Viv

blocked.

guys you cannot be “transracial”, “transage” or “transautistic” coming from an autistic white trans guy who age regresses to cope with a normal childhood that I never had

racial discrimination exists, but you can’t really have racial dysphoria. you might wish to be white so you won’t have to deal with being harassed over something out of your control but you can’t really change what’s in your blood. And the people who I see being “transracial/rcta” or “transethnic” are Asian fishing, trying to do blackface, and basing their so called identity off of legit stereotypes. Which is really disrespectful and racist.

you cannot change the year you were born in. You cannot identify younger or older. You might be an age regressor or progressor. Which is valid. But you cannot identify as 2 if you’re born in 1983. Or 40 if born in 2010. I am aware of my current age as an age regressor, I am also aware that I cope by trying to replicate how I would act when I was 5-12 years old without the trauma I’ve endured which caused me to have a broken childhood.

don’t even get me started with transautistic. If you really think you’re autistic, please go to a professional. Please don’t say you have a disorder/disability without being professionally diagnosed. I am diagnosed with Asperger’s/ASD. I may function on my own but I can really STRUGGLE and I mean STRUGGLE with overstimulation, social situations, and even learning in school. I hate some textures, food, noises, scents, etc. if I had to deal with it. I’d scream my head off and it be really embarrassing for me afterwards. But then there’s these dumbasses who think “ooo autism silly goofy haha” “stimmyy”. No gng, autism is not silly. It’s a disability I wish I never had. Please stop faking disorders/disabilities. It’s really harmful and disrespectful. I love stimming in private because it genuinely calms me down. But in public I have to refrain so I don’t look stupid. I hate having autism. I’d gladly switch with you if I could.

have a happy pride month don’t be stupid ig

Come on...

I'm waiting...

See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.

These are just names off the top of my head.

So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.

But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?

I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.

The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.

Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.

So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since you’re basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Don’t shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while she’s harassing little kids on social media.)

1. Gone to college

2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)

3. Kids

4. Marriage

5. Have their own living space

6. Talk to people their own age

7. Have a pet

8. Have stable healthy friendships

9. Have hobbies

First, I'm not sure if I'd classify Katherine Reuben, who was still a student, as a "medical professional."

But that's really beside the point.

Because the source is about DID and doesn't address non-DID plurality.

Remember the criteria above: "One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders."

This doesn't do that. It wouldn't do that even if she was a doctor and not just a student.

Here's the link for anyone interested.

There is something I find interesting about this summary of the structural dissociation model though.

It's based on an idea that people are:

Born without a single integrated personality and are instead a bunch of ego states;

These states integrate with time as the system gets older.

While trauma is mentioned as a possible cause for these states not integrating, it's not presented as the only possible cause.

Something I find lacking here is evidence for a mechanism that causes these states to integrate into one personality in the first place.

Is this a natural biological process, or is it a psychological one resulting from societal pressures? Is being a singlet sociogenic? There is no attempt at explaining this mechanism for integration. We're only told that trauma is a thing that can interrupt it.

If it's environmental, could some cultures have, rather than developing a single integrated self, developed different selves that could have been interpreted as different entities like gods, muses, ancestor spirits, etc. which could be supported by, say, Julian James's findings on the Bicameral Mind?

I would argue the structural dissociation model as presented here, without any evidence for what causes the states to integrate into a single self, actually casts more doubt on plurality being inherently traumagenic, presenting a world where no one is born a singlet while not explaining what makes people become singlets.

Putting that aside, there is an even bigger issue with using the theory of structural dissociation as your source...

Even the creators of the structural dissociation model have acknowledged there may be other forms of plurality!

Yeah, let's look at the source for the DID-research page.

You might recognize the highlighted name as one I mentioned in the OP.

This is because he, and Onno van der Hart too, authored a paper half a decade after publishing The Haunted Self that described their definition of dissociation in trauma.

In this paper, they specifically acknowledge that their definition of dissociation only applies to trauma and that it may be possible for people to have multiple "dissociative parts of the personality" without trauma, and for these parts formed for reasons other than trauma to possess their own self-consciousness.

While their stance seems neutral rather than definitively saying these are for certain self-conscious dissociative parts, that neutrality does show that citing the structural dissociation model as proof against non-disordered plurality is misusing their theory.

The Structural Dissociation model was never intended to disprove other forms of plurality. It wasn't intended to prove that all self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality were from trauma. It was only ever meant to explain mechanisms for how trauma could cause dissociative disorders.

Onto Source 2:

Once again, this is not relevant.

The discussion is about plurality. Not dissociative disorders.

Here is how plurality is defined on Pluralpedia:

This is what we're discussing.

If some of the plural-language is tripping you up, we can break it down further to define plurality as "having multiple agents, each with their own autonomy and distinct sense of self, sharing a body."

The topic is about whether this experience is something that can exist without dissociative disorders and trauma. Simply saying that dissociative disorders are caused by trauma does nothing to address it.

Since you cite the ISSTD though, I'd like to bring up this email correspondence between Colin Ross and a former anti-endo.

Dr. Colin Ross is an influential member of the ISSTD, and at one point served as the president of the ISSTD.

2) You can’t say I’m not using reliable sources and then go and use “pluralpedia” as a source. Girl no.

3) I’m using sources that also involve DID and other dissociative disorders because they discuss systems as a whole.

4) still haven’t seen you set up a LinkedIn profile maybe you need to make a paper copy of your job resume. (Seriously you’re thirty years old so I’ve been told and you need to get your life together because being on tumblr all day and harassing kids in their own community is very sad)

5) again Sophie the LinkedIn profile I sent over a link to help you with that.

6) I’m very curious as to how you think alters and systems formed if you’re stating they can form without trauma. You’re basically saying someone can form a system at will just because.

7) I’m trying to find specific sources that focus on Endo systems however it’s hard because all the terms you’re using for something that is roleplaying is used for actual disorders and mental health in general.

8) https://ijpt.scholasticahq.com/article/122962-seven-identities-co-existing-a-noteworthy-manifestation-of-complex-childhood-trauma-a-case-report

9) https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

This includes the very definition of DID which is exactly what endo systems say they are sooooo get a job.

"The Latin phrase ad hominem meaning to the person describes approaches to argumentation, debate, discourse, and politics, that consist of personal attacks against the opposing speaker, rather than presenting arguments or evidence relevant to the topic under discussion."

Come on...

I'm waiting...

See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.

These are just names off the top of my head.

So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.

But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?

I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.

The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.

Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.

So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since you’re basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Don’t shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while she’s harassing little kids on social media.)

1. Gone to college

2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)

3. Kids

4. Marriage

5. Have their own living space

6. Talk to people their own age

7. Have a pet

8. Have stable healthy friendships

9. Have hobbies

First, I'm not sure if I'd classify Katherine Reuben, who was still a student, as a "medical professional."

But that's really beside the point.

Because the source is about DID and doesn't address non-DID plurality.

Remember the criteria above: "One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders."

This doesn't do that. It wouldn't do that even if she was a doctor and not just a student.

Here's the link for anyone interested.

There is something I find interesting about this summary of the structural dissociation model though.

It's based on an idea that people are:

Born without a single integrated personality and are instead a bunch of ego states;

These states integrate with time as the system gets older.

While trauma is mentioned as a possible cause for these states not integrating, it's not presented as the only possible cause.

Something I find lacking here is evidence for a mechanism that causes these states to integrate into one personality in the first place.

Is this a natural biological process, or is it a psychological one resulting from societal pressures? Is being a singlet sociogenic? There is no attempt at explaining this mechanism for integration. We're only told that trauma is a thing that can interrupt it.

If it's environmental, could some cultures have, rather than developing a single integrated self, developed different selves that could have been interpreted as different entities like gods, muses, ancestor spirits, etc. which could be supported by, say, Julian James's findings on the Bicameral Mind?

I would argue the structural dissociation model as presented here, without any evidence for what causes the states to integrate into a single self, actually casts more doubt on plurality being inherently traumagenic, presenting a world where no one is born a singlet while not explaining what makes people become singlets.

Putting that aside, there is an even bigger issue with using the theory of structural dissociation as your source...

Even the creators of the structural dissociation model have acknowledged there may be other forms of plurality!

Yeah, let's look at the source for the DID-research page.

You might recognize the highlighted name as one I mentioned in the OP.

This is because he, and Onno van der Hart too, authored a paper half a decade after publishing The Haunted Self that described their definition of dissociation in trauma.

In this paper, they specifically acknowledge that their definition of dissociation only applies to trauma and that it may be possible for people to have multiple "dissociative parts of the personality" without trauma, and for these parts formed for reasons other than trauma to possess their own self-consciousness.

While their stance seems neutral rather than definitively saying these are for certain self-conscious dissociative parts, that neutrality does show that citing the structural dissociation model as proof against non-disordered plurality is misusing their theory.

The Structural Dissociation model was never intended to disprove other forms of plurality. It wasn't intended to prove that all self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality were from trauma. It was only ever meant to explain mechanisms for how trauma could cause dissociative disorders.

Onto Source 2:

Once again, this is not relevant.

The discussion is about plurality. Not dissociative disorders.

Here is how plurality is defined on Pluralpedia:

This is what we're discussing.

If some of the plural-language is tripping you up, we can break it down further to define plurality as "having multiple agents, each with their own autonomy and distinct sense of self, sharing a body."

The topic is about whether this experience is something that can exist without dissociative disorders and trauma. Simply saying that dissociative disorders are caused by trauma does nothing to address it.

Since you cite the ISSTD though, I'd like to bring up this email correspondence between Colin Ross and a former anti-endo.

Dr. Colin Ross is an influential member of the ISSTD, and at one point served as the president of the ISSTD.

2) You can’t say I’m not using reliable sources and then go and use “pluralpedia” as a source. Girl no.

3) I’m using sources that also involve DID and other dissociative disorders because they discuss systems as a whole.

4) still haven’t seen you set up a LinkedIn profile maybe you need to make a paper copy of your job resume. (Seriously you’re thirty years old so I’ve been told and you need to get your life together because being on tumblr all day and harassing kids in their own community is very sad)

5) again Sophie the LinkedIn profile I sent over a link to help you with that.

6) I’m very curious as to how you think alters and systems formed if you’re stating they can form without trauma. You’re basically saying someone can form a system at will just because.

7) I’m trying to find specific sources that focus on Endo systems however it’s hard because all the terms you’re using for something that is roleplaying is used for actual disorders and mental health in general.

8) https://ijpt.scholasticahq.com/article/122962-seven-identities-co-existing-a-noteworthy-manifestation-of-complex-childhood-trauma-a-case-report

9) https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

This includes the very definition of DID which is exactly what endo systems say they are sooooo get a job.

"The Latin phrase ad hominem meaning to the person describes approaches to argumentation, debate, discourse, and politics, that consist of personal attacks against the opposing speaker, rather than presenting arguments or evidence relevant to the topic under discussion."

Come on...

I'm waiting...

See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.

These are just names off the top of my head.

So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.

But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?

I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.

The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.

Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.

So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since you’re basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Don’t shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while she’s harassing little kids on social media.)

1. Gone to college

2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)

3. Kids

4. Marriage

5. Have their own living space

6. Talk to people their own age

7. Have a pet

8. Have stable healthy friendships

9. Have hobbies

First, I'm not sure if I'd classify Katherine Reuben, who was still a student, as a "medical professional."

But that's really beside the point.

Because the source is about DID and doesn't address non-DID plurality.

Remember the criteria above: "One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders."

This doesn't do that. It wouldn't do that even if she was a doctor and not just a student.

Here's the link for anyone interested.

There is something I find interesting about this summary of the structural dissociation model though.

It's based on an idea that people are:

Born without a single integrated personality and are instead a bunch of ego states;

These states integrate with time as the system gets older.

While trauma is mentioned as a possible cause for these states not integrating, it's not presented as the only possible cause.

Something I find lacking here is evidence for a mechanism that causes these states to integrate into one personality in the first place.

Is this a natural biological process, or is it a psychological one resulting from societal pressures? Is being a singlet sociogenic? There is no attempt at explaining this mechanism for integration. We're only told that trauma is a thing that can interrupt it.

If it's environmental, could some cultures have, rather than developing a single integrated self, developed different selves that could have been interpreted as different entities like gods, muses, ancestor spirits, etc. which could be supported by, say, Julian James's findings on the Bicameral Mind?

I would argue the structural dissociation model as presented here, without any evidence for what causes the states to integrate into a single self, actually casts more doubt on plurality being inherently traumagenic, presenting a world where no one is born a singlet while not explaining what makes people become singlets.

Putting that aside, there is an even bigger issue with using the theory of structural dissociation as your source...

Even the creators of the structural dissociation model have acknowledged there may be other forms of plurality!

Yeah, let's look at the source for the DID-research page.

You might recognize the highlighted name as one I mentioned in the OP.

This is because he, and Onno van der Hart too, authored a paper half a decade after publishing The Haunted Self that described their definition of dissociation in trauma.

In this paper, they specifically acknowledge that their definition of dissociation only applies to trauma and that it may be possible for people to have multiple "dissociative parts of the personality" without trauma, and for these parts formed for reasons other than trauma to possess their own self-consciousness.

While their stance seems neutral rather than definitively saying these are for certain self-conscious dissociative parts, that neutrality does show that citing the structural dissociation model as proof against non-disordered plurality is misusing their theory.

The Structural Dissociation model was never intended to disprove other forms of plurality. It wasn't intended to prove that all self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality were from trauma. It was only ever meant to explain mechanisms for how trauma could cause dissociative disorders.

Onto Source 2:

Once again, this is not relevant.

The discussion is about plurality. Not dissociative disorders.

Here is how plurality is defined on Pluralpedia:

This is what we're discussing.

If some of the plural-language is tripping you up, we can break it down further to define plurality as "having multiple agents, each with their own autonomy and distinct sense of self, sharing a body."

The topic is about whether this experience is something that can exist without dissociative disorders and trauma. Simply saying that dissociative disorders are caused by trauma does nothing to address it.

Since you cite the ISSTD though, I'd like to bring up this email correspondence between Colin Ross and a former anti-endo.

Dr. Colin Ross is an influential member of the ISSTD, and at one point served as the president of the ISSTD.

2) You can’t say I’m not using reliable sources and then go and use “pluralpedia” as a source. Girl no.

3) I’m using sources that also involve DID and other dissociative disorders because they discuss systems as a whole.

4) still haven’t seen you set up a LinkedIn profile maybe you need to make a paper copy of your job resume. (Seriously you’re thirty years old so I’ve been told and you need to get your life together because being on tumblr all day and harassing kids in their own community is very sad)

5) again Sophie the LinkedIn profile I sent over a link to help you with that.

6) I’m very curious as to how you think alters and systems formed if you’re stating they can form without trauma. You’re basically saying someone can form a system at will just because.

7) I’m trying to find specific sources that focus on Endo systems however it’s hard because all the terms you’re using for something that is roleplaying is used for actual disorders and mental health in general.

8) https://ijpt.scholasticahq.com/article/122962-seven-identities-co-existing-a-noteworthy-manifestation-of-complex-childhood-trauma-a-case-report

9) https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

This includes the very definition of DID which is exactly what endo systems say they are sooooo get a job.

"The Latin phrase ad hominem meaning to the person describes approaches to argumentation, debate, discourse, and politics, that consist of personal attacks against the opposing speaker, rather than presenting arguments or evidence relevant to the topic under discussion."

Come on...

I'm waiting...

See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.

These are just names off the top of my head.

So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.

But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?

I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.

The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.

Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.

So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since you’re basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Don’t shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while she’s harassing little kids on social media.)

1. Gone to college

2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)

3. Kids

4. Marriage

5. Have their own living space

6. Talk to people their own age

7. Have a pet

8. Have stable healthy friendships

9. Have hobbies

First, I'm not sure if I'd classify Katherine Reuben, who was still a student, as a "medical professional."

But that's really beside the point.

Because the source is about DID and doesn't address non-DID plurality.

Remember the criteria above: "One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders."

This doesn't do that. It wouldn't do that even if she was a doctor and not just a student.

Here's the link for anyone interested.

There is something I find interesting about this summary of the structural dissociation model though.

It's based on an idea that people are:

Born without a single integrated personality and are instead a bunch of ego states;

These states integrate with time as the system gets older.

While trauma is mentioned as a possible cause for these states not integrating, it's not presented as the only possible cause.

Something I find lacking here is evidence for a mechanism that causes these states to integrate into one personality in the first place.

Is this a natural biological process, or is it a psychological one resulting from societal pressures? Is being a singlet sociogenic? There is no attempt at explaining this mechanism for integration. We're only told that trauma is a thing that can interrupt it.

If it's environmental, could some cultures have, rather than developing a single integrated self, developed different selves that could have been interpreted as different entities like gods, muses, ancestor spirits, etc. which could be supported by, say, Julian James's findings on the Bicameral Mind?

I would argue the structural dissociation model as presented here, without any evidence for what causes the states to integrate into a single self, actually casts more doubt on plurality being inherently traumagenic, presenting a world where no one is born a singlet while not explaining what makes people become singlets.

Putting that aside, there is an even bigger issue with using the theory of structural dissociation as your source...

Even the creators of the structural dissociation model have acknowledged there may be other forms of plurality!

Yeah, let's look at the source for the DID-research page.

You might recognize the highlighted name as one I mentioned in the OP.

This is because he, and Onno van der Hart too, authored a paper half a decade after publishing The Haunted Self that described their definition of dissociation in trauma.

In this paper, they specifically acknowledge that their definition of dissociation only applies to trauma and that it may be possible for people to have multiple "dissociative parts of the personality" without trauma, and for these parts formed for reasons other than trauma to possess their own self-consciousness.

While their stance seems neutral rather than definitively saying these are for certain self-conscious dissociative parts, that neutrality does show that citing the structural dissociation model as proof against non-disordered plurality is misusing their theory.

The Structural Dissociation model was never intended to disprove other forms of plurality. It wasn't intended to prove that all self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality were from trauma. It was only ever meant to explain mechanisms for how trauma could cause dissociative disorders.

Onto Source 2:

Once again, this is not relevant.

The discussion is about plurality. Not dissociative disorders.

Here is how plurality is defined on Pluralpedia:

This is what we're discussing.

If some of the plural-language is tripping you up, we can break it down further to define plurality as "having multiple agents, each with their own autonomy and distinct sense of self, sharing a body."

The topic is about whether this experience is something that can exist without dissociative disorders and trauma. Simply saying that dissociative disorders are caused by trauma does nothing to address it.

Since you cite the ISSTD though, I'd like to bring up this email correspondence between Colin Ross and a former anti-endo.

Dr. Colin Ross is an influential member of the ISSTD, and at one point served as the president of the ISSTD.

2) You can’t say I’m not using reliable sources and then go and use “pluralpedia” as a source. Girl no.

3) I’m using sources that also involve DID and other dissociative disorders because they discuss systems as a whole.

4) still haven’t seen you set up a LinkedIn profile maybe you need to make a paper copy of your job resume. (Seriously you’re thirty years old so I’ve been told and you need to get your life together because being on tumblr all day and harassing kids in their own community is very sad)

5) again Sophie the LinkedIn profile I sent over a link to help you with that.

6) I’m very curious as to how you think alters and systems formed if you’re stating they can form without trauma. You’re basically saying someone can form a system at will just because.

7) I’m trying to find specific sources that focus on Endo systems however it’s hard because all the terms you’re using for something that is roleplaying is used for actual disorders and mental health in general.

8) https://ijpt.scholasticahq.com/article/122962-seven-identities-co-existing-a-noteworthy-manifestation-of-complex-childhood-trauma-a-case-report

9) https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

This includes the very definition of DID which is exactly what endo systems say they are sooooo get a job.

"The Latin phrase ad hominem meaning to the person describes approaches to argumentation, debate, discourse, and politics, that consist of personal attacks against the opposing speaker, rather than presenting arguments or evidence relevant to the topic under discussion."

Come on...

I'm waiting...

See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.

These are just names off the top of my head.

So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.

But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?

I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.

The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.

Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.

So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since you’re basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Don’t shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while she’s harassing little kids on social media.)

1. Gone to college

2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)

3. Kids

4. Marriage

5. Have their own living space

6. Talk to people their own age

7. Have a pet

8. Have stable healthy friendships

9. Have hobbies

First, I'm not sure if I'd classify Katherine Reuben, who was still a student, as a "medical professional."

But that's really beside the point.

Because the source is about DID and doesn't address non-DID plurality.

Remember the criteria above: "One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders."

This doesn't do that. It wouldn't do that even if she was a doctor and not just a student.

Here's the link for anyone interested.

There is something I find interesting about this summary of the structural dissociation model though.

It's based on an idea that people are:

Born without a single integrated personality and are instead a bunch of ego states;

These states integrate with time as the system gets older.

While trauma is mentioned as a possible cause for these states not integrating, it's not presented as the only possible cause.

Something I find lacking here is evidence for a mechanism that causes these states to integrate into one personality in the first place.

Is this a natural biological process, or is it a psychological one resulting from societal pressures? Is being a singlet sociogenic? There is no attempt at explaining this mechanism for integration. We're only told that trauma is a thing that can interrupt it.

If it's environmental, could some cultures have, rather than developing a single integrated self, developed different selves that could have been interpreted as different entities like gods, muses, ancestor spirits, etc. which could be supported by, say, Julian James's findings on the Bicameral Mind?

I would argue the structural dissociation model as presented here, without any evidence for what causes the states to integrate into a single self, actually casts more doubt on plurality being inherently traumagenic, presenting a world where no one is born a singlet while not explaining what makes people become singlets.

Putting that aside, there is an even bigger issue with using the theory of structural dissociation as your source...

Even the creators of the structural dissociation model have acknowledged there may be other forms of plurality!

Yeah, let's look at the source for the DID-research page.

You might recognize the highlighted name as one I mentioned in the OP.

This is because he, and Onno van der Hart too, authored a paper half a decade after publishing The Haunted Self that described their definition of dissociation in trauma.

In this paper, they specifically acknowledge that their definition of dissociation only applies to trauma and that it may be possible for people to have multiple "dissociative parts of the personality" without trauma, and for these parts formed for reasons other than trauma to possess their own self-consciousness.

While their stance seems neutral rather than definitively saying these are for certain self-conscious dissociative parts, that neutrality does show that citing the structural dissociation model as proof against non-disordered plurality is misusing their theory.

The Structural Dissociation model was never intended to disprove other forms of plurality. It wasn't intended to prove that all self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality were from trauma. It was only ever meant to explain mechanisms for how trauma could cause dissociative disorders.

Onto Source 2:

Once again, this is not relevant.

The discussion is about plurality. Not dissociative disorders.

Here is how plurality is defined on Pluralpedia:

This is what we're discussing.

If some of the plural-language is tripping you up, we can break it down further to define plurality as "having multiple agents, each with their own autonomy and distinct sense of self, sharing a body."

The topic is about whether this experience is something that can exist without dissociative disorders and trauma. Simply saying that dissociative disorders are caused by trauma does nothing to address it.

Since you cite the ISSTD though, I'd like to bring up this email correspondence between Colin Ross and a former anti-endo.

Dr. Colin Ross is an influential member of the ISSTD, and at one point served as the president of the ISSTD.

2) You can’t say I’m not using reliable sources and then go and use “pluralpedia” as a source. Girl no.

3) I’m using sources that also involve DID and other dissociative disorders because they discuss systems as a whole.

4) still haven’t seen you set up a LinkedIn profile maybe you need to make a paper copy of your job resume. (Seriously you’re thirty years old so I’ve been told and you need to get your life together because being on tumblr all day and harassing kids in their own community is very sad)

5) again Sophie the LinkedIn profile I sent over a link to help you with that.

6) I’m very curious as to how you think alters and systems formed if you’re stating they can form without trauma. You’re basically saying someone can form a system at will just because.

7) I’m trying to find specific sources that focus on Endo systems however it’s hard because all the terms you’re using for something that is roleplaying is used for actual disorders and mental health in general.

8) https://ijpt.scholasticahq.com/article/122962-seven-identities-co-existing-a-noteworthy-manifestation-of-complex-childhood-trauma-a-case-report

9) https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

This includes the very definition of DID which is exactly what endo systems say they are sooooo get a job.

"The Latin phrase ad hominem meaning to the person describes approaches to argumentation, debate, discourse, and politics, that consist of personal attacks against the opposing speaker, rather than presenting arguments or evidence relevant to the topic under discussion."

Come on...

I'm waiting...

See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.

These are just names off the top of my head.

So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.

But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?

I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.

The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.

Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.

So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since you’re basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Don’t shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while she’s harassing little kids on social media.)

1. Gone to college

2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)

3. Kids

4. Marriage

5. Have their own living space

6. Talk to people their own age

7. Have a pet

8. Have stable healthy friendships

9. Have hobbies

First, I'm not sure if I'd classify Katherine Reuben, who was still a student, as a "medical professional."

But that's really beside the point.

Because the source is about DID and doesn't address non-DID plurality.

Remember the criteria above: "One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders."

This doesn't do that. It wouldn't do that even if she was a doctor and not just a student.

Here's the link for anyone interested.

There is something I find interesting about this summary of the structural dissociation model though.

It's based on an idea that people are:

Born without a single integrated personality and are instead a bunch of ego states;

These states integrate with time as the system gets older.

While trauma is mentioned as a possible cause for these states not integrating, it's not presented as the only possible cause.

Something I find lacking here is evidence for a mechanism that causes these states to integrate into one personality in the first place.

Is this a natural biological process, or is it a psychological one resulting from societal pressures? Is being a singlet sociogenic? There is no attempt at explaining this mechanism for integration. We're only told that trauma is a thing that can interrupt it.

If it's environmental, could some cultures have, rather than developing a single integrated self, developed different selves that could have been interpreted as different entities like gods, muses, ancestor spirits, etc. which could be supported by, say, Julian James's findings on the Bicameral Mind?

I would argue the structural dissociation model as presented here, without any evidence for what causes the states to integrate into a single self, actually casts more doubt on plurality being inherently traumagenic, presenting a world where no one is born a singlet while not explaining what makes people become singlets.

Putting that aside, there is an even bigger issue with using the theory of structural dissociation as your source...

Even the creators of the structural dissociation model have acknowledged there may be other forms of plurality!

Yeah, let's look at the source for the DID-research page.

You might recognize the highlighted name as one I mentioned in the OP.

This is because he, and Onno van der Hart too, authored a paper half a decade after publishing The Haunted Self that described their definition of dissociation in trauma.

In this paper, they specifically acknowledge that their definition of dissociation only applies to trauma and that it may be possible for people to have multiple "dissociative parts of the personality" without trauma, and for these parts formed for reasons other than trauma to possess their own self-consciousness.

While their stance seems neutral rather than definitively saying these are for certain self-conscious dissociative parts, that neutrality does show that citing the structural dissociation model as proof against non-disordered plurality is misusing their theory.

The Structural Dissociation model was never intended to disprove other forms of plurality. It wasn't intended to prove that all self-conscious dissociative parts of the personality were from trauma. It was only ever meant to explain mechanisms for how trauma could cause dissociative disorders.

Onto Source 2:

Once again, this is not relevant.

The discussion is about plurality. Not dissociative disorders.

Here is how plurality is defined on Pluralpedia:

This is what we're discussing.

If some of the plural-language is tripping you up, we can break it down further to define plurality as "having multiple agents, each with their own autonomy and distinct sense of self, sharing a body."

The topic is about whether this experience is something that can exist without dissociative disorders and trauma. Simply saying that dissociative disorders are caused by trauma does nothing to address it.

Since you cite the ISSTD though, I'd like to bring up this email correspondence between Colin Ross and a former anti-endo.

Dr. Colin Ross is an influential member of the ISSTD, and at one point served as the president of the ISSTD.

2) You can’t say I’m not using reliable sources and then go and use “pluralpedia” as a source. Girl no.

3) I’m using sources that also involve DID and other dissociative disorders because they discuss systems as a whole.

4) still haven’t seen you set up a LinkedIn profile maybe you need to make a paper copy of your job resume. (Seriously you’re thirty years old so I’ve been told and you need to get your life together because being on tumblr all day and harassing kids in their own community is very sad)

5) again Sophie the LinkedIn profile I sent over a link to help you with that.

6) I’m very curious as to how you think alters and systems formed if you’re stating they can form without trauma. You’re basically saying someone can form a system at will just because.

7) I’m trying to find specific sources that focus on Endo systems however it’s hard because all the terms you’re using for something that is roleplaying is used for actual disorders and mental health in general.

8) https://ijpt.scholasticahq.com/article/122962-seven-identities-co-existing-a-noteworthy-manifestation-of-complex-childhood-trauma-a-case-report

9) https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9792-dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

This includes the very definition of DID which is exactly what endo systems say they are sooooo get a job.

Come on...

I'm waiting...

See, I have no problem naming medical professionals who have either acknowledged the existence of plurality outside of dissociative disorders or at least acknowledged it as a possibility that would warrant further research. Eric Yarbrough, Colin Ross, Samuel Veissier, Michael Lifshitz, Richard Kluft, Ellert Nijenhuis.

These are just names off the top of my head.

So it shouldn't be hard for you to be able to cite a single doctor who has said that you need trauma and a dissociative disorder to be plural. One doctor somewhere who has definitively said that the experience of being multiple in one body is something that only exists in dissociative disorders.

But of course, you aren't going to be able to do that are you?

I've been doing this for 4 years now and in all this time, no sysmed has actually been able to provide a source to back up this position.

The truth is that the belief the plurality is exclusive to mental disorders and trauma isn't based in science. It is not backed up by any medical professionals. If it was, sysmeds would have been able to find them by now.

Even antivaxxers have disgraced doctors they can rely on for citations. But sysmeds don't even have that.

So I did provide two sources that were run by medical professionals. Since you’re basically thirty and a whole adult you may need to look into getting a job instead of harassing minors in a community that you clearly hate. Don’t shoot the messenger but medical and scientific facts are facts. (sophieinwonderland is THIRTY so let me list some accomplishments that people have at her age while she’s harassing little kids on social media.)

1. Gone to college

2. Have a stable job(I know you saw that LinkedIn link I sent over)

3. Kids

4. Marriage

5. Have their own living space

6. Talk to people their own age

7. Have a pet

8. Have stable healthy friendships

9. Have hobbies

(this isnt my photo btw, I got it from this post.)

Seriously, Proshippers love to say 'HOW ABOUT YOU FOCUS ON VICTIMS!" "WE CARE ABOUT THE VICTIMS!" "WE'RE NOT PEDOPHILLES!" That shit, meanwhile when theres an ACTUAL CHILD PORN Ring going around on ao3 they dont give a shit.

Same with when victims of sexual abuse say that they dont like proshipping. They'll be like "oh well i didnt do it to you" "i dont care" or just excusing them.

Im just waiting for the fucking day ao3 dies.

Mini rant;

You'll never find me in AO3 and even if it's an archive and pro-anti censorship, but it's the people that ruined it. Like it has incest and writings of REAL CHILDREN, but they hit you with the "just don't read it" or "it doesn't hurt anyone."

Like it DOES affect people and readers alike, it's not about the quote on quote "weird" kinks anymore, it's about how desensitized everyone seems to be about beastiality, incest and pedophilia. Yes I'm woke and I will never stop telling people that this is weird, because why are Some people normalizing FETISHIZING CRIMES OR TRAUMA OTHERS GO THROUGH????