Hi! You're (most likely) talking about our document here. Though if you're not, feel free to share the one you are referring to.
Medical & Non-Medical (Endogenic) System Sources By Guardians System, a diagnosed traumagenic DID system with PTSD and CPTSD You’re welcome
As said in the comment, we're a diagnosed traumagenic DID system with PTSD and CPTSD. We've been pro-endo for a number of years now and have been researching endogenic systems for the same amount of time.
We have a couple PDFs of related books we haven't yet uploaded/added in yet, if you want anything more. Feel free to let us know if we miss anything
You're going to have to specify how the sources are "contradicting", "scattered", and "lacking evidence", especially when you have supplied nothing yourself
You're either saying that the trauma needed to cause plurality comes from society making those who are neurodivergent suffer, or that all neurodivergencies are caused by trauma. As well as that every and all type of "suffering" and any other neurodivergent interaction with society is traumatising. You're missing many, many, many important details here, including that plurality not forming from trauma isn't the same as not having trauma at all.
"Neurodivergence" is subjective. "Trauma" is subjective. "Society" is subjective. "Suffering" is subjective. What's true for your experiences isn't going to be true for everyone.
Genetics can play a very, very big part in ones' ability and likeliness to experience dissociation in general. This is quite well-known, especially because of studying dissociative symptoms outside dissociative disorders. It doesn't necessarily play a part in the development of multiplicity, it's just that multiplicity becomes more likely.
If you're referring to the Theory of Structural Dissociation, it's not "splitting of identity." If you aren't an expert in this area, you should be paying attention to those who are experts in this area, such as the authors of the current ToSD. They've said many times over that their definition of structural dissociation is not meant, at all, to apply to dissociative experiences outside of trauma. If you want a more simple reference, some of Kathy Steele's best works are about "trauma-related dissociation" because there's dissociation not related to trauma.
The argument is for the formation of plurality without trauma in general, not whether you can be born plural or not.
The majority of system-related terms, including "system" itself (as used in structural dissociation, by the APA, and throughout clinicial literature), aren't and never have been exclusive to those with CDDs.
“The term system is often used to describe a collection of these entities sharing the body. [] There is a diversity of experiences within plurals/systems, such that members of a system may have different gender identities and salience of gender; ages/experience of age; perceived internal appearances; varied beliefs, memories, feelings, and thoughts; and complex interrelationships with other system members. [] People who live as plural systems are almost always treated as though this way of living is a pathology. [] Yarbrough observed that many plural systems did not experience distress from the existence of other internal headmates, and recommended shared decision making among headmates when pursuing treatment. [] However, this study adopted a non-pathological approach to plural experience, in order to better understand systems’ authentic experiences."
"These strands of experience are characterized as multiple identities, internal people, self-states, or ‘alters.’ When alters take control of the body, they can be described as ‘fronting,’ and exchange control in a process termed ‘switching’. The term ‘system’ describes the collection of these entities sharing a body, while the term ‘system member’ is a neutral term, equivalent to ‘alter,’ which describes one individual entity within a plural body. Members of a system may have unique experiences of gender and salience of gender, perceived internal appearance, age or experiences of age, varied beliefs, memories, feelings, and thoughts. [] The present study uses the term ‘plurality,’ which emerged from the advocacy community of multiples, and recently has been incorporated into the scientific literature. This newer, more inclusive term describes a broad range of pathological and non-pathological multiplicity, denoting those who have more than one person or entity sharing one body as a ‘plural system.’”
Internal Family Systems, too. Etc.
Something like "parts" exists all over medical literature. "Alter", though is rarely used by endogenic systems, only stands for "alternate". "Introject" is used even less. Fictive and Factive didn't originate from the system community at all. The terms exclusive to the dissociative disorders, are the dissociative disorders, which they are saying they don't have, so they're not using those terms.
"Split identity" is medically incorrect, even when referring only to structural dissociation itself. Structural Dissociation is based on how the self starts life as separate, and trauma stops it merging/working together. Not that structural dissociation causes somebody to get a split identity.
You aren't being pushed out of spaces. You're seeing spaces you think are yours, and claiming you've been pushed out of them, because you seem to believe that somebody experiencing something similar to a single part of your disability means they're "gameifying" your disorder that they're saying they don't have. This isn't how mental disorders work, nor how they're defined. Nor is it how experts say mental disorders and symptoms work.
"Roleplaying" has a definition that isn't synonymous with "experiencing multiplicity," and there are clear differences between them in medical literature.
Your claims you've made, after saying you've looked at the evidence, contradict what psychology is saying and has been saying, while you haven't provided any sources supporting your argument. (If you have some, we'd be happy to go through them)
From what we can make out of your notes (which aren't accessible, nor easy to read in general - we cannot at all make out what you're saying on Tulpamancy. But it is often considered a type of non-traumagenic plurality, and many endogenic systems occur in the same way tulpamancy does.):
Systems who have gone through recovery and may no longer consider themselves as having a dissociative disorder, are not the same as systems that never had a dissociative disorder to begin with.
A big part of your argument seems to be that dissociation can only exist in disordered forms. Structural dissociation and dissociation itself aren't the same thing. Many, many, many clinicians have said this. Adding "in my opinion" doesn't make your point any less false when science really, really disagrees with you.
Neurostructural brain imaging study of trait dissociation in healthy children - Volume 8 Issue 5
Dissociative Experiences in the General Population A Factor Analysis
PDF | Although previous research has implicated a history of childhood trauma in the development of dissociative tendencies, insufficient co
PDF | This article presents evidence supporting the primacy and ubiquity of dissociation in normal human experience and argues that normativ
yousharknotpass
theartofmadeline
blakekathryn
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic
