I don't think people really realize that systems are like. people. not really something that exists to fit in a binary to make discourse easier
Like sure CDDs are heavily associated with trauma, but then you have systems in real life who get diagnosed with them regardless of their trauma because that's the only thing in the DSM-V for plurality. Endogenic and no-trauma also aren't synonymous, you can absolutely be a system before trauma.
There's also just this obsession with making a ridged binary between trauma-based and not-trauma based that makes no sense. What about a system that's endogenic that went through trauma and now experiences dissociative amnesia? I know systems like that and sometimes you can't functionally tell the difference between them and a purely trauma-based systems. You also got trauma-based systems who don't have DID/OSDD or don't substantially struggle with plurality. Especially if it was a little t trauma that caused a system.
Plus like... there just flat out are systems who became systems after the cutoff age. The cutoff age is arbitrary and doesn't take into account developmental disabilities and like there are case studies that involve systems that formed at 13 and one at 31 that I know off the top of my head. You can say "but psychology says this" but that kind of doesn't work when there are systems going about their lives that go against it.
I'm also confused about the whole "theory of structural dissociation means endogenics aren't real thing", I don't like the ToSD because of the creator of it and the circumstance, but couldn't anything interrupt selves integration? like developmental disorders or childhood mental illness, or just anything that results in a delay in development?
Like almost all syscourse and broad generalizations fall apart once you start to think of systems as just human beings. Psychology as a whole also tends to dehumanize us already as is, and I feel like that might be seeping into the way people on the internet as a whole talk about us. You can spend all your time in a textbook reading only the most scientifically reputable websites you can, but it doesn't help you at all when you want to get to know how someone really is.
(plus I've seen studies that if you look at them you can tell the researchers are just trying to force their own interpretations of things and it's. hard to read.)
