rolls a marble around on my table. it's really difficult to have discussions about plurality with sysmeds, but i think one of the problems that grips me the most is that, regardless of the DSM5's diagnostic criteria (which practically hinges on impairment anyway), different professionals are going to have different opinions on endogenic and/or spiritual plurality.
like...our therapist is 100% supportive of us and our desire to not be diagnosed. she fully accepts our plurality as being a part of our spirituality, she's spoken to judal and listened to him talk about his universe having been destroyed, and not once did she ever act as if we were delusional or just making up stories to help ourselves cope. she takes us seriously! sure, she doesn't know all the "right" words (she still refers to us as parts, which doesn't bother us much), but she's even gone as far as to tell us about a starchild she met, just to show us that she's serious about believing us and treating us as individual people.
her stance is that she has to believe her clients when they tell her anything about them and their bodies—whether it be pain they're experiencing, or the people in their minds, or the lives they've lived beyond this one—and that it's her job to bring her clients to a state of comfort and health within the framework of their own desires. if those desires include a spiritual belief system, then so be it. she isn't getting rid of us; she's treating us all, both separately and as a cooperative group.
however.....we could just as well go to another therapist and have them immediately declare us delusional and dissociative, no hesitation.
and y'know what? we would stop seeing that therapist immediately! they would have the wrong idea about us, our identities, and it would be within our rights to leave.
that being said...the complete opposite could happen to someone else. maybe they would vent about seeing endogenic systems on the internet, only for their therapist to tell them that plurality can exist outside the framework of the DSM. that person is not obligated at all to believe that therapist, or to even stay with them!
i have the sneaking suspicion (though it hasn't happened) that, were we to bring up our therapist's opinions on plurality, that any sysmed we told would immediately bring into question her credibility as a therapist, or even her actual existence. (what, do we need to schedule a group therapy session or something?)
at that rate, it becomes impossible to use "well, my therapist told me—" as an argument in either direction. you can't tell me that your therapist says endogenic plurality doesn't exist, because my therapist told me it does!
i'm not sure where i was going with this, other than, on one hand, being relieved that we have a kind and understanding therapist, but on the other, being just a bit upset that we can't just simply tell sysmeds "my therapist said..." without them bringing up the very points i've said here.
that being said, why am i arguing with sysmeds anyway? :)
