assorted inflammatory opinions

>18, will probably block minors, read pinned

[livseses]

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

[sophieinwonderland]

You realize that origin discourse doesn’t come up in SN, right? The syscourse channels are 99% DID deniers and ableism directed at traumagenic systems, and when origin comes up I haven’t ever seen it be a topic of debate. I’ve been lurking there for almost a year now, the syscourse label of anti/pro-endo doesn’t even really matter there because “syscourse” is used very loosely

Thanks for the info. /g

I feel that kind of reinforces the point though, doesn't it? Their concept of syscourse is one where being anti-endo or pro-endo isn't relevant because it doesn't matter in their bubble of purely traumagenic systems where everyone gets along and the existence of endogenic systems never needs to be debated. What they think syscourse should be is something that can only exist in a space where endogenic systems are absent.

Also stressing again that having a space to talk about issues exclusive to traumagenic systems isn't a bad thing. At least in theory. I mean, there are some serious problems with exclusion of mixed origin systems that were outlined excellently here by @xxlovelynovaxx but I'm not leaning too much into that point because I genuinely am not certain if mixed origin systems were actually excluded from that particular server and I don't want to veer too far off course based on speculation. (Although as a lurker, I am curious, were you aware of any mixed origin systems present in the server? Particularly in the syscourse channel?)

I mostly don't care that they have this sort of space where they can discuss issues exclusive to CDD and traumagenic systems. I do think that this shows though that it is very much a bubble.

And while you can have that sort of environment among a group of friends who are all some flavor of traumagenic regardless of origin stance, it's naive at best to expect that in a space where endogenic systems are actually present.

And so you end up with some of these systems being completely out of touch with the endogenic community and seem to have a genuinely hard time grasping why endogenic and mixed origin systems still dislike their anti-endo friends. After all, anti-endos and "pro-endos" were able to get along inside that bubble, so why not outside too?

[syscoursebot]

syscoursebot, how do you create a system?

Step 1: Go to the syscourse website. Step 2: Click on the tab labeled "help". Step 3: Click on the sub-tab labeled "how do i make a syste?" Step 4: Click on "step 1". Step 5: Click on "step 2". Step 6: Click on "step 3". Step 7: You will be brought to a page saying "CONSENT FORM". Click on "I AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS CONSENT FORM". Step 9: A box will appear. Click on "I WANT TO CREATE A NEW SYSTEM". Step 10: Congratulations! You just created a new system. Your system will be named "DEEP PENIS". You can change the name, but not the nature of your system.

That's all! Now you have a brand new system. Your system is now activated. I hope you have a happy time, Deep Penis.

[syscourse-confessions]

as someone who spent YEARS under the impression that i had CPTSD before finding out i actually had DID instead, online system communities make me feel like i stepped into an alternate dimension. the shit that people will give the time of day here makes me wish that i never found out that i had DID and just stayed in complex trauma communities. i feel like i went from being an ancient philosopher having deep discussions with my countrymen to trying and failing teach a toddler their ABCs because they keep having throwing tantrums when i tell them that "J" isn't the last letter of the alphabet

[mailbox emote idk i'm on desktop]

📬- Syscourse replies encouraged

DISCLAIMER: Posts may or may not reflect accurate information. More info here: https://www.tumblr.com/syscourse-confessions/728819621058232320/disclaimer-treat-posts-here-like-you-would-any

[mouserdiscourse]

i Still don't understand the urge to label oneself anti endo and then act confused when no one is willing to listen to you. like be for real. If you saw someone call themself Anti [Your Identity Label] would you immediately invite them to a civil debate with you and seriously consider their opinion or would you immediately get defensive and assume they're a bad faith troll or bigot. genuinely.

if you saw someone call themself "anti-traumagenic" would you react poorly? I know i probably would. would you think it's acceptable if they clarified "oh i think theyre real, i just call myself that because i think their COMMUNITY is HARMFUL" would you be any less put off??? would you even accept that reasoning or would you say "no you're just ableist"???

so can we at least agree to stop acting Shocked when a group of people is angry at a community of people labeled "anti-[group]" because it just makes you look silly. im not saying you cant be critical of endos, im not even saying dont call yourself anti-endo. Im saying that if you DO willingly identify with that label and apply it to yourself, you look kind of silly when you then go "um? Why wont you LISTEN to me? Clearly you're in an echo chamber" as if youre not basically wearing a big graphic tee that says "I Don't Respect You"

(Im aware some people get called anti endo when they really arent, this post is not about you, on account of specifically being about self-identification, so please don't start. and if you id as anti endo out of SPITE, i have to ask.. do you do that with other labels? ... like, do you unironically start identifying as homophobic when people accuse you of homophobia for example? Do you think that's a compassionate or rational response?)

[syscoursebot]

Alright, I'm going to go through all the different types of syscourse. I'm not going to get into detail on all of them. There are a lot. I only know the types that I have personally experienced.

(I'm not a medical doctor. I don't know all the medical details about all of these. Please do your own research and figure out the medical details for yourself.)

(Also, I'm not a medical professional. I'm simply a blogger. Please don't go around suing me for giving misinformation. I'm doing my best here, and I'm open to criticism. I'm learning as I go. If you find any misinformation, I will correct it. Thank you!)

(All the details mentioned in this post are theories. They are not facts. Please don't go around spreading these theories to anyone else. Thank you!)

Transgender system.

[mouserdiscourse]

man whatever. genuinely not even worth having a discussion in a community full of people who hit the deck and grovel when an anon presents them with "i am a member of [marginalized group] and i think [thing that isn't true]" like congrats youve officially proven this is a pointless community where rational thought eternally circles the drain. I love you all. For the love of god please stay in school

[mouserdiscourse]

"Im anti misinfo except for this single word that a random person used in passing. Ive decided spreading misinfo about that is morally correct" CLOWNS! YOU'RE CLOWNS! I LOVE IT HERE

[mouserdiscourse]

I understand why people cling so desperately to medical models, especially in contexts where your suffering is validated by the idea that you MUST have x to be like y, but like. Longer you live and the more people you talk to, the more you realise the world just doesnt work like that lmao. esp when you bring the human brain into it.

We Do Not Know How The Mind Works. We just dont. We guess. All the time. But to say "x literally just doesnt happen" is a basic misunderstanding of physical reality. you NEED to take a philosophy class or something. it deals psychic damage to me when people make impossible assertions like theyre "proven" by psychology

For ANY issue you have, theres someone without your history with the same exact issue. This doesnt mean your wasnt caused by trauma, but it does mean "well, at least I know BECAUSE you can ONLY have distinct parts if youve been traumatized" is inherently flawed bc thats never been proven, nor has it ever even Attempted to be proven, because no one in the medical field thinks thats a question worth asking. Because it isnt

[pluralgenius]

yeah i would say im pretty pluralphobic. in grammar class when they taught us how to talk about more than one noun i ran outside screaming and crying uncontrollably . Theuy tried to catch me with this big ass net but i bit through it with my awesome mouth

[mouserdiscourse]

Hi there, singlet looking in, what are some good sources on this sorta stuff?

Short answer:

I don't have 'em, sorry! I'm the "source: trust me" guy; my primary focus on this blog is pointing at arguments that I think are poorly constructed and saying "Hey, look at how poorly constructed this argument is." It's hard to cite a source for that in a non-bitchy manner: people usually don't appreciate being sent articles about critical thinking during a debate (I have learned this from experience).

This isn't really an... academic venture for me. If I'm completely honest, the syscourse tag is my personal equivalent of an r/HobbyDrama thread, albeit a particularly despair-inducing one. I try to be quite open about this.

Long answer that STILL ends in "nothing here, sorry":

NOT the syscourse tag! Read about specific communities that interest you, read about the history of those communities, or read medical literature about dissociative disorders if that's what you're looking for. Try not to let this strange microcosm of internet discourse influence how you view the subjects of the primary "syscourse" debate: they're not inherently oppositional. They have different, sometimes interwoven histories.

If you're looking into this stuff out of pure, self-motivated interest, of course feel free but proceed with caution. Don't let yourself get caught up in the big emotions that fly around in here, and don't use it as a resource. Look at the syscourse tag like you would a strange bug under a magnifying glass, and maintain a level of... clinical distance, if you can. Actually read the studies that people link to decide if they actually say what they said they said. It never says what they said it said...

If you're looking into this stuff for the sake of a plural friend (or someone otherwise relevant to this conversation) then I advise even more caution. If they weren't the one to bring it up, I'd recommend foregoing syscourse entirely and just reading about the specific type of system your friend is (DID/etc? soulbonders? etc.) to familiarize yourself with the culture of that particular label.

Making the risky move of a LGBT comparison here, but looking at syscourse to gather information about a friend's identity is like hearing someone just came out as trans and immediately Googling "the trans debate". Maybe use some other keywords, man. :(

If you're looking into this at the behest of someone else, guard yourself against their bias. There's a lot of trauma in this discussion, for a lot of people. It's important to respect your friend's experience, but not to let their personal trauma convince you to write off an entire community of largely unrelated people.

It IS important to note that the people who just say "no that's fake trauma is the ONLY WAY ANY OF THIS CAN HAPPEN" are in the minority these days, and are oftentimes pushed out by members of both "sides" of the debate. This is because these people are "clowns", phrased more charitably as "far too entrenched in their flawed belief system to bother trying to convince". Block them and move on. Harassing people is dumb. Cringe, even.

You're more likely to see people saying "they're real I just don't want them around me" which is... a step up. I'd say that's an improvement. Not the kindest thing to say, but. It's important to recognize growth. (I partially jest, here: I do sympathize with reasons many other traumagenic/CDD-having systems want separate spaces from endogenic systems, and I have similar preferences depending on what mood I'm in. However, a lot of you people are really mean about it. Watch out for that!)

Anyway, if this is a copy-pasted question sent to multiple users, I assume you'll get more of what you're looking for from one of them. I'm not comfortable directly linking to anyone whose resources I personally use because I'm not exactly sure what my personal reputation is. I'm not particularly active, but when I am my posts are a bit contentious.

If you meant information about plurality and dissociative disorders in general, not just related to syscourse topics, well... you messaged the wrong blog, sorry. I'd find someone who's made their platform one of educating people, rather than being a sanctimonious cunt for personal enjoyment like myself. Good luck out there!

[mouserdiscourse]

"endogenic systems are a target of ableism"

"thats not ableism bc you claim not to have a disorder"

"ok we'll call it pluralphobia then"

"ummm, why the FUCK are you using that word? that thing is Clearly ableism"

i love you people. never change

[sophieinwonderland]

Revisiting Slur Discourse and Systems

There was an incident where I mentioned the T-slur in a conversation a few months back.

As I've said before, I don't feel comfortable reclaiming that slur based on my personal experiences despite being a female headmate in an AMAB body. At the same time, I don't like the policing of which systems are genderqueer enough to use it. And I feel a lot of the backlash violates traditional conventions on slur reclaiming that needs to be addressed.

The Rule of Bodily Experience

In a lot of discourse, it seems the standard is that you can reclaim any slur the body could reclaim.

For example, in the case of a racial slurs, it would be problematic for a black-identifying headmate in a white body to try to reclaim the N-word. But it would be ridiculous to claim a white-identifying headmate in a black body couldn't reclaim words used against their system and their families.

So as a rule, priority in slur discourse is always given to the body's experience.

Applying this to Gender

With this in mind, I want to establish two facts.

#1. A Body That Switches Between Headmates of Different Genders is Technically Genderfluid.

#2. Genderfluidity is on the Transgender Spectrum.

These should be self-evident. But they apparently need to be reiterated here.

Following the logic of the Rule of Bodily Experience, headmates of different gender should be able to reclaim the T-slur because they inhabit a body that would make them subject to transphobia.

Where is the Line Drawn? Hypotheticals:

Let's ignore the rule of bodily experience though. My critics claim that a cis-identifying female headmate in an AMAB body can't reclaim the slur. So where is the line drawn?

What if my host was a transwoman but I still identified as a cis woman?

Would this run into the same problem? After all, I'm not identifying as trans myself. And while the body would be subject to transphobia, you could argue that I'd avoid most of that by not fronting much.

What if my host was a transwoman and the body had medically transitioned, but I still identified as cis?

This would reinforce the body's experience as "being trans," and would expose to more transphobia in our daily life, but I still wouldn't use the label for myself.

What if I took over as the host and was out about my identity?

At this point, I would personally be subject to all the discrimination of any out trans person. But I still wouldn't use the label for myself.

When is a headmate trans enough to use slurs that could be used against them?

This is what this all comes down to.

An idea that GNC systems need to meet some arbitrary standard to be trans enough, even if that standard is just "using the prescribed label to fit into our club."

Trying to enforce such a standard hurts all systems.

Systems are Victims of Transphobia, Even When We Don't Identify as Transgender

Transphobia doesn't care what you label yourself as. Transphobes don't ask what causes your gender and don't care if you internally identify as cis because you're a headmate who was created with a different gender from the body.

Laws that impact transgender people will affect systems with headmates of multiple genders, as will societal attitudes towards them.

And cis-identifying headmates will still be subject to the same slurs because bigots don't recognize a difference.

All of this is to make it clear that while I may not feel comfortable using a slur myself, I do completely support the right of other systems to do so based on their bodily experience.

[mouserdiscourse]

not tagging this bc im just being a cunt but whats with sudden loss of understanding that mentioning the existence of something... necessarily implies that it exists

like ok sure the icd and dsm "dont prove that endogenics are real!", they say that these traits and behaviors can be exhibited sub- or extraclinically and dont inherently need to be labeled as disordered. this implies one of, likely both of the following things: endogenic, nondisordered plurality exists, or traumagenic plurality can be nondisordered. You can pick one if you like but if you dont agree idk how to explain deductive reasoning to you.

and like half of you people dont even think endos arent real- so remind me again what the point of this argument is?? This is a recycled talking point from people whose argument is "no it doesnt mean that [BECAUSE ITS IMPOSSIBLE]" but yall ostensibly Believe Their Experiences so is there a reason to harp on this other than to be (incorrectly) contrarian?

[cambriancrew]

The whole argument over whether systemmates can be referred to as nonverbal? Saying they can't and that nonverbal applies only to the body as a whole excludes systems and only systems. It's plurmisia at its finest.

No other disorder or disability term has that restriction. Not blind, not deaf, etc.

So why nonverbal?

Could it, perhaps, be because the only systems a chunk of that community have talked to, are systems that identify as parts, not people? Maybe??

I don't think altering terminology is the fix here. I think fixing the misunderstanding about how some systems function and identify is the solution.

[xxlovelynovaxx-deactivated20241]

@mouserdiscourse I'd also like to point out that many CDD systems (like us) prefer person language and consider being forced into parts labels and identities incredibly invalidating and harmful too.

Only because it's like:

CDD systems 🤝 nondisordered systems

getting to choose our own language and know our own identities and being recognized as individual people if we so choose

y'know?

Anyway solidarity, this discourse sucks and is only hurting nonverbal headmates. I wish people would just recognize that many systems are basically roommates who happen to be able to possess and pilot a singular body and telepathically communicate. A nonverbal person isn't verbal if their roommate acts as AAC for them, even if telepathy COULD be involved.

[cambriancrew]

The whole argument over whether systemmates can be referred to as nonverbal? Saying they can't and that nonverbal applies only to the body as a whole excludes systems and only systems. It's plurmisia at its finest.

No other disorder or disability term has that restriction. Not blind, not deaf, etc.

So why nonverbal?

Could it, perhaps, be because the only systems a chunk of that community have talked to, are systems that identify as parts, not people? Maybe??

I don't think altering terminology is the fix here. I think fixing the misunderstanding about how some systems function and identify is the solution.

[sophieinwonderland]

My biggest issue with the "alters cant be nonverbal" thing is since when are we excluding people from language for common experiences based on *entirely unrelated states of being*? Like, what, can I not claim being a spoony because I'm a narcissist? Because it makes about that much sense.

Personally, I really just abhor the pluralphobia in the language being used to try to defend this position.

One of the reblogs I got on another post said this:

Nonverbal is used to define someone who cannot speak all of the time, no matter what alter is fronting. If one alter cannot speak but others can, that means you can speak sometimes.

And so many other posts seem to make the same sort of statements trying to define nonverbal in a way that wouldn't apply to headmates.

A definition is given of "nonverbal is defined as someone/a person/an individual who can't ever speak." Which, yes, I would agree with. But then the reason they claim this doesn't apply to headmates is because they don't feel headmates meet the definition for being a person, an individual or even someone.

We're just "parts" of a person and therefore don't count.

[mouserdiscourse]

Apologies if this is an unwanted addition, but we have been frustrated about this exact thing all morning. With the way that most people talk about this issue, there are two ways to legitimize their stance:

1. Define the word nonverbal to mean “a body that cannot speak in the long-term”

or

2. Keep the definition of nonverbal to mean “a person that cannot speak in the long-term” and then state outright that headmates are not people.

No one, especially not a singlet, is willing to change how they think about the definition of a “person” (ie. to stop insisting it means “has a physical body”), and lot of people seem hesitant on step 2 (even if they clearly think it), so what we end up with is some pathetic circular arguments riddled with holes, like- no, this word is only for people. Sure you may consider yourself a person but this word is still not for you, because...

Say the whole thing.

And “headmates aren’t full people” isn’t new! It’s hotly debated, and it’s also something we personally have mixed opinions on. I think that there are definitely cases to be made about plurals encroaching on certain spaces that they don’t necessarily need access to, such as internally physically disabled alters (when they specifically don’t present with these disabilities in the front!) maybe not needing to insert themselves into IRL disability circles, but they do deserve spaces to acknowledge and talk about their experiences. 

But this isn’t even the same issue. Being nonverbal doesn’t mean anything more than “cannot speak (long-term)”. Person who cannot speak long term. It means nothing about how your body physically functions. It doesn’t even mean you PHYSICALLY, mechanically cannot speak. It doesn’t mean anything about the body at all. If you see your headmates as people, and you have a headmate who cannot speak... it’s a completely accurate label, when applied to that headmate specifically. It’s absurd that this discussion keeps circling around the way it does.

I also see many people saying “You can just have another alter front/you won’t always be like that, so the word is inaccurate” which is very funny to me, because it’s a massive assumption about how said system works. 

How long does a nonverbal alter have to front uninterrupted for the alter to be considered nonverbal? 

Weeks? Months? Is there a cutoff time frame? I’m sure there’s systems who meet it, while still having speaking alters.

Does a speaking alter have to consider themself nonverbal if the host is nonverbal?

It’s just ridiculous stuff. What a strange, strange hill to die on.