you’re a fake and everyone can tell 🖤

second off, comparing your opinions towards systems as similar to transmeds opinions against trans people is not saying you specifically are transphobic, but instead comparing your rhetoric to those who see the trans experience as a medical condition, experienced primarily through gender dysphoria about your body (which would need medical attention like hormone replacement therapy and top/bottom surgery).

you see systemhood/DID as only a disorder that people fake with a small few "real people with DID" being counted vaguely as real. you are similar to those who see being transgender as a medical condition* that people fake and make fun of online, with a small few "real trans people" being the people who are harmed by "the transtrenders".

how do i explain to you that you sound exactly like people who say being trans can't be separated from the gender dysphoria condition labeled in the DSM like pleeease!! mirror time

if you just link a post that just talks about how DID is "usually associated with trauma" i will explode you. with cars and hammers or whatever.

If you do understand that fakers exist, then why did you ever engage me? I’m solely addressing fakers.

second off, comparing your opinions towards systems as similar to transmeds opinions against trans people is not saying you specifically are transphobic, but instead comparing your rhetoric to those who see the trans experience as a medical condition, experienced primarily through gender dysphoria about your body (which would need medical attention like hormone replacement therapy and top/bottom surgery).

you see systemhood/DID as only a disorder that people fake with a small few "real people with DID" being counted vaguely as real. you are similar to those who see being transgender as a medical condition* that people fake and make fun of online, with a small few "real trans people" being the people who are harmed by "the transtrenders".

how do i explain to you that you sound exactly like people who say being trans can't be separated from the gender dysphoria condition labeled in the DSM like pleeease!! mirror time

second off, comparing your opinions towards systems as similar to transmeds opinions against trans people is not saying you specifically are transphobic, but instead comparing your rhetoric to those who see the trans experience as a medical condition, experienced primarily through gender dysphoria about your body (which would need medical attention like hormone replacement therapy and top/bottom surgery).

you see systemhood/DID as only a disorder that people fake with a small few "real people with DID" being counted vaguely as real. you are similar to those who see being transgender as a medical condition* that people fake and make fun of online, with a small few "real trans people" being the people who are harmed by "the transtrenders".

Stigma and Misunderstanding of DID

Skepticism toward real cases: Increased prevalence of people pretending to have DID can lead to skepticism among the general public, healthcare providers, and even family members of those with legitimate diagnoses. This can make it harder for individuals with DID to receive support or be taken seriously.

Media misrepresentation: Public attention on fake or exaggerated cases may perpetuate harmful stereotypes about DID, framing it as an attention-seeking behavior or entirely fictitious.

Erosion of Trust in Mental Health Diagnoses

Undermining clinical authority: If the perception grows that DID is easy to fake, it may erode trust in the ability of mental health professionals to accurately diagnose and treat complex disorders.

Distrust in self-reporting: Since DID diagnosis relies heavily on self-reported symptoms, widespread fabrication could undermine confidence in the self-reporting process for all mental health conditions.

Resource Allocation Challenges

Misuse of resources: Mental health services are already stretched thin. If people pretending to have DID seek therapy or participate in support systems meant for those with real disorders, it diverts resources away from those who genuinely need help.

Research setbacks: Falsified cases can contaminate clinical studies, distorting research data and hindering progress in understanding and treating DID.

Harm to Advocacy and Awareness Efforts

Delegitimizing advocacy: Advocacy organizations for DID and trauma-related disorders may face backlash if people perceive them as platforms for attention-seekers rather than legitimate support networks.

Reduced funding: Public and institutional support for DID-related research and resources may decline if the disorder is viewed as overdiagnosed or fabricated.

Ethical and Interpersonal Consequences

Exploitation of trauma narratives: Pretending to have DID often involves mimicking behaviors and experiences associated with severe trauma, trivializing the real pain and suffering of individuals with histories of abuse or trauma.

Interpersonal harm: People pretending to have DID may manipulate others, whether consciously or unconsciously, by leveraging the perceived vulnerability associated with the disorder to gain sympathy, attention, or social capital.

Online and Social Media Impact

Normalization of misinformation: Platforms like TikTok and YouTube have seen a surge in content creators claiming to have DID, often presenting the disorder inaccurately. This can spread misinformation and confuse viewers about what DID actually entails.

Fetishization and trivialization: Public displays of DID-like behavior can lead to its fetishization or reduction to entertainment, further disrespecting those living with the condition.

Legal and Institutional Consequences

Legal abuse: Individuals faking DID might exploit the diagnosis in legal contexts to evade accountability, creating precedent for suspicion and making it harder for genuine cases to be considered seriously.

Policy resistance: Policymakers may become less likely to prioritize funding or protections for trauma-related disorders if they are perceived as prone to exaggeration or fraud.

While the intent behind pretending to have DID may vary—from seeking attention to exploring identity—the consequences are overwhelmingly harmful.

1. If your actions contribute to skepticism toward real cases, then it absolutely is your problem. Just like misinformation about any marginalized group harms everyone within that group, performative behavior around DID feeds into public doubt, making it harder for genuine cases to be taken seriously. Pretending otherwise is willfully naive.

2. People existing isn’t misrepresentation, but how they present themselves can be. If you present DID as something it’s not—an aesthetic, a choice, or a quirky personality trait—it absolutely leads to misrepresentation in media and public perception. That’s the issue here.

3. It’s not an assumption—it’s observable. When people redefine DID to fit non-clinical narratives (like ‘endogenic plurality’), it undermines the ability of clinicians to diagnose and treat people accurately. If the disorder is seen as something anyone can claim, how do professionals distinguish between genuine cases and performative ones?

4. Ableism absolutely contributes to distrust in self-reporting, but so does the prevalence of fabricated or exaggerated claims. When people treat serious disorders as trends, it makes clinicians more skeptical of everyone, including those who genuinely need help. This isn’t about choosing one cause over another—both are real issues.

5. Needing resources and misusing them aren’t mutually exclusive. People claiming DID without clinical justification may feel they need support, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they’re diverting limited resources from those who genuinely meet diagnostic criteria. If resources were unlimited, this wouldn’t be an issue—but that’s not the reality we live in.

6. If researchers include cases that don’t meet diagnostic criteria, it corrupts the dataset. Studies rely on valid samples to draw accurate conclusions. If participants are faking or misunderstanding their condition, the results won’t reflect the realities of DID, which hinders progress in understanding and treating it.

2 "People existing isn’t misrepresentation, but how they present themselves can be." if someone is presenting themselves genuinely in a way that you consider misrepresentation, that's your own skewed perception of them, not them actually being misrepresentation

3 "It’s not an assumption—it’s observable." do you have any evidence? any sources of this "observation"? you also seem to be mixing up DID, the disorder, and systemhood / plurality as a generalized experience. yell about IFS ("internal family SYSTEMs therapy") too if you're gonna be mad at people being plural.

4 "Ableism absolutely contributes to distrust in self-reporting, but so does the prevalence of fabricated or exaggerated claims." when does a claim become too exaggerated? who's the person who decides what's fabricated?

5 "Needing resources and misusing them aren’t mutually exclusive." again, who's deciding who is misusing resources? and why would "misusing" an infinite resource be bad?

6 "If researchers include cases that don’t meet diagnostic criteria, it corrupts the dataset." this doesn't make sense? first off, there often needs to be a control group, which would inherently require "cases that don't meet diagnostic criteria", and second off, if one is comparing non-disordered systemhood to disordered systemhood, that's another case where non-diagnosed systems would not "corrupt the dataset". and also, who's to say who is "not meeting criteria"? some random tumblr singlet?

2. Even if someone presents themselves ‘genuinely,’ that doesn’t mean their presentation aligns with reality. People can believe in and perpetuate misinformation without malicious intent, but it still causes harm. Misrepresentation isn’t about intent—it’s about impact.

3. The evidence is in the consequences: genuine DID cases face increased skepticism, media misrepresents the disorder, and the diagnostic process becomes muddied. These outcomes are observable and well-documented. Plurality and ‘systemhood’ are not clinically equivalent to DID, and that’s not my opinion—that’s the position of actual psychologists and researchers. Do an ounce of research yourself and you’ll see this. Browse psychologist and psychiatrist subreddits, filter for DID and see how they are trying to combat the recent rise of cases of self-diagnosed DID. This is not the extent of where your research should take you, merely a starting point for firsthand experiences from professionals.

4. Exaggeration becomes an issue when it deviates from the clinical framework of DID or OSDD. Psychologists and clinicians—not random Tumblr users—set these standards. Claims that ignore trauma, dissociation, or diagnostic criteria fall outside those bounds, and their prevalence fosters skepticism toward genuine cases.

5. Healthcare professionals are the ones who assess resource use based on clinical need. If someone self-identifies as DID without meeting the diagnostic criteria, they may be taking resources from people with genuine trauma-based dissociation. Resources aren’t infinite, and misallocation has real consequences for those who desperately need them.

6. Control groups are deliberately chosen and well-documented in research studies. Random claims that don’t meet diagnostic criteria are not ‘controls’—they’re noise that skews results. Comparing non-disordered plurality to disordered systems is only valid if participants are accurately categorized, and that categorization isn’t up to Tumblr users, but trained researchers.

The term ‘singlet’ tells me everything I need to know about how seriously you take this conversation. It’s not a clinical term—it’s internet slang, which is exactly the problem when you conflate real disorders with online identity trends.

Stigma and Misunderstanding of DID

Skepticism toward real cases: Increased prevalence of people pretending to have DID can lead to skepticism among the general public, healthcare providers, and even family members of those with legitimate diagnoses. This can make it harder for individuals with DID to receive support or be taken seriously.

Media misrepresentation: Public attention on fake or exaggerated cases may perpetuate harmful stereotypes about DID, framing it as an attention-seeking behavior or entirely fictitious.

Erosion of Trust in Mental Health Diagnoses

Undermining clinical authority: If the perception grows that DID is easy to fake, it may erode trust in the ability of mental health professionals to accurately diagnose and treat complex disorders.

Distrust in self-reporting: Since DID diagnosis relies heavily on self-reported symptoms, widespread fabrication could undermine confidence in the self-reporting process for all mental health conditions.

Resource Allocation Challenges

Misuse of resources: Mental health services are already stretched thin. If people pretending to have DID seek therapy or participate in support systems meant for those with real disorders, it diverts resources away from those who genuinely need help.

Research setbacks: Falsified cases can contaminate clinical studies, distorting research data and hindering progress in understanding and treating DID.

Harm to Advocacy and Awareness Efforts

Delegitimizing advocacy: Advocacy organizations for DID and trauma-related disorders may face backlash if people perceive them as platforms for attention-seekers rather than legitimate support networks.

Reduced funding: Public and institutional support for DID-related research and resources may decline if the disorder is viewed as overdiagnosed or fabricated.

Ethical and Interpersonal Consequences

Exploitation of trauma narratives: Pretending to have DID often involves mimicking behaviors and experiences associated with severe trauma, trivializing the real pain and suffering of individuals with histories of abuse or trauma.

Interpersonal harm: People pretending to have DID may manipulate others, whether consciously or unconsciously, by leveraging the perceived vulnerability associated with the disorder to gain sympathy, attention, or social capital.

Online and Social Media Impact

Normalization of misinformation: Platforms like TikTok and YouTube have seen a surge in content creators claiming to have DID, often presenting the disorder inaccurately. This can spread misinformation and confuse viewers about what DID actually entails.

Fetishization and trivialization: Public displays of DID-like behavior can lead to its fetishization or reduction to entertainment, further disrespecting those living with the condition.

Legal and Institutional Consequences

Legal abuse: Individuals faking DID might exploit the diagnosis in legal contexts to evade accountability, creating precedent for suspicion and making it harder for genuine cases to be considered seriously.

Policy resistance: Policymakers may become less likely to prioritize funding or protections for trauma-related disorders if they are perceived as prone to exaggeration or fraud.

While the intent behind pretending to have DID may vary—from seeking attention to exploring identity—the consequences are overwhelmingly harmful.

1. If your actions contribute to skepticism toward real cases, then it absolutely is your problem. Just like misinformation about any marginalized group harms everyone within that group, performative behavior around DID feeds into public doubt, making it harder for genuine cases to be taken seriously. Pretending otherwise is willfully naive.

2. People existing isn’t misrepresentation, but how they present themselves can be. If you present DID as something it’s not—an aesthetic, a choice, or a quirky personality trait—it absolutely leads to misrepresentation in media and public perception. That’s the issue here.

3. It’s not an assumption—it’s observable. When people redefine DID to fit non-clinical narratives (like ‘endogenic plurality’), it undermines the ability of clinicians to diagnose and treat people accurately. If the disorder is seen as something anyone can claim, how do professionals distinguish between genuine cases and performative ones?

4. Ableism absolutely contributes to distrust in self-reporting, but so does the prevalence of fabricated or exaggerated claims. When people treat serious disorders as trends, it makes clinicians more skeptical of everyone, including those who genuinely need help. This isn’t about choosing one cause over another—both are real issues.

5. Needing resources and misusing them aren’t mutually exclusive. People claiming DID without clinical justification may feel they need support, but that doesn’t negate the fact that they’re diverting limited resources from those who genuinely meet diagnostic criteria. If resources were unlimited, this wouldn’t be an issue—but that’s not the reality we live in.

6. If researchers include cases that don’t meet diagnostic criteria, it corrupts the dataset. Studies rely on valid samples to draw accurate conclusions. If participants are faking or misunderstanding their condition, the results won’t reflect the realities of DID, which hinders progress in understanding and treating it.

you’re all playing this massive game of pretend, and you are all FULLY AWARE that you’re pretending to have a debilitating mental disorder to get attention online in a false community. and you enjoy people with more than two brain cells to rub together calling you out and “fake claiming” you because it gives you feel-good chemicals in your brain to be addressed in such a way; it’s validating to be invalidated. you feel like a self-made victim and it feels so good doesn’t it?

you’re all playing this massive game of pretend, and you are all FULLY AWARE that you’re pretending to have a debilitating mental disorder to get attention online in a false community. and you enjoy people with more than two brain cells to rub together calling you out and “fake claiming” you because it gives you feel-good chemicals in your brain to be addressed in such a way; it’s validating to be invalidated. you feel like a self-made victim and it feels so good doesn’t it?

you’re all playing this massive game of pretend, and you are all FULLY AWARE that you’re pretending to have a debilitating mental disorder to get attention online in a false community. and you enjoy people with more than two brain cells to rub together calling you out and “fake claiming” you because it gives you feel-good chemicals in your brain to be addressed in such a way; it’s validating to be invalidated. you feel like a self-made victim and it feels so good doesn’t it?