so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Okay, this may not work, and it may sound very wrong, but maybe you could sleep on the floor? I’m sure it’d be healthier, and I personally love sleeping on the floor. It’s much more comfortable. You could put a sleeping bag down, or a bunch of pillows and blankets, or something else.

If it’s uncomfortable, you can always go back to the bed.

Edit: And if you have a couch, you can sleep on that until you can get a new bed.

Turns out our bed has fiberglass in it! I thought we had sensitive skin and got rashes easily, but nope! Our wall is all shiny and sparkly from FIBERGLASS.

Very not healthy for us, but can't do anything until our job opens back up in February.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Okay, wtf is Goncharov? I saw it everywhere on Tumblr, and I was confused, so I looked it up and now I’m even more confused...

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

yall annoying as fuck because if an allistic person spreads misinfo on how autism works or how it presents yall think thats wrong but if a nontraumagenic system without a CDD spreads misinfo on how CDDs work or how they form and actual people with CDDs tell them theyre wrong yall call us ignorant stupid bigots like okay just say youre ableist against people with severely stigmatized disorders and go💀

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

That case doesn’t fit criterion B. Criterion E is: “The symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).” The symptom, in your case, is attributable to autism, therefore it doesn’t fit criterion B.

Also, even if amnesia only occurs in meltdowns, it’s still impairing. I mean, the definition of impair is literally “[to] weaken or damage something (especially a human faculty or function)”, and amnesia definitely weakens your memory, even if only temporarily in some cases.

I used #sophiecourse because this is discourse about Sophieinwonderland and her claims. I don’t think it’s bad faith at all. I wouldn’t mind if someone used #avocadocourse or #so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat-course. I have a hard time understanding other people, so if you have the time, please explain why it was in bad faith.

Now @sophieinwonderland isn’t responding to my callout posts. This is why we say you don’t listen, Sophie. You refuse to answer when people debunk your baseless claims. Just listen for once.

I am going to explain here why criterion C, the distress and impairment criterion, is redundant.

Criterion B, the amnesic criterion, always causes impairment, as I explain here. It always causes impairment because A, you’re forgetting everyday life, which is impairing for obvious reasons; B, you’re forgetting important personal details, such as your name, age, where you live, etc., which is also impairing for obvious reasons; and/or C, you’re forgetting traumatic memories, which is impairing due to the nature of repressed memories. If you’d like further explanation of any of this, please ask, and I’ll gladly explain.

If one has DID, they fit all the diagnostic criteria, including criterion B (the amnesic criterion). If one fits criterion B, they already fit criterion C.

Thus, criterion C is redundant.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

I wouldn’t say that callout posts are inherently bad faith, but perhaps I used the term incorrectly. Even so, she was spreading misinformation, and I explained why she was incorrect. She isn’t required to respond, but she always stops when all her claims have been debunked or someone’s explained why they’re wrong.

That’s what was wrong with her not responding to any of these posts (not just mine, she does this with a ton of posts). It’s not the lack of response, it’s the lack of willingness to listen and admit that she was wrong. If she had evidence to back up her claims, she’d send it.

Now @sophieinwonderland isn’t responding to my callout posts. This is why we say you don’t listen, Sophie. You refuse to answer when people debunk your baseless claims. Just listen for once.

I am going to explain here why criterion C, the distress and impairment criterion, is redundant.

Criterion B, the amnesic criterion, always causes impairment, as I explain here. It always causes impairment because A, you’re forgetting everyday life, which is impairing for obvious reasons; B, you’re forgetting important personal details, such as your name, age, where you live, etc., which is also impairing for obvious reasons; and/or C, you’re forgetting traumatic memories, which is impairing due to the nature of repressed memories. If you’d like further explanation of any of this, please ask, and I’ll gladly explain.

If one has DID, they fit all the diagnostic criteria, including criterion B (the amnesic criterion). If one fits criterion B, they already fit criterion C.

Thus, criterion C is redundant.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Of course. Notice that I never mentioned OSDD; only DID. We’re talking about DID.

Also, amnesia is sometimes present in OSDD-1. We call this OSDD-1A (I’m sure you already know that, I’m mostly mentioning it for anyone who happens to read this and doesn’t know about OSDD-1A), in which parts/alters/headmates aren’t differentiated enough to be considered DID.

Now @sophieinwonderland isn’t responding to my callout posts. This is why we say you don’t listen, Sophie. You refuse to answer when people debunk your baseless claims. Just listen for once.

I am going to explain here why criterion C, the distress and impairment criterion, is redundant.

Criterion B, the amnesic criterion, always causes impairment, as I explain here. It always causes impairment because A, you’re forgetting everyday life, which is impairing for obvious reasons; B, you’re forgetting important personal details, such as your name, age, where you live, etc., which is also impairing for obvious reasons; and/or C, you’re forgetting traumatic memories, which is impairing due to the nature of repressed memories. If you’d like further explanation of any of this, please ask, and I’ll gladly explain.

If one has DID, they fit all the diagnostic criteria, including criterion B (the amnesic criterion). If one fits criterion B, they already fit criterion C.

Thus, criterion C is redundant.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Keep up the good work, people need to keep holding her accountable

We're sending good vibes your way and hope you sleep soundly to keep your energy and mood up

Aww, thank you, Anon! I will gladly take the good vibes.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Now @sophieinwonderland isn’t responding to my callout posts. This is why we say you don’t listen, Sophie. You refuse to answer when people debunk your baseless claims. Just listen for once.

I am going to explain here why criterion C, the distress and impairment criterion, is redundant.

Criterion B, the amnesic criterion, always causes impairment, as I explain here. It always causes impairment because A, you’re forgetting everyday life, which is impairing for obvious reasons; B, you’re forgetting important personal details, such as your name, age, where you live, etc., which is also impairing for obvious reasons; and/or C, you’re forgetting traumatic memories, which is impairing due to the nature of repressed memories. If you’d like further explanation of any of this, please ask, and I’ll gladly explain.

If one has DID, they fit all the diagnostic criteria, including criterion B (the amnesic criterion). If one fits criterion B, they already fit criterion C.

Thus, criterion C is redundant.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

1: How are we twisting the impairment criterion? Amnesia, one of the criterion for DID, is always impairing, as I explain here. If someone fits all the other criteria, they automatically fit criterion C (the impairment criterion) because they fit criterion B (the amnesic criterion) which is inherently impairing. Pray tell, how are we twisting criterion C?

2 and 3: I agree with these.

4: That is not what we’re doing. We’re simply stating facts about the disorder which you don’t have, nor have you studied, which is made obvious by your claims about it. There’s nothing wrong with ignorance, but when you speak over the knowledgable and refuse to listen when they tell you you’re wrong, you’re doing something very wrong.

"Sophie, how dare you speak over people with this disorder! Also, I've twisted and ignored the diagnostic criteria in such a way as to include you as having this disorder!"

That's what I keep reading from these sysmeds and it's so annoying. Like, idk how someone manages to think that if you're a system, you must have DID (cause let's be real, they don't care about OSDD), and then go on to tell you (a member of a system) that you are speaking over people with a disorder.

In any case, keep up the good work! 💜

-Faye & Mox

Thank you Faye and Moxie for the support! 💖

This is exactly what it feels like!

To recap, in the past few weeks, we've seen these same people...

Twist the distress or impairment criterion to be something that you can easily ignore, and essentially say that you have the disorder without ever meeting the criteria of the disorder.

Twist the cultural/religious exemption to somehow only apply to very specific groups of cultures and only if you're born into them, falsely claiming that this wouldn't apply to groups like tulpamancers or soulbonders.

Repeatedly insinuate that people who are refusing the disordered label are doing so out of internalized ableism to emotionally manipulate them into identifying as having DID or OSDD.

Accuse any non-disordered system who speaks out against this being spread in our spaces as "speaking over people who have the disorder." All when, as you say, they've stretched the definition of this disorder to encompass practically every single non-disordered system by repeatedly misrepresenting and twisting the criteria.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

As I said elsewhere, there are non-pathological forms of dissociation.

Maybe I need to be clearer. If you dissociate on the level that someone with DID experiences, it’s impairing.

Let’s look at the criteria for DID.

A. Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states, which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession. The disruption of marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual.

B. Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.

C. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice. Note: In children, the symptoms are not better explained by imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.

E. The symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).

The first two criteria are related to symptoms, whereas the last two are related to what said symptoms are not caused by. The third criterion is related to how your symptoms effect you.

Read criterion B again. “Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.”.

Amnesia of any of these things is inherently impairing. Forgetting everyday events is socially and occupationally impairing. Forgetting important personal information is impairing in a number of ways. Even forgetting traumatic events is impairing, due to the nature of repressed memories being inherently impairing. "... inconsistent with ordinary forgetting” refers to the amnesia being clinically significant, meaning that if you fit criterion B, you also fit criterion C which states that symptoms are clinically significant.

Additionally, while the amnesia criterion will usually be associated with distress or impairment (because yes, the vast majority of people will be impaired and/or distressed by amnesia), hypnosis can induce both alternate personality states AND amnesia

What is your point? Criterion B clearly states that amnesia must be clinically significant (”inconsistent with ordinary forgetting”). And I would argue that purposeful amnesia is still just as impairing as regular amnesia. Just because you gave yourself amnesia doesn’t mean that it won’t impair you.

It’s integral to remind clinicians that even if all the other symptoms of a disorder are met, it’s still not a disorder if it doesn’t come with some level of distress or impairment.

Did you even read what that original post said? The symptoms of DID are inherently impairing. If all the other symptoms are met, it may still be DID because criterion B is impairing, and they therefore fit criterion C.

On the other hand, just because one fits all the criteria for a disorder doesn’t mean they have it. Anyone reading this who saw that post and thinks they may have DID, please see a professional if possible. They may be able to help you through all this, because you may not have DID even though you fit the criteria.

I'm sorry you're getting hate and what you said is getting misinterpreted like that (probably on purpose). Can't find the post you were talking about but it looks like one of those posts trying to convince endogenics that they have DID, no matter how you try to sell it that's what it looks like and probably what it is. Funny how they will later accuse us of invading their spaces. You don't want non-disordered systems in your spaces?? Maybe stop trying to convince them they are disordered. (1/2)

Thank you, anon!

This is so true!

And yes, that's definitely exactly what it was about, whatever they try to pretend or convince people. They later tried to argue their point and cited another post they made on another blog arguing why the "clinically significant distress or impairment" criterion doesn't apply. This was how that post concluded:

But sure, their latest post made in the endogenic tags claiming that the distress or impairment criterion doesn't matter is just a totally innocent positivity post. /s 🙄

I really hate that we have to deal with this constantly. The invasion by the anti-endo community of our spaces, the attacks, the twisting of everything for the express purpose of invalidating us...

It's just so awful.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Did you not read that post or something?

Their point was that that criterion is basically saying that you must have a disorder to have a disorder. Which is exactly what the criterion was saying. You don’t have to suffer to have DID. If you dissociate, you fit that criterion. If you have amnesia, you fit that criterion. Both of these things are other criteria.

They were saying that if you fit the other criteria, you fit this criterion, because the other criteria are inherently impairing.

It was a positivity post, because people are spreading constant misinformation that you must suffer to have DID. I see this among so many endos, claiming that they can’t have DID because they don’t suffer and they like their system, and telling other people that they can’t have DID for these reasons. That post that you attacked did nothing but dispel that misinformation. Your attacking it did nothing but attack a positivity post and spread more of that ableist misinformation.

Stop accusing us of twisting your words, you fucking hypocrite.

I'm sorry you're getting hate and what you said is getting misinterpreted like that (probably on purpose). Can't find the post you were talking about but it looks like one of those posts trying to convince endogenics that they have DID, no matter how you try to sell it that's what it looks like and probably what it is. Funny how they will later accuse us of invading their spaces. You don't want non-disordered systems in your spaces?? Maybe stop trying to convince them they are disordered. (1/2)

Thank you, anon!

This is so true!

And yes, that's definitely exactly what it was about, whatever they try to pretend or convince people. They later tried to argue their point and cited another post they made on another blog arguing why the "clinically significant distress or impairment" criterion doesn't apply. This was how that post concluded:

But sure, their latest post made in the endogenic tags claiming that the distress or impairment criterion doesn't matter is just a totally innocent positivity post. /s 🙄

I really hate that we have to deal with this constantly. The invasion by the anti-endo community of our spaces, the attacks, the twisting of everything for the express purpose of invalidating us...

It's just so awful.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

thank you

Thank you for what? /genuine question

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Woah, I can ask myself a question!

Woah, I can answer my own question!

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Anon didn’t outright say that you shouldn’t tell your employers about your systemhood, but they heavily implied it.

“‘You can keep [insert trait] secret and won't face discrimination as long as you do, therefore the discrimination doesn't exist and/or doesn't matter.’” Anon never suggested this. Anon just gave simple truths about workplace safety: you don’t have to tell your employer, and if you don’t, you won’t be discriminated against.

Anon said, and I quote, “the simple fact is your employers don’t need to know you’re a system, so you aren’t going to be discriminated against.”. This meant that you don’t have to tell them you’re a system, so you shouldn’t tell them, because if you do, you can be discriminated against.

Regardless of what Anon said or didn’t say, you still compared it to ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’, which is totally inappropriate. You said, and I quote, “Wasn't this the logic behind ‘don't ask, don't tell?’”. That's not the logic behind ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’; that’s the logic behind basic safety in the workplace for systems.

No! That's definitely now what happened...

First, yes Wren, we're a system. And no, I'm not going stop treating our plurality like a fun, quirky thing. We're not going to pretend to be miserable to make other people feel better.

But this isn't really directed at Wren. Instead, I wanted to address the anon, because I remember that post.

The context of this post, as I recall, was about a post I made about the discrimination endogenic systems face. This post wasn't about people with a "stigmatized disorder."

As I recall, this was written in response to when I talked about how, while any type of system can experience discrimination, it's actually technically legal to fire a non-disordered and non-spiritual system like ours for being plural, as they are not protected under disability or religious protection acts. (Which doesn't prevent employers from firing for other reasons, but at least means they can't publicly fire you for being disabled or for your religion.)

This anon responded to the fact that we can legally be fired for being plural with this:

Which completely misses the point.

We shouldn't have to hide being plural to avoid discrimination.

We shouldn't have to control our switches.

This anon wants to phrase this as if they simply kindly suggested that people should hide their plurality for their own safety.

That would actually be something that I would agree with. Please, be responsible and don't risk putting yourselves in situations where your livelihood is endangered by workplace pluralphobia.

But this was not an ask saying that we shouldn't tell employers about our plurality. It was an ask minimizing the legitimate discrimination we face as plural systems by saying we wouldn't have to worry about discrimination if we just pretended to be a singlet.

And I 100% stand by the comparison I made.

But please, keep hating me for *checks notes* not wanting plurals to be discriminated against in the workplace?

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Wtf? Wren never insinuated that.

Nobody wants to traumatize children.

I’m sorry to break it to you, but yeah, they do. One of my abusers definitely meant to traumatize me. He meant to do everything he did, and I’m not alone. There are bad people out there.

These prposed experiments don’t even make sense for accomplishing the alleged goal.

The alleged goal is to find out if DID is a traumagenic disorder. The proposed experiments would be to take two groups of children, one of which you traumatize repeatedly from a young age, and the other you make sure to protect and keep from harm’s way. If nobody in the non-traumatized group develops DID, and many of the traumatized group do, you can assume that DID is a traumagenic disorder.

So, yeah, to truly 100% figure it out, you would need to traumatize people.

But over and over again, I see this exact talking point brought up. Often with a side of “look how terrible the evil pro-endos are for wanting us to traumatize children to prove how DID forms.”

Wren never insinuated that. In fact, I haven’t seen anyone insinuate that. Seriously, you’re acting like you’re being oppressed.

The only reason this talking point exists in syscourse is to associate the pro-endo community with child predators. Which would be horrible even if the target audience wasn’t a community which is heavily associated with child abuse victims. But the fact that it seems intentionally designed to associate pro-endos with the abusers of trauma survivors makes it all the more insidious.

No, the talking point exists because it explains why the DSM says that trauma may or may not cause DID.

Sorry, that was mean of me to say to Sophie. I'm low on spoons and I just can't handle someone purposely misinterpreting what I'm saying.

It's unethical to traumatize children to see if they develop DID/OSDD. That's just a fact.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Okay, wtf is Sophie on? This is terrible. I’m not a system as far as I’m aware, but I’m definitely queer. That is so queerphobic. Is she even queer (genuine question)?

Anyone reading this, yeah, definitely don’t tell your employers about your systemhood! That is so dangerous.

i once told sophie ‘you should not tell your employers about your plurality’ (esp if it’s a stigmatized disorder) and she fucking twisted it into ‘that sounds like ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ rhetoric to me’. she compared SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE (it isn’t their business!!! it’s not your bosses business!!!) TO _LGBTPHOBIC RHETORIC_. i genuinely despise her! she twists EVERYTHING if you dare to disagree with her!!!

Oh god. That's awful. Especially when she's not even a system.

She really needs to stop treating plurality like it's a fun quirky thing.

[so-many-avocados-in-a-trenchcoat]

Okay, wtf? I thought she was bad, but not that bad! Of course poc can be racist, everyone can!

How is trans-race even supposed to work? Like, I’m mixed race (black and white), but I’m very white-passing, and I’ve always felt that I should... I don’t know, look more black? I can identify with the struggle of looking like one race, but actually being another (in this case mixed race), but feeling like another?? I don’t get it, it just feels very racist and transphobic.

And trans-trauma, wtf is going on in her head?! Trans-trauma, are you kidding me? What, like, you think your life is boring, and that adding some made up trauma will spice it up?? Is that what this is? Or is it when you have trauma but think it isn’t bad enough to be ‘real’ trauma?

I just-

I think I lost all faith in humanity reading that. /half-joke

This is so transphobic and so racist and so ableist and so... is there a word for being bigoted against trauma-survivors? I just Googled it, and I couldn’t find anything... fuck it, I’ll call it traumaphobia (not to be confused with traumatophobia) (if anyone knows any terms for it, let me know).

Anyway, she’s a disgusting, racist, ableist, traumaphobic, transphobic bigot.

Wait, Sophie's pro-transabled and pro-transrace? Eww

Where can I find this stuff? I had no clue she was that disgusting...

Here's a post about supporting transrace. She states that most transrace (ill use trace because so it wont get confused with the other definition) could be full of POC as well. At the same time stating that POC have come forward and say it was uncomfortable to them. She's also stating that only white people can be racist (heavily implied)

Do you even know if the majority of the people you accuse of racism are bodily white? - Sophie

For all I know, the trace community could be mostly POC-bodied. - Sophie

Asians can be racist towards black people, and the same the other way around.

She also states that gender and race are the same. Or at least similar. Whilst supporting people who say race isn't physical. It is physical. Very physical. Just like sex (male, female, intersex). Gender is a social construct (blue is for boy, pink is for girl.)

A white person cannot face the discrimination of what a black person would face. A white person can't face the discrimination of what an Asian person would face.

She also supports trans trauma? From what I see, it's trauma someone thinks they experienced but didn't? Would like to see a proper explanation for that.

Very impolite on responding to someone who says transautistic people can do harm to the Autistic community. There's a ton more ways to harm a community without physically beating them up.

That's all I could bare to read, honestly. I don't know if she supports transage, since she never said anything about it, but it's heavily implied that she supports all transid.

Mind you: SOPHIE IS BODILY WHITE. Sophie does not FACE racial discrimination. SOPHIE DOES NOT GET TO SPEAK FOR/OVER POC.

edit!: If anything I said was worded weirdly or anything, feel free to correct me! I'm very low on spoons today!!