it was annoying so I put it here

this is a syscourse account. I got tired of the bullshit cluttering up our main. we're a quoigenic system, been in the community for a long time, firmly pro-endo and often anti-psych.

[quoigenicfromhell]

Whomst the fuck is yous

Hi, we're quoigenicfromhell or QFH and this is our system discourse blog. Started it because the tag made us mad but we didn't want to just dump a bunch of discourse on our main followers who probably just followed for our funny shitpost reblogs and fan art.

Syscourse stance or whatever

We are quoigenic in the sense of 'this is not the right question to be asking, it isn't discoverable, and we just don't really care/it isn't your business'. In some sense we are more closely aligned with endogenic systems because we have funky little ideas about what we are and where we came from, and we've mostly hung out in that space/mixed spaces for 13 years.

Pro-endo in a everyone has the right to define their own existence way. Also in the I think there are many different ways to be plural and rigid lines/definitions are antithetical to how life and people usually operate way.

I am not against purposefully created systems or sysmates, but I believe using the word tulpa is at least in poor taste and depending on how it's approached, racist. I understand there's difficulty in changing the vernacular but believe it would be a good move for the community.

What's your fuckin deal

We are quoigenic, a gateway, and a collective (not system.) We use collective, collective member, headmate, or collectivite to talk about ourselves. Please do not use alters or parts for us.

We are traumatized and have been diagnosed with PTSD; we probably have cPTSD. We've done extensive therapy for it and it is now manageable.

We won't sign our names or indicate who's posting. We won't list our main here but our main url isn't a secret.

[quoigenicfromhell]

"the only valid form of pluralphobia is towards pwCDDs" that isn't how bigotry works. Whether or not I have a CDD if I tell someone that I share a body with a bunch of other people they're not going to stop to ask my diagnosis status before they call me a freak or crazy.

The ableism existed before the diagnosis did, gang. Ableism isn't strictly confined to the DSM, it's based on what society sees as 'crazy', which often has nothing to do with actual mental illness.

Everyone get more intersectional NOW

[quoigenicfromhell]

If your "discourse" post is indistinguishable from a petty Facebook drama post, you should probably just keep it on the personal blog.

[quoigenicfromhell]

Everyone needs to pet a fluffy animal as soon as humanly possible

[quoigenicfromhell]

That's not what being otherkin is ❤️

[quoigenicfromhell]

Also, and this should be obvious, but you don't actually get to say "this is a discourse tag which means everyone that hates this group of people gets to talk about them without that group of people having the opportunity to defend themselves". You don't actually get a free pass to talk shit about an entire group you dislike because of a single characteristic.

[quoigenicfromhell]

In general I think fictives bringing their source into syscourse is rude. Maybe this doesn't make sense, but especially if you're positioning yourself as 'the actual guy' and you hate [insert group here].

We saw a blog saying "I'm [character] for real, I'm super source attached" and it was an anti-endo blog sharing the same source as a newbie of ours who straight up could not imagine a version of himself that just hates a type of person for existing. It made him pretty uncomfortable.

We tend not to bring our identities up here for purposes of anonymization, but we also wouldn't want to make anyone with a shared source and a totally different outlook uncomfortable. Not to mention, most of us genuinely see syscourse as something that only concerns us because of the situation we're in. If I were in my own body in my own home world I don't think I would care and making it part of my identity here just seems personally...odd. that last bit is, of course, personal preference, but if you see yourself as truly source attached...do you think outside of the situation you find yourself now you would really immediately jump to "I hate these people existing in a way that is different from me"?

[quoigenicfromhell]

These people cannot be serious

From an anti willo character blog lol

[quoigenicfromhell]

Genuinely flabbergasted by all the stuff that happened in syscourse since I left

Man. You guys should follow us on @navelgazed we are just straight chillin.

[quoigenicfromhell]

Scrolled the syscourse tag and my god it's bad in there. I think all the pro-endos left and now it's just teens being mad about other people existing.

Man have you guys...tried just letting it go? Go eat some pasta and you might feel better idk

[quoigenicfromhell]

Created systems aren’t plural because they’re just one person. A singlet. Pretending to be plural. Created systems are by definition not plural

Congratulations! You've achieved the most nonsense take I've seen today!

[quoigenicfromhell]

Like I really do want to know in what world people are living in where non-disordered plurality is more accepted than DID, because every single conversation where I am explaining my plurality to someone I have to clarify that it is not DID and usually when I clarify that people slot us into 'oh, so you have imaginary friends' (which is code for 'I don't have to take this seriously or consider this when speaking to you&'). Like I have to genuinely try very hard to make people understand that even though I do not have a clinical disorder this is a thing that still very much matters and affects my life and every time you speak to me you are potentially speaking to a different person

[thecircularsystem]

I am definitely in agreement that DID is more normalized than non-disordered plurality (regardless of space, online or not). However, I will say, the amount of times I have had to deal with, “oh yeah, I know all about DID, my friend is/I am a Tulpamancer!” And “I experienced that because I was different people in high school” and “Oh yeah, that’s so similar to (insert non-disordered plurality here).”

It happens coooonstantly to me. Like. It. It does happen a fucking ridiculous amount to me. I can only imagine how much harder it is for non-CDD systems to get their systems recognized.

[quoigenicfromhell]

The equation of the two and people just totally lacking understanding of what DID is is holding all of us back, tbh.

[quoigenicfromhell]

If there's one thing people hate irrationally it's ambiguity

[quoigenicfromhell]

One more hot take: it's driving me insane how y'all are trying to specify plurality into meaning 'endogenic/feels like people instead of parts'

Plurality is for anyone who feels like they are more than one. It is an umbrella term that can conceivably cover anyone. Endogenic, traumagenic, DID, created systems, whatever. It does not specify any kind of particular framework or function.

Plurality does not 'have a small overlap' with DID or medical models, plural was coined and used by a mix of people who were both medically recognized and not, it was intended to cover any and all of these experiences.

You can choose not to identify with plurality if you want to but plurality is not one specific thing functioning one specific way, you can't make it a specific thing without perverting how it was coined, who it has historically been used by, and who it's used by currently.

The plural community has historically included all types of systems and all types of collectives. If you don't want to be included in that history it's fine but stop trying to draw a line in the sand, it's really more of a gradient.

[quoigenicfromhell]

I mean you would think that because of all the bullshit rising anti-medicine ideas getting popular people would be more open to things like this (this is not me endorsing anti-medicine positions, you can pry my meds from my cold dead hands) but no actually if you aren't seeking treatment but you are acting "weird" (occupying a non-existent social niche no one really understands or wants to and in fact is actively hostile towards) then they still think you're crazy, they probably just think you need to be thrown in an asylum or taken out back and shot, idk

[quoigenicfromhell]

Like I really do want to know in what world people are living in where non-disordered plurality is more accepted than DID, because every single conversation where I am explaining my plurality to someone I have to clarify that it is not DID and usually when I clarify that people slot us into 'oh, so you have imaginary friends' (which is code for 'I don't have to take this seriously or consider this when speaking to you&'). Like I have to genuinely try very hard to make people understand that even though I do not have a clinical disorder this is a thing that still very much matters and affects my life and every time you speak to me you are potentially speaking to a different person

[quoigenicfromhell]

To put it another way, there is a certain amount of legitimacy that a diagnosis grants people and a grace that people without that official recognition just don't get.

For a progressive minded person, calling someone with a diagnosed health condition crazy or challenging them to their face about it would be a huge social faux pas. It certainly happens, especially for people that aren't as educated on disability, but there is absolutely a sense that if someone has a diagnosis then they have to be more polite about it to their face, and they may have an easier time believing someone if a professional, someone with power in our society, has recognized them.

Meanwhile the only thing we have is our word. If we are seen as crazy we're seen as the bad kind of crazy because we don't see this as a condition to be managed or submitted to any kind of authority. This is especially true if we embrace who we are openly and do not intend on stopping. Announcing who we are makes people uncomfortable, and embracing it and saying 'this is who we are forever' will make people uncomfortable.

Otherwise it's very easy to dismiss as a quirk of our host that can either be ignored or talked around. Most people have nothing to compare this to except DID or possession, and given we have made it clear it's neither of those, we have to painstakingly spell out how we want to be treated otherwise it just kind of falls out of people's conscious awareness. It is genuinely exhausting being in this in-between space where people don't know where to slot us, so they just ignore us unless we're loud and make people, again, uncomfortable by advocating for ourselves and forcing singlets to understand a new paradigm of how people can work.

Idk I'm just really tired of seeing the implication by people that plurality is normalized when it just is not at all

[quoigenicfromhell]

I also think it's really telling how worried people get about a system mistaking themselves for endogenic when they're traumagenic but absolutely never talk about the reverse. In fact it seems like a lot of people would not welcome someone questioning whether they're endogenic in a DID community, because that would be denying their trauma, even if they are questioning whether or not that trauma happened or influenced their system as much as they first thought.

(I personally think anyone should be allowed to question their origins at any time and if they determine they were mistaken then that's fine. Even if they say they don't think their memories of trauma were accurate, or if they misjudged the influence of those traumas, or maybe they are just experiencing plurality differently from the clinical view of it. And obviously if you find you may be traumagenic when you started as endogenic that's great too. You should be able to question and change your mind on this kind of thing, imo. I just don't see a lot of encouragement to do that so often when it comes to traumagenic -> endogenic.)