[dreambound-ring-2]

"All these DID fakers-"

(Depression, gender dysphoria, ASD, and ADHD watching in the distance)

[dreambound-ring-2]

This is actually so funny because they're the types of systems that get posted on r/fakedisordercringe.

Minor-bodied. Fictive heavy. OSDD-1b. 200+ headmates. Using the word headmate instead of alter. Fucking multilingual, even.

Do they not see how they're in danger from their own kind?

[dreambound-ring-2]

Even if we are just a singlet (we're not)... why do you care?

Why do you care if there's an autistic teen on the internet who you don't know that feels better seeing themself as multiple people? How does that hurt you? How are you wounded by a stranger's happiness?

[ponderouswhims]

What is the deal with these so-called non-traumagenic singlets? Like, how does that even happen?

I totally get that people can become singlets if they get a bag of rocks dropped on their head when they're 4! And how that would prevent the brain from being able to properly develop into a full system!

But if that never happened to them, then what even is the point of being just 1 consciousness?!? Why would your brain just do that for no reason?? Make it make sense!

/s

[sophieinwonderland]

I also don't understand the so-called "willogenic" singlets. Like, why would you ever want to only have one person in your head. That would be incredibly lonely even if it was possible. /s

[dreambound-ring-2]

And I really don't get the supposed """protogenic""" singlets. What do you mean you've been one person for as long as you can remember?? That's not possible, because only traumatic events at a young age can cause singlethood! /s

[syscourse-confessions]

Has anyone figured out what endos are on a psychological level? This isn't me "medicalising" endos, I just wanna kind of understand the science behind it so that it's easier for me to understand. I'm sorry but "the brain is quirky :/" just does not cut it for me 😭 like since the tosd doesn't apply to them, what does? Also can it even be considered identity alteration or is it some other thing we haven't discovered entirely

I believe these are the same anon, forgive me if not

[dreambound-ring-2]

We can't speak for every endogenic/traumaendo system, but we have two dissociative disorders. Specifically, Depersonalization/Derealization Disorder (DP/DR) and Maladaptive Daydreaming Disorder (MaDD). We just don't have anything that would be considered a complex dissociative disorder.

[sophieinwonderland]

We were looking through the fictional syscourse and our Killer Sans fictive just yelled that his source counts as a median system, probably. And despite said source being bad plural rep and bad queer rep, they're absolutely right.

Not aware of Killer Sans... Let me just... there we go!

Oh! Yup!

On both counts! (Them being a system, and being bad plural rep.)

Also, what is with the phrasing of this article?

First, someone with Borderline Personality Disorder, Avoidant Personality Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder has "multiple personality disorders." They obviously mean Multiple Personality Disorder. Subtle difference but incredibly important.

But why say he has MPD and then in parentheses say it's now called DID. It was DID when Undertale was released too, wasn't it? So why not just call it DID instead of MPD. (Or better yet, don't call it either one.)

I am so very confused by all of this.

[dreambound-ring-2]

as another killer fictive... yeah.

i think it's probably closer to BPD or OSDD-1 or 2 than DID, anyway? but yeah, source is definitely poor median sys rep.

[dreambound-ring-2]

Hot fucking take: You do not get to have this in your bio when you're a singlet actively starting arguements with systems about whether or not they're real.

[dreambound-ring-2]

Oh, fuck you.

We fucking love blocking and reporting ableists. And OP is an aro/ace exclus, too- double the reason to mass-report! Fuck.

[dreambound-ring-2]

Just saw someone claim that dissociation only happens under extreme stress. That is blatantly untrue. Daydreaming is dissociation. "Spacing out" is dissociation. Everyone dissociates. Dissociation. Is normal.

[hiiragi7]

Honestly if people just learned the difference between "dissociation" and "structural dissociation" we'd all be better off

[dreambound-ring-2]

Just saw someone claim that dissociation only happens under extreme stress. That is blatantly untrue. Daydreaming is dissociation. "Spacing out" is dissociation. Everyone dissociates. Dissociation. Is normal.

[cambriancrew]

God I love (/s) syscourse Twitter being behind the Tumblr curve, getting info that's been debunked here.

[sysmedsaresexist]

Oh, hey, hi, look, I've been posted on Twitter

Freud did actually use the word, here it is, unfortunately, Freud speaks German, so yes, I used the English translation

[sophieinwonderland]

So... he didn't actually use the word?

He used a word that can be translated into the English "endogenic." But even then, the more common translation is still "endogenous" rather than endogenic. And when talking about mental disorders having internal causes, "endogenous" was the word that's historically been used.

Endogenic, while maybe not quite a mistranslation, is at least a very uncommon one.

I don't agree at all with the premise that endogenous itself is harmful either. It's a descriptive word used to describe things arising from internal causes.

The idea that endogenous would be harmful when applied to phenomena it's objectively describing because it's been misapplied under some theories... it's just ludicrous. That's not how words or language works. Past psychiatrists theorizing that hysteria could have endogenous causes doesn't make endogenous a bad word.

But even if anyone accepted that utterly silly premise... endogenic would still not be the same word as endogenous.

[sysmedsaresexist]

Sophie, look, I get you're a hard-headed dumbass, but can you at least TRY to listen to other people for once?

Like, those are the same thing. Endogenous and endogenic are directly related. They're slightly different variations of the same concept. Like saying I come and I came (nice). It's just how you're using the word in a sentence.

But here's the thing.

We're not talking about genic/genous. We're talking about endo in the context of psychology.

And that means "from within", and in psychology, and specifically in regards to systems (at the time, the diagnosis was known as hysteria), endo has been used to counter the trauma theory of DID.

Specifically.

Like Freud was specifically countering Janet's theories about trauma by saying it was an internal problem (endo) of repression and caused by weak mindedness.

I get where lunastusco is coming from about how they chose the word, but can you stop twisting the argument and just acknowledge the history of the word endo, specifically in regards to psychology?

Because I know you're going to come back with, "what about endometriosis," and you're going to give yourself a high five and think you're trampling on your "oppressors", but... You're really just being a misleading dick at this point.

Like, you're arguing about the wrong thing here.

[sophieinwonderland]

Endogenous and endogenic are directly related. They're slightly different variations of the same concept.

Sure... and trans and the t-slur have the same literal meanings with the same root words and prefix, but one is a harmful slur while the other is a neutral descriptor because of the history of that specific word. Just because a relation between words exists doesn't make them the same word, nor does it mean you can use the history of one word as evidence another is a bad.

And if your point of contention is that they're variations of the same concept, then isn't the real problem you have with the concept itself rather than the word?

Would any combination of words meaning that a system has an internal origin be acceptable?

Because every single one is going to be relying on the same exact concept as "endogenic." And many basic words like "inner," and "internal" have been used the same way as endogenous.

So are these words off limits too? Should we also say that it's ableist for systems to be described as "internal" by this same reasoning? After all, internal has a long history of being used to invalidate DID systems, apparently.

We're not talking about genic/genous. We're talking about endo in the context of psychology.

Oh? Is that where the goalposts have moved to now? The entire "endo-" prefix is ableist, you've decided?

I didn't realize the goalposts had move all the way over there.

Just a reminder for anyone having trouble keeping up, these were the original claims that were made:

As anyone can see, this is clearly talking about a specific term. Not a prefix.

Because I know you're going to come back with, "what about endometriosis,"

My first thought was actually endoskeleton after that one anon. Although, since you want to talk about psychology specifically, my next thought was endorphins. Wait, how about the Endocrine System!? It even has "endo" and "system" in the same term! 😲

I'm sorry if it seems I'm not treating this subject with the seriousness and respect it deserves, but I assure you that I am... because it really doesn't deserve any.

It's not a legitimate argument. It's not in good faith. And it shouldn't be taken the slightest bit seriously by anyone.

Going back to "endogenic," the word "endogenic" itself has been used for everything in psychology from the origin of happiness...

"Happiness underlying factors are considerable from two dimensions: endogenic factors (biological, cognitive, personality and ethical sub-factors) and exogenic factors (behavioral, socialcultural, economical, geographical, life events and aesthetics sub-factors). Among all endogenic factors, biological sub-factors are the significant predictors of happiness."

To Endogenic Psychoses.

To the origin of knowledge.

Social constructionism (as proposed chiefly by Kenneth Gergen) focuses explicitly on the role of social processes in the construction of meaning. Consequently, Gergen rejected both exogenic and endogenic epistemologies. Endogenic epistemologies are those that emphasize the role of the individual mind in the construction of meaning, while exogenic epistemologies emphasize the role of external reality. Social constructionism places knowledge neither within individual minds nor outside them, but between people. In other words, according to social constructionism, knowledge is generated by people interacting and collectively negotiating a set of shared meanings. By rejecting the objectivist conception of knowledge as an internal representation, social constructionism shares the view of knowledge as a construction—a social construction in this case.

(This is from The Praeger Handbook of Education and Psychology Volume 1. I don't think links will work with it but that's the source.)

With all of these very different uses of the specific word "endogenic," in psychology, not just words that happen to share a prefix, do you know what wasn't referred to as endogenic before 2014? Plural systems! DID! MPD!

That's why you have to desperately move the goalposts to the entire prefix.

[morgan-says]

Nice job editing the post to pretend you didn't say a slur you can't reclaim, and know you can't reclaim. Good fuckin job. Hope you realize that doesn't change the fact that you used a slur you can't fucking reclaim.

You fucking coward. Get the hell out of spaces you don't belong. You are a tulpa. You do not belong in Endo or DID spaces. You are not an authority. Grow the fuck up, learn how to act like a human instead of a self absorbed dick hat, and get the hell off the internet. Spend time around actual people instead of staring at a screen and scream crying about the evil evil hate group that.... (checks notes) wants people to treat their disorder like the disorder it is and not a fun game or something to be debated.

God. How are you so far up your own ass? Did you find your heart, crawling that far? Or is it gone, chased away, shrivelled and rotten from the horrific treatment you've given everybody?

Including trans people.

I hope your followers start waking up and realizing how fucking vile you are. You are on nobodys side but your own. You benefit nobody and no community.

Get off the internet.

[dreambound-ring-2]

She's not pretending she didn't say it, though. She apologized both here and here, which is the exact opposite of not acknowledging it.

[sophieinwonderland]

When we first started seeing CDD used in place of DID/OSDD we were really confused because all of our searching turned up was "Childhood Degenerative Disorder". Which now we're seeing folks say "Complex Disociative Disorder" is a very strict medical term (reminiscent of system).

And we were thinking, "but wait, aren't there other complex dissociative disorders besides plurality?" And now of course, folks are saying that CDD requires specifically being multiple (as opposed to median)? So like, what was the point of changing the nomenclature from DID/OSDD to CDD?

Idk, bit of a ramble I guess. But we were suspicious of the change at the time, and it's looking like those feelings are being validated.

-Faye

Yeah, the whole discourse around the term is weird.

I support the thought process behind the term. People wanted a word that would encompass DID, OSDD, UDD and partial DID systems. Traumagenic includes non-disordered systems formed from trauma. "Dissociative" has always been strange to me since the psychological model would hold all plurality as a form of dissociation. And I've used "disordered" in a broad way to include systems formed from other disorders like psychotic disorders or BPD.

I personally never used this much though because, as you kind of referenced, it's basically ungoogleable. "Complex dissociative disorder" does appear in academic texts in reference to DID and OSDD bug the acronym doesn't which means people are going to ask what a CDD is every time it's brought up which feels like it defeats the whole purpose of having an acronym in the first place.

I might pick it up if it becomes more widespread but it seems to only add to the confusion right now.

But the term was used and was useful within this context. But this whole controversy muddies the waters. Here's a term referring to systems caused by dissociative disorders, and now we're gatekeeping which dissociative disorders actually count as complex enough.

I'm expecting Partial DID to be on the chopping block next because academic sources which were mostly written before it existed don't explicitly desctibe it as a complex dissociative disorder.

And not just that, but whether OSDD-1a systems can even refer to their parts as alters. Because "OSDD-1a doesn't have alters" is apparently part of this discourse now. Ugh... 🤦‍♀️

Oh, hey! I returned your ramble with a ramble of my own! 😜

[dreambound-ring-2]

May not be coherent because we're tired and blurry, but continuing the rambles.

p-DID is often seen as just OSDD anyway, despite not being referred to as OSDD, and it... kind of scares me? as to what they'll say next.

Like... "OSDD-1a ((not even a medical term)) isn't OSDD-1b or DID, therefore they can't use the term "alter"." can easily become "p-DID doesn't present exactly like (c-)DID or OSDD-1b, so therefore they aren't systems."

I? can see having to argue in defense of everysys who, by all current "rules", should be able to call themselves systems.

JAS/SAS (because of course it's SAS) have been overlooking things like the fact that you don't get diagnosed with the a/b/c subtypes of OSDD-1 and the OSDD-2 part of it saying "Identity disturbance due to [...] may present with with prolonged changes in, or conscious questioning of, their identity." (thank you livseses for pointing that out), so someone could easily pull something similar with p-DID.

I?'m so tired-

[asocial-and-antisocial-deactiva]

No because this. Genuinely how does no one see that this does not go anywhere good. You write people with OSDD-1A out of systemhood because “no alters” (AKA: experiences a different kind of alter) and then? pDID “doesn’t switch” (AKA: experiences a different kind of switching), so no switching = no system? OSDD-1B “doesn’t have amnesia” (AKA: experiences a different kind of amnesia), I’m sure they’ll be next once it’s decided that lacking amnesia is also not enough. Who cares if your parts are differentiated, you remember everything anyway, what makes you a real system? Anyone with a DID diagnosis and only two parts doesn’t exist anymore since it’s been taken that DID being tertiary to mean that it must always have multiple ANPs and EPs, yet it can be (and is) diagnosed in the presence of only two parts so… they’re not systems either.

If you think it’s going to just stop here with 1A, you are very mistaken.

[dreambound-ring-2]

This is so much more conceise than we could have said it.

If your "system activism" only includes DID systems of 4+ (because let's face it, even that may not be enough for them) then you don't really care about systems.

[sophieinwonderland]

When we first started seeing CDD used in place of DID/OSDD we were really confused because all of our searching turned up was "Childhood Degenerative Disorder". Which now we're seeing folks say "Complex Disociative Disorder" is a very strict medical term (reminiscent of system).

And we were thinking, "but wait, aren't there other complex dissociative disorders besides plurality?" And now of course, folks are saying that CDD requires specifically being multiple (as opposed to median)? So like, what was the point of changing the nomenclature from DID/OSDD to CDD?

Idk, bit of a ramble I guess. But we were suspicious of the change at the time, and it's looking like those feelings are being validated.

-Faye

Yeah, the whole discourse around the term is weird.

I support the thought process behind the term. People wanted a word that would encompass DID, OSDD, UDD and partial DID systems. Traumagenic includes non-disordered systems formed from trauma. "Dissociative" has always been strange to me since the psychological model would hold all plurality as a form of dissociation. And I've used "disordered" in a broad way to include systems formed from other disorders like psychotic disorders or BPD.

I personally never used this much though because, as you kind of referenced, it's basically ungoogleable. "Complex dissociative disorder" does appear in academic texts in reference to DID and OSDD bug the acronym doesn't which means people are going to ask what a CDD is every time it's brought up which feels like it defeats the whole purpose of having an acronym in the first place.

I might pick it up if it becomes more widespread but it seems to only add to the confusion right now.

But the term was used and was useful within this context. But this whole controversy muddies the waters. Here's a term referring to systems caused by dissociative disorders, and now we're gatekeeping which dissociative disorders actually count as complex enough.

I'm expecting Partial DID to be on the chopping block next because academic sources which were mostly written before it existed don't explicitly desctibe it as a complex dissociative disorder.

And not just that, but whether OSDD-1a systems can even refer to their parts as alters. Because "OSDD-1a doesn't have alters" is apparently part of this discourse now. Ugh... 🤦‍♀️

Oh, hey! I returned your ramble with a ramble of my own! 😜

[dreambound-ring-2]

May not be coherent because we're tired and blurry, but continuing the rambles.

p-DID is often seen as just OSDD anyway, despite not being referred to as OSDD, and it... kind of scares me? as to what they'll say next.

Like... "OSDD-1a ((not even a medical term)) isn't OSDD-1b or DID, therefore they can't use the term "alter"." can easily become "p-DID doesn't present exactly like (c-)DID or OSDD-1b, so therefore they aren't systems."

I? can see having to argue in defense of everysys who, by all current "rules", should be able to call themselves systems.

JAS/SAS (because of course it's SAS) have been overlooking things like the fact that you don't get diagnosed with the a/b/c subtypes of OSDD-1 and the OSDD-2 part of it saying "Identity disturbance due to [...] may present with with prolonged changes in, or conscious questioning of, their identity." (thank you livseses for pointing that out), so someone could easily pull something similar with p-DID.

I?'m so tired-

[dreambound-ring-2]

What. The fuck.

First- "System = DID or OSDD; OSDD-2 = not systems"

Babe, OSDD-2 is OSDD. Did you mean fucking OSDD-1??

And even if you did- OSDD-1a IS OSDD-1, YA NINCOMPOOP!

You fuckers keep moving the "what-makes-a-system" goalposts to include only DID. If you're going to pretend to care about OSDD systems, maybe actually try??

Istg, the ToSD is driving sysblr into the fucking ground.

[justanothersyscourse]

Because this is about me

What are you talking about?

This is about the fact that the DSM describes the second example of OSDD as identity confusion, not alteration. Only DID and OSDD, example 1 include systems and alters.

What is happening with everyone today

[human-lyc-deactivated20230711]

SYSTEM is a medical term referring to the grouping of different alters, parts, personalities or people!

OSDD-1a is OSDD-1, it only describes a community made boundary with wobbly differences from OSDD-1b- another community term with wobbly changes. They are BOTH OSDD-1. The exact thing you're trying to prove is a CDD system.. what the fuck are you getting at dude.

In no way does it say (or SHOULD say) who can and cannot call themselves a system. In no way should it force OSDD-2 through 4 to NOT use the term system. System and alter has become a grouping instead of a strict medical model of a patient suffering from DID. It has become a term that anyone can use, even non-disordered systems.

Before you go acting on your fantasies of gatekeeping terms and forcing the idea of a COMMUNITY TERM THAT OSDD SYSTEMS MADE into a MEDICAL MODEL SPECIFICALLY MADE FOR DISTRESSING AND COMPLEX DISSOCIATION, get a grip and realize that you are currently trying to make an non-medical term mix into a medical term because they don't seem quite right to place anywhere else.

You don't get to speak on all OSDD systems, even if you may be one. You do not stand for those people.

Leave them the fuck alone you weirdo.

[dreambound-ring-2]

Thank you! It honestly feels like justanothersyscourse is so hellbent on being right that they don't even bother to comprehend terms anymore.

[dreambound-ring-2]

What. The fuck.

First- "System = DID or OSDD; OSDD-2 = not systems"

Babe, OSDD-2 is OSDD. Did you mean fucking OSDD-1??

And even if you did- OSDD-1a IS OSDD-1, YA NINCOMPOOP!

You fuckers keep moving the "what-makes-a-system" goalposts to include only DID. If you're going to pretend to care about OSDD systems, maybe actually try??

Istg, the ToSD is driving sysblr into the fucking ground.