Meiko hates ableism, be like her! @anti-willo-meiko - Tumblr Blog

I wonder if pro-endo (and diagnosed) systems know the meaning behind their own movement. That it started as a mockery.

Probably not.

Someone in the comments asked for proof, and I decided to also reblog my reply.

DID/OSDD were first introduced as Multiple Personality Disorder and popularized in 1975, later renamed in the 1990s. [In 1994, the fourth edition of the DSM replaced the criteria again and changed the name of the condition from "multiple personality disorder" to the current "dissociative identity disorder" to emphasize the importance of changes to consciousness and identity rather than personality. - Wikipedia.]

Even with sociocognitive theory (researched by figures such as Nicholas Spanos and Elizabeth Loftus) with the idea that DID can be shaped by suggestion, therapy, and cultural narratives, it does not mean dissociative properties can naturally form with no reason. (Why willogenics are invalid/unsupported by clinical evidence.)

There is no academic paper prior to 2010 using endogenic as a term to describe formations of systems, and no current case studies to support the idea of endogenic systems.

DID and OSDD are simply deeply rooted in disassociation theory, and are medically recognized by the DSM-5. Endogenic “systems” only appear in popular subcultures and the internet. The term comes from oral and internet history, rather than true research by scientists that is also peer reviewed. Professionals would not classify endogenic as an appropriate/official system type, since it does not fall under dissociative internal experiences or complex dissociative disorders. It’s much closer to imagination and identity constructs, not an official CDD. The term also originates from spaces that were pushing back against medical/psychological frameworks. Reframing the disorder as an identity ignores the fact that CDDs are officially recognized disorders and starts the ground for misinformation - ignoring the fact that their term throws aside a condition that requires clinical explanation and is still debated among medical professionals, despite CDDs being recorded all the way in the 19th century.

cambriancrew

"Endogenic" is a community made term, but there's been nontraumagenic systems going back to the 1970s - famous multiple Chris Costner Sizemore always insisted her multiplicity predated her trauma.

With the advent of the internet and online communities, nontraumagenic systems were included in multiplicity groups going back to the days of mailing lists and usenet groups - they're mentioned briefly in the FAQ for the usenet group alt.support.dissociation which was written in the mid 1990s.

In the early 2000s, "plural" as a term was coined, separate from the term "multiple", to include people who were many but didn't have DID. There's some interesting info on it on the Vickis site here.

Plural eventually came to be an inclusive term for multiples and medians - medians being systems where the members are less distinct or less separate.

Then there was the natural multiplicity movement starting in the early 2000s. It was a problematic movement in that it insisted that all true multiplicity is a natural neurodivergence (though this was prior to the coining of ND terms) but the term "natural multiplicity" is what endogenics were called, until The Lunastus Collective, a trauma-based CDD system, coined endogenic about ten years ago.

There still is quite a lot of research and scientific support for nontraumagenic plurality. Guardians System, a trauma-based CDD system, has compiled a ton of it in their doc here. I highly recommend looking into it, there's so much there to see!

anti-willo-eleanor

Did you not read the entire post or do you just like breaking DNIs. Medians are PDID erasure. Plurality is not dissociative, it is identity and imagination based.

You are also ignoring the fact that OSDD and other CDDs exist, which is a very real possibility that traumagenic systems could have.

Until clinical trials and proper studies are conducted, endogenic labels (stressgenic, willogenic, etc) are not considered real ways for CDDs to develop.

Now, with the document.

1st source - A discussion rather than a scientific journal with no new data supporting its arguments. It is peer reviewed but not an actual study.

2nd source - Not academic in the slightest. Made by an instructor rather than actual researchers. It is a lesson rather than actual research. No DOI, journal, or peer review involved.

3rd source - Someone’s personal opinion and not a scientific resource. They have a PhD, but that does not mean it is automatically verifiable. You wouldn’t ask a biologist about chemistry.

4th source - an archive of a forum that could be edited by anyone. Not affiliated with universities or journals.

5th source - this one is a bit more valid, but it is not psychiatric based or not a diagnostic or clinical research. it’s lived experience and social research rather than medical authority and qualitative rather than quantitative. IT IS NOT STUDYING ENDOGENICS, RATHER CDDs.

“ Zarah Eve and Sarah Parry outline the findings of a consultation conducted with young people with multiplicity, a largely misunderstood community. Young people who experience having multiple identities may be diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) or Other Specified Dissociative Disorder (OSDD) which are treated under mental health services. Eve and Parry argue that the lived experience of young people with multiplicity has been neglected in research and practice, with their voices often unheard and their treatment often unsuitable. They conclude that the voices and experiences of young people with multiplicity need to be carefully considered and centred in further research. “

6th source - supports discussions rather than medical validation. it asks for more research to be done on the topic. it is constructivist social model building on experience. participants self report, which creates a possibility of confirmation/self bias.

7th source - lived experience. systematic review and still no clinical validation of endogenic systems

8th source - co-produced / voluntary participatory study using community participants. it is not a research paper on endogenics - it is a paper on how participants look at materials and how useful they find psychoeducational materials. it is not studying the concept of endogenics at all.

9th source - also not studying endogenic systems, rather how transgender people and systems intersect. no evidence for or against CDDs.

10th source - same as 9th.

11th source - focus on YouTube channels, media analysis, community language. it shows how people present online.

12th source - a dissertation done for someone’s PhD. written before modern consensus on disassociation (1995) ; these traits that are studied are also consistent with other things, such as anxiety disorders, moods, attention fragmentation. it isn’t even evidence for endogenic systems as a category.

13th source - non peer reviewed source and published by a trade publisher (Little, Brown). secondary synthesis book for general audiences rather than proper research.

14th source - discusses sociocognitive model, which i mentioned in the original reply. six clinical interviews and case vignettes rather than statistical analysis. psychiatric categories may be dimensional and overlapping in presentation.

The rest are tulpamancy based sources. I will not discuss those since those take stereotypes from the Tibetan practice of Tulpas. Academics also treat tulpamancy as a cultural and online identity, and not true CDDs.

Please also note point D in the DSM-5’s diagnostic criteria for DID.

Overall, the document you provided to me does not prove anything about endogenic systems medical wise, and rather frames them as a social phenomenon.

anti-willo-solivan

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.

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)