I am not deep nor on the surface of the plurals communities, so please excuse us if the question is not proper.
But you seem like an approachable person (people?). Why is there a discourse surrounding endos?
Hello! That is a fair and real question and we appreciate your good faith and respectful inquiry! While we are pro-endo here—in fact, our Outer System itself is endogenic—and try not to get involved in the discourse, we do have some knowledge and experience about it.
Note: This is our own perception of the discourse as we see it, and it may be superficial and/or inaccurate in the views or beliefs of certain sides, as we are not a part of that side.
The discourse around endogenic systems is perpetuated by the misconceived belief that systemhood/plurality is exclusively a disordered experience that is inherently caused by trauma and cannot be caused by anything else. People who believe this rhetoric often refer to themselves as anti-endos or sysmeds, and to that effect we would correlate it in a way to the beliefs of transmeds: the idea that the only way to be a system is to get medically diagnosed with a Complex Dissociative Disorder (CDD) such as DID or OSDD.
In that sense, endogenic systems, which are systems that develop for reasons other than trauma¹, would not be possible. Nevermind the fact that there has been research done on multiplicity in the brain, wherein from childhood it is relatively understood that the brain functions more like a system and reintegrates as development continues until a single, cohesive identity remains—although I do not have resources readily available for the purposes of a casual answer such as this.
¹NOT necessarily that they are not traumatized in there own right, merely that the trauma was not the direct cause of the development of their system!
No, to our knowledge, much of the anti-endo scare comes from a fear of "system fakers," hypothetical bad actors who pretend to be systems for no reason other than to feel special or what-have-you. This perpetuates a culture of fakeclaiming and excessive scrutiny when it comes to systems who behave outside of the accepted "norm" for systemhood. As you can imagine, it leads to a lot of undue harassment. Even traumagenic systems get caught in the crossfire of fakeclaiming.
It all boils down to a gatekeeping of plurality for which we very much have a distaste. Even if we were not partially endogenic ourselves, we would ostensibly be against the inherent harassment behind the anti-endogenic stance. The human mind and one's metaphysical beliefs are wide and varied. It does one well to be accepting of that.
Even in the realm of people who do "fake" systemhood for attention, it is not typically out of maliciousness. What good does it do to scrutinize and harass them? Generally such behavior speaks to a deeper underlying issue², and it would do one better to offer kindness and understanding to make them feel seen and accepted for whatever it is that is driving such behavior. They are not going to stop in the face of harassment. If anything, it will only compel them to double down.
²Munchausen/factitious disorder, hypochondriasis, a lack of understanding of plurality and the potential for endogenic avenues, etc.; meaningful education on such topics are sorely lacking in the face of extreme stigma. I do not have the means nor opportunity to go fully in-depth, but want to at least mention it for posterity.
As a result, to be perfectly honest we don't care much for a system's origins, or even whether or not they are "genuine." Thank you for the question, and I do hope that this serves as an adequate answer.
-Iseya
