the thing about insisting that plurality (that is, a multiplicity of identity within one body) is an experience exclusive to that of "dissociative disorders" is that it is a fundamentally anti-plural position.
if you believe "normal" or "healthy" psychological development necessarily involves the development of a singular identity, and that all deviations from this are disordered, it naturally follows that the cure to such a disorder would entail the creation of a singular identity (fusion) in its place.
it is not a mistake when psychiatrists start with the assumption that plurality itself is the disorder, and come to the conclusion that integration/fusion must be a part of the treatment process. instead it is a natural conclusion of their premises.
and the vision of this worldview, its ideal future, is one in which plurality does not exist. a world in which every system formation is prevented, or eventually reverted.
thus to deny the possibility that some people may simply be plural or become so over time, that it may even be a desirable state, is to reject the possibility of a neurodiversity approach for plurality.
i imagine some may disagree with this view. those who jump to explain all plural phenomena in a framework of traumatic dissociation, yet claim their personal goals do not involve fusion. these systems might turn to me, declaring their condition as a symptom, yes, but one they are happy to live with. an incurable chronic condition.
i think this is a profoundly sad way to think about the one's systemhood.
to look at a part of me that jumps out at conflict, ready to argue and assert themself, and declare them an "emotional part", a "protector", something that exists entirely as a symptom of trauma, rather than these behaviours as learned trauma responses - expressed across a plural identity yet separate from it. this remains profoundly reductive, objectifying, and wrongheaded.
even more, to assume "psychological integration" necessarily means "fusion" - that a singular identity is preferable to a multiple identity, even with strong internal cooperation, strikes me as wildly misguided. every system i've known who've tried to suppress their plurality, to act as one person, have found marked improvements as soon as they actually acknowledged these differing attitudes within them for what they were. i see no reason to believe a return to a singular identity is actually necessary or preferable to this state.
it is necessary then, as plural advocates, to reject the pressures of singlet-normativity, and to reject the theories that rely upon it. i choose to believe in a plural future. one where we are free to introspect and identify the multitudes within us, without this being taken as a definite sign of unspoken trauma we must then heal from and return to singularity.