Education System @education-system - Tumblr Blog

We are the syscourse education system.

It is not uncommon for us to see misinformation about either CDDs or community terms coming from both sides of syscourse, and we are here to help with that. We will be correcting these inaccuracies as we see them. Information about the accuracy of the utilization of community terms will be taken from the perspective of those who utilize the term for themselves.

We do not claim to be perfect. If you see us get something wrong please let us know. We also may talk about our opinions here and will try to make it clear when we do so.

We do not take a syscourse stance here. We also do not have a DNI. We think everyone should have access to accurate information, but we do request that you are respectful of others seeking to inform themselves here.

Our syscoursing credentials in case anyone is curious:

💬 0 🔁 0 ❤️ 0 · Ok guys reminder of my credentials for syscoursing. I have in fact read the DSM-5 TR multiple times and keep it ready to r

#syscourse #intro post

tailshas2tails

You know what I’m going to say this

As a DID system who had no clue what they did the day before yesterday and barely remember yesterday, I have to say I’m tired of how some pwCDDs treat OSDD-1. The community has a huge problem with calling OSDD-1 the “less complex” and “less severe” version of DID, when all it is is not meeting one or more of the diagnostic criteria.

An OSDD-1 system can be complex, if not more complex, than a DID system because outside of one or more of the criteria not being met they are virtually the exact same thing. You can have OSDD-1 and have branched off systems, complex systems, alters in the triple, quadruple, quintuple, whatever digits. You can have OSDD-1 and have fragments. And I’m going to go as far as to say an OSDD-1 system can be polyfragmented.

I can already hear some staunch medical pwCDDs coming in. “But polyfragmented DID has DID in the name” there is almost no research on the presentation of OSDD. And there are 4 totally separate types and OSDD-1 is not as focused on as OSDD-2 and OSDD-3 (the non-alter ones, but also OSDD-4 is not focused on either) and it’s literally DID without one or more of the criteria. Why can’t it be polyfragmented? Because the doctors didn’t say so? Get a grip, I’d say. OSDD can be polyfragmented. I’ve heard about it anecdotally. Let’s not gatekeep the label, ‘kay?

Especially because DID is a much looser label outside of the DSM-5 and doesn’t require dissociative amnesia there. So if those DID systems were diagnosed in the US, they’d be OSDD-1. Is it suddenly your right to take away their right to use the polyfragmented label? I don’t think so

education-system

Ok so the way the community defines the disorder and the way those who work in the field define the disorder is very different. There are a few things in this post I would like to go over.

"One or more of the criteria not being met"

It is specifically one criteria not being met no more no less. If one lacks both elaborated parts and amnesia then it would typically fall under BPD or in some cases C-PTSD instead. OSDD-1 is for those who either solely do not have amnesia or solely do not have elaborated parts. Mixes of missing criteria is usually a sign to look at something else instead of diagnosing it as OSDD-1.

"And OSDD-1 system can be polyfragmented"

Now there is a really complex sticking point there. Because legitimate as scientifically discussed OSDD-1 can not be polyfragmented but it is common for polyfragmentation to disguise itself as OSDD-1. The number of fragments may make it seem like there are no elaborated parts or there may be mechanisms in place with how complex it is to hide or disguise the amnesia so it is not noticed. It is very common for those who are polyfragmented to be diagnosed with OSDD-1 first and discover that they have symptoms of DID in the process of therapy and trauma work.

Because while OSDD-1 in not less severe it most definitely is less complex per the medical definitions. It is described in the same way as P-DID in most cases. A singular frontbound host that emotional parts intrude on every once in a while related to triggers in day to day functioning. Not experiencing it in that way is a common sign that your brain is hiding some degree of DID symptoms from you(if you have a complex dissociative disorder).

And yes these disorders are very similar. That's why we think they should be a spectrum disorder. Many systems will move between presentations of both disorders in the process of therapy. This isn't saying they are inherently separate but that there are more nuances to the overlap and a significant amount of misdiagnosis and community misunderstanding that muddies the picture.

bold claim that all of the ludicrous terms on pluralpedia were added by anti endos. got a source for that?

...wait what? That is such a bad faith reading of the post. I did not and would never say that.

Points I made in that post:

Some terms on pluralpedia are known to be created by anti-endos so don't auto assume that is you find a term there that it is legitimately used if you don't see someone using it.

Because of this(and other reasons like definitions of terms known to be wrong or to have bad sources) many (pro)endos do not treat it as an inherently reliable resource either.

Nowhere did I say if a term is weird it must have been created by an anti-endo. There are some that are and that messes with how reliable website is and I wish people would stop using it like its some perfect capsule of endogenic belief and identity with no flaws or errors. I never said if its weird it must be created by an anti-endo just that some terms on there are so some healthy skepticism instead of defaulting to someone must legitimately have that identity for every single thing on that website when that has already been proven untrue can be good.

#syscourse

Ok still rambling. Keep in mind that pluralpedia is widely regarded as an unreliable source by (pro)endos. This is partially because of the number of terms added by anti-endos to go OMG look at this weird thing endogenics identify as... when legitimately no one actually identifies with it. Just because it exists on pluralpedia does not mean it was made to genuinely be used or that anyone actually uses it. Examples of people legitimately using terms hold weight, a term existing on pluralpedia does not.

#see McDonaldsgenic(an anti-endo term)#syscourse

And again for the people in the back...

There are no DNIs in the syscourse tag! It is a debate space only! Your boundries do not apply if you spread misinformation about a minority group made up mostly of traumatized disabled/disordered people! Take it somewhere else!

That is all :)

#and by traumatized disordered people we are referring to people who do NOT have CDDs #syscourse

If "endos exist" was a pro-endo talking point less anti-endos would be saying it...

#like when people say they aren't pro-endo its for a reason #there is more than just pro and anti endo #syscourse

Please please please everyone take care of yourself first. No drama, no debate, no discourse is worth sacrificing your own wellbeing over. You don't want to end up trying to poor from an empty cup.

Syscourse unfortunately commonly ends up as a form of emotional sh. Sometimes that can be beneficial if it is what keeps one away from more dangerous forms but it can also push someone who is struggling further into crisis. It is ok to take a break. Syscourse isn't going anywhere if you want to come back to it later. But you always come first.

And if you see it getting worse, even if its not for the entire system, don't be afraid to reach out for support. How you plan for your safety is based on the member of your system that is doing the worst. Even if it makes things harder for the other alters who aren't in crisis it is a group effort to aid alters who may be in crisis. Even if that means getting them off the internet and away from spaces that harm them.

Every single one of you is important and valuable no matter how you have been hurt or how you have hurt others. Everyone deserves basic respect and support. Though importantly not everyone can give that support and should not be experienced to. That goes back to not pouring from an empty cup.

Now everyone let me welcome your unofficial emotional support puppy :)

#syscourse #sh mention

The thing about I told x about endogenics and they agreed with me arguments is that typically both sides describe endogenics to those who don't know about them in a different way. And the way they are described can have an impact on someone elses opinion. Its common for those who are systems joining the community even to become anti-endo if they learn about endogenics through anti-endo definitions and pro-endo if they learn about them through pro-endo definitions.

And the same goes for therapists as both sides base their opinion on endogenics in real tangible facts about complex dissociative disorders that those who are educated in the field but not educated on endogenics could easily agree with. Both "endogenics are those who fake DID because they claim to have the disorder without trauma," and "endogenics are those who recognize they don't have a complex dissociative disorder as they experience their parts as more separate than typical for reasons other than trauma," makes sense to someone in the field because both recognize that you can't have CDDs without trauma. The second shouldn't be seen as weird to anyone in the field as part of learning about presentations of a disorder is learning about how parts of it may show up in similar ways outside of the disorder. Both are extremely easy for trauma and dissociation specialists to agree with if that is their only context for the community.

So yes of course people are getting agreement from their therapists about endogenics on both sides. Because neither side is making arguments that are out there bs from the perspective of the current science and the therapist will only know what you tell them if they haven't done research into endogenics as it is a separate field of research to that of the research on CDDs.

#syscourse

Guys we know how limited the number of colors and normal pride flag designs there are in the world right? Trying to compare colors chosen as a reason to hate someone when there are not only multiple flags for each thing in the plural community but also most people also don't even know a fraction of them and could easily have never seen the one in question is just bizarre. Why can't things being similar be a coincidence? Since when is oh my gosh this flag has blue and the other one has purple so it must be copying a good argument? This flag comparing shit has become so bad faith and petty. People picked random colors they liked and that represented something to them and put them in the same type of order that most pride flags are in. That's it. If you see similarities thats based on your context and experience not on the creators. Can we move on already?

#syscourse

The thing with endo neutrals is what talking points they seem to be using is 100% dependant on what side of syscourse the observer is on. Anti-endos will look at endo neutrals and those who don't align themselves with a syscourse stance and see pro-endo talking points because thats what stands out to and annoys them. And the same vice versa. Even when I was identifying as pro-endo I had pro-endos accusing me of spreading anti-endo talking points all the time. And I definitely know an endo neutral who is no longer in syscourse who started spreading the most vile anti-endo talking points the moment they became neutral(the stuff even many antis question because it is that extremely anti).

Many of those in the middle call both sides out on places where what they say doesn't match the current science so of course they are going to look like the other side if you see it as black and white only two sides existing. What is being missed is the amount of times they have agreed with your points in fighting the misinformation from the side you aren't on.

#syscourse

Ok but seeing being in denial called abelist is hilarious though. Like having a symptom of a CDD and common trauma response is ableist now? Since when is having a symptom of a disorder an attack against people with that disorder? You can't control what disordered symptoms you have. You can't control what trauma responses you have. You can learn to cope with and mitigate them but simply experiencing a symptom of a disorder should not be painted as an inherently bad thing.

#syscourse #no i don't feel like adding context #this makes sense on its own

Potentially hot take but restricting littles in your own system from doing things they want to and have the mental capacity to do safely based solely on a number feels similar to me as locking up persecutors because they have unhealthy coping mechanisms. Which in any case stripping your own alters of autonomy unnecessarily is just asking for them to fight back and potentially become persecutors from your perspective to protect themselves from you. More problems than it is worth if it is not necessary and it will likely decrease any potential control you could have over them long term. But in general stripping alters of their autonomy solely because of your morals not because of actual safety concerns is not only not a good idea but then you have to question who really is the persecutor in that situation...

You have to live your life with these headmates. Its important to build healthy relationships with them. Actually communicate your concerns and work towards a compromise with them instead of shackling all behavior from other headmates that you don't like. Not that some collective rules and restrictions aren't good but collective rules that actively victimize other headmates without actually listening to their perspective is likely not going to end well.

#syscourse #littlecourse

Yet another willomancy education post because I am tired of it being the most misunderstood form of created plurality.

Willogenic is spelled with one w not two. You automatically look like you haven't researched it if you spell it with two.

Willomancy was created in the plural community not the singlet community which shaped how the practice developed significantly. It is mostly used for headmate creation in those who are already plural NOT system creation.

It can be 100% traumagenic and many traumagenics utilize the practice to elaborate fragments and aid in difficult traumagenic splits. It has never been a solely endogenic thing.

It also does not need to be consciously done. Any wish something could exist in a certain way even subconsciously or not actually expecting it to do anything or even being aware of the system enough to know anything can come of it still counts.

It is a very commonly discussed traumagenic experience. Those times you thought or wished you could be something else to escape from or cope with your trauma(whether conscious or subconscious) and that became an alter in your system? That falls under the definition of willomancy. It does NOT need to be identified as such as part of the identity is literally your perception of your experiences but it falls under what people are talking about when they use the term. You can have whatever problems with the term and identifying with it as you want but the experience it describes is a common one that some traumagenics benefit from identifying.

#syscourse

education-system

‘people who have a different definition of arguing than i do are triggered and over emotional and not being rational’ YIKES.

Wtf? I did not and would never say that. Acknowledging that people in syscourse regularly interact while triggered and that syscourse is regularly triggering and acknowledging that many use the term arguing differently than I do are completely separate arguments. The former is something that will always need to be kept in mind in ALL interactions in syscourse as it can impact the best responses to keep things more calm when possible which as we said always our goal. And it has absolutely nothing to do with how rational a person is. Someone can act from a rational place while being triggered. Just as someone can have a different definition of arguing while not being triggered. Because those are separate things. They may overlap and impact each other at times and it is important to respond appropriately when they do but they should never be assumed to be inherently linked. Please stop taking my words in the worst possible faith.

dragonfly-system

(Context: we read the post before/after this one)

I think this Anon and your posts feed into a deeper idea of kindness, thoughtfulness, and respect.

People will read the term "arguing" and one side will think it means "disagreeing" and the other side will think it's "insulting". Take the below for example*:

A: I support endo systems. Let's talk about them. B: Well then you're just abelist. Endo systems aren't real. A: Endo systems actually have their own manner/form/meaning of existence, and define their plurality outside of the DSM- B: You're a Sysmed!!

*And do note that just because I am using the easiest example is not a reference to how one side is "better" than the other, or a representation of our personal beliefs.

In the above, I would define this as "arguing", because there's nothing productive being made here. This is person A attempting to foster a discussion, and person B throwing name-calling and unproductive conversation.

Let's look at a different example (*Same disclaimer):

A: I support endo systems. Let's talk about them. B: I don't support endo systems. In my experience, many have gone on to express views that are harmful to the CDD community and spread misinformation, such as going directly against the DSM and stating that they are a DID system without prolonged trauma. A: I can see where you'd be frustrated! Many of the endos I've met actually don't identify with the DSM, which is why they call themselves "plural" rather than having OSDDID. Unfortunately, the term "system" itself overlaps with the two communities. B: I still won't support endo systems who call themselves medical, being a system of any kind inherently relies on OSDDID/the DSM. We fundamentally disagree, but I'd be open to hearing what you think "plural" is supposed to mean. Maybe there's an entirely different disorder that's related to it.

In the above, they are "disagreeing" or "debating" a topic. I do not see this as "arguing". This would be two people actually respectfully talking about their views, opinions, and trying to listen to and educate one another.

As for this post, I think the Anon is really polarizing OP's words and is part of the problem-- while I don't agree with OP's terminology of "don't argue with us" (thinking it should be "don't insult us/don't try to fight us disrespectfully"), it's very, very clear by the rest of OP's posts that they do mean to treat them with respect, and they do not mean to "never disagree with them ever". The Anon is very consciously just bastardizing that.

education-system

Very well said. You made my point better than i did lol :)

your explanation makes sense!! i still don’t think neurotypical is the word to use there though, just bc of the confusion associated. singlet is a lot more direct.

Fair

I actually don’t think neurotypical should be the comparison point. it should be singlet. bc there are a lot of people who aren’t CDD systems or people with CDDs or endogenic systems who also just aren’t neurotypical.

Oh yeah definitely that is what we meant. Neurotypical as far as the plurality spectrum only(which would be singlet) not neurotypical in general. I was talking solely about the neurotypical way to have parts of self. Does that make sense?/gen

#syscourse

I think one of the problems that shows up a lot in syscourse is using CDDs as the base for experiences instead of neurotypicals. Of course endogenics are going to look like they are trying to be disordered if CDDs are treated like the base normal experience instead of looking at how both experiences diverge from neurotypical, which is the base experience, in different ways.

#syscourse

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Education System