(⁠●⁠_⁠_⁠●⁠)

[syscoursefrog]

This is my syscourse blog.

I am an adult who lives with DID.

i am syscourse unaligned. i am NOT pro, neu, or anti endo. my opinions are complicated and ever evolving.

I interact with every side of syscourse, and greatly value the opinions of those who disagree with me.

i don't even know what I'm doing anymore.

no DNI.

[sundaysoriginalsin]

been seeing an endo talking point frequently and i just wanna know.

where the fuck did they get "traumagenic systems can be nondisordered and nontraumagenic systems can be disordered" from?

how are you a system but not disordered and how is your system not caused by a disorder but somehow your "plurality is disordered"

i don't fucking like any of you

[syscoursefrog]

traumagenic nondisordered system = "my system stems from trauma but we work together well/have good communication/have no amnesia/our plurality otherwise doesn't disrupt our functioning or quality of life"

disordered endogenic system= "my system does not stem from trauma (maybe I was born plural) but we have amnesia/poor communication/high conflict/etc (perhaps caused by trauma later on) that disrupts our functioning and negatively impacts our quality of life".

it's really not that hard

[parts-of-one]

I'm anti endo myself, but alot of anti endos need to remember that a traumagenic system being pro endo doesn't somehow make that system fake or endogenic. They're still traumagenic and fakeclaiming them isn't ok.

(Endos DNI)

- 💜

[anti-willo-sukuna]

— “endogenic plurality is under-researched”

“under-researched,” you say? no. it is simply unresearched.

why would scholars squander their time and resources upon a phenomenon the alleged existence of which extends no farther than the confines of social media? delusion does not become legitimacy merely because enough fools repeat it in unison.

[syscoursefrog]

not researched, you say?

i would beg to differ

[thehyperspacesystem]

I think that expecting every blog to have a syscourse stance has gotten out of hand. How realistic truely is it for a DID/OSDD/P-DID system who may not have even acheived functional multiplicity yet to have a consistent unified stance on any issue, let alone on this issue?

anti endo posts generally present this is an issue of abilisim, but expecting consistent unified behaviour and stances on anything from a system, especially new systems who might not even have communication with each other, let alone anything close to functional multiplicity is itself abilist

The closest thing to a unified collective stance you'll get out of us is that we are collectively a grumpy old woman with DID who views sources like pluralpedia as a bunch of teenagers spouting nonsense. We consider ourselves a pwDID and do not consider ourselves plural.

[emo-rateo]

WHY DO ANTI ENDOS FORGET THAT SO MUCH OF THE PRO ENDO COMMUNITY ARE DISORDERED AND TRAUMAGENIC

"Youre harassing a deeply traumatized community" SO ARE YOU. SO. THE FUCK. ARE YOU.

MOST PRO ENDOS I KNOW ARE FULLY TRAUMAGENIC. NOT ALL PRO ENDOS ARE ENDOS THEMSELVES AS MUCH AS YOU'D LIKE TO BELIEVE ONLY ANTI ENDOS HAVE "REAL DID" OR "REAL TRAUMA"

[anti-willo-flameguy]

could just be a me problem but why do --> some <-- pro endos/ntgs insist on only tagging their posts as "plural" and no actual tags regarding their stance on endos

I'll say it again and I've said it before, it is so irritating to scroll through hundreds of posts just to find out if a user supports ableism or not

(Like I understand people not wanting to interact with "syscourse" and all, but that shouldn't even be considered syscourse in the first place)

[syscoursefrog]

hot take I guess but no one owes you their opinion on endos. it affects you in no way shape or form.

[suncast-junkyard]

Something I've noticed with lots of anti-endos online is that more often than not, in their attempts to prove and/or deny the existence of endogenic systems, end up dumbing down CDDs to being alter disorders rather than the dissociative disorders they actually are.

It gets to be concerning since it comes off as incredibly ableist.

[cambriancrew]

My interpretation of the Florality thing.

"Only CDDs can cause systems."

"Ok well I'm not a system, I'm multiple people in the same brain."

"That's a system. Either you have a CDD or you're faking or delusional. And also CDDs aren't multiple people. They're multiple dissociative states."

"Well I'm not dissociative states, I'm people. You can't have it both ways."

"Nuhuh cuz I said so. I'll only believe you if you have proof."

*gives forty pages of resources*

"Those don't count cuz I said so."

Siiiigh. This kind of thinking is so annoying. If you want to be on the side of science, it would help if you could A) be logical minded and B) understand that people use words differently so getting on the same page with definitions is super useful and C) really understand how science works. You don't need brain scans to prove stuff. We knew CDDs were a thing before brain scans existed. We used the same processes to validate CDDs before brain scans were possible, as are currently used to validate endogenics. Brain scans aren't proof. They show how something affects the brain, not if it exists.

[plural-archivist]

the only argument that I still see anti-endos use that makes more or less sense to me is the use of the term "system" in non-cdd systems. Like, it's one of the only arguments that has validity to them. "If you don't have a CDD you aren't a system", it's one of the only arguments they seem to parrot over and over.

So, why don't to people who are non-cdd systems use another word? what's the reasoning, genuinely? Because I see that's the main problem that CDD/ant endo systems have with the non-traumagenic plurality community as a whole. I know the word "system" is not only for CDDs (it comes from IFS therapy, I know), but it would reduce the conflict from anti-endos, right? /genq (all of this /gen)

[syscoursefrog]

i don't think it's fair to ask a whole demographic (endos) to change the language and labels they use just to appease those that hate them.

with more specific, medical terminology (alter, polyfragmented, etc) it's reasonable; but when the word "system" has a bunch of different meanings and use cases, some of which the concept of endogenic plurality fits under by definition, it's ridiculous.

also, at least in my experience, that wouldn't even be enough for a lot of anti-endos. i mean, look at how many of them are anti-polymind; polyminds don't use system terminology at all, and plenty of anti-endos STILL say they're mocking pwCDDs.

it's clear that the language, a lot of the time, isn't even the problem. the problem is anti-endos thinking that the experience of being many is unique to CDDs, and to say otherwise is offensive or mocking in some way.

[seascourse-sidecourse]

amazing how alienating the CDD tags are if you don't viscerally hate endos. you go there to find someone to relate to and connect through shared difficulties and they're like "if you talk to me about the disorder we both have you're harassing me because you don't think endos should kill themselves" idk how to tell you that you should care for other people

[hiikaveh]

99% of people doing syscourse hate anti-endos/pro-endos/whatever side they’re against more than they love systems and I think that’s one of the reasons why it’ll never go anywhere.

[guardianssystem]

"Hey this blog is a safe space for any and all real systems with a CDD 😁"

.......

"Pro-endos DNI by the way!"

We feel as if we have seen an uptick in these posts/blogs recently. They're in the CDD tags, saying that they're safe for those with a CDD, while simultaneously saying that those with a CDD who have different opinions, are fake.

Like. Can they maybe, not? -_-

[oopsallsyscourse]

Ok while I'm here, what is it with people with DNIs that refuse to block. Your boundaries are your responsibility to maintain. If someone is bothering you, you block them.

Don't even get me started on the ones who's first instinct is to publicly shame. You would not survive trolls, I'll tell you that much

[singtiple]

Just read a very interesting fMRI study on non-disordered plurality. It's a peer-reviewed study that was published in 2019 to the scientific journal Medical Hypotheses, and worked on by 11 different researchers.

They scanned a small sample of people who, despite not having trauma or any mental health condition, developed distinct multiple identities during meditation. The brain scans showed activation patterns in some of the same areas of the brain that are also seen in DID as well as the dissociative symptoms of PTSD.

This supports the hypothesis that plurality exists on a continuum from healthy to disordered!

I'm super excited to see more studies like this in the future. It will be invaluable in deepening our understanding of plurality, dissociation, and the brain.

Here's a link to the study. From the abstract:

"In this study we report on five very uncommon 'hypnotic virtuosos' (HVs) free from any psychiatric disorder, spontaneously undergoing the emergence of multiple identities during neutral hypnosis; this allowed us to check the relationship between their experience and fMRI data. During hypnosis the subjects underwent spontaneous non-intrusive experiences of other selves which were not recalled after the end of the session, due to post-hypnotic amnesia. [...] Our results and their contrast with the available data on fMRI in DIDs allows us to draw the hypothesis of a continuum between the healthy mind – where multiple identities may coexist at unconscious level and may sometimes emerge to the consciousness – and DIDs[.]"

[anti-willo-stu]

endo is an inherently ableist and problematic label that spreads misinformation about complex dissociative disorders by very definition. if you use it, misinformed or not, you are still spreading such ableist misinformation. you are still being ableist. does this make you irredeemable? no. does this entail addressing, apologizing, and rectifying? absolutely.

[syscoursefrog]

endogenic plurality has absolutely nothing to do with complex dissociative disorders btw

[singtiple]

Plurality, as conceptualized in peer-reviewed research:

Plurality, often also called multiplicity, is "having more than one self in the mind and body" (Eve & Parry, 2021).

Plurality "is not a diagnosis" (Eve, et al., 2023) and is "a broader concept than DID" (Christensen, 2022).

Plurality is "a broad term, which encompasses a range of experiences" because "people have individual conceptualizations of what it means to be ‘more than one’" (Eve, et al., 2023).

Plurality is "a term coined to be more inclusive than only that of traumagenic multiplicity" (Christensen, 2022).

Not all people who experience plurality will identify as a 'plural' or 'multiple.' Plurality is a useful umbrella term for the experience of more-than-oneness "but not necessarily a term reflective of one's identity or self-expression" (Christensen, 2022).

"[N]ot everyone who identifies as multiple will want or require mental health intervention for the condition they experience" (Eve, et al., 2023).

The concept of non-traumagenic plurality does not hurt DID research. "[T]he research confirming DID as a trauma-based disorder is doing just that: confirming traumagenic DID, the disorder, not Plurality, the identity . . . Distinguishing between the two does not need to invalidate either" (Christensen, 2022).

The idea that plurality is inherently disordered is a product of Western culture. "Within Western linear frameworks . . . there has been an emphasis on the ‘healthy self’ being integrated and whole" (Eve & Parry, 2021). "In indigenous cultures, esp. shamanic societies, a polypsychism (i.e. many selves) prevails" (Scharfetter, 2008).

Fakeclaiming and anti-endo / anti-plural rhetoric is traumatizing. "[H]aving a condition such as multiplicity that is not generally validated and recognised in a community can be, in itself, traumatic. Even if trauma does not precede the development of multiplicity, trauma-informed care would still be appropriate for many young people who seek help for multiplicity" (Parry, et al., 2021).