The only people claiming that "endogenics are just DID without trauma" are anti-endogenics and otherwise uneducated singlets (especially those that frequent certain hate subreddit forums). I've never seen a (pro) endogenic, endo neutral, endo critical, or even syscourse aligned systems that frankly don't care ever make that claim, and if they did it was often because they were a younger system new to the community.
Some of you have to remember there is a real person behind the screen.
>> "But Prowl! What about the original meaning of endogenic"
What? You mean this:
"Did you just sort of happen, with no known cause, but you might not have always been this way? Endogen! (Endogenous, having no external cause.)"
Source: https://archive.md/iYWjG, a post originally by Lunastus Collective under the old blog of 'not-your-fucking-pet' back 2014, not once does it mean "DID but no trauma".
And later in 2022 Lunastus & Co restated the meaning behind endogenic and some corrections, which you can read [here](link), but to quote some of the post:
"[...] It was in response to exclusionists (wrongly) complaining about âsystems without DIDâ using âtheir wordsâ. It was an attempt at creating nonmedicalized terms that any plural system could use."
"It was also a way to do away with terms that had fallen into disfavorâ specifically ânatural systemsâ, a term that had been in use possibly as early as 1994. It was disliked because people felt it implied that trauma-caused systems were unnatural. âEndogenicâ fixed that."
"The word âendogenicâ was lovingly created to help systems put their experience into words. All it means is âa system not formed by traumaâ; it doesnât imply any other cause, set of beliefs, or experiences. It doesnât imply the system is nondisordered or doesnât have trauma. It doesnât mean any other systemâs origins in trauma or dx status is âinvalidâ or whatever."
Again not once does the post say "endogenic = DID no trauma" and even now in the more modern days of the community no one is saying that either and became more of an umbrella term for plurality where trauma wasn't the cause (or even the only cause), and yet we are going in constant circles of the same five arguments. Even when some of you actually do ask for proof and evidence many just go with the good old: "Well I'm not reading that" of which I've seen many times. Do not ask for proof when you're not going to actually read it or even talk to endogenic systems.
>> "Well, Endogenics don't have trauma."
Incorrect. Anyone can experience trauma at anytime in their life, what endogenics are doing is just stating that their plurality/systemhood did not come from trauma. And to deny that someone doesn't have trauma because it "wasn't enough" or "was not that bad" is frankly ableist.
>> "Ableist?? But clearly they're delusional--"
There you go. The moment you start listing endogenics as "crazy", "delusional", or whatever other buzzwords you instantly lose credibility and very much spreading ableist language, you wouldn't like it if someone called you a "delusional freak" (which in some spaces online there are people that do call DID/OSDD systems that). In my opinion at least you shouldn't be in system discourse spaces if all you going to do is insult, suicide bait, or spew ableism.
>> "Endogenics are invading CDD spaces!"
While I won't deny that there have been some individuals that do "invade" spaces meant for CDD systems (such as a discord server specifically for DID/OSDD) it is not something that every endogenic is doing, and I agree. I don't think endogenics should go into spaces that is exclusively for traumagenic/CDD systems but the reality is a grand majority understand and respect boundaries of servers and/or users.
>> "There is no evidence that endogenic plurality exists."
Evidence does exist, while minimal, many research points to whole plurality itself isn't inherently disordered, as there is many links I recommend actually reading [this google document] by The Guardians System which acts as a general hub for all research relating to it.
Of course I stand by that people are allowed to have boundaries, healthy even. But if you're going to make claims at least be correct. And no, they're not trying to "demedicalise" DID either, the research surrounding how plurality can be non-disordering experience, like with ICD-11's "Boundary of Normalcy";
"The presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. In certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by âmediumsâ or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning. A diagnosis of Dissociative Identity Disorder should not be assigned in these cases."
Source: [ICD-11 For Mortality and Morbidity]
Which reminds me, when it comes to spiritual plurality a lot of you are grossly racist, if not plainly xenophobic. Many spiritual practices understand and recognize DID/OSDD to be disorders, but believe the plurality they practice is nothing similar to DID/OSDD *aside* from the "more-than-one" experience.
Are you going to go up to someone from a culture that does practice a form of spiritual plurality (which many cultures both open and closed practice a form of) and tell them they're an "ableist leech who is mocking "real" systems"? No? But I won't be surprised if some of you do.
(And equally so, spirituality is a wide experience that anyone can experience that isn't even related to a set religion or culture, no one owns the concept of plurality. It's been part of a wider human culture since forever).
>> "Well... clearly they're still delusional"
A very loud incorrect buzzer. Still using pop-psychology as insults. And as I previously said, the moment you start bullying, suicide baiting, sending death threats, etc. you instantly lose any credibility and prove to a lot of people that this is not the space you belong in.
Dissociative identity disorder, otherwise specified dissociative disorders, Partial DID, UDD, and other CDDs are still serious chronic dissociative disorders that are still heavily understudied and scrutinized by the mental health industry which many psychologists still believe in old outdated and very cearly incorrect things like how many still believe autism is a "boy only" disorder.
Of course DID/OSDD systems should still be respected, that should be de-stigmatized and de-demonized, listened to and uplifted. But to certain monsters in government, no matter what labels one identifies with: we're all still seen as less-than-human for not being "normal". Petty in-community dramas do nothing but distract. And I do not think it's healthy at all to be so concerned with a stranger online.
And no before it is even assumed I do not think endogenics are innocent babies who can do no wrong ever. As I do believe there is a lot to criticize on the community, and that there are those within it that should be called out.
(This is also my new syscourse orientated blog as I believe I should separate it from our main system blog. You can curate your own experiences online by blocking, or blocking the "syscourse" tag)
