Idk, there's something that always bugs us about the statement "endos claiming to have DID/OSDD-1" instead of something like "DID/OSDD-1 systems who are endogenic" or "endogenic systems with DID/OSDD-1".
Okay I lied, I do know. It's the "claim" part. It's always that the hypothetical system is endogenic first and foremost. It's always a given. That goes without question (okay it's definitely questioned but I'll get back to that).
But they only claim to have DID/OSDD-1. When this phrasing is trotted out its never a given that the system has DID/OSDD-1. It's never believed that a system can exist prior to developing a dissociative disorder. Or that a system with a dissociative disorder can discover or recognize how they came to be and not ascribe that to trauma. It implies that the system doesn't have the disorder that they have.
And that framing is really unfair.
Wouldn't it be shitty if we did the same thing elsewhere? If someone said "this adult who claims to be autistic"? Or "this woman who claims to be a lesbian"? Or "this non-binary person who claims to be trans"? Or "this traumagenic system that claims to have DID/OSDD-1"?
We've seen all of those tossed around for the same reason. That last one is said (not in those words of course) by folks I think most of us would generally agree are being shitty. It's said by people who will fakeclaim any system for any reason. It's said by those that will fakeclaim a system for being queer or online. That's really bad company to have.
The usual response we see in defense of endogenic systems is "Most endogenic systems don't claim to have DID/OOSDD-1." Which is true, yes! We can't help but feel like that's talking about this on the fakeclaimer's terms though. We aren't asking folks to change how they respond of course, because we don't really know a better way to reject the accusation.
But those endogenic systems with DID/OSDD-1 aren't simply "claiming" to have DID/OSDD-1 any more than traumagenic systems are "claiming" to. They just have those disorders and are sharing that information about themselves.
While "endos are claiming to have DID/OSDD-1" puts the endogenic part first, implicitly leaving the diagnosis up for questioning, there is a flip side (see, I'm getting back to it).
To compliment the above, fakeclaimers will say that disordered endogenic systems just really don't know about their trauma; essentially that these DID/OSDD-1 systems are just claiming to be endogenic. Of course, we don't see it phrased that way. It's usually trying to be nicer. These poor misguided systems were tricked into thinking that they're endogenic. Or these foolish systems don't really know their origin. Or these crazy systems can't be trusted with their own experiences, cause that's what DID/OSDD-1 does to you.
It's patronizing. It's invalidating. It's disrespectful. It's sanism. It is opposed to disability rights and mad liberation. It speaks over DID/OSDD-1 systems.
These two claims compliment each other. They both feed into the idea that plurality (or at least DID/OSDD-1) can only exist for traumagenic systems. Anyone who disputes that with their lived experiences are either malicious fakers doing some stolen valor shit and invading spaces, or poor "real" systems that are just manipulated/ignorant/crazy.
Huh? That sounds familiar. Reminds me of attacks on trans folk that paint us as dangerous predatory invaders or poor deluded children falling for peer pressure... I would say it's strange or surprising, but we've gotten pretty used to attacks on systems having analogues in transphobia.
Anyways, endogenic systems aren't "claiming" to have DID/OSDD-1. Most endogenic systems don't have DID/OSDD-1, and they never said they do. Some endogenic systems do have DID/OSDD-1, and they share that part of their lives. Some DID/OSDD-1 systems are endogenic, and they have just as much right and ability to determine what caused their system to form and talk about it as any other system.
-Faye












