TLDR;; Octocon is not anti-endo, endo-neutral, or pro-endo. It is a tool for a minority group, not your syscourse argument. The app is in early beta, as it has been out for less than a week, so it is in early development.
There are many misconstrued messages and blogs going around about the new app called Octocon. Being part of the group of first testers, I would like to clarify some important misinformation that is going around about the app.
This doesn't mean I am a spokesperson for the app or the creator. It means that I am sad that people are once again putting labels on people and apps about syscourse that have nothing to do with syscourse.
The app or creator is NOT anti-endo. It is not endo-neutral either, nor pro-endo. The creator doesn't involve the app with any discourse alsignments, as that strays from the purpose of the app. The purpose is to give people with OSDD/DID a tool made with OSDD/DID symptoms and experiences in mind. Because of plenty of other tools existing for proxying and system organisation that lack that specification, this one has been created by - and for the minority group that is people with OSDD/DID. A function for a minority people, created by someone with the same experiences.
The app was created as an addition to the discord bot for proxying in servers. The database with the discord bot and the app are directly linked. However, both can be used separately.
The app is still in beta, meaning many functions are being tested, updated, and reported on. Obviously, it will still be unfinished. It has been out for less than a week!
On the server, talk of certain loaded topics are not allowed in the server. This is because it is a server for tech support for the app and bot. Besides the general chat and a cat channel, there are a few channels for members to chat in that are not related to the app or bot. It should not be mistaken for a syscord. The rules enhance this distinction.
You might have seen people saying something like this before: "studies find that final fusion only works 12.8% of the time." When I was pursuing final fusion, people in the community threw this 12.8% at me to try and discourage me from my desired recovery. After all, what's the point of pooling all of my time & energy into pursuing final fusion if it has such a low success rate?
Although I don't know where exactly this "low success rate" idea came from, most people I know explain that The Plural Association introduced it to them. This would make sense, because this nonprofit frequently states that final fusion has a 12.8% success rate on their webpage & resources. Here's some examples:
(Source)
(Source)
(Source)
Now, here's the thing:
This is at best a misquote & at worst purposeful misinformation.
The study that is linked here does not say that final fusion is only successful 12.8% of the time, or that only 12.8% of DID patients achieve final fusion.
In this study, a handful of DID clinicians are interviewed about their patients. It says that 39 patients terminated their therapy. 25.6% of those patients said that they reached a successful resolution in their therapy, they no longer needed it. 12.8% of those no longer needed therapy after full fusion, 12.8% no longer needed therapy but didn't fully fuse.
This is not a success rate. This does not say how many patients achieved final fusion. This is just a reason behind why some people left their therapy. The percentage is the same for people who did and did not achieve final fusion.
Here's the exact quote from the study:
(Source)
I have no idea how anyone can take a look at this and misconstrue the 12.8% to be about how successful final fusion is. It's possible it was just a misunderstanding, but I have trouble trusting that as The Plural Association has cited this study multiple times, including writing a whole article on it, yet continues to misconstrue final fusion as only being successful in 12.8% patients when that's just, blatantly, wrong.
Please reblog & spread this! Final fusion is horrifically stigmatized and fully fused systems are subjected to frequent harassment & misinformation about their recovery choices. It's not okay, and we should hold nonprofits like The Plural Association to better standards.
Tone tags, relatively new in popular usage. With its popularity, as always, people will have different experiences with it. In my case, I experienced xenophobia and ableism from tone tags and how some spaces use them. That is what this post will be about. In the hope it makes more people aware about the issues.
People approach tone tags as an accessibility tool that helps everyone. However, what helps one person may cause a problem for someone else. Not being able to interpret the tone of someone else is an experience people may have, especially online it can be pretty hard to tell. Important and guiding non-verbal language cannot be relied on, so we entirely depend on the choice of words and the order they are said in. Some people cannot make sense of what tone is being expressed even with non-verbal indicators. A great solution that people came up with is tone indicators. A way to make clear what the tone of a message is without non-verbal guidance, or for those who have a hard time interpreting tone overall. Where did that go in the wrong direction?
One of the problems is that it is not uncommon for people who struggle to identify tones, to struggle identifying the tone of their own replies. Having problems identifying tones is not exclusive to external interpretation, it can occur to be an inward facing problem too. Struggling to identify your own emotions, being emotionally numb, being dissociated from your own emotions, having intense emotions that are unreasonable in some situations and knowing this, not being used to recognise their own tone so often- There are many reasons why someone may struggle with identifying their own tone. It can be for disorder and disability related reasons alike. Which is the starting reason why the mandatory use of tone tags, and the shaming of not using them, is the leading reason why tone tags can cause ableist scenarios.
Another point on ableism is language processing and speech affecting disorders. I will speak about my own disorders and disabilities affecting this to avoid speaking from experiences I do not have. My focus of this post will be dyslexia.
Dyslexia, already so highly misunderstood, very often diminished as a reading problem as a disorder. Dyslexia affects all areas involving letters, language and script. If it can be read or seen, dyslexia can affect how you interpret or experience what you see. It includes your own thoughts, the way you think, the way you speak and much more. If it involves communication through language in some way shape or form, dyslexia affects your experience with it. Knowing this, here is the problem tone tags have caused for my dyslexia.
1) Tone tags are nearly always acronyms or abbreviated words. Acronyms and abbreviations will be attempted to be formed into words, not per letter or accurately, but like shuffling letters of the acronym or abbreviation, until it makes a word that I know. If I can't think of a word with those letters that fit the context, I cannot make sense of it. 2) Repeated use does not always help to make it easier for someone with dyslexia. In primary school or middle school, into high school and into college and long after all that too. People will assume with more work, studying and usage you can bend dyslexia to understand and correctly use something, or do something that someone without dyslexia can do easily. Grammar rules, the spelling of a word, tips to remember verbs, ways to read faster, getting better at word games, that isn't a given. For some with dyslexia they spend many hours trying to catch up with those without dyslexia in terms of reading or school assignments, still always being slightly under common skill level, except if they don't keep up with the intense training of it, the language skill will slip away again. The hard trained skills to be at a not dyslexic level of: speaking, reading, or writing, will go back to disordered levels at a fast pace if not consistently trained just as hard. Which brings me to the point of (2). Tone tags being used often by others or themselves, does not always make it easier to remember them. Saying things such as "If you actually tried you could do it." "You have to give it time, you will learn it soon enough." "You're making it someone else's problem." "You will just have to give it more effort." As if schools and workplaces haven't been saying those things for years, entire lives, yet it never helps. For many dyslexics, they're made into the problem and that their struggles need to be solved in the same way non-dyslexics train skills they perform lesser in. Except, it is symptom hindering the development of that skill. The problem isn't effort, or practice, or motivation. The problem is a language affecting disorder, your memory tricks will not work the same way, your experiences will not be the same. It is abled-splaining. 3) Dyslexia isn't the same for everyone. Some can read fast, have excellent grammar and spelling, and have perfect speech. While some read slow, can't make sense of grammar or spelling rules and have a lot of problems communication using words. If one dyslexic person can use tone tags, or other kinds of tools, it doesn't mean everyone can.
Through the years I have had other types of negative experiences with tone tags as well, on the topic of xenophobia. Being from a country that doesn't speak English, and not having English as a first language, nor ever having lived in an English speaking region or country, is much more noticeable online than those who have lived/live in those kind of regions. Before someone goes, "Despite living in America/UK, my first language is still not English and I struggle with English too", read to the end before commenting. Taught school English is not the same as informal and casual English. What we learn isn't slang, urban dictionary, common tongue and regional phrases, we learn to write formal letters, read literature and expand English for academic purposes. This is why someone's English can be considered of academic level, while barely being able to understand what someone is saying when visiting the UK or America (as two common places people online are often from). Common phrases, abbreviations, acronyms, etc. are not common everywhere, rarely are they taught to someone speaking English. Living in an English speaking region or country is what does teach this. Online, this is rarely understood. This causes problems.
1) The assumption that an abbreviation or acronym, "speaks for itself". The common sense and obvious implications or meanings of phrases or shortened words and meanings is not obvious when you are not taught this pattern of thinking in a foreign language. Not having practices, being taught or having been exposed to alike shortened words and meanings, makes it incredibly hard to fill in gaps of missing information. If someone asks what a shortened word or meaning stands for, be understanding that not everyone speaks the same language in everyday life as you do. Which brings me to point 2) Making fun of, or degrading people who do not understand it right away or after elaborate explanation. Not having English as a first language, and not living in an English speaking region or country, means that speaking and thinking in English is done through hurdles. To first think, process and interpret in your own language, try to translate it to the taught language (which isn't always possible as not all words or phrases exist in English. Sentences often have to be entirely shuffled to have the differences in formulation grammar as well), have it become a correct sentence which is as accurate as possible to what you would say in your own language, and then actually saying it in sounds and vocalisations that are not your own tongue or voice. In this process a lot of knowledge or meaning can get lost, having people assume the person is dumb or doesn't understand it, while they do, except in their own language they would come off as intelligent if they had said the same thing. These hurdles are called a language barrier. A language barrier means much more than just not understanding each other, it also means not understanding each other as deeply. These people get made fun of for misunderstanding something, or not being able to get their words across the way they want to. Misunderstanding acronyms, abbreviations or what someone is trying to say, is not something to make fun of. It has become normalised, but after several years of being made fun of for not knowing English the same way, the joke falls short of fun.
Lastly, I want to make the point of misuse of tone tags. While the large majority uses tone tags with good intentions, it isn't always the case. Some purposely misuse tone tags, or use tone tags such as /not mean, or /not aggressive to get away with breaking rules or insulting someone.
For DID awareness day, I want to bring awareness to the vast spectrum of DID and OSDD symptoms. I feel like the symptoms of these disorders are often misunderstood. Many people assume that DID and OSDD are such extreme rollercoaster disorders when that’s usually not the case for any mental disorder! I’ve also seen others who believe that DID/OSDD are just having alters and not liking them–which is also not an accurate portrayal!
The DSM’s criteria of alters, amnesia, and distress/impairment aren’t meant to be taken at the surface level. These are very simple descriptors for a spectrum of experiences that are the hallmarks of the disorders. Besides that, there are many, many more symptoms that are very common. No two people with DID or OSDD are going to be exactly the same; I think that goes for any mental disorder.
Below, I’ve written up a non-exhaustive list of common symptoms in DID/OSDD. It’s important to know that many of these symptoms can overlap with other mental disorders. DID/OSDD symptoms are always unrelated to other medical conditions or non-disordered experiences, such as substance use or epilepsy. Furthermore, these are common but not required; a person does not need to experience all of these things to have DID/OSDD.
(PLEASE don’t use this list to diagnose yourself. Seek a professional if you are questioning a mental disorder!)
Common symptoms of DID/OSDD:
C-PTSD symptoms
Since DID/OSDD are more complex forms of PTSD, you or other alters might experience the symptoms of complex PTSD. Check this PDF for the symptoms of C-PTSD.
Memory gaps
You might find that your memory is unreliable. You might lose a lot of details or misremember the important bits.
You might have difficulty piecing together a coherent timeline of your life. You might struggle to retell what your childhood or adolescence was like.
You might have moments where you’re unable to remember important life events, such as the day you got married.
You might find that sometimes you can’t remember important information about yourself or about those closest to you. This could include things such as your name or who your family members are.
You might find that you sometimes forget well-learned skills, such as driving or a favorite hobby.
You may find that sometimes you can’t even remember more recent things, such as what you did today or what the last conversation you had was about.
You might have moments where you discover evidence of your memory gaps, such as text messages you don’t remember sending or purchases you don’t remember deliberating.
There might have been times when you ended up in a different place but could not remember how you got there.
Someone might have told you that you did or said something that you don’t recall.
You might have moments where you don’t even remember the times you have forgotten things. Because of this, you may feel like you don’t truly know how much memory loss you actually experience.
Depersonalization & derealization
You might experience moments where you don’t feel in control of what you’re saying or doing.
You might feel like your body is unrecognizable, unreal, or doesn’t reflect who you are.
Familiar places, objects, and people might suddenly become unfamiliar or detached to you. Alters might feel things like “those are the host’s parents, not mine.”
You might have moments where you feel like you are in a dream or a fog.
There might be times when watching your surroundings seems no realer than watching a movie.
You might have moments where you feel unreal. You might feel like you are invisible, two-dimensional, or a robot.
You might feel numbed to or detached from your body parts, thoughts, emotions, sense of agency, or even your entire self.
You might sometimes experience heightened or muted visual/auditory distortions with no medical cause, such as blurry vision, muffled sounds, or tunnel vision.
Sometimes might you feel like you are watching yourself, as if you are having an out of body experience.
Being an alter & having alters
You might feel confused or distressed because you do not identify with the things that people associate your whole identity with such as name, personality, opinions, or preferences.
You might feel confused or distressed because you do not identify with the same age, gender, or species as your body.
You might feel confused or distressed that your physical body does not reflect how you feel you should look.
There might be other alters who feel the same way above but differently from you, and this may also confuse and distress you.
You might not be able to access same skills, knowledge, or talents that other alters have.
Others might tell you that you sometimes act very differently, almost like different people.
You might hear voices, such as voices arguing or commenting on your actions.
There might be times when you experience intrusive thoughts, visual images, feelings, or urges that don’t actually belong to you but to another alter.
There might be times where your body seems to be moving and speaking on its own because another alter is controlling it.
You might have moments where you involuntarily switch to a vulnerable alter. Sometimes this may result in an unsafe or distressing situation.
There might be alters who are be unaware of other alters’ existence or refuse to believe so.
There might be alters who struggle to communicate with other alters or refuse to do so.
There might be alters who have suicidal thoughts, physically harm the body, or engage in risky behavior.
There might be alters who dislike or lash out at other alters within the system.
There might be alters who still carry onto memories, thoughts, feelings, or behaviors related to past trauma.
The alters within the system may have contradicting thoughts, preferences, and opinions.
You might sometimes have difficulty making cooperative decisions with your system because of conflicting desires, needs, and perceptions.
You might have episodes where you feel like you don’t know who you are, like you’re a combination of alters, or that you’re just not like yourself.
Somatoform dissociation
You might sometimes experience pain or sensations that don’t have a medical cause, such as “switching headaches.”
You might sometimes go catatonic or become paralyzed without a medical cause.
You might sometimes experience the loss of a physical function without a medical cause, such as your sight, hearing, speech, or feelings of hunger.
Sometimes, it might feel like you are numbing out pain or sensations.
You might experience other conditions without any medical cause, such as pseudoseizures.
Other symptoms
You might experience hallucinations or delusions, usually related to past trauma.
You might feel afraid or shamed of the possibility of others finding out your thoughts.
When someone asks you to describe who you are as a person, you might feel at a loss for what to say.
You might experience mood fluctuations or like your moods sometimes come out of the blue.
You might have difficulty being aware of your own symptoms or describing the severity of them. This might be because you have had them for so long that you are used to navigating life with these symptoms.
Disorders that are commonly comorbid with DID/OSDD:
"What words are there to describe the situation when I suddenly can't speak anymore?" - Masterlist
If you suddenly can't speak/struggle to speak:
losing words
losing speech/speech loss
no mouth words
out of words
speech loss episode
situational speech loss
going/being silent
becoming/being unspeaking
verbal shutdown
verbal crash
low/weak verbality
Coined by @witchy-fennec :
demi-verbal:
So, I don’t really fit the term semiverbal, but I definitely don’t fit as a fully verbal autistic either. Because of this, I’ve been thinkin
Handle with care (because it can be misunderstood easily as it reminds of selective mutism, which under no circumstances should be mixed up):
autistic mutism
Some general words:
low words
no words
speech averse
voice averse
speech pause
being/becoming voiceless
being tight-lipped/tongue-tied/close-mouthed
being verbally uncommunicative
being untalkative
being tacit/taciturn
If you want to express that you only use nonverbal communication to communicate:
communicating nonverbally/using nonverbal communication - NOT being nonverbal, that doesn't refer to you using nonverbal communication and is something else entirely ☝🏼
If you want to express that internally you're really struggling with speech atm, but you're able to force yourself to speak:
masked-verbal
If you can't speak anymore and can't make sense of language anymore simultaneously:
losing language
If you could speak theoretically, but simply choose not to do so (or to speak less):
word resting (for example if you want to save energy)
choice verbal
on vocal rest (well-known, likely won't raise further questions)
Words by @carpsstuff :
despeechify - when verbal communication begins to slow or shut down. example: i’m about to despeechify, can you hand me my tablet so i can use my app?
larynx laziness - you want to speak, but for whatever reason but at that moment you cannot. example: i am feeling some hardcore larynx laziness, because i really want to use my voice but ugh! i just can’t!
talk tired - being temporarily unable to use verbal communication due to physical, mental, or emotional exhaustion. example: i am so talktired right now, it’s making it hard to speak.
untalkable - being unable to speak in that moment for an indeterminate amount of time due to neurodivergence. example: i am pretty untalkable right now, so i’m using pen and paper to communicate.
voicebox variable - your level of speech capability varies from time to time. example: i am voicebox variable.
wonky worded - saying things like up when you mean down, or left when you mean right, or yes when you mean no, like your words are getting mixed up somewhere along the way from your brain to your mouth. example: i am seriously wonky worded right now, everything is coming out of my mouth all wrong.
Some newly coined terms I find really cool by @archival-arrival , might especially be interesting for those who aren't autistic (definition in the linked post):
nullvox
tacevox/tacetvox
siovox
siofoni
ochifoni/chorisfoni
ochilogia/chorislogia
pagofoni
pagolexei/pagologia
nullvox -> null (nulla) = no, vox = voice. a word/term for those who fall silent and arent autistic nor have some condition that causes muti
I am not the first to comment on it, nor will I be the last. It is important to speak out against racism in the system community and plural community alike.
Unfortunately, using closed cultures and closed religions is not commonly known as a racist thing to do. For some reason, people have been claiming to be POC when they're white, or another marginalised community when they're from the privileged majority group. Especially Asian cultures have often been easily excused for being culturally appropriated. Using closed culture names, using closed religion practices, using closed culture terminology. If you don't understand what a closed culture or a closer religion is, or why closed names exist, do research. POC don't owe you an explanation for your racism. That responsibility is yours when you have a world of information in the palm of your hand. Google it.
I wish the tulpa community would distance themselves from the closed religion they stole their knowledge from less than a century ago, and acknowledged to use words of their own. To respect the religion they have appropriated and rebranded into something unholy, by creating something of their own. To convert takes more than a few books of reading. Again, do your own research.
Be better. Be not racist. It is really not that hard if you tried just a little.
(Disclaimer: this post was written in two parts, the first half was done the day before but not posted cause I didnt feel it was a complete thought, the second half was added after. I did not edit or touch the first half as I like to keep space for the thoughts of myself as they were; i also have passive chronic amnesia so Im not 100% sure if everything is on the same page; regardless that is just context)
Honestly, I think the thing that is important to keep in mind when interacting with syscourse - or specifically for us cause the only one we really care about is the tulpa discourse - is that you are never going to force or change anyone's mind who is so set that they are sitting on tumblr and pulling the dumbest arguments out of their ass to support their claims and I do think those that spend their time arguing with @/sophieinwonderland and @/cambriancrew - while honestly doing the dirty work no one wants to do by balancing out their bullshit posting so mad respect - are largely wasting their time if they do ever think that a mind will be changed.
The only reason to ever engage or talk about the stuff they (and the clique that actually buys into those arguments) talk about is solely to make an example out of how incredibly deep their interalized racism and just disregard for POC goes and honestly looking at them as anything other than a stubborn white person is putting more emotional energy than its worth.
Because genuinely, in a weird way and me doing what XIV calls "The Riku Thing" of looking at a really negative, annoying, and/or harmful thing and finding the bright side silverlining to it, I do kind of appreciate how astonishingly White TM they are because their unapologetic and loud nature makes a really big spectacle for a lot of people who otherwise would not understand how bad certain issues are look and go "what the fuck" and in its own way, it brings good publicity to the issues AAPI and eastern cultures go through in a western and white predominant area.
AAPI issues often go under the radar and are disregarded due to a number of reasons, but honestly? This is the most I've ever seen people actually talk about how white people take advantage of eastern and Asian cultures (relative to the size of the community in question) save for the brief blip of when Stop Asian Hate got loud during COVID where sinophobia blasted up and a bit surrounding Cyberpunk as a genre when Cyberpunk 2077 came out.
In that regard, I'm kinda glad they are so loudly racist and White TM about AAPI cultures. It makes for good publicity and awareness by being the example of just the Usual Bullshit and it starts better conversations. I'd honestly prefer a loud bigot to a quiet insidious one cause the loud ones at least can serve part of a message and be ignored.
Anyhow, this is all just to say that bigots will be bigots and you can argue with them all you want and call them truthful statements like "bigots" and "racist" but thats about all you can do to really control their behavior. Those balancing out their bullshit arguments, mad props - I could never cause that shit is too toxic and too much of an investment, but it is respectable work. (insert "it aint much but its honest work" meme at yall)
---(cut between original thoughts and the added bit)---
That said, I'll just say it as the fact that it is, those two and those that follow their rhetoric do not care at all about AAPI individuals and are just racist. We don't have to debate it and it's honestly not up for debate and while we could put our energy to trying to tear down their following and make them shut up, in a world where the KKK still exists and thrives, its an unlikely and futile of a goal to try ti achieve.
Instead its best imo to treat them like the public case study of white and western abuses to AAPI culture, particularly since time and time again they redisplay some of the most classic and frequently used techniques white and western individuals do to try to excuse their shit.
If you wouldn't give a person arguing with any other loud and proud bigot, its best to just accept that bigots be bigots and rather than banging your head against a wall, put it up for display on the museum wall as a means of education and awareness.
Theres no point in talking to bigots about how they are bigotted. There is, however, a point to displaying it for those less effected and usually not given the opportunity to sed it in full get a much closer look at some of the shit we deal with
I like to think that while a lot of white and western people suck, that a lot of them genuinely are trying their best with the limited awareness, access, and understanding that they have.
I dont feel as though I would be correct calling them and bigots a "small minority", but I'd like to think they aren't the majority and I honestly appreciate those willing to learn and better understand and so ya know? Whats a better way to explain it than with a live dancing monkey that loudly and proudly displays the behaviors in question for all to see.
Anyhow, I digress. Take this as you will. I am just throwing some insight and personal thoughts about specific users in hopes that some people who might be overly stressed about it might find a little more peace moderating the topic
(Disclaimer: this post was written in two parts, the first half was done the day before but not posted cause I didnt feel it was a complete thought, the second half was added after. I did not edit or touch the first half as I like to keep space for the thoughts of myself as they were; i also have passive chronic amnesia so Im not 100% sure if everything is on the same page; regardless that is just context)
Honestly, I think the thing that is important to keep in mind when interacting with syscourse - or specifically for us cause the only one we really care about is the tulpa discourse - is that you are never going to force or change anyone's mind who is so set that they are sitting on tumblr and pulling the dumbest arguments out of their ass to support their claims and I do think those that spend their time arguing with @/sophieinwonderland and @/cambriancrew - while honestly doing the dirty work no one wants to do by balancing out their bullshit posting so mad respect - are largely wasting their time if they do ever think that a mind will be changed.
The only reason to ever engage or talk about the stuff they (and the clique that actually buys into those arguments) talk about is solely to make an example out of how incredibly deep their interalized racism and just disregard for POC goes and honestly looking at them as anything other than a stubborn white person is putting more emotional energy than its worth.
Because genuinely, in a weird way and me doing what XIV calls "The Riku Thing" of looking at a really negative, annoying, and/or harmful thing and finding the bright side silverlining to it, I do kind of appreciate how astonishingly White TM they are because their unapologetic and loud nature makes a really big spectacle for a lot of people who otherwise would not understand how bad certain issues are look and go "what the fuck" and in its own way, it brings good publicity to the issues AAPI and eastern cultures go through in a western and white predominant area.
AAPI issues often go under the radar and are disregarded due to a number of reasons, but honestly? This is the most I've ever seen people actually talk about how white people take advantage of eastern and Asian cultures (relative to the size of the community in question) save for the brief blip of when Stop Asian Hate got loud during COVID where sinophobia blasted up and a bit surrounding Cyberpunk as a genre when Cyberpunk 2077 came out.
In that regard, I'm kinda glad they are so loudly racist and White TM about AAPI cultures. It makes for good publicity and awareness by being the example of just the Usual Bullshit and it starts better conversations. I'd honestly prefer a loud bigot to a quiet insidious one cause the loud ones at least can serve part of a message and be ignored.
Anyhow, this is all just to say that bigots will be bigots and you can argue with them all you want and call them truthful statements like "bigots" and "racist" but thats about all you can do to really control their behavior. Those balancing out their bullshit arguments, mad props - I could never cause that shit is too toxic and too much of an investment, but it is respectable work. (insert "it aint much but its honest work" meme at yall)
---(cut between original thoughts and the added bit)---
That said, I'll just say it as the fact that it is, those two and those that follow their rhetoric do not care at all about AAPI individuals and are just racist. We don't have to debate it and it's honestly not up for debate and while we could put our energy to trying to tear down their following and make them shut up, in a world where the KKK still exists and thrives, its an unlikely and futile of a goal to try ti achieve.
Instead its best imo to treat them like the public case study of white and western abuses to AAPI culture, particularly since time and time again they redisplay some of the most classic and frequently used techniques white and western individuals do to try to excuse their shit.
If you wouldn't give a person arguing with any other loud and proud bigot, its best to just accept that bigots be bigots and rather than banging your head against a wall, put it up for display on the museum wall as a means of education and awareness.
Theres no point in talking to bigots about how they are bigotted. There is, however, a point to displaying it for those less effected and usually not given the opportunity to sed it in full get a much closer look at some of the shit we deal with
I like to think that while a lot of white and western people suck, that a lot of them genuinely are trying their best with the limited awareness, access, and understanding that they have.
I dont feel as though I would be correct calling them and bigots a "small minority", but I'd like to think they aren't the majority and I honestly appreciate those willing to learn and better understand and so ya know? Whats a better way to explain it than with a live dancing monkey that loudly and proudly displays the behaviors in question for all to see.
Anyhow, I digress. Take this as you will. I am just throwing some insight and personal thoughts about specific users in hopes that some people who might be overly stressed about it might find a little more peace moderating the topic
This is a message to people on this platform who refer to "disordered systems" in ways such as suffering, broken, dysfunctional, unstable, you get the idea.
I speak as someone with DID about OSDDID, not about others. Keep that in mind.
We aren't broken. To break something, it had to have been whole in the first place. You can break a plate, you can't break the earth. Yet, earth is a structurally sound concept we recognise as one despite being crumbly and inconsistent. We are the opposite of broken, we are reformed. Having been built from the ground up from nothing has made us stronger, tougher, durable and adaptive. This was a natural response to an environment that has forced us to be this way, and being in a changed or different environment can showcase how much that strength can also be a weakness.
Someone who is fearless will struggle with risks, because they will always take them and are more likely to lose a lot in their impulsive decisions.
Someone who is cautious will struggle with taking chances, missing out on moments or experiences that are a once of a lifetime type of deal.
Someone who is strong will struggle with sensitivity, because it means they have to rely on something other than their tough shell and honed skills.
What has once made us capable, could have shown other sides of itself as we grew up. Is a fearless person facing fears suffering? No, they're struggling, but they're not suffering. Is a cautious person facing a hard decision suffering? No, they're out of their comfort zone and managing. The presence of symptoms doesn't mean we only have a weakness. The whole disorder is a defense mechanism to strengthen the person's ability to live a normal life despite the dangers they grow up in.
It is a disability, not an inability. Saying being disordered is like having limits on you that prevent reaching happiness is going to severely impact their wellbeing in ways not like you think it will. When you tell someone their existence is a pain, or should be a pain to have, then that person will look at everything from a negative lens. Your lens. The one you handed to them.
You don't tell someone with depression that they're incapable of being truly happy, because of their disorder.
You don't tell someone with an eating disorder that they're incapable of ever enjoying food normally, because of their disorder.
You don't tell someone with a personality disorder that they're incapable of forming a healthy relationship with someone, because of their disorder.
You don't tell someone with a trauma disorder that they're incapable of functionality and happiness, because of their disorder.
Yes, it is a disorder, it is a disability, but that doesn't mean we're any less happy because of it. Assuming so is belittling and offensive, because you're assuming that existence must be insufferable when you're disordered, when you're disabled.
Be open to the possibility that people can flourish and be happy despite their predisposition. Only then, speak about what being a "disordered system" is about compared to non-disordered systems.
A New Model of Dissociative Identity Disorder by Paul F. Dell, PhD
For the first article that I submit to this page, I wanted it to be Paul F. Dell’s work on DID. Mostly because to date, he is my favorite research psychologist doing work on DID. I found his work to be rather thorough and really accurate comparatively to the DSM’s criteria and the current vision of DID that people seem to have.
This specific article outlines P. Dell’s suggestions for the DSM 5 (which is now out - and his research was completely ignored). Of course, his research proves pretty much the opposite of what we’ve been saying DID is for at least the last 40 years.
“Awareness of the presence of other personalities has been widely reported in the empirical literature on DID. Such awareness is a common occurrence in DID. Moreover, many patients who have DID hear or see what some personalities say or do when they are ‘‘out.’’ Many
clinicians have incorrectly assumed that a person who has DID can never be aware of the activities of another personality.
[…]
With the exception of amnesia, dissociative individuals have contemporaneous, conscious awareness of all other dissociative intrusions (eg, depersonalization, derealization, voices, intrusive thoughts, ‘‘made’’ actions). Thus, with the exception of amnesia, all dissociative events are partially conscious. A major shortcoming of the DSM-IV is encountered here. DSM-IV’s classic picture of DID embraces full dissociation (ie, amnesia), but omits partial dissociation. This omission is a problem because incidents of partial dissociation are vastly more common than incidents of switching-accompanied-by-amnesia.”
Basically, what he’s saying is that most people with DID have some awareness of the actions of their alters - and that this has been proven time and time again — but the people who put together the DSM are purposely ignoring this fact, which results in people who would properly be diagnosed DID often ending up with a diagnosis of DDNOS.
P. Dell found that most people with DID are rather partially dissociated (essentially just ‘zoned out’/disconnected) when they switch, rather than fully amnesic.
This is especially important to note, as the entire ideal of DID that has been put out by the media and popular culture is one of complete amnesia and a total lack of knowledge of being DID, which is not even remotely the truth - in fact is so not the truth, that it’s been proven time and time again that most multiples have some awareness of their others.
(This of course does not mean that there’s never amnesia, obviously, or that all people with DID are fully aware of their others… but that this vision of always being amnesic and never being aware us so incredibly wrong and unfounded by empirical evidence.)
Furthermore, P. Dell suggested a complete overhaul of the diagnostic criteria of DID.
The subjective/phenomenological model of Dissociative Identity Disorder
General dissociative symptoms (4 of 6 required)
Memory problems
Depersonalization
Derealization
Posttraumatic flashbacks
Somatoform symptoms
Trance
Evidence of the partially dissociated intrusions of another self-state,as indicated by either 1 or 2:
1. Clinician observation of a self-state that claims (or appears) to be someone other than the person being interviewed, as indicated by the person’s Co-conscious awareness of the activities of the self-state; and Remembering what the self-state said and did Experiencing the self-state as ‘‘other.’’
2. At least 6 of the following 11 symptoms of intrusion by a partially dissociated self-state:
Child voices
Internal struggle, conversation, or argument
Persecutory voices that comment harshly, make threats, or command self-destructive acts
Speech insertion (unintentional or disowned utterances)
Thought insertion or withdrawal
‘‘Made’’ or intrusive feelings and emotions
‘‘Made’’ or intrusive impulses
‘‘Made’’ or intrusive actions
Temporary loss of well-rehearsed knowledge or skills
Disconcerting experiences of self-alteration
Self-puzzlement
Evidence of the fully dissociated intrusions of another self-state(ie, amnesia), as indicated by either 1 or 2:
1. Clinician observation of a self-state that claims (or seems) to be someone other than the person being interviewed, followed by the person’s subsequent amnesia for the clinician’s encounter with the self-state.
2. Recurrent amnesia, as indicated by the person’s report of multiple incidents of at least two of the following:
Time loss
‘‘Coming to’’
Fugues
Being told of disremembered actions
Finding objects among one’s possessions
Finding evidence of one’s recent actions
The sad thing about this criteria is that P. Dell found it to be more accurate than the previous criteria for diagnosing DID… but the DSM 5 acknowledged none of his suggested changes - even though it was as accurate as the MID for diagnosing DID (the MID (Multidemensional Inventory of Dissociation) is list of questions intended to figure out where people fall on the dissociative scale).
((Note: The MID questions are available online, but they require a special Excel spreadsheet to score - which can only be obtained by psychologists by ordering it from the psychologist who created it. Sad day.))
In conclusion:
The sociocognitive model of DID is necessarily wed to the DSM-IV’s model of classic DID. Why? Because the general culture’s model of DID is classic DID. Classic DID is clearly reflected in Sybil. Classic DID has also been reflected in countless portrayals of DID in contemporary films and television programs. In short, the DSM-IV’s essential phenomena of classic DID (ie, multiple personalities + switching + amnesia) are very familiar to the general culture.
Although not intended as such, the present findings refute the sociocognitive model of DID because 15 of the 23 subjective dissociative symptoms that were measured (the criterion A symptoms except for trance and the criterion B symptoms except for self-alteration) are invisible (ie, completely experiential), unknown to the media, unknown to the general public, and largely unknown to the mental health field. Nevertheless, these 15 subjective dissociative symptoms occurred in 83% to 95% of persons who had DID. The pervasive presence of these symptoms cannot be explained (away) by the sociocognitive model’s ‘‘usual suspects’’ - therapist cueing, media influences, and sociocultural expectations regarding the clinical features of DID. There can be no therapist cueing, media influences, or sociocultural expectations about dissociative symptoms that are invisible, unknown to the media, unknown to the culture, and largely unknown to the mental health field.
Basically what this is saying is that what we’ve been taught about DID is wrong - that it’s been modeled after Sybyl’s story (which, as we know, was highly inaccurate and exaggerated for entertainment value) - and that many of the symptoms P. Dell found to be common amongst people with DID can not be explained by social/media influence, or even caused by the therapist - as most people are COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF IT.
So basically, every time someone says “you’re DID because you have the internet” or “because you saw Sybyl”, they’re completely wrong - as the symptoms of DID, many of which are not noted in the DSM or in popular media are unknown to the general public, including psychologists.
I just wanted to list the most important parts of the article (or rather, what I thought was important for this page). As much of it is information from studies that Dell has done, the language of the article is a little clinical and dry. I really didn’t want to make anyone read that if they didn’t want to. You are welcome to read the actual article (it is here: http://www.copingwithdissociation.com/Dell_2006_ANewModelofDID1.pdf#bib1), and if you want to know more about Paul Dell, here is his website: http://understandingdissociation.com/
I'm sorry you're getting hate and what you said is getting misinterpreted like that (probably on purpose). Can't find the post you were talking about but it looks like one of those posts trying to convince endogenics that they have DID, no matter how you try to sell it that's what it looks like and probably what it is. Funny how they will later accuse us of invading their spaces. You don't want non-disordered systems in your spaces?? Maybe stop trying to convince them they are disordered. (1/2)
Thank you, anon!
This is so true!
And yes, that's definitely exactly what it was about, whatever they try to pretend or convince people. They later tried to argue their point and cited another post they made on another blog arguing why the "clinically significant distress or impairment" criterion doesn't apply. This was how that post concluded:
But sure, their latest post made in the endogenic tags claiming that the distress or impairment criterion doesn't matter is just a totally innocent positivity post. /s 🙄
I really hate that we have to deal with this constantly. The invasion by the anti-endo community of our spaces, the attacks, the twisting of everything for the express purpose of invalidating us...
Their point was that that criterion is basically saying that you must have a disorder to have a disorder. Which is exactly what the criterion was saying. You don’t have to suffer to have DID. If you dissociate, you fit that criterion. If you have amnesia, you fit that criterion. Both of these things are other criteria.
They were saying that if you fit the other criteria, you fit this criterion, because the other criteria are inherently impairing.
It was a positivity post, because people are spreading constant misinformation that you must suffer to have DID. I see this among so many endos, claiming that they can’t have DID because they don’t suffer and they like their system, and telling other people that they can’t have DID for these reasons. That post that you attacked did nothing but dispel that misinformation. Your attacking it did nothing but attack a positivity post and spread more of that ableist misinformation.
Stop accusing us of twisting your words, you fucking hypocrite.
If you dissociate, you fit that criterion. If you have amnesia, you fit that criterion.
This is the part that's misinformation.
As I said elsewhere, there are non-pathological forms of dissociation. This is literally taken from an APA website:
Dissociation is a disconnection between a person’s thoughts, memories, feelings, actions or sense of who he or she is. This is a normal process that everyone has experienced. Examples of mild, common dissociation include daydreaming, highway hypnosis or “getting lost” in a book or movie, all of which involve “losing touch” with awareness of one’s immediate surroundings.
And every time ANY system switches, that constitutes a form of dissociation. When WE switch, that's dissociating. We can control it, so it doesn't cause any distress or impairment in our daily lives, but it's a manifestation of detachment dissociation. When we hear each other's voices in our head and recognize each other as separate, independent agents in our head, that's compartmentalization dissociation.
Falsely saying that the criteria for dissociative disorders are circular because if you experience dissociation then you must be disordered is the problem.
That's the misinformation that is harmful to our community.
Additionally, while the amnesia criterion will usually be associated with distress or impairment (because yes, the vast majority of people will be impaired and/or distressed by amnesia), hypnosis can induce both alternate personality states AND amnesia. Yet you obviously wouldn't want to diagnose somebody who is participating in consensual hypnosis to induce amnesia as having a dissociative disorder. Even if they met all the other criteria. That might be an edge case, but it's a real case psychiatrists may be faced with.
(Disclaimer: If any readers do have amnesia that's not intentionally induced though, you should probably consult a medical professional. This point is not to suggest that amnesia itself is normal or something to be taken lightly, and you may not be in the best position to judge how impairing it is because you experience amnesia.)
This is why the distress or impairment criterion exists, and why Dr. Loewenstein, who again is an actual psychiatrist that specializes in dissociative identity disorder, used it to differentiate between tulpamancers and DID systems.
It's not redundant. It's not unnecessary.
It's integral to remind clinicians that even if all the other symptoms of a disorder are met, it's still not a disorder if it doesn't come with some level of distress or impairment.
Okay. Clearly there's a solid miscommunication going on. We want to try and clear that up and help you understand what is being said so that further misunderstandings like this hopefully will not happen.
As a preface: We've tagged this with the pro endo tag for education purposes. We are not trying to convince anyone that they may have a dissociative disorder when they do not, as an endo system. We specifically clarify that endogenic systems fail to meet Criterion B and therefore do not have DID/a CDD. This post is purely to educate about DID and to clarify misunderstandings and misinformation. It is also tagged with anti endo so that anti endos may see this as a sign of good will from a pro endo mixed-origin system (us) making an effort towards clearing up misinformation and misinterpretations.
Starting off, when people are saying dissociate (as per so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat's above response), I believe they're more referring to the clinical dissociation outlined in the criteria for DID in the DSM, rather than suggesting dissociation as a general thing.
I have to ask, Sophie, do you have a copy of the DSM-V-TR?
If not, here's our PDF file, or here's a link to download one from an external source if you'd prefer that instead. It'll be useful for this discussion if you have access to it and we'll be drawing from it as much as possible throughout this post.
Before we get into it, this post is very long, so here's a TL;DR
TL;DR Pathological Dissociation in DID is very clearly laid out and described in the diagnostic criteria, and those forms of dissociation clearly indicate impairment, which fulfills the criterion about distress and impairment. There are also biological markers which fulfills the definition of mental disorder and therefore relates the dysfunction displayed in those markers to the disorder itself, fulfilling the criterion about distress and impairment on its own. These markers may be used to test for DID in the future.
For the discussion around pathological dissociation, you can jump straight to Criterion B. Though a lot of it will be important when discussing the circular nature of Criterion C (distress and impairment). Each Criterion section is highlighted in blue for easy visibility when scrolling.
Okay now let's look at the specific diagnostic criteria for DID in this instance, and what that means in terms of dysfunction, impairment, and distress:
There are five diagnostic criteria for Dissociative Identity Disorder, labelled A through E.
Criterion A:
Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states, which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession. The disruption in identity involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of
agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual.
Now let's look at this to start with. "Two or more distinct personality states". Generally most people who consider themselves to be multiple/a system check this box, though the level of distinction between states varies. Simple enough. "Which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession" - this probably covers some spiritual experiences, though this is addressed later in Criterion D.
"The disruption in identity involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency" - pretty normal if you have a system where switching happens, a different headmate controlling the body, etc. - "accompanied by related alterations in affect, behaviour, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning"
Okay, here we start getting into the nitty gritty of it. "Alterations in affect and behaviour" would be differences between individual identities. Different headmates may or may not have a different presentation with the body compared to others. Nothing really shocking here, all systems can fit this. "alterations in [...] consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning" - okay now we're getting into the potentially dissociative, more impairing symptoms. Depending on how these alterations occur, that impairment may or may not be present. Distress caused by any of these alterations (including affect and behaviour above) may also be present. Here we are considering Criterion C in advance. This would be the point where you start to consider whether or not things are dissociative. Given this is is an and/or list, non-dissociative systems could check this criterion off as a yes. We'll come back to it later on though.
With me so far? Let's continue.
Criterion B:
Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.
This one is short and simple and directly details the kind of dissociation people are referring to when they talk about fitting the criterion. It is not a vague statement of "the individual dissociates", it directly outlines the specific way that presents itself for the purpose of diagnosis.
"Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events" this dissociation is specifically focusing on memory-related dissociation, and potentially emotional in the case of traumatic events, as many will have not just the knowledge of what happened missing, but also the emotional impact missing to even give a clue to the trauma being there (until something triggers it, at least, though that can be dissociated away too). "are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting" is added to ensure that the memory gaps are in fact of a dissociative nature, and not your garden variety forgetting that people usually experience. Regarding Criterion C, in advance, this criteria already fulfills that through being impairing. Memory gaps that are beyond regular forgetting is impairment. And often very distressing.
This is really where non-dissociative systems start to disconnect from the diagnostic criteria. Where they do not fit it as non-dissociative systems do not experience dissociation in this way (hence being non-dissociative). It directly describes the kind of pathological dissociation necessary for DID. It is not actually considering dissociating in the form of identity alteration as dissociation in this criteria. That was referenced in Criterion A. However, you need to match all of the criteria listed here to be considered as having DID and therefore disordered. Fitting one criteria does not mean you have a given disorder.
Still with me? Let's keep going.
Criterion C:
The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Hey it's the one this whole disagreement is about! As we've discussed so far, Criterion A would actually consider this as relevant as (based on its wording) the things described aren't inherently impairing on their own without considering how those symptoms present and impact the system in question. However, Criterion B inherently fulfills this criterion on its own as the dissociation with respect to memory is inherently impairing. Ergo if you fit Criterion B, you fit Criterion C. If you have the disorder, you already fit Criterion B, so Criterion C is, in fact, redundant. To clarify, redundant here simply means it is not something that needs to be considered as a diagnostic criteria. Is it relevant to the disorder, treatment, etc.? Yes, but as a criterion it is already fulfilled so we can acknowledge and draw attention to that impairment and potential distress for treatment purposes but for diagnostic purposes it really does not need to be here. It is self-fulfilling due to the nature of the other criteria. Later we'll talk about the biological component that also fulfills this criteria but I want to get through the remaining diagnostic criteria first.
To go into a specific note though, we'll draw attention to where this impairment needs to be: "in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" - Social impairment involves difficulty maintaining relationships, a social life, etc. in relation/as a result of the criterion listed here. Occupational impairment can be related to difficulty maintaining responsibilities, remembering things at work, different skills and abilities between headmates, etc. Some headmates cannot do things as well as others. This can impact one's ability to work. Hence, impairment (potentially). Other important areas of functioning is not an exhaustive list and depends on the individual/collective in question, and can also relate to biological functioning impacted by the disorder. Due to the expansive nature of this I'll stop there though, with mention of biological links to come.
Alright, this next one is important too, we mentioned it earlier.
Criterion D:
The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice.
Note: In children, the symptoms are not better explained by imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.
"Broadly accepted" is always a complicated thing to consider. This generally refers to things like mediums, shamans in different cultures, etc. How this is properly considered is not easy to go off of if you just read this criterion.
Fortunately, the DSM includes a section in the DID pages about Culture-Related Diagnostic Issues:
In settings where possession symptoms are common (e.g., rural areas in low- and middle-income countries, among certain religious groups in the United States and Europe), all or some of the fragmented identities may take the form of possessing spirits, deities, demons, animals, or mythical figures.
This is straightforward, plenty of systems have headmates that present as a variety of things that may often be attributed to a religion, mythology, cultural beliefs, etc. This doesn't inherently mean that the presentation of the headmate is because of those practices/beliefs. It continues on:
Possession-form dissociative identity disorder can be distinguished from culturally accepted possession states in that the former is involuntary, distressing, and uncontrollable; involves conflict between the individual and his or her surrounding family,
social, or work milieu; and is manifested at times and in places that violate cultural or religious norms.
A point earlier in the page, in the Diagnostic Features section, also includes this:
The identities that arise during possession-form dissociative identity disorder present recurrently, are unwanted and involuntary, and cause clinically significant distress or impairment (Criterion C). However, the majority of possession states that occur around the world are usually part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice and therefore do not meet criteria for dissociative identity disorder (Criterion D).
"[possession-form dissociative identity disorder] is involuntary, distressing, and uncontrollable"
"The identities that arise during possession-form dissociative identity disorder present recurrently, are unwanted and involuntary"
Involuntary, unwanted/uncontrollable, and notably recurrently. This is what the DSM says distinguishes DID possession-form identities to those of cultural and religious practices. From this, you could reasonably view that deliberate, temporary, and voluntary examples of a headmate would fit these cultural or religious explanations, and therefore not be considered to fit Criterion D.
Lastly, "In children, the symptoms are not better explained by imaginary playmates or other fantasy play" would not entirely discount the possibility of DID but would not itself be usable as evidence towards the diagnosis - should things persist into life then it would be considered, alongside all the other criteria as normal.
That was a lot for that one, one more to go now. This next one should be much simpler.
Criterion E:
The symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).
This is your standard "does this occur without the influence of any substance", when the person is in their regular state of being chemically, etc. (within reasonable variance).
"or another medical condition" - this one is a little more involved, as it really depends what the other medical conditions are that are being considered. Take the example given, for instance, Complex Partial Seizures - the DID-like symptoms that may occur due to this are generally temporary with the onset of the non-epileptic seizures and subside/go away in between, though a memory gap for the period of the seizure can and often remains.
So that's all the criterion themselves.
However we also want to draw attention to a part of the Risk and Prognostic Factors section, Genetic and physiological, which goes over some of the biological aspects of DID, so here:
Twin studies suggest that genetics account for around 45%–50% of the interindividual variance in dissociative symptoms, with nonshared, stressful, and traumatic environmental experiences accounting for most of the additional variance. Several brain regions have been implicated in the pathophysiology of dissociative identity disorder, including the
orbitofrontal cortex, hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, and amygdala.
This section highlights how DID, or specifically the trauma resulting in it, relates to brain structure as part of its identity. A disordered brain will have its structure affected and cause impairment and dysfunction due to this. This article goes more into the biomarkers and research that contributed to the inclusion of the physiology of DID in the Text Revision (TR) of the DSM-V.
Notably, dysfunction is defined as "abnormality or impairment in the regulation of a metabolic, physiological, or psychological process" by the Oxford Languages dictionary. The DSM itself does not redefine the word to be more specific so we can use this meaning to work with here. Abnormality and Impairment are the key words here. Impairment we already know as part of the criteria of DID. Abnormality is simply, not the norm, not widely accepted/culturally approved differences. Allow me to bring up the definition of "mental disorder" from much earlier in the DSM. This is wording you've seen before:
A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental
disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.
"A mental disorder is a syndrome characterised by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning"
Let's go through the important words here:
Syndrome - "a group of symptoms which consistently occur together, or a condition characterized by a set of associated symptoms" (Oxford Dictionary definition)
Clinically Significant - the DSM discusses this in the Use of the Manual chapter, under Use of Clinical Judgement:
In the absence of clear biological markers or clinically useful measurements of severity for many mental disorders, it has not been possible to completely separate normal from pathological
symptom expressions contained in diagnostic criteria. This gap in information is particularly problematic in clinical situations in which the individual’s symptom presentation by itself
(particularly in mild forms) is not inherently pathological and may be encountered in those for whom a diagnosis of “mental disorder” would be inappropriate. Therefore, a generic diagnostic criterion requiring distress or disability has been used to establish disorder thresholds, usually worded “the disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” Assessing whether this criterion is met, especially in terms of role function, is an inherently difficult clinical judgment. The text following the definition of a mental disorder acknowledges that this criterion may be especially helpful in determining an individual’s need for treatment. Use of information from the individual as well as from family members and other third parties via interview or self- or informant-reported assessments regarding the individual’s performance is often necessary.
The first section from "In the absence" up until "would be inappropriate" (I'm not copying such a large section of it into the discussion) relates to milder and non-pathological forms and presentations of symptoms, and the need to differentiate these forms from presentations that are actually disordered.
"Therefore, a generic diagnostic criterion requiring distress or disability has been used to establish disorder thresholds" - distress and disability/impairment are necessary for clinical significance. This is Criterion C as we've already discussed.
"The text following the definition of a mental disorder acknowledges that this criterion may be especially helpful in determining an individual’s need for treatment" - each individual disorder goes more into detail about how this can apply specifically and how it relates to potential treatment, if necessary.
Okay! Next: we've already looked at dysfunction, so we're going to specifically address the biological dysfunction and how this relates back to the Criteria for DID.
Biological dysfunction dysfunction would be described as abnormality or impairment of biological processes, in this case specifically related to the brain's biology. Abnormality, again, is not the norm, not widely accepted differences, etc. And impairment we already know to be difficulty or inability in functioning.
So how does this all relate together? We have the biomarkers of DID indicative of impact to parts of the brain, hence impairment. This fulfills both biological dysfunction and clinical significance, and through that research we know that the clinical significance in the form of that impairment reflects the biological dysfunction.
Therefore inherently Criterion C is fulfilled due to this dysfunction (in the form of impairment) of the brain, rendering the criterion redundant, circular. If you have the disorder then you are impaired on a biological level. And if you have the disorder you meet the requirements for all the other criteria. It's still good to include to highlight and draw attention to the distress and impairment for treatment purposes, however for diagnostic purposes it's rather pointless. Currently the biological markers aren't beneficial for diagnosis yet, but as per the article about said biomarkers, you'll find the conclusion:
We propose a pattern of neuroimaging biomarkers that could be used to inform the identification of individuals with DID from healthy controls at the individual level. This is important and clinically relevant because the DID diagnosis is controversial and individuals with DID are often misdiagnosed. Ultimately, the application of pattern recognition methodologies could prevent unnecessary suffering of individuals with DID because of an earlier accurate diagnosis, which will facilitate faster and targeted interventions.
In the future this information could be used to facilitate the diagnosis process. We know the biomarkers are there we just need to actually get into testing them.
TL;DR Pathological Dissociation in DID is very clearly laid out and described in the diagnostic criteria, and those forms of dissociation clearly indicate impairment, which fulfills the criterion about distress and impairment. There are also biological markers which fulfills the definition of mental disorder and therefore relates the dysfunction displayed in those markers to the disorder itself, fulfilling the criterion about distress and impairment on its own. These markers may be used to test for DID in the future.
You hit your head and experience head pain, dizziness, etc etc. you say “I’m probably fine.” You talk to your friend who has chronic headaches without head trauma. They say “hey uh that sounds like head trauma?” You go to the doctor and are diagnosed with a concussion. Further investigation reveals an internal bleed, which you receive medical care for. Your life is saved because you take care of yourself as per your diagnosis, and how you take care of yourself looks different from how your friend with chronic headaches does.
————
You hit your head and experience head pain, dizziness, etc etc. you say “I’m probably fine.” You talk to your friend who has chronic headaches without head trauma. They say “that reminds me of my headaches! Here’s how I help my headaches.” You do what your friend says. You eventually die from the internal bleed. Woops!
————
You hit your head and experience head pain, dizziness, etc etc. you say “fuck I think I have a concussion.” You talk to your friend who has chronic headaches without head trauma. They say “that reminds me of my headaches! Here’s how I help my headaches.”
“That’s cool for you, but I’m worried I have a concussion.”
“They’re both headaches - you’ll be fine.”
“I really think I should go to a doctor?”
“The doctor won’t listen to you.”
You eventually die from the internal bleed. Woops!
————
You hit your head and experience head pain, dizziness, etc etc. you say “fuck I think I have a concussion.” You talk to your friend who has chronic headaches without head trauma. They say “that reminds me of my headaches! Here’s how I help my headaches.”
“That’s cool for you, but I’m worried I have a concussion.”
“Oh shit, you should go to a doctor. My friend says this guy did well for their concussion.”
You go to the doctor your friend recommended. Further investigation reveals an internal bleed, which you receive medical care for. Your life is saved because you take care of yourself as per your diagnosis, and how you take care of yourself looks different from how your friend with chronic headaches does.
————
You experience chronic head pain, despite having never hit your head. You say “fuck what’s going on?” You go to your friend who you know had a concussion recently. They say “that sounds like chronic headaches - I researched them when I got my concussion. Here’s some resources.” Your life is made better.
————
You experience chronic head pain, despite having never hit your head. You say “fuck what’s going on?” You go to your friend who you know had a concussion recently. They say “that sounds like a concussion.”
“But I never hit my head?”
“Let me ask you a few questions about that. It’s possible you just don’t remember hitting your head.” After a conversation that is likely frustrating and potentially increasingly painful, you discover you hit your head. You have a concussion.
—————
You experience chronic head pain, despite having never hit your head. You say “fuck what’s going on?” You go to your friend who you know had a concussion recently. They say “that sounds like a concussion.”
“But I never hit my head?”
“Let me ask you a few questions about that. It’s possible you just don’t remember hitting your head.” After a conversation that is likely frustrating and potentially increasingly painful, you still have no evidence that you hit your head. You still have a very bad headache, and one less friend, because they’re an asshole.
————
You experience chronic head pain, despite having never hit your head. You say “Oh my god, I must have a concussion.” You go to your friend who you know had a concussion recently. They say “that sounds like a chronic headache.”
“But it’s exactly what you experience!”
“No it’s not? I experience xyz, and you experience abz.”
“We both experience z!”
“But that doesn’t make it a concussion.”
“You’re just being a headache exclusionist!”
You have chronic headaches and -1 friend because you’re an asshole.
sophie, you do not know what you're talking about in regards to DID. i don't deny that people will argue that it's immoral for an animal alter in a DID system to date, say, a singlet. however, alters in DID are not animals. they *believe* that they are because of trauma. this is a substitute belief and losing yourself in one is NOT healthy. healing is quite literally helping that alter realize that they're not *actually* an animal. they can still appear as one, though.
And see. Here it is.
I realize they aren’t biological animals but they DO identify as animals. And as for healing, who gets to be judge of that?
I’ve seen DID systems who have fully fused and the remaining alter still identified as nonhuman.
And it’s not just about dating singlets either but internal dating too. I’ve already seen r/systemscringe accuse a human-identifying headmate of dating a Pokémon-identifying one. That’s something that happens right now.
We don’t get to dictate how others choose to identify or present themselves. If an animal alter chooses to present as an animal then that’s their right. They have the right to appear in a way that they feel comfortable and identify with, whether or not someone else deems it healthy.
And for some, existing in a form they identify with will help deal with their dysmorphia, and it WILL be healthy for them in that way.
While they’re not literal animals, neither is a picture. And if we say attraction to an illustration is wrong, then the next step is to say that attraction to a digital avatar with a person behind it must also be wrong. And by extension, them being in any relationship is unless they’re presenting a form they don’t identify with.
identifying as something internally in DID before healing doesn’t necessarily mean you actually *want* to identify that way.
many people with DID have gone through severe abuse and trauma to have alters that appear as animals. the problem is that before healing there is no good way for them to determine if they actually, truly want to appear this way, or if they’re simply appearing/identifying as an animal because they were degraded or treated like an animal during childhood.
this is because these parts are *severely* traumatized and often conditioned into believing that they are animals or otherwise sub-human for the purposes of their abuse. they need to get rid of the idea that they are sub-human *before* they can healthily identify as an animal. that’s what you don’t get about DID.
and after healing, people with DID and alters within DID systems don’t have to *appear* as human internally to understand that they *are* human. in these cases, these people often are reclaiming their animal identities or find comfort and security in being non-human, which is great for them!
say they internally identify/appear as, say, a cat, but after healing realize that they aren’t *literally* a cat. they can/will/do appear as a cat internally still, and that’s perfectly fine and doesn’t inherently need to be changed, but now understanding that they are still human externally and psychologically, i.e. no longer fully believing that they are a cat like people generally do as an animal alter in a DID system before therapy/healing.
they may still have a cat-like appearance internally, draw themselves with cat-like features or as a cat, or taking on a cat/cat-like avatar/sona/character online or in VR. they will probably still have a lot of strong connections to cats or nekomimis/catpeople because of how they felt that cats/”being” a cat protected them during childhood, or to reclaim the identity of being a cat from their abuser, and all of these things are fine and great.
but falling too deep into the substitute belief hole and fully believing that you are a cat in DID is not healthy. DID is a trauma-based dissociative disorder and many of these people are identifying as certain things due to severe trauma, doing these things out of self destruction or because they don’t feel like they’re “allowed” to be human because they’re sub-human.
who gets to be the judge of this? literal trauma and dissociative specialists who have been treating DID for years.
you truly do not know what you’re talking about here.
[now, there are non-human parts that identify in a certain way unrelated to dehumanization or specific forms of sexual abuse, and may have a completely healthy relationship with non-humanity. other alters may identify as non-human because they hate humans and what they have done to them/their system, or they may appear as non-human because of feeling alienated from society in some way. these things don’t inherently need to be changed and aren’t what i’m talking about here. i’m saying that putting blanket statements on people with DID and their non-human alters as a whole is wrong when you clearly don’t understand how many non-human alters in DID are formed.]
I don’t think identifying as anything in any situation means you necessarily want to identify as that.
Ask many therians and otherkin if they wanted to identify as animals, and I’m willing to bet that many will tell you that it wasn’t a choice for them. It’s just who they are.
And let me be clear that I’m not ignorant as to why animal alters may form in some cases.
And I would agree that a delusional belief that they’re literally an actual animal can be harmful, but that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is a matter of respect and autonomy.
Being able to say “I may not be the same as a biological animal but I feel more comfortable identifying and appearing as such and would like people to respect how I identify.”
I apologize if this came off as putting a blanket statement on people with DID because that’s definitely not the intent. If anything, my position is the opposite.
I do not believe treatment and mental health are one-size-fits-all, whether that’s in psychotherapy or medication. What helps one person may harm another.
I am against statements like the anon’s that suggests there is only one true path to recovery that everyone must abide by, and that anything off that path is anti-recovery.
you are not even arguing with my words, you are straight up making things up and disregarding what i’m saying for the sake of saying random shit.
you are still not understanding what you’re talking about, and comparing DID to therians is disrespectful to both parties. one is a spiritual belief, the other is a trauma-based dissociative disorder. sure, neither of us chose our identities, but one is a *spiritual belief* and the other is a trauma-based dissociative disorder that changes your identity due to trauma.
you are fundamentally misunderstanding my point.
“some cases”? how about most recorded cases. most animal alters who formed due to abuse have substitute beliefs as well (they are not necessarily delusions, clinically speaking).
yes, of course you respect an alter’s identity, even if they identify as one of your abusers, even if they identify as an animal due to dehumanization abuse. this is a part of the respect and autonomy you speak of. you respect the way they appear because they are not yet ready to face the reality that they are not those things, that they appear that way because they were abused so severely that they were forced to believe they were animals, who were severely abused in ways that they did not deserve, for no reason other than pure cruelty and control, or sometimes the enjoyment of their abuser.
you respect a dog part on their terms, as a dog, until they are ready to come to terms with the abuse they received and how it affected them, and figure out for themselves whether they still want to be a dog in a healthy way, or if they want to be a human. that is literally a part of the healing process, because you cannot force recovery on anyone, even alters within DID systems, whether you’re doing this guided by therapy or if you’re going about healing alone, (i also happen to believe that healing and treatment are not one-size-fit all! imagine that!)
nowhere in my original post did i actually say that you have to disrespect these parts and force humanity onto them regardless of what they want.
but you HAVE to understand, these parts identify as animals due to abuse, not because they actually wanted to be, or because they were saddled with the idea because of a spiritual belief.
there are two options for animal alters: believe they deserved the abuse and that they are sub-human, or realize that the abuse they got was not what they deserved and that they are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of how they identify/appear, and that they were worthy of and entitled to these things the whole time.
which one sounds like the healthier path to you?
healing is not one-size-fits-all, however there are multiple ways to get to the same destination, and the healthiest destination is realizing that you did not deserve what you went through, that you can choose who you want to be and be worthy and deserving of respect and dignity regardless of how you want to be.
healing means a lot of different things for a lot of different people, but they at some point MUST come to terms with their trauma/abuse and the fact that they didn’t deserve it, and that they are deserving of respect and dignity, whether they identify as a human or an animal.
therians do not have to go through a healing process for the severe dehumanization and abuse they went through as a child, therefore causing them to believe that they are and behave as a literal animal. they have a fucking spiritual belief.
keep my disorder out of your mouth unless you plan on saying something true about it. stick to your field of expertise: endos, tulpas, and non-complex dissociative plurality.
edit: just realized you linked me to r/systemscringe to “prove” you know how animal alters form. girl, fucking stop.
To be blunt, you seem upset about me mentioning DID and are looking for things to twist and nitpick. We both agree that the identities of alters should be respected. We both agree that they should be allowed to appear how they choose and be treated as they want on their own terms regardless of where they are in the healing process.
And we are both in agreement that dealing with trauma is important to recovery.
You nitpick me saying “some” but to my knowledge, there are no statistics on DID systems with nonhuman alters. The supposed correlation between dehumanization and animal alters apparent in case studies and reports by psychiatrists may simply be due to confirmation bias and the fact that psychiatrists spend most of their time interacting with the hosts and traumatized alters while paying less attention to alters that aren’t trauma holders or frequent fronters.
I am sticking with “some” in the absence of any real statistics to show a majority. If there are statistics out there, I would love to see them. Otherwise, I like my weasel words like “some,” “many,” and “often” depending on how I’m feeling.
Additionally, your statement on Therians is just wrong. Therians can ALSO be psychological.
Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of conscious and unconscious behavior as well as thought. A short explan
(Ironic for someone telling people to stick to topics they know.)
As for the r/systemscringe link, I again am not sure what your point is here. It was a comment I made in response to fakeclaiming of a system. I had a bad habit of showing up with academic sources that contradicted the narrative until the sub finally got sick of it and banned me. 🤷♀️
Do you actually disagree with anything I wrote there or are you just choosing to be upset that I went into the pit of vipers to try to defend systems while using actual sources?
my entire disagreement with you, and the reason i sent that anon in the first place, comes from you bringing DID into discourse about zoophilia, and essentially conflating zoophilia, which generally actually has a clear definition, both literally and colloquially, relating to real life animals based on obvious context clues, to people dating animal alters, heavily implying to anyone who knows the definition of zoophilia that animal alters are real animals.
you also seem to misunderstand how to go about animal alters in DID pretty heavily if you’re still comparing them to therians.
i’ll admit, i was wrong (and already corrected by someone else) about therians, as my only knowledge of the therian community was the spiritual belief that one is/was an animal (particularly in a past life). regardless, even psychologically, the two are still not the same, as one is a dissociative disorder caused by childhood trauma that divides your consciousness, memories, behaviors, PTSD flashbacks and essentially your whole identity into different sections, separated by walls of dissociation. the other is simply a relatively neutral belief people actively engage in for a multitude of reasons, be it a spiritual belief, a coping mechanism, fun, etc.
in this post i was simply responding to you after i sent in an anon that was heavily limited by a character limit that was, admittedly, functioning on a different definition of “zoophilia” than you appear to be using, (a much more vague one), and the discussion went off from there. that’s all that happened here.
what i’m actually pissed off about as a whole, and why i sent that anon in the first place, is the fact that you made up an argument i have never seen, not even in the “littles are real children” circles, that people are going to argue that you can’t fuck an animal alter or a therian because it’s “zoophilia”, and that, (among reasons related to not condoning harassment for existing), is why you support zoophiles. you also claimed that there’s an alleged deep connection between the plural/therian/furry communities and zoophilia, when in fact, many of the people in those communities (which have considerable overlap) have been trying to move far away from zoophiles because of the exact reasons you stated you support them.
not to mention using a definition of zoophile i’ve never seen used in a positive manner, claiming that it’s murky or vague, when every definition i see, and every definition of the anti-zoophile crowd, pretty clearly says or has context clues telling us that it’s referring to an attraction to real-life animals, not fictional cartoons or humans who identify as animals, (see: britannica definition of zoophilia, for example) or otherwise doesn’t bother to talk about anthros and talking fictional cartoon animals. pretty much everyone i’ve seen taking the stance that “zoophile means any animal, real/realistic or talking cartoon fiction” has the stance that furries are zoophiles, which is now the stance you appear to be taking!
now, i don’t care what zoophiles are doing so long as they’re not hurting actual real life animals or consuming porn that hurts actual real life animals, and i don’t support people harassing them simply for existing. i don’t believe in thought crimes or arresting/harming people for having (even harmful) sexual fantasies that they have not acted on or consumed real-life porn of other people acting on.
my problem comes from you conflating zoophilia and (plural/complex dissociative disordered, etc) humans (whether they identify as such or not) dating humans for an argument that you claim to have seen exactly once, acting like it’s a huge problem that you see every single day, when pretty much nobody else has seen that argument or even thought to claim that argument. you claim it’s “the syscourse of tomorrow”, yet most of the communities i’ve seen haven’t even started thinking about it today.
i nor anyone else i know has even seen that argument made even on twitter, and i and many of my friends are active in endogenic and DID communities on various platforms, so whatever you’re thinking about, it is clearly not a widespread concept.
yes, people call furries zoophiles. yes, people call therians zoophiles. not for dating other humans, but for just being furries and therians, and, specifically in the case of furries, having a lively community that involves NSFW writing and artwork revolving around their identities, sonas and characters.
the solution to these problems is NOT to essentially say “it’s (related to) zoophilia, actually” when these communities have largely been trying to move away from that association, and have even been outright traumatized by that association multiple times.
the solution is also not to essentially say that wanting to fuck an animal alter/headmate is the same as zoophilia either, because it is not. these alters/headmates are in human bodies and understand/can learn concepts such as bodily autonomy and consent, while real life animals cannot. a person fucking a human who identifies as an animal cannot be arrested for bestiality, and it is not zoophilia.
the solution to these problems is actually to the solution is to talk about why bestiality is wrong, (not because of the attraction to the animal itself, but rather because animals cannot consent as they cannot understand such complex topics as consent and bodily autonomy), and talk about why wanting to fuck talking fictional cartoon animals who have complex relationships and no problem understanding topics such as consent, (i.e. anthropomorphized animals, in the literal use of the word), is not zoophilia, and misunderstanding that is a muddying of the definition.
during multiple posts through today discussing zoophilia, you have described various slippery slopes that are frankly insane, even going as far as to say people may claim that dating someone with an animal icon is zoophilia.
you, and i cannot stress this enough, are wrong. people will never argue that being attracted to someone with an animal icon is zoophilia. it’s never gonna happen, and you’re making up intentionally inflammatory “slippery slopes” that make little, if any, sense.
not to mention that because there is a considerable overlap between the DID and plural communities with the furry/therian communities and how common animal/non-human alters are, i would be very hard-pressed to find too many people within the community spreading the idea that fucking an animal alter/headmate is wrong and “zoophilia”.
even performative communities such as the ones on tiktok and twitter have never bothered arguing this because it’s untrue and frankly stupid. you said you’ve seen it exactly once, by some rando on reddit? that’s not exactly “the syscourse of tomorrow”.
outside of the community? maybe it would be a more common thought. these people, however, often believe that systems aren’t real, don’t want to be reasoned with about DID and plurality, and couldn’t tell you why bestiality is actually wrong in the first place. there would be little point in arguing with them about anything because they don’t care.
you almost entirely made up a guy to get mad at, saying this was occurring within the community, and then conflated furries, therians and non-human alters/headmates with zoophilia and zoophiles.
the discussion about DID non-human alters was frankly a tangent.
sophie, you do not know what you're talking about in regards to DID. i don't deny that people will argue that it's immoral for an animal alter in a DID system to date, say, a singlet. however, alters in DID are not animals. they *believe* that they are because of trauma. this is a substitute belief and losing yourself in one is NOT healthy. healing is quite literally helping that alter realize that they're not *actually* an animal. they can still appear as one, though.
And see. Here it is.
I realize they aren’t biological animals but they DO identify as animals. And as for healing, who gets to be judge of that?
I’ve seen DID systems who have fully fused and the remaining alter still identified as nonhuman.
And it’s not just about dating singlets either but internal dating too. I’ve already seen r/systemscringe accuse a human-identifying headmate of dating a Pokémon-identifying one. That’s something that happens right now.
We don’t get to dictate how others choose to identify or present themselves. If an animal alter chooses to present as an animal then that’s their right. They have the right to appear in a way that they feel comfortable and identify with, whether or not someone else deems it healthy.
And for some, existing in a form they identify with will help deal with their dysmorphia, and it WILL be healthy for them in that way.
While they’re not literal animals, neither is a picture. And if we say attraction to an illustration is wrong, then the next step is to say that attraction to a digital avatar with a person behind it must also be wrong. And by extension, them being in any relationship is unless they’re presenting a form they don’t identify with.
identifying as something internally in DID before healing doesn’t necessarily mean you actually *want* to identify that way.
many people with DID have gone through severe abuse and trauma to have alters that appear as animals. the problem is that before healing there is no good way for them to determine if they actually, truly want to appear this way, or if they’re simply appearing/identifying as an animal because they were degraded or treated like an animal during childhood.
this is because these parts are *severely* traumatized and often conditioned into believing that they are animals or otherwise sub-human for the purposes of their abuse. they need to get rid of the idea that they are sub-human *before* they can healthily identify as an animal. that’s what you don’t get about DID.
and after healing, people with DID and alters within DID systems don’t have to *appear* as human internally to understand that they *are* human. in these cases, these people often are reclaiming their animal identities or find comfort and security in being non-human, which is great for them!
say they internally identify/appear as, say, a cat, but after healing realize that they aren’t *literally* a cat. they can/will/do appear as a cat internally still, and that’s perfectly fine and doesn’t inherently need to be changed, but now understanding that they are still human externally and psychologically, i.e. no longer fully believing that they are a cat like people generally do as an animal alter in a DID system before therapy/healing.
they may still have a cat-like appearance internally, draw themselves with cat-like features or as a cat, or taking on a cat/cat-like avatar/sona/character online or in VR. they will probably still have a lot of strong connections to cats or nekomimis/catpeople because of how they felt that cats/”being” a cat protected them during childhood, or to reclaim the identity of being a cat from their abuser, and all of these things are fine and great.
but falling too deep into the substitute belief hole and fully believing that you are a cat in DID is not healthy. DID is a trauma-based dissociative disorder and many of these people are identifying as certain things due to severe trauma, doing these things out of self destruction or because they don’t feel like they’re “allowed” to be human because they’re sub-human.
who gets to be the judge of this? literal trauma and dissociative specialists who have been treating DID for years.
you truly do not know what you’re talking about here.
[now, there are non-human parts that identify in a certain way unrelated to dehumanization or specific forms of sexual abuse, and may have a completely healthy relationship with non-humanity. other alters may identify as non-human because they hate humans and what they have done to them/their system, or they may appear as non-human because of feeling alienated from society in some way. these things don’t inherently need to be changed and aren’t what i’m talking about here. i’m saying that putting blanket statements on people with DID and their non-human alters as a whole is wrong when you clearly don’t understand how many non-human alters in DID are formed.]
