If you don't mind me asking, if you don't think endos/willos are pretending to have a CDD, why are you anti-endo?
(Totally cool if you don't answer, I know you said you were burnt out on it a bit)
I’m fine with being asked this, I’m actually surprised I wasn’t asked this sooner haha. Be prepared for a yap fest I have a,, lot of thoughts on this from seeing every argument under the sun.
I consider myself anti endo because of the well-researched fact that fully autonomous states of identity with different perceived motor function, thinking patterns, etc. occurring in a single brain is not possible without structural dissociation and extreme compartmentalization. Even in brains with lower levels of structural dissociation, it is nowhere near the complex presentation of alters seen in DID or even OSDD, so I have a hard time believing that someone could have something so similar without the necessary parameters. Even in disordered systems who reach functional multiplicity, as soon as those barriers are 100% gone (as in, the dissociative barriers no longer exist), the alters cannot keep their separation and they fuse. (This is why functional multiplicity is the final step before final fusion!) The brain was not made to house alters. So, if endogenic systems apparently have no disorder in regard to alters, how are they not constantly experiencing fusion? Do they even have small amounts of dissociative barriers to dissolve? (I’ll expand more on the scientific/psychological aspect of this further along)
I also consider myself anti endo because of the glaring issues within the pro endo community, and while I understand every community will have issues, it’s almost impossible to ignore them in that particular community.
There is a huge stigma around just… not being plural. There’s been a lot of recent backlash on singlets for having an opinion on syscourse. The community is also constantly telling these people they could be plural, or they should become plural, or they need to get more plural! I’ve seen pwCDDs talk about how endogenic spaces told them to just split more alters, or “undo” fusions or alter dormancy. Encouraging alter elaboration and development way too early can lead to trauma leakage and symptoms worsening. Endogenic spaces are not safe for those with CDDs because of the way they talk about having alters.
There’s also the constant encouragement for nontraumagenic systems to use the exact same terms as CDD systems, which hammers in the point that disordered people cannot have their own exclusive terms. This is an issue for countless disabilities, for example the phrase “going non-verbal”. There’s also issues of flat out ignoring science entirely, with a small group of (pro) endos confidentially claiming that endogenic systems can be diagnosed with DID because “trauma isn’t a criteria”. Which… if you have any ounce of medical literacy you would understand why. You can’t expect people to report trauma for the “I forgot my trauma” disorder, upon other reasons.
Regardless of what I think about endogenic systems, and if they truly do exist (which I will say they do for the sake of this argument) CDD systems and nontraumagenic systems would function radically differently, so why are we sharing terms? Furthermore, how do nontraumagenic systems have things like, say, alter roles? The reason alters have roles in CDDs is because we are fractured parts of a whole made for a specific task (or multiple tasks) that non-CDD havers can just… do as part of their successful integration. A singlet can learn to healthily compartmentalize something that stresses them out, and may come back to it later when they’re ready to face that stressor (this is a generous example and I know not every singlet functions like this 100%). CDD systems have compartmentalization that looks something like this:
Alter A cannot handle a certain stressor due to their functioning. The brain recognizes this and makes alter B handle it. The stressor gets handled successfully because alter B is the part of the brain that was made to handle it.
Or, alternatively, alter A is forced to handle the stressor, but does so terribly because they aren’t made for it, so the brain splits alter C in response. So, next time that stressor happens, alter C can handle it more effectively.
(Again, generous example used from my own experience as a pwUDD + research on the topic and not every system will have the exact same experience)
So, how would this work in someone who is nontraumagenic and doesn’t experience complex compartmentalization? Theoretically, headmates in nontraumagenic systems should be able to function more similarity to a bunch of singlets in one body, or like someone putting on a “mask” to handle a certain thing (since endogenic headmates aren’t dissociated parts of the self). But uh… somehow no. I’ve never seen an endogenic system describe it like that, they’ve only ever described it as seen in CDDs… which is strange, to say the least.
I’ve seen the argument that headmates in nontraumagenic systems are separated by dissociation, just not structural dissociation, and to that I say read over paragraph 2. So, even that doesn’t really explain it. If you’ve dissociated from a part of yourself so badly that it develops its own sense of self, that’s no longer healthy dissociation. It does not make sense.
The last thing I’m going to say about the psychological aspect is, again, if nontraumagenic plurality is 100% possible and functions differently than traumagenic plurality: how come I’ve never seen any traumaendo system explain the differences between their traumagenic and endogenic alters? Is there any difference? If not, how would that be possible? (Fun fact: pwCDDs don’t always split from trauma, you can split anytime the brain deems it necessary, it doesn’t make you traumaendo. Your experiences were enough, I promise you.)
So, moving on from the largely psychological aspect of my opinion, I’m going to address the identity and cultural/spiritual aspect for the case of nontraumagenic plurality, because I know that’s a huge part of the community.
Many nontraumagenic plurals view their plurality as an identity, a way to view yourself. Which, honestly? I would be fine with that, that’s not inherently a bad concept.
…If it wasn’t for the fact that they act like this identity label is near identical to having parts of your brain literally separated by extreme dissociation. Again, this brings up the issue of using the exact same terminology as those with a CDD. My alters are not an identity label, or a way of viewing my sense of self, they are a physical manifestation of the stress and trauma we’ve collectively been through for our entire life. They are a symptom. Heck, there are brain scans showing differences in alter activity! How is that in any way comparable to an identity label that, theoretically, shouldn’t physically exist in the brain like alters in CDDs? Trans and gay people don’t significantly different brain activity, so why would nontraumagenic plurality have that as well? Or, again, how is that comparable? Why would an identity label that anyone can take on work exactly the same way as a complex symptom of a disorder?
And, now, there’s the spiritual aspect of it. Which I don’t have much to comment on, other than once again, why use terms meant to describe a disordered experience to describe something that should be incredibly personal? Spirituality and cultural practices should not be compared to those with CDDs, even the DSM-5 addresses this. They can look similar to an outsider, but fundamentally, they are completely different. We do not need to share terms for entirely different experiences, it doesn’t help either of our communities.
I likely missed some things, I also answered this in a more summarized way (with sources) in this post(link) if you’re interested in seeing that as well.
If you want a shorter version of all of the above: I deem saying you have alters without trauma comparable to saying you have flashbacks without trauma. Both are symptoms, but both have a concrete and direct cause. You can have symptoms that look similar to a specific disorder, but you’re not going to have the exact same presentation, intensity, etc. Especially not one that is this complex.
Ultimately, I’m going to say this: the day a full-proof mechanism for endogenic alter development is proposed, and the community stops acting like our experiences of multiplicity are the exact same, is the day I will consider calling myself pro endo. Or at the very least, endo neutral.
*final note: do not try to debate me on my opinion regarding this. Like I said at the start, I’ve seen every argument under the goddamn sun, I can guarantee you’re not going to change my mind. I answered this question because it was a good one, and it was asked respectfully. If you want to fight, take it elsewhere.
I’m very welcoming to polite corrections regarding information on CDDs. Please let me know if I’m accidentally spreading misinformation! (With sources please)
