “Additionally, self-reported data gathered through online surveys, regardless of the care taken to ensure objectivity and accuracy, is bound to be influenced by biases and misconceptions. And, of course, the observational nature of this study means that causality cannot be proven. The intent of this paper is not to provide definitive assertions on the psychology of tulpamancy. Rather, the purpose is to accentuate outstanding associations and suggest further research into them.“

It’s basically admitting it’s own failure as an unreliable paper and simply calls for more research.

As for reddit disowning Isler: Isler is Fordaplot. Here’s the ban note from the mods

Next: Multiplicity: An Explorative Interview

We all know how much I love this useless article. Here’s my debunk. It’s based on 6 people only, admits it’s limited by not being able to verify their claims of functionality to make the point of the article, and then goes on to claim that online spaces for multiples are harmful, doesn’t discuss how and why, and only discusses the fact that they claim to exist and calls for more research, so. Kind of useless.

As for the cultural exclusion in the DSM and ICD, it’s specifically in regards to religious practices in cultures that someone has been raised in. As per the DSM, the difference between DID and these forms of “non-pathological possession trances” is that the non-pathological possession is short-term and occurs in specific cultural and religious ceremonies-- which is the opposite of what endogenics are experiencing (long-term, occurring continuously and not only in ceremonies (which they are not participating in to begin with)). It’s not excluding these experiences because they’re “endogenic”, it’s excluding them because it’s not plurality as we (endos and DID systems) describe it. Claiming that exception is for endogenics is hugely disrespectful to the clinicians and researchers who put an absurd amount of work into keeping religious experiences out of the DSM.

Also, I love blogs with pinned posts like this that can't handle people responding to them

Good job, you're a hypocrite 🌟🌸🤗

What’s up with this TPA article?

And in spite of that, the neurogenic and kingenic parts of our formation are just as important, they are additions to our own lived experience, and this will forever be the case.

This is why antis piss us off so much, it's all about the lived experience, and denying someone's experience without knowing the full story is simply a cruel thing to do, and we're disappointed and upset that people even try.