Dear TPA and Stronghold System, STFU Sincerely, Someone genuinely concerned for every single person you come into contact with
So, we all know how much I dislike the TPA and the Stronghold System. They have a new thread on twitter! Let’s take a look and debunk it.
Now, first, I’ve already made a post about this topic (trauma as a cause). You can read it here, so I’m not going to go into TOO much detail. I just want to point out that using words and phrases that SOUND smart doesn’t make it correct.
We’ll make it quick and easy, go through it post by post.
I’ve always said trauma is personal, that it doesn’t need to be abuse, that it’s about the effects of the trauma, not the specific events. This isn’t a controversial statement. They’ve started this entire thread with a very misleading concept to get people on board. It’s statements like this that also mislead people into thinking “sysmeds” believe that it MUST be abuse. I don’t actually know anyone who actually believes that. If I ever met anyone who did, I’d smack them upside the head.
To start, no age cap is mentioned because the DSM is a guideline– a tool. It’s not a receipe book, it’s not the single source of all research ever. It contains info that can help clinicians make a diagnosis. The age of the trauma is irrelevant in this respect, so no, it doesn’t list a cap. ALL THE OTHER RESEARCH DOES, THOUGH. It also says, “in childhood”. There IS an age cap on “childhood”. A teen is not a child. In fact, the DSM doesn’t mention ANY other age except childhood in which the disorder develops. It talks about presentations in other ages, but not development. That alone should tell you something.
Finally, “associated with” in this case, means clinically connected to. Short of traumatizing a bunch of children, that’s as close to 100% as we’re going to get.
This is where we start with things that sound smart. Correlation is… implied? A non-issue? Why is this coming up? I think the argument they’re trying to make is “correlation vs. causation”, but… In this case, trauma both correlates and causes? Like, the research proves it’s connected. Enough said.
Yes, it does. I don’t think you’re making the point you think you’re making.
OH BOY. Uhm. What kind of argument is this? No one is saying multiplicity is bad? It’s out of the ordinary? It’s a result that is caused by trauma?
Honestly, they’ve already lost me. WTF. Why are you immediately implying “cause” is related to something negative? Your definition that you screencapped doesn’t say that. You’ve added this layer of negativity for no reason at all other than to guilt people and make a false argument.
LOL, okay, so this person, who has created this huge not for profit to “help” all these plurals is just… so misinformed and confused. Yes, lots of people are traumatized. Not all of them are traumatized for extremely long periods of time, years and years on end, and some people just… GENUINELY deal with stress and trauma better than others. There are also biological and mental factors that can increase someone’s likelihood of developing this disorder. It’s got to be a PERFECT STORM of things to result in DID. DID is not the norm, it’s the exception, so it’s EXPECTED that not everyone will end up with the disorder.
Every. Single. Argument. They make here is just turning the truth around. That’s it. They’re not actually making any valid points, they’re just going, “YEAH, WELL”
None of the above points are true.
It’s expected we won’t remember trauma, so no, it’s not included. Yes, that’s on purpose, based on the understanding that YOU WON’T REMEMBER. That would make diagnosis impossible. Also, it seems they’ve forgotten about OSDD here, which involves no amnesia.
Trauma history is not a part of the screening process for DID/OSDD because it’s assumed that’s the ONLY cause. If the alters are truly present, trauma is implied and assumed. It doesn’t need to be proven.
Again, trauma is personal and can be seen on scans. That doesn’t mean we need to see it. For a group that preaches about taking people on their word, they’re kind of pissy when doctors do just that. As well, the ability to see it on scans is very new. Up until now we haven’t had that ability. Doctors are working with what they’ve got.
NO ONE IS ACTUALLY SUGGESTING THIS, STOP.
It is 99.99999% proven to be trauma, and we’re not going to traumatize children to get to 100%. There is ZERO reason to bring this up except to make “sysmeds” looks horrible.
You’re misunderstanding why this change was added to the DSM. In previous versions, switches needed to be seen by the diagnosing clinician, and it was letting people slip through the cracks. Personally, in all my years of therapy, I have never switched in that office. I’m so anxious and have so much to talk about that I get front stuck. Without this change, I never would have been diagnosed. This doesn’t allow for endogenics to exist, it allows for system to say “I’m experiencing this despite the fact that you’re not seeing it”. The “association with trauma” is still there. It hasn’t disappeared.
What does this have to do with anything?
Also, let’s take a look at this.
HMMMM, your numbers are a little off there, and obviously these words are being used in a variety of ways, so… you can’t just… say how many times a word is used and expect it to mean something.
No, you’re not a doctor, so STOP IT. Obviously they choose the word associated because they want THAT specific connotation. Connected to. Related to. Corresponding with. Accompanied by. If you look at the thesaurus, it’s actually a synonym for “correlation”. Grow up.
LMAO NO ONE IS DOING THIS??? HOLY FUCKKKK
No one is doing ANY of this. Saying “if you’re plural you have trauma” =/= “FIND THE TRAUMA, IMMEDIATELY”. It doesn’t need to be ethically studied, it’s already BEEN studied, the relation is there.
Okay, here’s something we can actually argue about. Except I already have, please see this thread. You are not experiencing cultural forms of multiplicity, and you’re gross for implying you are.
Also, if this was the case, and endogenics existed, there WOULD be more information about them. Are you implying that clinicians have been aware ALL this time, BEFORE any of the research was EVER done??? OH WOW, IS IT TIMETRAVEL? IS IT CLAIRVOYANCE? OR ARE YOU JUST MISUNDERSTANDING THIS PART? As if the DSM knew about endogenics and excluded this “natural” multiplicity before the very first FMRI study was EVER CONDUCTED.
