breaking down the "Debunking Sysmeds" carrd (just for kicks 😍) part 2!!
here is the carrd linked again from part 1: this carrd
to reiterate from the first post, i will be referring to the person who made the carrd as the "creator" for simplicity's sake and using they/them as i do not know their pronouns (pls let me know if you do know what pronouns i should be using!)
THE "CLAIMS AND REBUTTALS" (continued)
the fourth point is quite hefty!! so let's get into why the creator's rebuttal of "You're not Endogenic, you just have repressed trauma" is utterly laced with fallacies.
rather than actually rebutting this idea, the creator instead refers to this as "gaslighting" and insists that it would trigger people who don't know they have trauma into unpacking their trauma when they aren't ready. i don't necessarily think this is false, in fact, i definitely agree people should address their trauma when they're ready. however, this point is literally saying that all people who are systems have trauma, whether known or unknown (thus making them traumagenic), and instead of rebutting this, the creator just calls those who say this "gaslighters" and attempts to establish a moral high ground. it's a strawman - no one is saying that learning of your trauma when you aren't in the right headspace is a good thing, they are saying that trauma is ultimately what creates systems. should the creator wish to rebut this claim, they should focus on the trauma aspect rather than moralizing the claim.
the creator also highlights their experiences with traumatic memories they weren't ready for and pseudomemories they now experience as a potentially dangerous outcome of this claim. should this prove to be common, this is still cause for concern! people with no mental illness do not develop pseudomemories of extreme trauma, and those with extreme trauma still must be concerned about it, regardless of if they are a system or not. both of these are things that need to be addressed.
their fifth point to rebut is the statement "You're not a system, you're just RP-ing/Daydreaming". i'm not going to share my thoughts on this one because i need to develop them more succinctly and i believe they deserve their own post, but i welcome analysis of that section if anyone has any!
the sixth point rebutted is the idea that "DID is rare, it only affects 1% of the population." i agree with the creator that this is inaccurate, as does a majority of the system community! i don't see how it affects the validity of endogenic systems, as endogenic systems aren't DID systems.
this seventh point is just absolutely drenched in some crazy phrases that i am SO excited to unpack, and it is related to the creator combatting the idea that "You are ableist if you use the label Endogenic, and you are appropriating a trauma disorder."
the creator once again brings up the idea that systems are "dissociative disorders, not trauma disorders," which, as previously established, are one in the same. they use this statement to argue that that part of the claim is wrong, i guess?? so strike one there. a direct quote from this section is "people are not inherently ableist for simply just existing and using a self-identifier" which is a total no thoughts, head empty thing to say - imagine if someone "self-identified" as having a severe physical illness, but slightly to the left, and then claimed to be the marginalized ones next to the people with an actual trauma disorder?
now, here's my all time favorite line from this whole carrd: "Labelling them as ableist for just existing is like calling a mixed race person racist for engaging in one of their races' cultures."
insert multiple question marks????????
as someone who is mixed race, i don't even think i have words for this one!!?? like i feel like i should never have had to explain that people self-identifying with a trauma disorder while actively claiming to not have trauma isn't the same as someone who can legitimately identify with a group being criticized from joining that group. like... pardon my french, how fucking stupid can you be? that was aggressive, but geez, like come on dude. have at least a little bit of awareness of your surroundings and your words and the way people experience the world. i swear no endo argument is complete without a little side of racism. your cute little "oh i have friends in my head for fun and not based on anything bad and it doesn't negatively affect me ☺️" is not even remotely close to "i am constantly in limbo between two worlds and am shunned from both, i have no sense of identity and my experiences often go unheard." gimme a break.
the eighth claim is another big one, "[Term] is a traumagenic only term." their source for this one is complete dogshit, from a blog, and actually supports the idea that "system" is a DID-specific term, so not really sure what they set off to achieve there! the source says that "system" was used to refer to trauma-based systems in the 1980s and that endos started using "system" around the early 2000s, then goes on to say that DID systems never "reclaimed" the word, so it still belongs to all plurals. not... super sure how that logic works!
another interesting quote from this section is "Those labels cannot "belong" to the traumagenic community, because they are literally words used in everyday life with different meanings depending on the context." the word "belong" is used so interestingly here - turning this logic to, say, another mental illness, reveals the strangeness of this argument. it's like if someone who had anxiety said "the term 'ocd' does not belong to the ocd community!" just because they perceived some of their actions as similar to those with ocd and wanted to use the word. it doesn't "belong" to that community, it just is the word that that community is. that would not be the person with anxiety's term to use, full stop.
additionally, the "context" part is a total red herring. obviously, if the words are being used in the context of, say, a computer operating system, or the splitting of molecules, or the switching of seats on a train, these words have nothing to do with systems. to try to make a "gotcha!" point about context giving words meaning is a weak argument.
to be honest, i don't particularly care about who uses what word, i just find the logical fallacies here utterly shocking and wished to address them.
continue on to part 3 for an analysis of the last two rebuttals and an analysis of the sources! if you've made it this far, thank you!
i will post part 3 tomorrow, i need some time to read through the sources and i'm tired xoxo
