Hi! This is a blog for a handful of alters. We may post our collective system blog later. For now, we will keep it separate.
This blog is for those of us who have wanted to enter into syscourse and state our opinions (including non system related opinions). It has been decided to keep syscourse off of the collective blog, so this blog was made as a compromise. This blog will also be used for potentially "controversial" takes that the host is too scared of harassment to have on their main blog.
Our stances will be added below.
Please read terms and conditions and user agreement .
Terms and Conditions:
This system is bodily over 18. Please keep in mind when interacting.
The system's collective pronouns are they/xem. As for a collective name, we go by 404 or Error.
This blog is strictly anti endo.
We are also
1. Anti radqueer/transids. Anyone who suffers from BIID is, of course, allowed as long as they don't identify with these communities.
2. Pro educated self dx. As long as you do your research. Social media does not count
3. Supportive of all neurodivergencies. And do not support Cluster B abuse believers. No ableism is allowed on this blog
4. Pro good faith labels. Including but not limited to:
a) Xenogenders and neopronouns
b) Mspec lesbians and lesboys
c) Other contradictory labels
5. Pro alterhuman/otherkin and otherkith identities.
6. Pro pet/agere and pet/age dreaming.
User Agreement:
By continuing, you agree that you meet the following criteria and do not breach DNI.
DNI if:
T. R. A. S. H (Transphobic, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic), (Pro) Endo, pro sh/ed or sh/ed centered blogs, anti agere/petre, Cluster B abuse believers, anti xenogender, anti otherkin, transids/radqueers
*User agreement and terms and conditions are subject to change.
Please check the box to confirm you have read the terms and conditions and user agreement before continuing.
☐ I have read and agree to the terms and conditions and user agreement
hii!!
this isn't meant to be mean or anything, but do you have sources for the fact endos started as a hate group?
HELLO ANON!!! It's not mean at all and I'm very happy you're asking for sources! This is gonna be a bit long as its a timeline and its sources.
Word Count; 3,984
Character Count: 26,839
Estimated Reading Time: 25 minutes
1989–1994: Early CDD Newsletters, Forums, and Online Communities
1989: Many Voices
Many Voices was established in 1989 as the first newsletter created specifically for people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Although it remains available online today, it is no longer actively updated.
1991: alt.sexual.abuse.recovery (ASAR)
The Usenet group alt.sexual.abuse.recovery was created in 1991. It became home to a large community of CDD systems.
1994: ASARian Incorporated
In 1994, alt.sexual.abuse.recovery evolved into ASARian Incorporated. ASARian provided peer support, web hosting, unix shell accounts, and resources for people with DID/MPD
1994: alt.support.dissociation
Also in 1994, the Usenet group alt.support.dissociation was created. It would go on to become the longest-running support group for people with dissociative disorders. The website remains active, but the last post was made in 2024 as Usenet had declined in its own usage.
1995–1997: Astraea's Web and the Emergence of Non-Disordered Plurality
Astraea's Website
In 1995, Astraea launched what is considered the first website dedicated to discussing non-disordered plurality. This was the first known website to explicitly address plurality outside of a clinical or disorder-based framework.
Coining of Natural Multiplicity
Around 1996, Astraea introduced the term natural multiplicity. The concept proposed that having multiple personalities was not inherently disordered. Instead, it was framed as a naturally occurring phenomenon that could arise spontaneously, rather than solely through trauma or dissociation. You can find the archive here.
Criticism of Astraea's Web
While initially appealing to some, Astraea's work has been heavily criticized. Critics argue that its sources and rhetoric reflect of extreme ableism, saneism, and dangerous ideological positions that have caused lasting harm There have also been highly credible claims of plagiarism, misattribution, and strong anti-psychiatry bias.
Every source is here, here, here, and here
Astraea's Web is widely regarded as the starting point of what would later become the endogenic community.
1996–1999: The Development of Mid-Continuum
Sometime in 1996, an early internet plural named Vickis coined the term mid-continuum. The label quickly gained popularity among both dissociative and non-dissociative plural people.
Mid-continuum was rooted in the dissociative continuum model developed by Braun in 1988. Braun's model conceptualized dissociation as existing on a spectrum ranging from: normal experiences (such as daydreaming or zoning out) to polyfragmented DID at the far end. By 1997 and earlier, many DID-focused websites—including Astraea's Web—were sharing and discussing this model.
Archive of article by Joan A. Turkus, M.D. (1997)
Proof that this article was shared on Astraea’s Web.
What Mid-Continuum Meant
1. It Was Based on a Psychological Model
Many people in the dissociative community identified with Braun's dissociative continuum. Vickis created the term for individuals who felt they fell somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. The label was referred to as 'mid-continuum dissociation' or simply mid-continuum for short. People using the label were often called mid-continuum dissociatives. Vickis later created a webpage devoted to the concept called The Wonderful World of the MidContinuum.
2. It Was Created for Dissociative People
In 1997, Vickis announced the new website on alt.support.dissociation. In that announcement, mid-continuum was explicitly described as a label for dissociative people who did not meet all criteria for DID. On the website, Vickis explained that mid-continuum applied to people who experienced dissociated parts, fell somewhere in the middle of Braun's dissociative continuum—This included experiences ranging from different roles in different situations, inner children, ego states, parts or fragments that did not feel like whole people, and having some, but not all, diagnostic criteria for DID.
A quote from the homepage:
“Everyone dissociates. At one end of the dissociative continuum is ‘normal’ or ‘common’ dissociation that nearly everyone engages in[…] At the other end are the behaviors that characterize ‘classical’ multiples, who may have large numbers of very distinct insiders with little internal communication, serious difficulties with time loss, amnesia, and so on.
Between these two extremes, there is a lot of gray. Ranging from having different ‘roles’ that you live out in different situations, to having an ‘inner child’ or ‘inner children’ with varying degrees of separateness, to having ‘ego states,’ ‘parts’ or ‘fragments’ that don’t seem to be whole people, to having some but not all of the diagnostic criteria for what is now known as DID[…]”
Message Archive
Mid-Continuum Website Archive
3. It Was Created Out of Respect for People with DID
At the time, DID was still commonly referred to as MPD or simply multiplicity within online dissociative communities. Vickis and others believed it would be disrespectful to call themselves multiple if they did not have DID. They felt that doing so could minimize the struggles of people with DID. This was a major reason for creating the mid-continuum label. Vickis specifically noted that they did not experience time loss, had never experienced amnesia in that way, did not have communication barriers between parts, and did not face the same struggles as those further along the dissociative continuum Because of this, they did not want to equate their experiences with those of people living with DID.
From their essay on the subject (here):
“[…] someone elsewhere in this thread said something like ‘I don’t want to call myself multiple because I don’t want to minimize the sufferings of those who are really multiple’. And I can really relate to that. That’s why I say I’m not-quite-multiple usually. Because I don’t lose time and never have, I can’t possibly know what that’s like… I don’t have barriers that prevent communication between parts… I don’t have the struggles that people who are further down the continuum from me have, and I would never want to minimize their issues by claiming that my own are the same.”
4. Mid-Continuum and OSDD
Much of Vickis' writing strongly resembles what is now recognized as OSDD (formerly DDNOS). However, OSDD/DDNOS was rarely mentioned directly in their earlier work. It might've been due to the lack of research surrounding OSDD then—as it only was properly researched in the 2000's and 2010's—and Vickis wanting to use a less clinical term.
In 1999, Vickis remarked that people identifying as mid-continuum often received an OSDD diagnosis if they pursued formal evaluation. This was only mentioned briefly.
Late 1990's: The Precursor to Median
Over several years, mid-continuum became increasingly popular across the internet. It attracted a broad range of people within plural communities. As the label grew, anti-DID/OSDD and anti-psychiatry communities began objecting to it. Their objections were largely tied to mid-continuum's origins in dissociative theory and psychology.
Dark Personalities listed many psychological terms as derogatory to empowered and natural multiples, including DID, alter, and host. Mid-continuum itself also became a target of criticism.
The Push for a Replacement Term
Dark Personalities stated: "Since many people feel the idea of a continuum to be inaccurate, many are seeking a new term instead of mid-continuum." This effort to replace mid-continuum would eventually lead, in the 2000s, to the rise of the term median.
2000s: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum
An anti-DID/OSDD organization later coined the term median as a replacement for mid-continuum. Median became significantly more popular. As a result, mid-continuum gradually fell out of common use.
On the Pavilion website, Astraea’s Web wrote an essay on the midcontinuum and why they came up with the median label to replace it.
“It’s important to allow the concept to be inclusive of everyone who fits, regardless of past abuse history or origins, much as is currently being done for ‘multiplicity.’ With its roots in the abuse-dissociation model, midcontinuum is too limiting; it is no longer useful to us. Median creates a certain measure of psychological distance and gives the concept a fresh start, without the dissociative baggage of the past, and embraces all who feel they are more than one.”
(X X X)
ARCHIVE , ALSO APPLIED TO BELOW TIMELINE;
Pavillion's Policies Archive — "MPD/DID vs. Multiple"
Pavillion's Library Archive — "A brief history of Midcontinuum"
The Lancers' Codex — "Addressing the MPD/DID Issue"
2002–2007: The Rise of Median, Natural Multiplicity Activism, and Organized Anti-DID Campaigns
2003: Median Replaces Mid-Continuum
In 2003, the natural multiplicity organizations The Lancers and Pavilion Hall decided that mid-continuum was too rooted in psychology and dissociation. They argued that it was overly limiting because it was based on the abuse-dissociation model and did not adequately include people whose plurality was understood as non-traumagenic or non-dissociative.
As a result, they coined the term median to replace mid-continuum. Unlike mid-continuum, which was grounded in Braun's dissociative continuum model, median was intentionally broader and more abstract. Pavilion described plurality not as a linear spectrum, but as a sphere with infinitely many possible points, emphasizing fluidity, diversity, and nonlinear identity. According to their framework, someone could identify as median if they experienced themselves as multiple selves, but did not perceive those selves as fully independent.
This shift represented a significant philosophical departure. Mid-continuum had originally been created by dissociative people for dissociative people. Median, by contrast, was created by non-dissociative natural multiplicity advocates who believed mid-continuum was too psychologically grounded and insufficiently inclusive of their experiences.
Median and the Exclusion of DID/OSDD Systems
The Lancers and Pavilion Hall did not intend for people with DID or OSDD to use the median label. Their philosophy held that people with dissociative disorders were not truly plural, multiple, or median unless they no longer met diagnostic criteria. In their view, only "functional" and "non-disordered" individuals could properly claim these identities. If someone with DID or OSDD functioned according to their standards, they were considered no longer disordered.
Because their definitions of plurality and medianhood were often broad and vague, many people with DID and OSDD nevertheless identified with the concept despite the organizations' intentions.
1998–2014: Empowered Multiplicity, MultiGardens, and the Natural Multiplicity Movement
Empowered Multiplicity and MultiGardens
Out of the natural multiplicity movement emerged the concept of empowered multiplicity, which placed a strong emphasis on functionality and distinguished itself from what proponents called "survivor multiples."
In 1999, MultiGardens was established, though it was short-lived. Not long afterward, the person who coined the term "empowered multiplicity" stated that it had never been intended to exclude trauma survivors and that they had not meant to create so much conflict. Despite this, they continued to criticize survivors, as well as those who sought fusion or therapeutic treatment.
Natural Multiplicity as a Movement
By the early 2000s, natural multiplicity had evolved into a full-fledged movement. Its central aim was to establish that plural experiences were not inherently pathological. Many participants insisted that childhood trauma or abuse could not cause plurality or multiplicity.
Even to this day, plurals insist that pwCDDs are looking to blame someone for something they already had—pushing the narrative that pwCDDs were multiple prior to abuse and would've been multiple if it hadn't happened—and that we have internalized pluralphobia because we 'hate ourselves'
Natural multiplicity was not simply about advocating for non-disordered plurality; it also positioned itself in opposition to people with complex dissociative disorders (pwCDDs). Astraea and associated groups actively sought to challenge the legitimacy of DID and MPD as diagnoses, including attempts to have DID removed from the DSM.
Even after the term natural multiple began to be replaced by endogenic around 2014—largely because "natural" implied that systems with CDDs were somehow unnatural—the underlying ideological framework remained much the same. The earliest documented use of the term endogenic dates to 2014.
2000–2010s: The DID Boycott and Anti-Psychiatry Campaigns
For a whole decade, activists associated with the natural multiplicity and anti-psychiatry movements campaigned to challenge, revise, or remove the DID diagnosis from the DSM. This movement was deeply intertwined with both anti-psychology rhetoric and natural multiplicity ideology.
Prominent essays from this campaign included:
“Astraea’s Multiple Personality FAQ” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.
“No More…” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2000.
“Removing Diagnostic Labels” by Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.
“Why We Are Not MPD/DID” by Dark Personalities, archived in 2001.
“Some Thoughts on Verbiage” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2001.
“We don’t have Multiple Personality Disorder” by The Shire, archived in 2001.
“Terminology” by Those That Walk, archived in 2002.
“The Politics of Language” by Bent Spoons, archived in 2002.
“Fixing The DSM” by a guest on Astraea’s Web, archived in 2003.
This boycott significantly harmed people with complex dissociative disorders. Boycotters frequently argued that pwCDDs were not real, or that their diagnoses should be removed from diagnostic manuals. Natural and empowered multiplicity communities often paired their advocacy with broader opposition to psychiatry and psychology.
At a time when DID research was already sparse, controversial, and often inaccurate, these campaigns further complicated public and clinical understanding of dissociative disorders.
2002–2003: "Fixing The DSM"
"Fixing The DSM" was an essay written by The Jinkies in 2002 and published on Astraea's Web in 2003. It had previously appeared on Pavilion Hall's LiveJournal forum and in Pavilion's library. (X X X)
The essay argued that the DID and OSDD diagnoses should either be revised to better represent non-dissociative plural experiences or removed from the DSM entirely.
Jinkies contended that people without DID or OSDD might feel excluded from plural identity because they did not meet diagnostic criteria. They criticized the DSM for defining DID and OSDD in terms of dissociation, arguing that this invalidated non-dissociative plural experiences.
The essay ultimately proposed replacing DID with the term Ego-Dystonic Plurality, a phrase coined by the creator of Astraea's Web. Modeled after the historical diagnosis of Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality, this proposed label would have stripped DID and OSDD of their established clinical frameworks.
Jinkies concluded by asserting that non-disordered experiences do not belong in the DSM. While that statement is true in itself, DID and OSDD are inherently disordered conditions, making the proposal fundamentally incompatible with the realities of those diagnoses.
2002: The Formation of The Lancers and Pavilion Hall
In June 2002, two sister organizations were formed: The Lancers and Pavilion Hall. Both were self-described natural multiplicity activist groups. Though inactive today, their influence remains substantial. Their last known activity appears to have been in 2015.
These organizations were responsible for coining the term median system, creating the Layman's Guide to Multiplicity, and popularizing the idea of plurality as an umbrella term. Their impact on modern plural terminology and discourse remains significant.
The Lancers
Formation and Purpose;
The Lancers were founded to "resolve the conflict between plural and non-plural types" and to foster understanding between singlets, medians, and multiples. Despite this stated goal, they did not support DID or what they disparagingly referred to as "survivorwhine sites."
Membership Requirements;
Membership was restricted to natural multiples. People with DID or OSDD were explicitly excluded.
Applicants were required to sign the In Essence Pledge—viewed here and here—affirming that they were functioning and sane. They were also expected to publicly display this pledge on their websites and follow the organization's codex. Failure to comply could result in removal.
The organization strongly emphasized appearing non-disordered. Prospective members who were not yet functioning well enough to present themselves as "strong, sane, and responsible" were discouraged from joining.
They stated that if your system “cannot yet work functionally together in daily life, do not ask to join. If you wish to help the Lancers but haven't got things sufficiently together to be able to present to the world as strong, sane, and responsible, look elsewhere for help -- Astraea's is a good place to begin [...]” (X)
The Codex;
The Lancers developed a body of internal theory known as the Codex, which outlined their views on natural multiplicity. Among its concepts were "paths," later renamed "fires," though these terms did not gain widespread use. Their most enduring contribution was the term median, which replaced mid-continuum.
Pavilion Hall
Formation and Purpose;
Pavilion Hall was founded around the same time as The Lancers by the same group of people. Like The Lancers, Pavilion excluded people with DID and OSDD.
Pavilion described itself as an activist organization dedicated to promoting positive views of healthy multiplicity. Its goals included challenging the classification of multiplicity as a mental disorder, establishing common ground among plurals, and promoting natural multiplicity theories in both academic and non-academic settings. [X]
Membership;
Members were expected to live as healthy multiples so as not to undermine their mission of ending the idea that multiplicity was a disorder. While signing the In Essence Pledge was encouraged, it was not mandatory. [X]
Hierarchy;
You can read a more in-depth explanation of these positions on their page here
Pavilion had a five-tier organizational hierarchy:
Frontliners: The Frontliners’ main job was to seek out places where they could spread the word of natural multiplicity. This mainly included any space specifically centering around DID/OSDD—forums (discussed more below), websites (X), and articles (X), as well as mental health clinics (X), and even dissociative specialists such as from the ISSTD (X). They also occasionally sought out spiritual or unorthodox spaces to “convert,” such as a soulbonding forum. (X)They usually referred to this job as responding to “action alerts.” This part of Pavilion was surprisingly coordinated. You can find an action alerts page on their website here. You can also find an action alerts tag on their forums here.Another job for Frontliners was to “monitor” DID/OSDD forums, find people who they suspected didn’t actually have DID/OSDD, and bring them into the natural multiplicity community. (X X X) Here is a page they wrote on their justification behind this.
The Pavilion website also had an entire section called The Armory, which was dedicated to hosting resources specifically for Frontliners to do this sort of work. (X)
Scholars: These were the members of Pavilion who wrote the essays that the Frontliners could use in their arguments or discourse. They also supported the organization through other means such as researching counterarguments against psychology, or creating new websites for Pavilion to spread their purpose.
Knights/Coordinators: This was a temporary position. Members became Coordinators for the duration that they were running a project for Pavilion. One example of a Pavilion project would be Project Bananarama (later renamed Paperchase), in which they mailed out over 200 Pavilion brochures to psychologists and dissociative specialists. (X)
Diplomats: These were the members who spread Pavilion’s purpose offline in real life areas. One example of Pavilion’s offline activism would be slipping notes about natural multiplicity inside of DID/OSDD books. (X)
Castles/Directors: This appeared to be the highest level of the hierarchy. Directors were the leaders of Pavilion who kept an eye on every other members’ activity and projects.
One notable Pavilion project, originally called Project Bananarama and later renamed Paperchase, involved mailing more than 200 brochures promoting natural multiplicity to psychologists and dissociative specialists.
MEMBERS;
An archived list of The Lancer’s members can be found here.
An archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here.
Another archived list of Pavilion’s members can be found here.
Concerning Activities of The Lancers and Pavilion
Documented behaviors included:
Mailing hundreds of natural multiplicity brochures to dissociative specialists
Editing and vandalizing the DID Wikipedia page (SEE BELOW)
Arguing that people with DID could not truly be multiple until they were no longer "dysfunctional" (X X)
Ridiculing PTSD- and DID-focused events, writings, and individuals (X X)
Joking about disrupting DID/OSDD conventions (X)
Monitoring DID/OSDD forums for potential recruits (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)
Coordinating "action alerts" to target specific spaces or publications (SEE HIERARCHY ABOVE)
Joking about "converting" others to natural multiplicity (X)
Drawing inspiration from anti-DID groups such as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) (X)
Openly advocating for the removal of DID and OSDD from diagnostic manuals (X)
ARCHIVES
The Lancers’ Website Archive
The Lancers’ Public LiveJournal Forum
The Lancers’ Codex Archive
Pavilion’s Website Archive
Pavilions’ Public LiveJournal Forum
The Layman’s Guide to Multiplicity
Lancers/Pavilions’ Multiplicity Brochure
2003–2006: Pavilion and the DID Wikipedia Article
In February 2003, Pavilion members coordinated an effort to edit the Wikipedia article on Dissociative Identity Disorder.
Using Pavilion's "action alert" system, Astraea Household encouraged members to revise the article. Pavilion member Amorpha drafted and implemented substantial edits. You can read their rough draft here.
These changes shifted the article's focus toward controversy and introduced extensive material about "healthy multiplicity" (also called natural multiplicity). The revised article suggested that many multiples were not diagnosed, did not need therapy, did not have histories of childhood trauma, and did not wish to integrate
It also proposed that DID should be revised or removed from the DSM to accommodate natural multiples.
“Because such multiples do not experience their condition as disordered or sick in any way, some have proposed that the diagnosis of DID be removed from the DSM entirely, or revised to classify multiples who have difficulty communicating and sharing memories and/or wish to integrate.”
These additions remained in the article until 2006, when they were removed for lacking relevance to DID. Shortly afterward, the broader controversy section was also removed.
Archive of natural/healthy multiplicity removal & reasoning.
Archive of controversy removal & reasoning.
archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article
2005–2007: The Natural/Healthy Multiplicity Wikipedia Article
A separate Wikipedia article on natural or healthy multiplicity was later created. This article blended concepts of natural multiplicity with the clinical treatment goal of healthy multiplicity (also called resolution). Here is an archive of the edit Amorpha made to the Wikipedia article.
It also reflected Pavilion's belief that people with DID or OSDD who cooperated well internally no longer truly had those disorders.
The article relied heavily on sources created by Pavilion members, including:
Astraea's Web
Collective Phenomenon
Their shared LiveJournal community
The Layman's Guide to Multiplicity
Pavilion Hall
The Lancers
In 2007, the article was nominated for deletion due to its reliance on blogs, forums, and original research rather than reliable secondary sources. The nomination was successful, and the article was deleted.
This deletion highlighted a central problem for natural multiplicity advocates: despite extensive searching, they were unable to find substantial professional or academic support for the concept as an innate, non-pathological state. You can read the thread about it here.
Amorpha expressed frustration towards the reasons for deletion, specifically regarding 'reliable' sources. They explained that no matter how much they searched the Internet for proof, they could not find any professionals discussing natural multiplicity. The only thing they could find on healthy multiplicity was, obviously, related to CDD treatment.
“We helped to work on that article. It was deleted for containing ‘too much original research’ and ‘not enough acceptable sources.’ The sources thing was the real problem-- we've really tried combing the Internet for that, but they're looking for ‘secondary sources’, aka articles by doctors or journalists or someone working in some ‘professional’ capacity. And there honestly just isn't much. Most of the professionally-written material we've come across that mentions healthy multiplicity in any way approached it from the standpoint that it's all MPD/DID, and proposing the ‘radical’ idea that multiples don't have to integrate (though, of course, it's always suggested that they're only supposed to be capable of living independently and non-integrated after being in therapy for years).
I don't object to using those as sources, as I think a big point to be emphasized in the whole concept of healthy multiplicity is that a system can start out disordered and come to be healthy and stable in time, but what we needed and couldn't find were sources talking about it as a natural state of being-- not necessarily in terms of a pathological deviation from the norm[...]”
if u call urself a misandrist I'm going to assume ur homophobic. I'm gonna assume that ur at the very least weird about trans women like me, that you're going to judge them based on how they pass, on how out they are, on what level of transition they are at. I'm gonna assume ur racist too. like. idk "misandry" very feels like the sorta "feminism" someone is really into when they're in high school and carefully making sure to never think about anything.
and do you believe yourself to be an unfailing arbiter of who that is? and is it truly all cishet men? do you hate men of color, if they are cishet? what about intersex men? why not just hate bigoted people? why find groups of people, groups big enough to undoubtedly contain marginalized people?
So much of cis and trans radfeminist discourse is like throwing a grenade into every room you think has a man in it, then when 99% of the people killed by the grenade are women you go “well, you shouldn’t have been in the room where a man might have been” and somehow it’s feminist praxis
Penis makes you evil? Trans women get hit. Trans men get hit. People who fuck with a strap get hit. Being a top gets you hit. Got penis envy? Must be evil. Can accuse you of penis envy? Evil.
Testosterone makes you evil? Trans women get hit. Trans men get hit. Intersex people get hit. Masc women get hit. Women of color get hit. Anyone you can force a masculine label on or deny of a feminine label gets hit.
Male privilege is a moral failing you both somehow choose but also cannot opt out of rather than a set of conditional circumstances society imposes on you that may temporarily benefit you? Trans women get hit. Trans men get hit. Anyone you can accuse of being too close to maleness gets hit.
Masculinity makes you evil? Trans men get hit. Trans women who are masc get hit. Trans women who you can accuse of being masc get hit. Masc women get hit. Anyone you can accuse of being masc get hit (woc, intersex people, ethnic minorities with features assumed ‘masculine’, anyone who rejects aspects of femininity or doesn’t perform femininity in a way you think they ‘should’)
Proximity to men makes you evil? Anyone who dates men is hit. Anyone who likes men is hit. Anyone who is friends with men gets hit. Ultimately people assaulted by men suddenly “had it coming” because they dared stand next to a man, and you call yourself a feminist spouting the biggest rape apologist catchphrase???
You wanna “kill all men” for what theyve done to you, but you’re not doing anything to hurt OR change cis men or society but you are wracking up a body count of women just as hurt as you.
“Feminist” when you’ve pushed more women towards suicide than an incel has? Gimme a break.
“Misandrist” you wouldn’t dare say that shit to a cis man, but you sure have a lot of gas in the tank for the woman standing near him or the trans man who *just* started using he/him after 20+ years of the type of misogyny you are going to gleefully throw back in his face
“why are trans women excluded from this women’s space while trans men are welcomed with open arms???”
you look inside and the trans men and transmascs being “welcomed with open arms” are being misgendered, abused, pushed towards detransitioning, and the ones that are seen as too masculine to be treated as women-lite are being kicked out of the space the same as trans women
i’m just so fucking tired yall. you can talk about bad things happening to trans women without assuming the opposite must be true for trans men, you know that right?
Torn between "I want attention really badly and some hate asks/comments would definitely help scratch that itch" and "my opinion of myself is highly reliant on others opinions and a hate comment might make me spiral." I can't win. Like damn, I'm craving hate asks but I also have social anxiety. Such a cruel combo. I want attention, but too much makes me panic. I can't win.
I will say, it seems transandrophobia and transmisogyny often go hand in hand. A lot of transandrophobes are also transmisogynistic but get away with it because they're "just fighting the enemy."
So often its the same people who go around claiming "trans men are inherently tranmisogynistic because they are men" will turn around and say some of the most transmisogynistic shit.
Saw a post a bit ago where a trans women told a transandrophobe (it's been a bit so I don't remember the pronouns or gender identity for the blog) that as a trans women, she didn't agree with what the blog said.
The blogger responded (paraphrased a bit because I don't remember exact phrasing) "pre transition and hrt or plaything for your tme friend group?"
And...that's so fucking transmisogynistic?!? Anyone else said that they'd be (rightfully) called out. That's not an okay thing to say. You're not defending trans women. You're actively hurting them.
There is so much to unpack with that. Like first off, the implication that a) a trans woman has to transition to be valid and b) a trans woman is lesser if she has yet to transition is just awful. Hrt and transitioning do not define how "valid" a trans person is.
Second: omfg. "Plaything for your tme friend group" wtf??? That's disgusting. It is so fucked up to call a trans woman a "plaything". That's so fucked up to call anyone but to call a trans woman that? Just because she disagreed with you? How do you think that supports trans women?
This is just one example of something I've seen plenty times.
It's just wild. How can you accuse someone of being transmisogynistic because of their gender identity and then be so cruel to your sisters solely for disagreeing?
That kind of behaviour isn't defending trans women, it's just hurting trans men.
If you're going to support trans women then support them. Support all trans women and transfems. Call out transmisogyny. Everyone can be transmisogynistic. No one is "inherently" transmisogynistic. Call out any of this vile behaviour and don't let someone get away with it because they're "defending the community". Everyone should be called out for transmisogyny.
Be kind to your own community. Be kind to trans women and transfems.
I'm so sorry to any trans women and transfems who have to deal with all the hate and transmisogyny for simply agreeing with the term transandrophobia or supporting trans men. I love all of you. You don't deserve the hate. Transmisogyny is far too relevant in the world and it is so awful that it is justified as "being progressive".
Please stop and read for a few minutes to help support stigmatized people with dissociative disorders
This isn't for a financial cause, a political statement, or an obligation on your part. You are fully allowed to scroll by. However, you reading and reblogging this post could help save people from falling into ableist ideology. At the very least, please read the TLDRs under each section of this post to understand the gist of the situation, and share
But first, some background, and a vocabulary lesson
What is this post about?
This post is a PSA to spread awareness on the topic of endogenic systems and the Empowered Multiples Movement. This post is strictly against their ideals and is an in-depth explanation of how people in these movements came to be that way, why their actions are harmful to people with dissociative disorders, and what you can do to prevent their ideology from spreading and harming others.
What's the vocabulary we need to know? And what is a complex dissociative disorder?
A complex dissociative disorder is a disorder caused in the developmental stages of a child's life (ages around 4-10 years old, sometimes younger) where the brain develops personality. It is exclusively caused by trauma being inflicted on the child that causes them to dissociate to help them tolerate the trauma or memories of the trauma.
It is a covert disorder, which means it hides its symptoms from its holder, making it difficult for many people to recognize that they are systems or seek help on the matter.
(For extra clarification, this definition is for complex dissociative disorders, and does not include dp/dr or those under that umbrella)
And some vocab...
System
A broad term to refer to someone who claims to have multiple personality states. Despite originally being medical terminology, this term has been stolen by endogenic people.
Singlet
A term to refer to those without dissociative disorders, whose minds present as one connected personality state without dissociative barriers. The average person is this way.
pwCDD
Stands for 'person with a complex dissociative disorder' or 'people with complex dissociative disorders'. Refers to anyone who presents as having a dissociative disorder.
Traumagenic
A term for systems who claims to have their system or personality states borne from trauma. This term has been forced upon people with CDDs in order to differentiate themselves from endogenic systems.
Endogenic
An umbrella term for someone who claims to not have their system or personality states borne from trauma, but from some other reason. Some additions in this umbrella include willogenic, tulpagenic, etc.
Final Fusion
A term to refer to when a pwCDD has their final two personality states merge with each other to create one distinct personality state without dissociative or memory barriers, after intensive therapy and cooperation to integrate these states and remove barriers. While not every system wants to have final fusion, it is generally considered a good thing to look towards and a sign of recovery.
But how do we know that endogenic systems are not real or connected to pwCDDs?
TLDR: Because all psychiatric evidence points against the correlation of endogenic systems and dissociative systems, and there is not much information or proper studies about them existing at all.
The criteria for dissociative identity disorder (DID), the most well known dissociative disorder, is as follows (according to the DSM-5):
The existence of two or more distinct identities (or “personality states”).
The distinct identities are accompanied by changes in behavior, memory and thinking.
The signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual. Ongoing gaps in memory about everyday events, personal information and/or past traumatic events.
The symptoms cause significant distress or problems in social, occupational or other areas of functioning.
In addition, the disturbance must not be a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. As noted in the DSM-5-TR1, in many cultures around the world, experiences of being possessed are a normal part of spiritual practice and are not dissociative disorders.
The above statement says it all. Endogenic systems could be considered disturbances created by cultural (see: endo spaces online) or religious (see: the theft of tulpamancy and creation of 'tulpagenic' by endogenic systems online) practices. They do not classify as dissociative disorders and therefore should stay out of areas intended for pwCDDs, and not use the medical terminology for those people.
Why are endogenic systems harmful?
TLDR: Because endogenic systems steal medical terminology and prevent real systems from discovering themselves and seeking help, as well as show an incorrect and romanticized view of dissociative disorders
Endogenic systems break into system spaces by taking medical terminology like 'parts', 'system', 'alters', 'personalities', 'inner world/mindscape', 'fragment', 'persecutor', the list goes on. Endogenic systems take these terms and often misinterpret them, because all of these terms can only manifest in a person if they are a pwCDD who has experienced trauma in their childhood.
Additionally, endogenic systems often spread ideology in their spaces that pertains to hiding or ignoring specific parts of this identity to pwCDDs; an example is how endogenic systems are often against people looking into therapy or recovery, or the idea of final fusion, because endogenic systems do not see dissociative disorders as a DISSOCIATIVE disorder, but as an ALTER disorder (i.e they only care for representing the symptom of having other people in their brain). An alter has no reason to exist if not to protect oneself from trauma... and if you don't have trauma that formed your system, it's impossible to form one.
Endogenic systems often romanticize this idea of being a system: they want to have 'friends in their head' who 'help them with tasks', but are unwilling to accept or acknowledge the other symptoms that often come with being a system, like strong dissociation, memory loss, anxiety, delusions, suicidal and self harm ideation, chronic nightmares, chronic headaches/migraines/stomachaches, and more.
This creates not only a misrepresentation of CDDs to pwCDDs, but also to other people online witnessing it, which makes people take the disorder less seriously. An example might be back in 2020 when lots of people on TikTok were faking DID: when people hear the word, they think of people listing their alters and not representing any of the grittier symptoms, and are less likely to listen to these traumatized people because of this recollection of endogenic systems.
All of this combined leads back to the Empowered Multiples Movement, where the idea of endogenic systems started.
Wait, what's the 'Empowered Multiplicity Movement'?
TLDR: it's a movement from the 1990s-2000s that spawned the idea of endogenic systems and advocated for the removal of DID from medical spaces and the DSM-5
Endogenic systems have had a history stretching back to the 1960s where their term was coined by Sigmund Freud (here it was not referring to this idea of systems, but it is the first known mention of the word 'endogenic' in history).
30 or 40 years after the fact, 'Empowered Multiples' began to show up online, where a few select people began to use the term 'endogenic' to refer to themselves as systems without dissociative disorders.
They also advocated for the removal of DID (or, at the time, MPD) from the DSM, said that those who identified with the term DID or CDD labels were inferior and faking, and would encourage people to write papers and articles against the idea of DID and boycott the term online. They specifically used the term 'natural' to refer to being a system.
It's important to know that this was not a movement borne from love. This movement is, palpably, born from the hatred and purposeful stigmatization of people with DID. The people who spawned the term likely never had system experiences or even fully considered themselves true systems, but did this to hurt people who did.
Why should I, a singlet, care?
Because your care (and reblog/share) can help spread this message to those who need it, and let pwCDDs know that they are safe around you/that you won't tolerate ableism.
Those who have experienced dissociative symptoms, but have never cared to seek out more information or a diagnosis because of the misinformation spread by endogenics, could find this post helpful and end up discovering more about themselves, improving their quality of life significantly. If that's you, and you've been relating to the experiences presented here, I highly recommend you look into scholarly/medical sources and look around CDD spaces for more information.
Why should I, an endogenic system, denounce that title?
Because your title is inherently born from the idea that systems are a fake disorder to make fun of, disrespect, misrepresent, and stigmatize.
If you are experiencing symptoms of a CDD, you should look into medical/scholarly sources for more information. You should not fall for the idea that your trauma was "not enough" for you to be a system. You should not fall for the idea that you didn't "have" trauma. Even if you can't remember your trauma, if you experience symptoms of a CDD, you should look into that more deeply. It may help save your life in the future, or improve your quality of life.
For those of you who are endogenic not because you experience symptoms, but because you want to be, I highly recommend you rethink that idea and look into subjects like kinning, alterhumanity, otherkin, fictionkin, etc., all of which are terms for non-disordered people who might have similar (but not the same) experiences as pwCDDs.
Thank you for reading
And a reminder to please reblog if you found this helpful or informative. Let your disordered friends know that they are loved and welcomed in your community without the stigma spread from endogenics being forced onto them.
If you have anything to add, please feel free to in reblogs or comments
(This post uses general language and is not targeted at the audience)
I need people to understand that learning to cope with a disorder doesn't mean you no longer have that disorder.
It is such a common "got you" that endos try to use against anti endos. "Oh, you're against nondisordered systems? What about non disordered CDD systems? What about systems who are choosing functional multiplicity as their recovery goal? So you're against recovery? You dont want systems to recover?"
Like, no. That's two completely different things we're saying here.
First off, a system's choice for recovery and act of recovering is not and should never be used as a "ha! Got you!" moment.
Second, as I stated at the beginning of this post: recovery does not mean someone magically has gotten rid of their disorder.
You wouldn't hear you're friend talk about starting anti depressants and go "Oh I'm so glad your depression is gone! How great that you've been cured!"
You wouldn't tell someone going through physical therapy "Isn't it nice no longer being injured? Isn't it amazing your pain is just gone? That you have full range of motion again?"
You wouldn't tell someone who has a broken arm in a cast that "actually your arm is 'healing' not broken. Look it's in a cast. Yeah that means it's healing not broken. Honestly, it is offensive to people who actually have broken bones to call your arm broken when it's clearly healing."
Imagine having a broken bone and saying you don't think you can play sports with it and someone arguing "obviously you can. It's in a cast. That means it's fixed."
That's how endos sound to me when they try to argue about "nondisordered traumagenics".
CDD - complex disassociative disorder.
Disorder is in the name. It's a disorder. It's a fucking disorder. Recovey doesn't magically make that disorder go away. You're not suddenly "nondisordered" you've just learned how to cope with it. PwCDDs are not your fairytale to fit into the boxes you like. Stop defining their experiences.
(If a CDD system doesn't consider themselves disordered, that is their choice. They can pick the language they use. It's still a disorder. And it isn't 'evidence' of the existence of non disordered systems.)
My brother made a joke that Trump was "narcisexual" as in "only attracted to people who are attracted to him most" is how he put it.
It took so much effort to not lose my cool. This man went and made a mockery of both the lgbtq+ community and pwNPD.
Leave folks with NPD alone. PLEASE. They are not your joke material. They are not your insults. They are not something you can throw out there to get reactions. They are living beings. It's not funny. It's not "accurate". It's not cute. It's harmful and annoying.
fake ass nihilist i saw you applying the “whole cares were all gonna die” idea only to the people who disagree with you as opposed to applying that idea to your own beliefs.
also this is tumblr idiot we all blog for 6 people because the journal factory burned down. get with the times
img id: "anti willo" blogs are fundamentally pathetic. How about you keep your reductive and shit smeared opinion to yourself. Nobody cares. You will affect nothing. The world will continue to spin long after your blogs are dead and we are all in the dirt and nothing will have changed in the meantime. Make peace with the inherentness of insignificance. Find something joyous instead. /end id
Not to mention how messed up it is to tell traumatized folks (and really anyone) that their lives are essentially pointless.
It's also a false statement. You will affect something. Everyone does. It's a part of existing. A rock can change a rivers course, not by doing but simply by being. (Does that make sense, or have I gotten too philosophical?)
If you ever think you've done nothing, you just need to look smaller. You won't change the world, but there is a stranger out there who's day you made with a compliment, someone who kept writing because you liked their post, a friend who's life you changed by simply being a part of it, etc.
Nihilism is such a strange ideology. We do matter.
(Might have went slightly off topic. Sorry. I just hate when people push the idea that someone doesn't matter. Especially to a group who can easily be triggered by such sentiment)
Absolutely hate the cycle my main blogs fyp likes to follow. It doesn't matter what I do, what tags/blogs I block, or how many times I hit "not interested". It always happens eventually.
1.) Interacts with lgbtq+ content
2.) influx of lgbtq+ content (especially trans posts)
3.) Happy because I enjoy these posts - interacts more
4.) Porn bot shows up
5.) Blocks/ hits "not interested"
6.) Fyp goes "so you want this?" And then slams my fyp with porn bots
7.) Gets the porn bots to go away only to get slammed with transandrophe posts and "kill all tmes" stuff
8.) Debate on if scrolling on tumblr is even worth it
I just had a good chunk of time without this cycle and thought i was in the clear. Nope. It always happens it seems.
Reblog if you are a safe place for people who used to identify as endogenic/tulpas before realizing they were either a) a DID/OSDD system or b) not a system at all
Honestly, had we known about the endo community when we were first going through syscovery, we'd probably have thought we were one.
Full sympathy and understanding!
And I hope nothing we say or do makes people feel otherwise. I know sometimes we can be a bit harsh about our opinions. But we hold no hatred or anger to those who used to be in the community. Its okay to be wrong.
Ahhh, okay. I'm going to end this reblog here before I go chatting too much. But yeah, safe space <3
I find it hard to be mad at some of these communities even if I don't support them. Like the endo community. And it's kinda hard for me to be like "don't interact" because I understand how easy it is to stumble into these communities.
When the system was going through our first syscovery and the parts leading up to it, we were searching a lot about if you could be a system without trauma. If we had found the endo community back then, we'd probably have joined it and been certain we were one. Because it was hard to believe our trauma was enough. I mean, at that point, we were still struggling to even call it trauma.
So everytime I see an endo make a post saying something like "I have trauma but that didn't cause my system" I just so badly want to hold their hand and promise them that their trauma is valid. That I promise it was "bad enough" and they don't have to downplay it. Whether they're right about being a system or not. Because either way, it's so easy for someone to think whatever they went through just wasn't enough.
Our DNI still stands because this blog isn't mine, but I just felt like sharing. I may post from time to time even though this blog isn't my thing.
(We don't usually do sign-offs, but I'll be signing mine off since my opinions tend to be different than this blogs vibe. The others may eventually sign off later)
