If you're about to send an angry or hateful ask or comment, then please do yourself a favor and block this blog instead. We will never answer these messages, and we will block those making them. Please enforce your own boundaries and save us both the trouble.
Common Questions
What is plurality? (See also)
Am I plural? (See also: Can I prove that I'm not plural?)
Am I really plural, though?
What does plurality feel like?
Can I become plural?
Can I get rid of my headmates?
How do I learn who's in my system?
Am I (insert label here)?
A masterlist of other answered asks can be found here.
We do see and appreciate compliments, but we will not answer most of them, as we'd prefer to keep this blog relatively on-topic.
Resources about plurality and a list of this blog's tags are below the read more.
Resources:
Plurality 101
Understanding Multiplicity: A quick 101 primer on plurality/multiplicity from the Manchester Metropolitan University.
What Is Plurality?: Our own working definitions of plurality.
Hydra May 2025: A short zine introducing plurality to those unfamiliar with it.
Am I Plural?
Common Plural Experiences: A fairly well-rounded list of common plural experiences. Some of these experiences are common in non-plural folks, but if you're checking a lot of boxes or these things happen to you more intensely than seems typical, then it may be worth questioning further.
Plurality is not a checklist. You may have a lot of the experiences in the above resource, but that doesn't inherently mean that you are plural. There's no sharp line in the sand between plural and singular experiences.
Am I Plural?: Plurality is not a specific diagnosis or absolute thing, but a chosen framework for understanding your mind. If it works, then you get to use it.
On the topic of "is this a headmate or [something else]?": It's not necessarily about what it is, but what helps you live with and understand it.
Help, I'm Plural!
Advice from Those Who Came Before: for New Systems (pdf): Compiled advice for those who've recently realized that they may be plural.
We accidentally wrote a book (PDF, EPUB) covering most of what we've learned to work with ourselves. It's free, written in plain language, and broken up into very short sections for easier reading. Hopefully it helps.
A list of tools for plural folks.
Assorted links and books about plurality.
---
Tags:
Tags by Post Type
Plural Comic: All of our comics.
High Effort Art: Some comics, some drawings, all work that took more time than a 5 minute scribble.
Asks: Responses to inbox messages.
Essays: Long posts, usually not associated with a comic.
Metaposting: Posting about posting.
Tags by Topic
Amnesia: Memory problems and lost time.
Basics: Information about plurality for those unfamiliar with the concept.
Communication: Talking to each other and how to do it better.
Cooperation: Getting along with each other and building trust.
Denial: "I'm not plural, I just (textbook description of DID)"
Dissociation: Disconnection from identity, self, the world, feelings, sensations, etc.
Experiences: What's it like to be plural?
Getting to Know You: Learning about your system.
Labels: Words and their uses.
Masking: Hiding your system or coming out of hiding.
Passive Influence: Affecting behavior without taking full control.
Persecutors: When system members hurt you.
Questioning: "Am I plural?"
Relationships: Dealing with outside people (and occasionally each other).
Switching: Changing who's in control of your body.
Other
If you'd like to print some zines, then take a look at our itch.io page.
Is your dms open if i need system advice and have no other option other than strangers online?
Hi Anon- they technically are, but with major caveats and issues that make them hard for us to respond through.
An ask (anon or otherwise) is generally going to work better when it comes to getting advice in the long run.
The caveats:
We are not emergency responders. If this is a life or death situation, then we are not the correct people to help you. We also refuse to help people intentionally kill or harm their systemmates. Full stop.
We can't help much with introject-related issues. None of us are introjects unless you count our brain radio resembling our childhood boombox. You're better off asking another blog about that topic.
Please skim through our tags for relevant asks before reaching out to us; we also strongly recommend reading through our website, particularly the books ("For The Many" and "Inbox Zero+"). Those cover the majority of common advice requests we get and have much more thought put into them than we would chuck into an individual request. They're all free. At least give the table of contents a look and skip to whatever seems relevant.
We have a massive backlog that I should prune after sending this. We are likely to be very slow to respond if we do not have an immediate answer on our tongue the moment we see your message, and that's if we get to you at all. There are more than 80 asks in our inbox right now that we do not have energy to answer yet. We've been going through a lot lately and have less energy to respond to advice requests right now.
Generally, we prefer that you send in an anon ask for advice. We will see it, and if we can, we will eventually get to it. (Sorry to everyone waiting- I promise Tumblr didn't eat it, we just haven't been able to answer it.)
That said, we understand that sometimes something is too personal for that. I'd really, really urge you to consider whether you want to give that kind of compromising information to total strangers on the internet who could do whatever they want with it, but our DMs do exist if you decide you're fine with the risk. Just know it won't make us more likely to respond to you than an anon ask would.
Again, we prefer that advice requests are sent via asks if possible. It makes it easier for us to prioritize issues, and it makes sure we don't forget your ask exists. DMs get lost quickly.
i don't think any type of little/syskid are fully accepted at large.
we all know already that littles who like horror, or sex, or do drugs, aren't accepted. we know they're looked down on. & that's not okay! every system is different, & just cause that's something that would be unsafe for the littles in your system doesn't mean it's that way for everyone else.
but i've also noticed that littles that need help taking care of themself, littles who can't be online alone, littles that need help bathing, using the bathroom, & eating. littles that need out of the system caregivers. they aren't accepted either. but when i see people talking about littles that like mature things, i feel like they think dependant littles are accepted. maybe that's just me making assuming things.
every type of little is fine. every system is different & thats okay. everyone should be accepted & treated with respect.
There's a paradox in a lot of plural spaces. System kids are welcome, but only if they're Literal Children who stay in child-only soft boxes where they can be ignored. If a kid wants to have an adult conversation, then they're spoken over, pushed away, or otherwise discounted more often than not- and if they're accepted, then it's often at the cost of expecting them to have absolutely no childlike qualities to "prove" that they're mature enough to stay around. We even see this pattern within systems sometimes.
What are systems without adult members supposed to do if the only place system kids can talk is in the Super Soft Safe Box? What about system kids who want to talk about theoretical physics or drugs or sex or a thousand other taboos? What about kids who function as adults? And what about system kids who are kids but don't want to live their lives in the Super Soft Safe Box like the world expects them to?
Acceptance of system kids as being wildly different from each other in mindset and ability is improving, but we still have a long way to go in treating system kids with a shred of respect and decency in wider plural spaces.
Not to mention... why is there so much intense focus on mental age as some universal concept in the first place? It feels like a lot of the plural community takes the concept of mental age as a given without considering where that idea comes from, how it affects how they treat others, and how it interacts with systemic discrimination and ableism. It can sometimes be a useful construct if approached critically, but I see so little critical thought about it.
If you want some reading on the topic, one of the articles cited is worth at least a skim- it's a fairly good surface overview of eugenics and its tie to IQ/mental age, immigration, racism, ableism, etc.
ID below the cut with the full quotes- sorry to alt texters, I fit as much as I could in there but the text limit is real.
[Image one ID begins:]
There's a subtle sort of discrimination to how a lot of plural spaces treat system kids/littles. Especially those in adult bodies, or with a particularly large gap from their body's age.
"Littles must always be supervised in online spaces or else they'll bother adults and be preyed upon." "There must be an adult in your system if you're bodily an adult- they should handle life while the kids go away to never be seen by adults again. Littles should only talk to other littles. Anything else is unsafe and sometimes pedophilic. Right?" "Littles shouldn't be in charge. They're supposed to be cared for by everyone else and kept out of sight." "You're welcome here! You just have to only ever talk in the Baby Zone that no adults ever visit to talk to you. Yeah, it's empty and no one will answer. But you want to talk, right?" "Sorry sweetie, the adults are talking and you can't be here. Even if you're capable of understanding, consenting, etc. You're not allowed to be here with us if you're not a real adult." "Littles can't take care of themselves or handle any adult responsibilities, ever!" "Is there an adult I can talk to?"
Blue, an anthro cat sitting down, looks angry at the above phrases.
What are adult-bodied systems with no "brain adults" supposed to do? Drawing of a family of stick figures, all of whom are either child-short or hunching to be shorter.
What about systems whose caretakers are their children? Systems where there is no older person to supervise? Systems finding ways to live an adult life when no one inside aligns with it? What are you supposed to do when a 5-year-old does your taxes and drives you home?
"Just grow up." Do I get a choice, or are you ripping that away from me too?
[End image one ID.]
[Begin image two ID.]
Why is "mental age" the bar people are using to decide whether someone is worthy of autonomy and respect, anyway? Where does the concept of mental age come from in the first place, and why does it exist?
From Wilson, R. A. (2024). Eugenic Thinking and the Cognitive Sciences. In M. C. Frank & A. Majid (Eds.), Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.21428/e2759450.c9a5f080:
"Eugenic traits:
Prominent among the eugenic traits found in sterilization laws were those concerning cognitive ability and mental health. These traits, ordered in terms of their frequency in U.S. state and Canadian provincial sterilization laws, included feeble-mindedness, insanity, epilepsy, criminality, imbecility, idiocy, sexual perversion (or depravity), mental unfitness (or deficiency), and moral depravity (or degeneracy). As this listing suggests, these laws especially targeted those perceived to have some kind of cognitive limitation or psychiatric condition on the grounds that they were unfit and would propagate these eugenic traits to their children; approximately 70% of all eugenic traits mentioned in sexual sterilization laws in the United States and Canada concerned cognitive ability or mental health. Given this, there was a clear role for psychologists in programs of eugenic sterilization, given their expertise in psychological testing (Rose, 1985). Such testing and subsequent sterilization were conducted through emerging forms of institutionalization, such as “training schools for the feeble-minded,” especially as eugenics gained state-level backing (Miller et al., 2015).
One of the roles of psychologists was to develop ways to measure those who were cognitively or psychiatrically subnormal. Emerging intelligence tests were adapted to quantify and classify those deemed “feeble-minded”or “mentally deficient” (Thomson, 1998; Trent, 1994). Binet’s famous test of intelligence, for example, incorporated the more specific existing folk categories of “imbecile” and “idiot,” adapting these to designate developmentally delayed children with mental ages, respectively, of 3–7 and 2 years. Following the translation of Binet’s test from French into English by Henry Goddard in 1908, “moron” was coined in 1910 to pick out those in the general population with a putatively fixed mental age of 8–12 years. This resulted in a three-tiered schema of intellectual subnormality—moron, imbecile, idiot—that came to be widely used in the eugenics movement.
In the hands of the psychologist Lewis Terman, what became the Stanford-Binet test initially was deployed in selecting army recruits near the end of World War I (1914–1918) before being used on the general population. The three-tiered scheme was accordingly fed into the newly minted idea of an intelligence quotient (IQ) that remains with us 100 years on, with the fixed mental ages of moron, imbecile, and idiot mapped onto standard deviations from a normalized IQ of 100. From the 1920s, these tests were widely used to identify children who were candidates for eugenic sterilization, whether they were already housed in segregated institutions or within the regular school system or general community."
From Asilverm, & Asilverm. (n.d.). What’s My Age Again: Why Mental Age Theory Hurts People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved May 31, 2026, from https://www.disabilitywisdom.com/2018/12/21/whats-my-age-again-why-mental-age-theory-hurts-people-with-intellectual-and-developmental-disabilities/:
The concept of “mental age” was first introduced by Alfred Binet, co-creator of the first IQ tests, in the early twentieth century. Generally, “mental age” has been measured by comparing an individual’s score on a standardized IQ test with the average performance of their same-age peers. For people with IDD, “mental age” may also be estimated by comparing the person’s demonstrated physical, speech, adaptive or cognitive skills against the average for various age groups.
Not surprisingly, “mental age” came about alongside the eugenics movement in the United States. Mental ages were used to classify various groups of “feebleminded” individuals by severity: Adults with a mental age of 9-12 years were classified as “morons”; those with a mental age of 6-8 years were classified as “imbeciles”; and those with a mental age of 2-5 were classified as “idiots.” Individuals from any of these groups were thought unfit to reproduce."
A drawing of Blue looks annoyed and concerned. It's labelled, "TFW it's eugenics again. :("
Oh yeah. Why is it always eugenics?
To be clear: I'm not saying anyone is ableist or practicing eugenics for having a sense of their own internal age. I am pointing out how systemic ableism affects how system kids are treated, how the concept of mental age stems from ableism in the first place, and how terribly many cultures treat children and deemed-children to begin with: how children and disabled people are often regarded as objects, burdens, or annoyances who don't know enough to have a say about their own needs. Is this really how we want to assume all system kids should be treated? How anyone should be treated?
How much of how system kids are treated ties back to some form of ableism, in the end? I wonder about this a lot and I feel like I never see people talk about it.
Do you know if like, suddenly losing all your anger is a thing? I'm questioning if I'm a median system and I've noticed that for as long as I can remember, anytime I'm feeling mad at something or someone (with one exception really), eventually it's like a switch flicks and I stop being mad. I know I *should* be mad, or at least I *was*, so I keep up with the like... "Act", but it makes it really hard to know what I care about :/
Do you know if that's a thing with systems? Is the brain offloading all the anger onto some poor random part 0_0 or just eating it
Given this happened to us in childhood... it's definitely a thing that happens with at least some systems.
In our case, our ability to feel anger completely vanished somewhere in elementary school or maybe a touch earlier. Red believes that's when she started existing. She's the one who took the anger and buried herself with it, at any rate.
Hey all. I know you've said in the past that you're all kind of in a state of flux, each of you changing over the years but in ways that aren't just "growing as a person" but literally becoming other people. Not exactly fusion but something else. (Or at least that's how we've interpreted it? Correct me if I'm wrong.) We reckon we're in a similar boat, and it's kind of scary to us. It's happened a couple times already and we've got very mixed feelings about it. There's a part of us that approaches that with a kind of "c'est la vie" mindset and to just roll with the waves, but there's a very real fear of a loss of identity, of individuality.
My question is, how do you guys deal with that? Is it something that gives you any anxieties or is it just how it is for you? Sorry if I'm not being totally clear.
- @myriadmanes
You interpreted it about right. Sometimes our brain yanks someone backwards, dunks them into our subconscious or unconscious mind for a few days or weeks while they do whatever they need to do to change/be remade, and eventually spits out someone that holds different priorities and traits but also has a sense of not truly being new. It usually happens when we're under unbearable stress or get stuck on our own identities ("I can't change without becoming someone else!" dilemmas- best solved by becoming someone else).
I can speculate about how it works all I want or gesture at the entities hanging out back there who handle the recycling process (one of these days, maybe they'll explain a few things to us), but the mechanics don't actually matter that much. What matters is that we get remade sometimes, and that our definition of "person" gets a little weird as a result. We tend to reach for "recycling" as shorthand to try to explain this, or point at our personal mythos to describe it in metaphor. (This one is especially relevant.) But it doesn't particularly matter what exactly we call it if we can talk about it.
On accepting it:
Yes, we do have fears and anxieties about being remade sometimes. We get attached to ourselves, we want to keep ourselves the same, we want to feel like we know something about who we are, we envy the casual nature of other people's identity persistence. Sometimes we choose to fight it and hold still a little while longer.
Slowly, it's gotten easier to let go and trust that we'll be okay on the other side of it. More cycles passing makes the process more mundane to us. It's neither good nor bad, just a thing that happens sometimes.
We do have the comfort of there being a little continuity to the discontinuity of it all. When we're recycled, the person that emerges has access to old memories and information. They're not starting from a total blank slate. Their sense of identity is often significantly different from who they used to be, but there's the sense of a shared thread of self. We can reconnect with the thread of who we used to be if we put in a little effort, and it tends to be helpful in tying up loose ends. I am bound to who I used to be by memory and feelings, in the end, even if I was someone else when those memories were made.
Approaching the whole cycle from the lens of a sort of quasi-ancestor worship practice has helped find some comfort in it. We choose to honor who we used to be and what they gave to create us as we are, and it's a comfort to know that someday, someone else will remember us too. It creates more continuity in the chaos. (And the result is a life where we're kinder to ourselves regardless.)
Being fully fused for two years also helped a lot. It's certainly one way to get over the "a change has occurred and I am not the same person I was" fear- all or almost all of us know what it feels like to let go of a concrete identity and still exist. There's a lesson you learn of "I do not have to be the same Person to exist- I am here regardless of what face I wear, what you call me, what I think or want or fear. I am the only thing that I cannot lose."
That, and having a few possession experiences helps more than you'd think. What is the self if others can move in and out of it? Does it really matter who you are exactly if you're here? (Sometimes it does matter. Sometimes it doesn't.)
I think the biggest help, though: the idea that suffering comes from fighting, avoiding, straining to grasp/cling to, or resisting something. Change is painful if we refuse to let it happen (or chase after changes before their time). When we relax into the fear and allow ourselves to become someone new, it's not scary. It's often a relief. Allowing is a skill, and it's an incredibly useful one in a lot of ways.
There are a few comics and writing pieces that helped us with this too. I'm going to recommend most of the ones I can remember.
Annotated reading list:
This comic shaped how we handle change and self-replacement in a lot of ways (including the above self-ancestor worship angle). Content warning for suicide, death, "what makes a continuous person?" questioning, and similar. It's heavy and existentially challenging to think through, but it's useful. (We'd recommend journaling on your feelings about it if you can. Debating and discussing with ourselves about this comic opened a lot of doors.)
Partial screenshots of the most important bits (the full comic is longer):
In short: it helped us see and accept the idea that our past, present, and future selves are different people regardless of whether we change our identities, opinions, experiences, etc. We are plural in serial, not just parallel. What's one more change when me-yesterday is already someone different from me-today? Why fear change when it's already happened a million times over?
For a much shorter comic on the same ideas, see also:
Outside of comics, Opening the Door is a piece that helped us. If you can read through the metaphors/mad rambling/lightly plagarized nature of it and slowly deconstruct the thing into its lessons (or dig through its creator's website to learn the references- a starting point for you that has topical relevance), then there are a lot of useful ideas in here. It's just a challenging read the first few times (and a rare case of "this is easier to understand the more insane you are"). Take notes and reflect in the margins or a notebook as you go. It helps.
Don't worry too much about Round 10. It's confused just about everyone we know, us included. There's something there, but you can get the idea from the rest of the text without understanding what the hell Round 10 is on about.
The essential things we learned from it that are relevant here:
Your self isn't the same thing as your identity, and it's also not the same thing as (your soul, the higher self, wise mind, the continuous thread of youness if you believe that exists). The identity can change or die without killing the self or soul. Oftentimes, it has to die to escape its own self-destruction. Being remade is a rare chance to start again in a better position than where you were stuck before.
Tools are most useful when you don't let them control you. If you have a hammer, then learn when you need to go find a screwdriver instead of bashing screws into the wall because you use the hammer for everything.
Identity is a tool. If it doesn't work, try something else. If it's time to let it go, then let it go.
Using a screwdriver to bash nails into the wall because you want to avoid using a hammer for everything isn't much better than using the hammer for everything. Rejection is a different kind of clinging.
Some concepts can't be understood without changing the frame you're looking at them from. Get a different viewpoint, and you might find a more useful understanding.
Footnotes:
1: I could write a whole other post on the change we experienced in 2019-2020. We went from "80-90 person gateway-adjacent system with frequent newcomers and a nagging sense of something wrong with the headcount" to "fairly small system with no true newcomers and a much more solid sense of what's real inside", but the short explanation is "we had to grapple very intensely with what it means to be a person and ask which of us were real because of a persistent feeling that most of us were neither solid/stable nor lasting people, and after making it through that crucible, we have a very high split tolerance and have yet to truly split someone new with their own thread of self-awareness". That process was also how we learned that we remake ourselves in the first place / that the Sea exists as an entity we have to work with.
The number of times that this has happened is absurd at this point. Things often seem to disappear the moment we need them, then reappear when someone else looks, usually after the last person gave up and bought a replacement because those objects were necessary. (The reality is that the object was moved by someone else a while ago, but we didn't notice the move until we needed the object again and checked its usual place.)
It's why we try to restock any missing supplies with the cheapest possible options if we suspect that there are still nicer supplies somewhere. If the nicer thing turns up, then we haven't lost a lot of money and can go back to using the nicer supplies. If nothing turns up, then we're covered until we can either track down the old supplies or confirm that they've actually vanished after a few more hours of frustrated searching.
Blue scrambles words from time to time, and the results are usually entertaining to the rest of us.
Malapropism (noun): the usually unintentionally humorous misuse or distortion of a word or phrase, especially: the use of a word sounding somewhat like the one intended but ludicrously wrong in the context (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
(Fittingly enough, the actual word for mixed idioms like this is "malaphor". A malapropism caused by looking for "malaphor" is gloriously ironic here.)
normal: feeling like the world is foggy or unreal after stepping out of a cinema, or getting off a plane
not normal: feeling like the world is foggy frequently (sometimes without cause)
normal: feeling like nothing is real after you’ve just heard some big news (positive or negative), or while grieving
not normal: feeling like nothing is real frequently (sometimes without cause or in a broad range of situations)
normal: feeling like the people around you aren’t real when in a crowd or on a busy street
not normal: feeling like the people around you aren’t real frequently — even your friends and family
normal: feeling like the whole world is in 2D when you’re sick or experiencing a fever
not normal: feeling like the whole world is in 2D when there’s nothing else going on in your body
normal: losing touch with reality after reading an amazing book or watching a long film or experiencing some other immersive media
not normal: losing touch with reality frequently, to the point that you can’t keep up with your own life
just like other parts of dissociation, derealisation is on a spectrum. everyone experiences it from time to time. when it becomes a problem is when it gets in the way of your life and completing your daily tasks
I think our biggest gripes with the origin label discourse and the general community bend towards "you must categorize yourself under one of two boxes, and the other box is evil" are:
The assumption that experiences have an objective, fundamental truth that allows perfect sorting
The assumption that experiences and understandings of those experiences also never change- that if you can sort yourself into a box, then you should live there forever.
The general "us versus them" of the whole thing.
Point one: experiences of self, identity, consciousness, etc. are all very fuzzy, subjective concepts at the moment. We've yet to pin down what even makes a person conscious, let alone what a person's "I" is. I'm not confident that an objective truth of the self exists.
Maybe some meatspace things do have a usefully objective truth, though more often than not it's filtered through human definitions like anything else- if this desk is a meter long, then how big is a meter, and is a meter truly an objective measurement? Who made it?
What's a person? What's a self? Are those things the same, or different? Where do I end, and where do you begin? Ask ten people and you'll get ten different answers. That's the beauty of it. We don't fully know.
Point two: People change all the time. We are always having new and different experiences in life, and those can shape how you see yourself over time. We used to exclusively see ourselves as a medicalized, psychology-based system. We see ourselves a lot more holistically now, but our life experiences are still just as much a factor as any woo-woo spirituality we experience. That's a change that breaks boxes.
We are not the only system who's changed how they understand themselves over time. Spirituality, medical psychology, and other frameworks are neither mutually exclusive nor fixed in place. Like the framework of plurality, they're a way to understand the world and your experiences in it. They're an attempt to make sense of it all. If it's not working, put it down and try something else.
Point three: it's slowly improving, but the average Joe still has no idea plural people exist outside of horror movie serial killers and shock stories. They don't think they'll ever meet a multiple, and if they do, they're still using Multiple Personality Disorder as a label for it regardless of the system's actual experiences.
We have bigger problems than each other. Biting each other's throats won't help us any more than infighting and scapegoating has helped in any other community. The fact that we're still fighting over this in one form or another 20 years later is depressing.
Add that to the list of "things we never processed as being related to our plurality until years later, it smacked us in the face".
Some non-plural people can keep up with multiple books at once. This is not a sign of plurality on its own. In context, though, it explains a few things we experienced growing up: specifically, the sheer number of books we had to juggle to be able to read at all.
We've each been reading whatever we wanted to read for a long time, and sometimes our tastes in books clashed or contradicted in ways that were very confusing before we figured out that we were plural. There were a lot of moments of "I guess I only like this sometimes" and general frustration at preferences and tolerances shifting unpredictably.
We might bring a book somewhere, only to be unwilling to read it because it seemed boring, poorly-written, or distressing when it was fantastic only an hour beforehand. Other times, we might like the book, but suddenly feel like the past connection and context needed to follow the plot properly was missing. It made deciding what to read both easier and harder. We had plenty of books available to us, but which one would be best to bring along in a given situation, knowing that our feelings around books (and people, and clothes, and activities, and...) might shift while we were out?
Book selection weirdness was one of the many, many things we found ways to work around pre-discovery, all the while wondering why we had to be like this. Reading multiple books at the same time gave us the best shot at one or more books being interesting enough to pick back up and finish. It was easier to find space in a backpack for another book than it was to hunt down one book that could cover all of those "weird moods" of ours.
Nowadays, we like using an e-reader to solve this problem. One book-sized device that's easily portable, doesn't tempt us into other activities like a phone, and holds as many books as we can cram onto it. Your book doesn't work for someone else? They can pick something else without worrying about space constraints.
(If you want a recommendation, we currently use a Kobo Libra. We switched to Kobo when Amazon decided that you couldn't download your purchased ebook files directly anymore, and it's been a solid device.)
Image ID/alt in image, but it's also been duplicated below the cut for those that prefer it.
Begin image ID:
A comic as follows:
Well-meaning adult: "You read so many books! I don't know how you do it."
Blue-colored child semiplural, looking up at the adult: "I read like four or five books at once and pick the book to read depending on how I feel!"
Adult, nervous: "I'd just lose track of them all if I did that!"
Child semiplural: "You don't really! You just kind of remember when you open the book every time."
Many years later:
Blue, rethinking their entire life: "…Huh."
Echo: "In retrospect, maybe having different taste in books isn't a new thing."
We made some secondary AAC for when we can't bring our binder with us. This will go on a lanyard and fits in our pocket or on our keyring. With any luck, it means we'll always have an option on us.
Tossed in the badge template and card sheet as images below the cut if anyone else wants to get some use out of them. Cut out, glue back to back however you'd prefer, laminate, hole punch. Slide cards onto a ring, lanyard end, etc.
All images found on https://aacil.neocities.org/ (except for the cat- his name is Romeo).
