Well we used to have a pinned post. Not sure who deleted it or why but here's our Intro Pt. 2 lol.
We are The Menagerie! This blog stays separate from our main so we don't taint it with syscourse. We are a polyfragmented DID system in our 30s seeking Functional Multiplicity. We have over 40 logged members and we use parts/alter/member terminology interchangeably. We do not have a syscourse stance: Do NOT force one on us. We have friends and opinions on both sides of syscourse and our beliefs cannot be confined to "pro" or "anti". We are syscourse-unaligned. If you need a better understanding of that, we are pro-science, anti-misinformation and anti-harassment and will not be changing or debating that. We don't usually sign off but a short list of those who participate in syscourse and their syscourse passions are below the cut!
Em (they/them):
Passionate about general system stuff, neurology, science and factual information (credit to @grizzlart for one of my favourite depictions of me)
Jasper (he/them):
-Passionate about Persecutor discourse and source-connection
Jacob (he/him):
-Passionate about littlecourse and how much he hates the term "little" lol
Allison (she/her):
-Passionate about fusion and healing paths
Re: that post with the-alarm-system suibating transmascvoicesproject
I don't know y'all or your beef, but just wanted to let you know transmascvoicesproject is a violently transphobic hate blog, and that's probs why the-alarm-system said those things. That hate blog is entirely dedicated to calling trans women rapists, both in general & individually. It's a likely TERF sockpuppet & anti-trans propaganda blog. Whoever's behind it is genuinely vile.
Again tho I'm not trying to weigh in on your personal beef with the-alarm-system, idk who either of y'all are or what's goin on between you. Just saw your reply under that hate blog, and seemed you were out of the loop, so I'm filling you in. Draw your own conclusions.
Considering Alarm's own problematic history with certain groups of the queer community, quite frankly that doesn't change my mind. In fact it makes them more of a hypocrite than I already considered them lol.
Come on asshole. Put up or shut up. Show me exactly where I harassed anyone. I wasn't joking, I will keep this up until you take that post down or show me proof. I make it a point of pride to not harass anyone but I sure will harass you until you prove your accusation. Also using someone else's trauma as a gotcha is really fucking gross. Shame on you.
I’m genuinely not gonna waste my time on someone who got mad at me for making 9/11 jokes, you’re a white supremacist chud Yankee. Unless you want me to post screenshots and show everyone that I’m right? But that would bring more problems to you than you want. Back off lol
More accusations, more bullshit and zero proof for any of it. The white supremacist bit is funny as fuck. Show me proof I harassed a minor Black system. I've been waiting. If you have screenshots for other accusations you can get screenshots for this, bitch.
Don't make accusations you aren't willing to "waste your time on." Besides, I've got PLENTY of of screenshots for YOUR sins but you don't see me pull this shit show. So come on asshole. Let's go.
people can read my sins by just scrolling my page, your screenshot threats don’t scare me. I respect Onika so I won’t pull shit on you from Onika’s blog. Honestly this whole shit is proof enough, a POC says you’re being racist and you lose your cracker imperialist fucking mind demanding and harassing me for evidence. I didn’t expose the fact that you’re racist to everyone on my blog, but you wanna come here and do it yourself. Actually I have time rn so I’ll start digging since you wanna be a dickwad
The things you’re accusing me of have nothing to do with Onika. I barely interact with them and not one or your accusations brings to them into the picture. You just don’t have anything and you’ve made that perfectly clear lmfao.
she/her pronouns only for me now! i'm fuckin fed up of being degendered and called a fucking man and told I have magical fucking pussy privilege or something and having my identity bisected by intersexist and misogynistic morons!!!!!!
she/her pronouns only for me. it was easy for you to use he/him only so this should be an easy change right??
Apparently I'm a white supremacist who harasses Black minor systems with no proof from you but here you are actively suicide baiting and hoping for someone's literal death, what the fuck is wrong with you.
Come on asshole. Put up or shut up. Show me exactly where I harassed anyone. I wasn't joking, I will keep this up until you take that post down or show me proof. I make it a point of pride to not harass anyone but I sure will harass you until you prove your accusation. Also using someone else's trauma as a gotcha is really fucking gross. Shame on you.
I’m genuinely not gonna waste my time on someone who got mad at me for making 9/11 jokes, you’re a white supremacist chud Yankee. Unless you want me to post screenshots and show everyone that I’m right? But that would bring more problems to you than you want. Back off lol
More accusations, more bullshit and zero proof for any of it. The white supremacist bit is funny as fuck. Show me proof I harassed a minor Black system. I've been waiting. If you have screenshots for other accusations you can get screenshots for this, bitch.
Don't make accusations you aren't willing to "waste your time on." Besides, I've got PLENTY of of screenshots for YOUR sins but you don't see me pull this shit show. So come on asshole. Let's go.
Hey @the-alarm-system you going to provide proof for your bullshit claims or no? Do you make a habit of making false accusations against syscoursers? Hm? It's been over 24 hours, give me proof of my supposed harassment crimes or take your fucking accusation down. Imma keep going until you answer me.
Yeah I'd like some fucking clarification for this, you don't get to accuse me of SHIT and then not back yourself up. Put up or shut up, this is unacceptable.
someone who praises or is extremely polite to a more powerful or rich person in a way that is not sincere, usually in order to get an advantage for themselves:
Examples of use:
Even after years of being a magnet for bootlickers and overzealous admirers, he's still just a nice, polite young man.
They try to portray the scholars who support him as mere bootlickers.
PLEASE TELL US HOW ENDOGENIC SYSTEMS ARE RICH AND OR POWERFUL, ANTI-ENDOS. Most of them are either middle class or under that struggling, especially in the United States. Pro endos are not bootlickers.
ngl if you use the terms 'sysmed', 'plusscum / plurscum', or 'traumascum' we genuinely think you're pretty low. comparing syscourse with transphobia is ridiculous because they are nothing like each other, and if you think they are similar- you are heavily mistaken and need to reevaluate your knowledge of CDDs.
plurality is a fancy word for systemhood and systemhood is only accessible through childhood trauma. point. blank. period. there's nothing more to it and no genuine evidence supporting endos & willows.
the 'evidence' is people misunderstanding or purposely rephrasing CDD articles. and no you're not being open minded by supporting ableism, you're just turning a blind eye to traumatized survivors that fight tooth and nail to be taken serious and be treated decently.
endos & willows feel free to respond but do expect to get blocked afterwards.
What in the absolute nonsense is this lmao. The plural terminology was made to move away from the more ableist term of "naturally multiple" and has been coined 1. Specifically an inclusive tag and 2. To give nonCDD systems terms that they don't have to steal from us.
The evidence about their existence has nothing to do with the resources and studies on CDD multiplicity. There is actual evidence out there, it's just in different areas of science because it is not a medical experience.
I saw a comment on plurality in terms of spirituality and it’s cute. It’s super cute. I love that you guys have a religion, great. So anyway, I don’t have to believe your religion. I definitely don’t have to believe they’re systems. Plural systems aren’t a thing. I will respect your right to believe spirits exist around you and with you. But you are not a system as a result of this.
I don’t know why people act like you must be against spirituality if you think spiritual “plurality” doesn’t count as a system. If that’s what you personally believe and system not culturally appropriating a culture you’re not part of… go for it. Have fun. We all have a collective religion and spiritual preference too. I’m not judging.
But you’re not a system. Your spiritual interpretation is that you have spirits or beings you communicate with in your head and that’s awesome. You’re not a system, though.
Edit: May I suggest better expression like, I dunno, I believe I communicate with spirits, or I have entities I talk to in my head? Or literally any word that accompanies that I guess. But system isn’t it. That’s a medical term for an array of alters, not your religious preference.
Oh shut the fuck up. I deleted your comment because it’s an ad hominem like I said in my comment and I guess now I’m blocking your account. Fucking cry about it I don’t owe you shit on MY personal blog. Go fucking bother someone else!
I saw a comment on plurality in terms of spirituality and it’s cute. It’s super cute. I love that you guys have a religion, great. So anyway, I don’t have to believe your religion. I definitely don’t have to believe they’re systems. Plural systems aren’t a thing. I will respect your right to believe spirits exist around you and with you. But you are not a system as a result of this.
I don’t know why people act like you must be against spirituality if you think spiritual “plurality” doesn’t count as a system. If that’s what you personally believe and system not culturally appropriating a culture you’re not part of… go for it. Have fun. We all have a collective religion and spiritual preference too. I’m not judging.
But you’re not a system. Your spiritual interpretation is that you have spirits or beings you communicate with in your head and that’s awesome. You’re not a system, though.
Edit: May I suggest better expression like, I dunno, I believe I communicate with spirits, or I have entities I talk to in my head? Or literally any word that accompanies that I guess. But system isn’t it. That’s a medical term for an array of alters, not your religious preference.
“thought we all knew by now that it’s professionally recognized that treating them like actual children is actually anti-recovery and unhealthy.”
To be clear I do believe in what u said about systems being able to choose for themselves if their kids should be treated like actual kids or not but you kinda confused me on this I’m sorry. So like can you give the professional research ur talking about?
We treat our littles like actual kids (once again not saying anyone else has to) so like if that’ll hurt them in the long run I want (a) proof it does so and (b) to not hurt them
Hey anon! While I don't have access to the full article, the abstract pretty much gives you a general idea and you can request the full study if you want to finish it! Plus the blurb of two of the case studies that I found in a different article that was citing this the main study. There's a light mention of suicidal ideation at the end of the first case study.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J229v05n01_02
"Case Example #1: Ms. G is dating an older man who is married. She has tried to break it off countless times, but he always wins her over again by playing to her more endearing childish aspects. He takes her out to a fast-food establishment that provides special meals, each including a toy, for children, and he buys her one of these. By catering to her child alters’ bottomless need for nurturing, he manipulates Ms. G into spending time with him and usually succeeds in engaging in sexual activity with her, reenacting her childhood traumas of being seduced with favors and gifts into having sex with older men. When they have such an encounter, Ms. G regresses, falls into a deep depression, and entertains ideas of suicide."
"Case Example #2: Miss P begins treatment with a new therapist who is known to be experienced in treating DID, and in the first session regresses into a little-girl ego-state and attempts to climb onto her therapist’s lap. When this is not permitted by the therapist, the patient breaks into sobs and says that her other therapist did this and she “needs” to be held in order to heal. The bewildered therapist finds herself facing an enraged adult ego-state who fiercely says, “The kids need to be held, and Dr. So-and-so used to do it. If you aren’t going to hold us, we will find someone else who will.” Miss P storms out of the
office."
This post is going to use a very *good* resource to help the community better understand what a system is, and how it can accurately be used within the plural community outside of CDD systems. There has always been the dictionary definition, but this source breaks it down to understand WHY the definitions are what they are.
My hope is this can help people understand when "system" or "collective" may be more appropriate. I also hope this can help people who believe "system" should remain medical see that logically it can be used in non medical context. But mostly I hope this provides people a good resource for fighting misinformation.
TLDR: There are many types of systems. A system's parts are interrelated and affect the whole. A system is not just a collection of parts.
[Highlighted text is what I considered important. When I use "collective" you can substitute that with your preferred language. When I say "parts" I am not specifically referring to dissociative parts.
I HIGHLY recommend reading through the entire course. But, section 5 is most relevant. Links to the relevant pages are in the section titles.]
Types of Systems:
"Everyone is involved with things called systems – information systems, financial systems, ecological systems, computer systems, education systems; and to this list I can add many things which are often called systems by professionals in a particular field. For example, doctors talk of the nervous system in the body, therapists of the family system to which each of us belongs, engineers of fail-safe systems in a car or power station."
Define it:
"A system is an assembly of components connected together in an organized way."
"The components are affected by being in the system and the behaviour of the system is changed if they leave it."
"The central concept ‘system’ embodies the idea of a set of elements connected together which form a whole, this showing properties which are properties of the whole, rather than properties of its component parts."
"The behaviour of each element has an effect on the behaviour of the whole..."
"The behaviour of the elements and their effects on the whole are interdependent."
Language of Systems:
"If thinking in terms of systems is to be of any use it must involve more than mentally grouping a number of elements together and calling them a system. The whole point is that these elements are interrelated..."
Summary:
System: Interconnecting parts functioning as a whole. Change if you take away pieces or add more pieces. If you cut the system in half you do not get two smaller systems, but a damaged system that will not properly function. The arrangement of the pieces is crucial. The parts are connected and work together.
"Heap": A collection of parts. Essential properties are unchanged whether you add or take away pieces. When you halve a heap, you get two smaller heaps. The arrangement of the pieces is irrelevant. The parts are not connected and can function separately. Its behaviour (if any) depends on its size or on the number of pieces in the heap.
(I would replace "heap" with collective or group personally 😅)
Takeaway
My personal opinion has always been that a "system" when used by plurals, multiples, and adjacent experiences is a way to describe how multiple parts exist together in a singular body. CDD systems and IFS describe medically defined systems. Plural, spiritual, endogenic, willogenic, etc systems describes non medically defined systems.
I also believe system describes a very *specific* way that parts interconnect and affect eachother. It is not just a group of individuals parts. I think *this* is where a LOT of confusion and tension comes from. However, I also do not think as outsiders we can tell someone what is or isn't a system in their life.
But, I also do think people (and the communities) may benefit from separating system and collective more reliably. Plurality is not always a hard line that follows rules, and it may not always fit system or collective. It may also fluctuate. I also think we need to normalize changing language as things fluctuate without claiming people are faking or punishing them for being wrong.
Considering that the idea of a single inherent identity is a white colonizer experience, can we actually try to say that plurality is inherently alterhuman when other cultures experience plurality as a normal part of their civilization?
Because this whole topic and pushback just feels like it’s coming from a place of white experience tbh.
But who is saying plurality is inherently alterhuman? I haven't, and I'm not sure if anyone has, from what I've seen.
And doesn't that go for everything that can be considered alterhuman? Some cultures consider identifying as an animal (like seeing yourself as partially or entirely nonhuman) to be a normal part of their culture. Some cultures consider identifying with an animal heavily (like deeply loving a specific species of animal, having a spiritual connection to a species) to be a normal part of their culture (arguably Western culture is permissive of heavy animal identification to a certain point). In many cultures spiritual mediums, past lives and reincarnation are normal, but are also welcome to be considered alterhuman if the person or people so chose. Again, it's opt-in for a reason, and any of these people could (rightfully) claim to be alterhuman if they wanted to.
Right, but people are claiming it’s a blanket statement. @oopsallsyscourse made a post about it with similar sentiment to mine and had a fair amount of backlash about it. People were up in their DMs for a whole day at least.
...the post said anti-endos, who have been yelling about completely removing plurals from alterhumanity, were right.
Like that is also a blanket statement in the opposite direction. If what was meant was don't force label people then that was possibly the worst way to phrase it, and a lot of the people yelling were yelling about not excluding people from their own communities.
Again because the initial post said anti-endos were correct, and they have been arguing against any plurals in alterhumanity.
Nope! It said alterhuman is not an umbrella term for plural. You can read it over again if you like but I never said plurals should be completely removed from plurality. The "anti endos were right" part comes from a misunderstanding from another post that accidentally implied that it was an umbrella term for all of plurality instead of an opt in label.
I have made several clarifying responses and posts. What I want is not to be labeled alterhuman when I do not wish the label.
we agree with the your point on labeling people but if you say "anti endos are right" then people are going to take that as "plurals are not alterhuman" because that is what anti-endos have been saying about them.
Lile that is the problem, the point you meant to make and how you said it does not read that way given the context of the actual discussions going on. If the post hadn't opened with "anti-endos are right" people probably wouldn't be arguing with you because they wouldn't be seeing it as endorsing the anti-endo veiwpoint of "plurals are not ever alterhuman"
Here is what I assumed anti endos were saying based on the post.
I said the equivalent of "hey anti endos may have a point on this one," explained the point that I agree with, and explained why it made sense to me.
If people are assuming that I mean "anti endos are right that plurals can't be alterhuman," then the are misreading a post where I explicitly say that plurals can be alterhuman, especially because of that plurality.
...why did you not just screencap/reblog that post? If your issue was with that post and what it said responding to it directly would have avoided the confusion
Like we understand now that you have clarified what you mean but the original post doesn't read that way because of how you phrased it.
Saying something that to the majority of people means "anti emdos are right plurals aren't alterhuman" and then talking about how the two may influence each other is going to read as saying basically the same thing as ace exclusionists going " aces can't be queer unless their gay or trans". That's not what you meant but that's not what the first non-clarified post reads to many people
Which is our point, the post made didn't just get backlash because people don't agree that plurals can be separate from alterhumans, its because they don't agree with them always being separate and the discourse was spawned because it needed clarification
Frankly, that's how YOU read it. Don't act like this is a universal issue. We and several other people understood what they were saying and do agree with it. It's why my post even came about (the same post that started this conversation for you). It's fine to accept you read a post wrong and that there was some communication issues due to that. It's entirely something different to accuse the author of not phrasing things perfectly. No one can assume every single way a post or thought will be read and acting like the author can predict that is ableism, as someone who bends over backwards so that people don't automatically assume aggression in my most neutral posts and still fails 80% of the time. This discourse was happening WAY before oopsallsyscourse posted their take.
...yes we and others read it that way, as evidenced by the multiple replies on different posts that resulted in discourse, because of the misread not because people disagree with the idea that plurals don't have to identify as alterhuman.
also this isn't the first time we've seen this discourse there's multiple posts under the same tag we have on these ones about it. if you're going to make remarks about what someone has seen or where they entered do the minimum of checking things
and there's a difference between saying something needs to be phrased perfectly and pointing out that there are implications that multiple other people misread and that perhaps respondind directly or screenshoting would have avoided the issue.
Nah, there are no implications that these terms are umbrellas instead of opt-in labels. That's the whole point of this argument. When a small percentage of replies interpret it differently than what was majorly intended and accepted, that's the fault of the reader and failing to ask for tone and clarified examples. That's on the issue of the reader, not the author. Multiple replies in your favor does not discount the whole of the population that understood what was being discussed and most replies read this in the intended tone.
Considering that the idea of a single inherent identity is a white colonizer experience, can we actually try to say that plurality is inherently alterhuman when other cultures experience plurality as a normal part of their civilization?
Because this whole topic and pushback just feels like it’s coming from a place of white experience tbh.
But who is saying plurality is inherently alterhuman? I haven't, and I'm not sure if anyone has, from what I've seen.
And doesn't that go for everything that can be considered alterhuman? Some cultures consider identifying as an animal (like seeing yourself as partially or entirely nonhuman) to be a normal part of their culture. Some cultures consider identifying with an animal heavily (like deeply loving a specific species of animal, having a spiritual connection to a species) to be a normal part of their culture (arguably Western culture is permissive of heavy animal identification to a certain point). In many cultures spiritual mediums, past lives and reincarnation are normal, but are also welcome to be considered alterhuman if the person or people so chose. Again, it's opt-in for a reason, and any of these people could (rightfully) claim to be alterhuman if they wanted to.
Right, but people are claiming it’s a blanket statement. @oopsallsyscourse made a post about it with similar sentiment to mine and had a fair amount of backlash about it. People were up in their DMs for a whole day at least.
...the post said anti-endos, who have been yelling about completely removing plurals from alterhumanity, were right.
Like that is also a blanket statement in the opposite direction. If what was meant was don't force label people then that was possibly the worst way to phrase it, and a lot of the people yelling were yelling about not excluding people from their own communities.
Again because the initial post said anti-endos were correct, and they have been arguing against any plurals in alterhumanity.
Nope! It said alterhuman is not an umbrella term for plural. You can read it over again if you like but I never said plurals should be completely removed from plurality. The "anti endos were right" part comes from a misunderstanding from another post that accidentally implied that it was an umbrella term for all of plurality instead of an opt in label.
I have made several clarifying responses and posts. What I want is not to be labeled alterhuman when I do not wish the label.
we agree with the your point on labeling people but if you say "anti endos are right" then people are going to take that as "plurals are not alterhuman" because that is what anti-endos have been saying about them.
Lile that is the problem, the point you meant to make and how you said it does not read that way given the context of the actual discussions going on. If the post hadn't opened with "anti-endos are right" people probably wouldn't be arguing with you because they wouldn't be seeing it as endorsing the anti-endo veiwpoint of "plurals are not ever alterhuman"
Here is what I assumed anti endos were saying based on the post.
I said the equivalent of "hey anti endos may have a point on this one," explained the point that I agree with, and explained why it made sense to me.
If people are assuming that I mean "anti endos are right that plurals can't be alterhuman," then the are misreading a post where I explicitly say that plurals can be alterhuman, especially because of that plurality.
...why did you not just screencap/reblog that post? If your issue was with that post and what it said responding to it directly would have avoided the confusion
Like we understand now that you have clarified what you mean but the original post doesn't read that way because of how you phrased it.
Saying something that to the majority of people means "anti emdos are right plurals aren't alterhuman" and then talking about how the two may influence each other is going to read as saying basically the same thing as ace exclusionists going " aces can't be queer unless their gay or trans". That's not what you meant but that's not what the first non-clarified post reads to many people
Which is our point, the post made didn't just get backlash because people don't agree that plurals can be separate from alterhumans, its because they don't agree with them always being separate and the discourse was spawned because it needed clarification
Frankly, that's how YOU read it. Don't act like this is a universal issue. We and several other people understood what they were saying and do agree with it. It's why my post even came about (the same post that started this conversation for you). It's fine to accept you read a post wrong and that there was some communication issues due to that. It's entirely something different to accuse the author of not phrasing things perfectly. No one can assume every single way a post or thought will be read and acting like the author can predict that is ableism, as someone who bends over backwards so that people don't automatically assume aggression in my most neutral posts and still fails 80% of the time. This discourse was happening WAY before oopsallsyscourse posted their take.
Considering that the idea of a single inherent identity is a white colonizer experience, can we actually try to say that plurality is inherently alterhuman when other cultures experience plurality as a normal part of their civilization?
Because this whole topic and pushback just feels like it’s coming from a place of white experience tbh.
I'm tired of people force labeling me. That's all I'm fucking saying. I don't "technically fit under the alterhuman label but can refuse the word." I'm not alterhuman. I don't see my existence as alterhuman.
People do the same fucking thing with the plural label. Cdd systems aren't "inherently plural" just because they're a system. Being plural requires you to see yourself/your system as multiple entities, which is not something all cdd systems do.
