A Critique of LB Lee’s Essay on The Use of ‘System’ in Non-Disordered Spaces
This was originally a reply to a post, but I’ve decided I wanted to post it separate-- not only so it shows up in searches, but as a stand-alone piece that can be found by people who have come across this essay themselves.
The essay in question by LB Lee can be found here.
Firstly, I seem to be completely unable to find any information on professional accreditation for LB Lee, so I would likely take most of what they write and say with a grain of salt. The loudest voices aren’t always the most educated. You can be asked to speak on panels and appear in conventions simply by virtue of being known-- and in this case, LB Lee has a secondary skill of art and comics that would help to draw in crowds by premiering them in a set.
Secondly, and playing off of the first, their list of appearances and work seems to be solely based on their personal experiences, and the vast majority have to do with artwork and trans and LGTBQ+ activism-- not plurality. Only 3 of their 31 listed presentations have to do with neurodivergence and “multiplicity”. How they managed to gain a voice is beyond me, other than people trying to relate to an untraditional and unproven view of plurality by someone who gained the limelight for something unrelated-- because if someone says, “You can have this *TOTALLY INTERESTING AND SEEMINGLY FUN THING* with absolutely NO questions asked,” people are going to jump on that, and some people with unresolved trauma are going to cling to any option that will let them continue to avoid facing unhappy truths.
BUT, the writer themselves aside, let’s look at the article-- well, essay, because it’s certainly not academic.
It seems to boil down to: DID/OSDD systems “likely” didn’t create the word “system”-- Doctors did, if it wasn’t disordered systems, and it was deemed to be demeaning and “forced” upon the community, and it was the “natural and non-disordered plurals” who reclaimed this apparent slur.
I have many, many questions.
First, who decided that “system” was demeaning? The article takes a very anti-medical stance, which can be very, very dangerous when you’re dealing with traumatized and dissociated individuals, especially those with DID experiencing extreme bouts of amnesia. It insinuates, multiple times, that doctors are not to be trusted and that they created language and words that were meant to control us when they “medicalized” DID/OSDD. That seems to be a very personal stance to take-- I consider it quite validating that my problems are recognized and research is being done on how to help me and others like me-- and to do that, yes, they needed to develop a language to discuss the issues. Good god, the horror.
This is how “empowered multiplicity” and “natural multiplicity” and “endogenics” are harmful to the DID/OSDD community. Please stop forgetting that these are GENUINELY mentally ill people. What do you think pushing this anti-medical rhetoric does when spaces cross?
Second, where were the DID/OSDD people during all of this? Were we sitting in a corner, watching the natural plurals fight the good fight? That portion of the community isn’t mentioned at all except to say that we’re perpetuating in-fighting. The article feels very one sided and seems to place “natural” plurals in a saviour’s light. When looking for the earliest use of “system”, they give an example from a natural plural in 1994, and then edit to say they found an earlier example from 1990 in Many Voices-- I’ve actually looked through a good chunk of those, starting in 1989, and those are from therapists and people with DID/OSDD and is now owned by the ISST-D (heads up, the newsletters almost brought me to tears for so many different reasons, be careful reading). This means they were unable to prove who used it first, OR how it was used, really only providing evidence that it was disordered plurals who embraced the language first.
Third, where does this claim that this argument is about “cultural appropriation” rather than “disability appropriation” come from? I’m particularly bothered by this line in particular: “But even if you ignore that, the fact is, multiples are not a culture. Certainly not an oppressed one.” I quite agree it’s not a culture-- it’s a highly misunderstood and debated mental disorder, and we are absolutely oppressed. Rather than discuss that, though, it’s insinuated that we’re only oppressing each other with high school clique level fighting. Here’s the thing-- you can’t be oppressed when what you’re experiencing isn’t recognized medically OR culturally. So, no, multiples are not oppressed, people with DID/OSDD are, and while we’re on that-- hot take-- we can’t be ableist to natural multiples because we’re not in any position of power over them (in fact, our dissociative symptoms would put us below them), please stop saying that, people. Natural multiples, however, can be ableist by not respecting a DID/OSDD system’s personal boundaries.
I also went and read through the entire alt.support.dissociation FAQ, and outside of the one, singular reference to “Some people explore identity or alternate identity games, like role playing, acting, pretending, or alternate social structures to the point where they begin to question their original identity... in their adolescence,” which was curiously left out of LB’s essay, the site is largely of the opinion that it’s trauma, abuse, and stress that create “multiples”, with only a very, very small portion of the community relating to that statement-- which is then immediately followed up with, “Some multiples are unaware of any initial trauma.” It sounds to me like he’s really, really reaching there to say that this site promotes natural multiplicity.
Please keep in mind when reading essays like this that when the writer says things like, “in most cases,” you need to read the entire passage. One of the other quoted passaged by LB is, “ When they come to the question "What causes multiplicity?" Discord and Sapphire Gazelles specifically state that while many experience trauma, "there are exceptions to this."”
If you read this section in its entirely, it says,
“In many (if not most) cases, severe trauma at an early age (by early, we mean before, say age 5), although there are definitely exceptions to this. Please bear in mind that "severe" is an entirely subjective term. In people who developed their multiplicity as a result of trauma, the trauma was very likely some sort of abuse: physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or religious/magickal. Usually this abuse began at a very early age and was long-standing. Other trauma, such as witnessing a death, or the abuse of someone close to you, or possibly just living in a family where there is a great deal of negative emotion expressed, could be sufficient.”
What the passage is actually saying, is, “Most cases have severe trauma before 5, but OTHER trauma could be sufficient.” It’s not saying they don’t have trauma, it’s saying they have OTHER forms of trauma. Don’t let half-quotes be twisted to a fit a narrative.
Finally, “In 2015, I went to the IGDID Trauma and Dissociation Conference, and nobody knew what I was going on about when I used the term 'system.’” I highly, highly doubt this to be true. In only the paragraph prior they state that “system” had become a general usage term-- and at the very start of the article, says it was doctors that invented the term. Now, suddenly, no one knows what it means at a convention specifically regarding trauma and dissociation? LB also provides several sources of the word being used by therapists and DID/OSDD systems throughout-- so where is this coming from?
It’s an easy answer, because the essay is finished off with, “ So 'system' has been general purpose,” there it is again, general purpose, “for over 20 years, and it's been used by specifically non-DID systems during that entire time. It never got reclaimed by DID folks.” This is not true in any way, shape, or form, based on the sources LB themselves reference throughout-- it’s such a crazy contradiction and such a bold statement-- I’m genuinely in awe. It’s Trump-esque in it’s absurdity. And if it was a slur to be reclaimed, it certainly can’t be reclaimed by people who never held any right to in the first place, because as LB states, it was made by doctors for disordered systems and should be shunned.
And on that note, I’d like to suggest that there aren’t many better terms for this sort of thing-- “system” is pretty perfect, so to the people suggesting that it was used in a derogatory way by disordered systems to reference “those systems” on tumblr, what else should we have called them? I can’t rightfully consider that a valid argument.
Perhaps all the arguments and fighting we’re seeing now ARE DID/OSDD trying to reclaim the slur rightfully owned by them, and the non-disordered plurals are fighting tooth and nail. There’s certainly a case to be made there, but more likely, we’re just tired of people coming in to our spaces and using our terms for something they’re not experiencing, warping their original meanings so it’s harder for disordered systems to voice what’s happening to them in clear, concise, and understood ways.
