Hi, diagnosed (clinical) traumagenic DID system here, whose alters see themselves as separate people
- Talking about personal experiences and identity, and intentionally educating others, aren't the same thing. Your wording indicates they're either the same, or that most people talking about their experiences are trying to educate people, when they're not.
- You're saying you dislike the entire plural community because they identify as plural, and say that they're plural, or that they see each other as separate. You dislike a community because of a personal experience they share and discuss.
- Alter might have meant only fragmented pieces in older clinical settings, but not anymore. It has multiple uses in medical literature now, and not all of them are talking about alters as fragmented pieces, because many alters come from creation, and not fragmentation (although different terms can also be used and are sometimes more popular). There's a reason 'self-state' and 'part' are popular in medical literature.
- You're claiming that 'alter' only has a singular use, and so can't be used by anybody who doesn't follow your use, which results in you either trying to exclude a multitude of traumagenic, disordered systems, from their terminology, or trying to make people share your view of alters
- People talking about their lived experiences of identifying as multiple people, aren't trying to educate others on what alters are for everybody. That's why they're personal experiences. They're not generalising experiences of alters, unlike what you're doing here.
- You're claiming that no system in a clinical setting can identify their alters as separate people, and/or that systems can't be in a clinical setting unless they identify each other as fragments.
- Not what all alters are, and not educating when just talking
- You're basing your views off your personal experience, and refusing to take into consideration anybody else's experiences, leading to you dismissing everybody else, and trying to gatekeep terminology. This is why you're forcing your personal views onto others, because you're trying to have people share your view when your view goes against their experiences. You're saying that others are automatically in the wrong because they don't adhere to your view.
- You were originally talking about the plural community, and how their alters are all fragments. Not that alters in dissociative disorders are all fragments. That's not making things 'abundantly clear', that's contradicting yourself. The way you've worded every comment leads to you talking about every single system, not dissociative disorders, like you've now claimed.
- Again claiming it's not possible for a system with a dissociative disorder in a clinical setting to identify their alters as separate people
Also, you need to understand the definition of a person. Even going solely by the definition of fragmentation, many alters still align with concepts of personhood. They can be both separate people and fragments at the same time.
We can sort of see where you're coming from. But you've worded all of this as generalising all systems experiences with alters, and ignored others views and experiences on the basis that yours is correct and superior in comparison, and that anybody who doesn't share your views, don't have valid experiences of alters. It might not have been your intention, but you keep doubling down on your disregard for others' experiences, because they don't share your experiences, and because of medical information that's no longer accurate. Hopefully, that makes sense.