HEY!!!! i'm Stu, a fictive co-host from a traumagenic system!!! I'll mooostly be running this blog, but others might have little cameos!! i'm a mania holder too, for our medically recognized bipolar disorder!! wee are bodily a teenager. pleasee,,,,, keep that in mind while interacting with us!!!! we also have medically recognized bpd but we try to pretend it doesn't exist because its a Newer Revelation ,,
we're Allsoo collectively transmasc!!!!!!! he/it, though it varies a bit depending on the alter!!!! bonus fact we are a part time cane user and a part time aac user!!
WE LOVE SCREAM AND DC AND MARVEL AND WHIMSY AND JOY !!! and lots of other things....
ALSO HHI @antiwilloheartcj @antiwillocharlesleclerc @solacesystem @anti-willo-neru MY MOOTSSS
TAGGING SYSTEM!!!
[ peer pressure ] - reblogs
[ i'll be right back ] - other alters' posts
[ it's a scream baby ] - general related posts
[ boo-kah ] - general off topic posts
[ hello sidney ] - answering asks
also please DNI radqueers and (pro/neu) endos n syscourse unaligned ppl n transids THANKS !!! if you are publicly in the proship community please dni
This isn't my usual typing style or a typical post for me to make, but I'd like to spread awareness in system spaces about something important today. Many pro endogenic communities, especially syscord, use a specific method to entrap traumagenic systems into their spaces, and I haven't heard anyone mention it before. This post is for awareness on this matter! There's a trigger warning for ableism and manipulation going forward.
I've noticed a lot of pro endogenic servers have extensive, strictly enforced blacklists / trigger lists. They go from more niche topics, like mentions of electronics being short circuited, into common things, like emoticons and symbols. I, a recently traumatized teen with a lot of severe, common triggers of the sort, found refuge in these servers, and I wasn't the only one to.
If someone is triggered by something tiny, like a smiley, common symbol, emoticon, etc, then they are going to be triggered in daily life in many cases. This will, after enough time, lead to desensitization to a trigger. This principle is what exposure therapies are based around. Shielding someone will undeniably make the real world harder to go to due to lack of desensitization, regardless on your view of the sheltering or the communities doing it.
I sympathize heavily with people with small or odd triggers, as I have been one myself. Creating safe spaces is fine— great, even! Creating large safe spaces where everyone's triggers, no matter how tiny, are respected, will eventually get people accustomed to that type of treatment. They'll get used to having their triggers avoided and won't get properly desensitized, which will make spaces outside the safe space, such as real life or other communities, harder to go to. It's a trap. Not everyone will fall into it, of course, but I fell hard. Even if this winds up to not be an issue or worth worry, if this prevents at least one person from getting stuck in so called 'safe spaces', I'll be really, really happy. Thanks for reading!
ok ive been thinking a bit about polyminds and looked it up. initially i was like "yeah! i can see this. it's kind of like IFS! okay okay.. " and so i went in polymind tags for a look and I am so sorry for assuming the people saying like 'every single polymind just rebrands cdd terms' were exaggerating because they are NOT. im being so dead serious go look it up. partner mindsets. fictlings. factlings...... What Is This.
in a conceptual sense i kind of frig with 'down with the syscourse' stuff but the version of it i envisioned in my brain before reading it was just endo neutral 2 was like a 'syscourse shouldn't exist because being anti endo should be COMMON SENSE' type deal and now i think someone should coin this. someone make this a thing and tag me in it im begging you
"Live and let live. Endogenics don't claim to have DID anyway"
Enough of them try to justify themselves with clinical research and/or the DSM-V criteria for DID, which disqualifies a diagnosis if it is "part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice". Some endos do claim to have DID/OSDD, enough to cause concern, but yeah it's true that most don't.
While some try to use non clinical terms for some things ("headmates" or other alternative terms), they still describe the same roles and mechanisms functionally. They will claim alters, switches with partial or full agency, co-consciousness, fusion, memory compartmentalization, and internal roles. Some describe having hosts, protectors, persecutors, even ANPs and EPs, all things that without the framework of structural dissociation, would not be applicable. They are describing the mechanisms of functional dissociation without explicitly naming them.
What you claim as your subjective experience is harmless to me. If you say "I meditated and met a god and now a dude lives in my brain" I can reasonably say, "Yeah, okay. Sounds interesting. That doesn't mimic a dissociative mechanism, but you do you diva"
But most of the issue is the community and how these experiences are framed. I've seen a lot of comment sections where someone goes "Oh I thought DID was the only way to have alters" and someone "corrects" them with "Well FYI you can make headmates, you can be born with them, anyone can just conjure them spiritually or just develop them spontaneously or because you have autism/ADHD/BPD/etc". That claim isn't really something that holds up under scrutiny, and is misinformation.
"Cool, where is the part where this hurts anyone?"
Aside from the copious misinformation, again, it's the consistent behavior of the community more than the belief itself. I mean I don't agree with the belief, but I won't harass or demean someone for believing it. However when you tell people they can be plural for reasons that aren't scientifically reasonable like being "born that way" when newborns don't even know their hands are attached to their body let alone have an identity to split, or from writing a character and feeling like that character sometimes? Or "you can make your own alters!" with instructional guides encouraging it? You can't say there's no influence on others there, including people who don't remember their trauma- which is a lot of pwCDDs.
Like that's not me making up a guy to point fingers at when there are so many guides and social reinforcement. Even with spirituality or religion most people can go "yes there's no scientific evidence, it's mostly anecdotal with a few possible instances of things that some may say aren't easily explainable by what we understand scientifically" and "it's my personal belief because it makes me happy" but not "you are anti science and bigoted for not following my beliefs that are not based in any scientific evidence or anything we know about neurology".
People with CDDs who don't remember trauma who hear that they can have all of these symptoms and a presentation that mirrors a CDD almost entirely (without trauma) will then believe that they can not destabilize. It would be assumed that they can freely explore their alters and ignore the severity of CDDs, and this is a potentially harmful experience that has been anecdotally reported (anecdotes aren't proof but it can support an overall point, before I am called a hypocrite for saying anecdotes=/=undeniable legitimacy) and is inevitable for some when people who are likely to repress/deny trauma are told that trauma does not always explain the symptoms of a CDD.
"What about IFS? That's plurality, sorta"
Internal family systems is a therapeutic model that assumes that everyone has "parts" outside of a dissociative context. When Schwartz (the founder of IFS) speaks of parts, he explicitly frames them as ego states, not as conscious or autonomous alternative states in the way that alters exist or function.
IFS is not "plurality" in the way typically described in plural spaces and if it were, then people without CDDs would be plural too. It is a model based on non independent parts of the psyche and works with existing subpersonalities that exist in those without DID (and even with it). Treatment looks very different in harmonizing parts in IFS vs integration in CDDs.
Yes, IFS can be applied to people with CDDs but only when adapted in a way that accommodates dissociative mechanisms. It does not imply that being treated with that modality "creates plurality".
"what about when plurality is spiritual/cultural? The criteria for DID implies that the symptoms can appear as part of a 'broadly accepted cultural or religious practice'"
Spirituality isn't pathological and someone believing in something for religious and cultural reasons can be respected without needing to validate and believe it as reality. If I don't believe in a spiritual concept, I can say "I don't believe in that, but you are free to" and that's not disrespectful or invalidating. You can have subjective religious experiences without insisting that others acknowledge it as fact with no credible research.
And if you are a member of a group of people that believes in something that resembles plurality, and don't claim to switch, be co-conscious, hold memories and affect/emotion, have distinct and adaptive functional roles, etc, I take no issue with that. But to claim those things is claiming something that as far as what is scientifically evident, only exists in the lens of structural dissociation. That structure and adaptation to meet functional needs is a response to trauma and/or disorganized attachment (which is also trauma, not non-disordered or plurality without trauma).
And in broadly practiced cultural contexts, what may seem like "plurality" is not (from what I've seen, I'm sure there's A Guy out there somewhere) viewed or described as adjacent to CDD experiences. System, headmates, switches, and the framework and structure and functional roles used to define how CDDs operate are irrelevant to culturally significant practices that bear resemblance to those mechanisms. A Tibetan Buddhist who practices traditional tulpamancy would not likely feel at home in the plural community. Most modern "tulpamancers" understand that it does not align with the traditional practice and have adapted it into it's own thing. I've never seen anyone in the plural community claim to be a part of a religion/culture that broadly practices it.
It is not disrespectful to say "this is not scientifically supported by any means" especially when so many people try (and fail) to use scientific explanations to support it, if not flat out pseudo science.
"But Eric Yarborough said-"
"Eric Yarborough said that plurality can exist without trauma" is a Textbook appeal to authority logical fallacy. He isn't an expert in trauma or dissociation, nor did he ever cite any source in validating "non disordered plurality". A professional saying something doesn't make it true or discredit the ones that don't agree. Some professionals will tell you that long covid is a liberal hoax. An infectious disease specialist will not.
I've seen some experts say they can't deny it as a possibility, but it's more that it's often not possible to prove something claimed isn't true. Maybe I can levitate and just don't want to show you. You can't prove me wrong, really. But you can say "that's not how humans work" and be skeptical and critical of this claim. (ik it's not a 1:1 comparison)
"There's so much we don't know about the human brain. How do you know that natural or willful plurality doesn't exist?"
I don't know that, but I do know that it is depicted in a way online that contradicts clinical evidence. Yes the medical system is flawed, but it still rejects current research and our understanding of why and how CDDs exist. Nothing suggests that the brain would mimic a dissociative survival mechanism without being one.
We also know enough to say that, as it is presented online, it goes against our understanding of brain structure and the development of CDDs through structural dissociation. EEG and fMRI studies on DID show unique and reproducible differences between alters. DID involves specific patterns of compartmentalized memory processing to function the way it does. No evidence suggests that one could willingly create an autonomous consciousness with agency, identity, and self awareness. To claim that alters enter consciousness, exist at birth/in utero, or can be willingly created without trauma or dissociation fundamentally misunderstands and/or ignores decades of research and the theory that best supports why DID exists.
And we still know a lot about the neurobiology of trauma, attachment, memory, and dissociation. We, in 2026 have a general understanding of why and how CDDs function even if it's not 100% understood yet.
Given current research, the logical conclusion is that "non disordered plurality" does not align with any existing scientific or clinical framework and therefore is anti-science.
"Fuck off, you are not in my brain. You can't tell me what I experience"
That's true. And I'm not telling you that you are flat out lying, only you would know that. But I'm saying that it's not a CDD adjacent experience. That saying that someone with dissociated parts with full or partial agency, switches, co-consciousness, survival based functions, different memories, different affect, internal and autonomous communication, different symptoms for other conditions, and different pain tolerance, is experiencing something that is not scientifically supported without giving the brain specific circumstances in which this is necessary for survival.
If proof came out through multiple sources, peer reviewed studies, evidence beyond anecdotes, and scientific explanations as to why and how nondisordered or otherwise endogenic plurality would occur in a non dissociative person, or the dissociation occurring through non problematic means despite being an adaptive dissociative survival mechanism that functions around meeting a child's functional needs, I will be interested and willing to hear it out. But that would take time and results that can be reproduced in different settings.
If you claim to be endogenic I don't wish harm on you or wish to deny you community. But the entire framework typically used to describe it emulates CDDs in a way that cannot be ignored. It is often portrayed as "same basic concept, same roles, patterns, and functional purposes, just no trauma, maybe different descriptors", and that does not align with neurobiology nor is it evidence based and more importantly is not CDD adjacent or suitable for spaces for people suffering from a severe mental disorder as there is nothing that suggests a correlation between these experiences.
whenever a discord server ad says "sys-friendly" i automatically read it in the voice of that one zevo slogan and my brain goes "sys-friendly. bug deadly."
➸ have you taken your medication?
➸ have you drank water in the last 6 hours?
➸ have you gotten something to eat?
➸ have you stretched or taken time to stand up and move around?
➸ have you logged any switches / new parts / relevant information?
➸ if you journal, have you journaled to day yet?
➸ have you done your chores?
➸ have you studied or reviewed schoolwork?
➸ have you taken time to step outside?
➸ have you messaged people back that you've been meaning to?
remember to take care of yourself and take the time to practice grounding skills ♡
please stop taking away our cdd joy. we are allowed to make the most of our disorder without it affirming your ableism. please can you not take this away from us. please can you let disabled people have something please
This might be a steaming hot take for my fellow anti endos, but we really need to stop posting syscourse in CDD specific tags.
BEFORE YOU JUMP ME!!! LISTEN!!! It can be extremely exhausting seeing arguments over people who don’t even have a disorder in disordered tags. I don’t want to talk about endos when talking about my disorder. We deserve to have a space where we don’t have to worry about that.
Syscourse has absolutely drained my mental health because of glaring issues on all sides, and I can’t even go into disordered tags and spaces without worrying about seeing a mile long rant post about how “endos are faking DID” (terrible argument btw, I’m anti endo but I recognize that’s not what endos are doing, and the issues lie much deeper) or, inversely seeing a rant about how endogenics are valid and anti endos are ableist in disordered tags.
There’s also just folk with DID who know nothing about syscourse and may be confused or stressed out when stumbling upon it.
We are not building a safe space online for people who just want to manage their disorder. It sucks man.
saw someone like "do not fucking interact antirqs" and it was so funny to me ?? like why are you acting like sane people are the bad guys here genuinely
being a system is not a silly little identity that you can just slap on !!!!!! it is a disorder !!!! and if you think differently you are ableist!!!! hope this helps
saw this post that was like "fine. be anti-endo. but you can't use the term traumagenic, fictive, factive, etc etc" and i had a brain blast because i can just . use them anyway . nobody is stopping me from using terms so widespread in system spaces they're basically community owned sorry man
(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.)
