#Pro-endo

[plurality-is-mundane]

Mundane Plurality is seeing the stars together for the first time.

We took a small road trip to a remote park where we could watch the stars.

Shooting stars aren't rare! They're just hard to catch with your eyes bc they're fast.

The big dipper is bigger than you think.

[nameless-syscourse]

I hate it when people think that just because we’re a DID system, we’re anti-endo. No you can’t talk to me about those “stupid endos,” they’re my friends, go away.

[deoxysandthesolarsystem]

Can we please stop excluding people from our own community

[rusanya-does-edits]

Fuck you, pro-endogenic stimboard. Good luck being ableist and bigoted when your anon privileges are blocked. :3

× × × || × × × || × × ×

[anendoandfriendo]

If "idrc about trans people" or " i'm neutral about trans people" would piss you off so should "idrc about endogenics" and "I'm neutral on endogenic systems"

We actually ARE tagging this and pinging folks since a lotta people need to hear this and that's the best we can think to do if @sophieinwonderland or @syscourse101 wanna rb.

We mean, the bigoted fuckers who'll complain about us are gonna get blocked and the silent ones will just...have something to think about now re: their bigotry or block us anyways lmao.

[wildtulipfield]

Playing a silly roblox game to relax and I find this. aaaaaa

I'm surprised, so many non-tumblr spaces are aggressively anti-endo I feel.

[system-of-a-feather]

I’ll bite… why do you feel like endos are real? As they do claim to have a trauma disorder just without the trauma which to me seems pretty ableist or at least disrespectful to DID/OSDD systems.

(LONG POST WARNING)

Well to start, most aren't claiming to have a trauma disorder / DID / OSDD but rather that they experience themselves as more than one and I don't believe that DID / OSDD holds sole ownership to the ability to experience oneself as more than one. A lot of endogenic people knew about their experiences as more than one before really even knowing DID / OSDD existed (or at least past the stigma of "Multiple Personality Disorder" that has no implications to trauma because ya know). I think the term "endogenic" has implications that do a disservice to the group as it kind of implicates innately the idea that trauma is the only inherent way to exist and experience oneself as more than one, when honestly I firmly believe that is not the case.

As to why I firmly believe that it is not the case that trauma and DID/OSDD is not the only way to experience oneself as more than one, there are a number of perspectives I can offer.

From a discussion of the theory of structural dissociation (ToSD) / academic stand point...

the ToSD is not a "Theory" like Gravity and Evolution. The name is actually misleading as it is using Theory in a more colloquial sense; the ToSD when talked about in almost all literature that I've read that references it talks about it as a >model<. The difference between a theory and a model is large.

A theory is something that is constantly and reliably able to be a solid means of not only understanding the world but also predicting large phenomenon. There have been multiple active attempts to disprove it or find flaws in it and none of which have worked. They're age old and have been proven day in and day out to have reliably accounted for every form of discrepancy - at least on a majorly applicable level (as even Gravity seems to have its confusing mishaps when you get to the very high level stuff that I won't even pretend to understand in the slightest as I'm not a physicist).

A model on the other hand is something that is used to best understand, navigate, and conceptualize a concept - often for more practical usage. A model is designed to usually specifically target a specific definition of a phenomenon and experience - and in this case "the dissociation of self of individuals who have experienced trauma and how that causes the phenomenon of alters and dissociated parts". It is not making claims about "the only way for people to experience themselves as more than one" because 1) models don't really intend to be fool proof, they attempt to practically explain and describe an experience in a way that is helpful to apply practically (ie in theraputic practice); by this very nature, the models are suggesting a base framework that often apply and help people who match the specific definition of the phenomenon it is meant to address (ie clients that have gone through trauma and likely have dissociated parts) and 2) the theory is addressing individuals who experience themselves as more than one due to a history of trauma and how that trauma then results in the brain dissociating from itself for survival. It is NOT addressing "all of humanity and human experiences and psychological experiences" - it is just discussing how trauma affects the brain to develop alters. The two discussions and topics are very different and in an academic setting have EXTREMELY different requirements.

Additionally, an issue with the ToSD is that while its a great model for people who have DID/OSDD, it's a laughable theory and hypothesis in most psychological fields that are a lot more into more solid and quantifiable measures. I've actually talked with one of the people that had done research that basically paved the way for children's testimonies of CSA to be taken seriously and accepted in court about the ToSD and they poorly withheld a laugh on the topic. Same said person had actually talked and known either Van Der Hart or Van Der Kolk (they didn't remember which one exactly) and all that. What I got from the conversation with them was that, yes the ToSD works beautifully as a clinical model and it helps a lot of clinicians understand and help people with DID/OSDD navigate their experiences, but the ToSD in a non-clinical academic setting makes SO many assumptions that are absolutely not backed by current more "harder" psychological research that its funny.

There is a LONG list of issues with the assumptions ToSD makes on an academic setting that make it a joke to those on a more non-clinical academic setting but here are a few:

What the FUCK is a "dissociative barrier"? Yes on a clinical sense we know what that is, but where is a "dissociative barrier" in terms of neurology and neurobiology? What functions in memory (both theoretical and physical) actually work to be a "dissociative barrier"? What mechanisms in the brain make it possible? What is a dissociative barrier in terms of developmental psychology and developmeental psychopathology? How is it that trauma manages to "make a dissociative barrier" in children? What concepts of developmental psychology and memory / identity development actually are in play to make this "dissociative barrier"?

Do people even have consciousness - or - more realistically asked, are people actually conscious or do we just feel as if we are conscious? (<- very hot topic in consciousness research in more neuroscience based fields) And assuming we DO have a consciousness, what and where is that located and how does consciousness work on a physiological level in a typically developing child as opposed to a person who experienced trauma? Assuming THAT is figured out, how do we know that that trauma is the only thing that could have caused the consciousness to develop atypically? Additionally, ask all those questions AGAIN for the concept and idea of "identity" as consciousness and identity are two different research topics. Assuming that we DO NOT have a consciousness, how does the false experience of consciousness work and why do we experience it like that? Following from that, why is it that trauma can disrupt and warp that false experience? Additionally, how does it disrupt and warp that false experience? And again, how do we know that trauma is the only thing that can cause that disruption / warping to occur?

My FAVORITE and most frustrating one, but how do we even know we ACTUALLY forget things and what is the mechanism for forgetting things? What IS forgetting? Do we loose neuronal pathways when we forget and is the information truly just gone? Do we just struggle to find the information and thus we fail to recall the information? Then again, all the obvious "okay then how does this mechanism of forgetting get disrupted and warped by trauma".

(added this while writing the third perspective but) How does the modern development and factor of internet usage affect dissociation and any of these mechanisms of developing identity, self, consciousness, memory, etc? How does this new factor impact other neurodivergencies and mental health conditions in regards to that?

None of those questions are well addressed to a standard of research that most non-clinical fields consider ANYWHERE near valid or qualified to make any level of generalizing statements.

I personally largely identify and intend to go into research for developmental psychology / psychopathology after I sort things out in my life some and I LOVE these questions. I have a lot of my own hypothesis as to how those questions are answered and my hypothesis on how those mechanisms are disrupted / develop in children who experience trauma have me almost 100% certain that there are other mechanisms to developing dissociated states of self.

Of course, I'm withholding that from this portion of the discussion because those hypothesises are not founded and again, just sitting in my head rent free until I get to actually research them myself. (Which I do entirely plan to do when I figure my life out more)

From a cultural / spiritual / philosophical standpoint...

The claim that everyone normally experiences themselves as "one" unless trauma occurs seems really honestly White / Western / Christian-centric to me and the idea that the only way to experience themselves as anything other than "the normal experience and development of one person" is to have horrible trauma just... really leaves a shitty taste in my mouth as a person of color.

A large number of non-white non-christian/catholoic centered cultures that have a large emphasis on "the singular soul and repentance" and all that shit have cultural norms and beliefs that already state that it is not weird at all to experience yourself as more than one. As in, there are cultures that ALREADY experience themselves as more than one that have been doing so for AGES before DID/OSDD and hell even MPD were even suggested; ages before the field of psychology was even born.

I personally have a large problem with the claim that people have to have trauma to experience themselves as more than one as it comes off as a very colonizer perspective to experiences that do not inherently have any harm in them (ie experiencing oneself as more than one). Experiencing oneself as more than one (or I guess technically less than one) is something that can be pretty central to a lot of non-white/western cultural experiences and are just an innate part of how they live and life. To state that the only way people can have their culture is to be traumatized (which is the indirect claim being made when the claim that the only way to experience oneself as more than one is through trauma) is just... really disgusting and white-colonizer brained.

Personally, as a Buddhist, I inherently don't subscribe to the idea that there even is a "me" and a "you". I inherently believe that the concept of "being one person" is a means of suffering that people benefit from unlearning as the concept of identity and self does little more than restrict our natural means of existing and thus causes large suffering. As a result, I don't see myself or anyone else as "more or less" than one because the concept, in my spiritual-philosophical-cultural perspective, is not real and anything reinforcing it is not really dpoing anyone huge favors. As a result, I think everyone is everything and everyone is parts of a whole of everything. I think we experience ourselves as one because that is part of the natural expression of our existence. I also think we experience ourselves as more than one because - sometimes - that is just a natural expression of our existence. I ALSO think we experience ourselves as more than one because sometimes that is a good way to understand our natural selves and learn from the parts we are otherwise more disconnected from. A part of Buddhist practice is the dismantling of this concept of self and moving your perception of self away from the way you experience life and the world.

At the place where I am in my practice, the very essence of syscourse is really kind of silly to me because it's like arguing about the color of the blue-black / white-gold dress. Talking and debating it and investigating the question can lead good insights into our experiences and how we approach them, but in the end of the day, the thing we are discussing is an illusion and the effects it has on us and why we see it that way and its not really something any more important or impactful or worth sweating over than a fun thought experiment.

From an advocate standpoint...

A large part of the people who are endogenic are people who are also neurodivergent and/or experiencing notable mental health issues - those of which are not fully 100% investigated into how they affect the development of large topics like self, memory, etc. AND are very diverse and complex experiences. I don't think we should be telling someone who thinks that their experiences of being more than one is tied to their neurodivergency or other mental health conditions that they are wrong and should experience themselves differently - especially since dissociation is honestly pretty prominent in the AuDHD branch of disorders and I personally think it is hard to conclusively say that some level of experiencing oneself as more than one is related to having AuDHD. (not saying that it is either, just that its such a large topic that needs more exploration before I'd feel confident saying that AuDHD doesn't cause some form of experiences that one might experience as being more than one).

I personally see very little purpose and value within infighting of mentally ill groups and clusters when almost every disorder needs more research - particularly in a lens that is not white-western centered and interested in a more sociological / cultural lens.

I find no threat in people experiencing themselves as more than one as someone who has DID / OSDD anymore than I feel threat at otherkin for experiencing themselves as a non-human as someone who acts, lives, and behaves like a bird because of trauma and because I was largely raised by birds (and arguably because I'm autistic but thats one of those things you can't 100% be sure I would have been like without trauma). The reason I am "basically a bird" is entirely due the circumstance of my trauma and how I was raised and that certainly sucks (though I do enjoy it and find it a beneficial part of my life), but that doesn't mean that I don't share some experiences with people that identify as a bird for fun, for cultural reasons, for spiritual reasons, or due to another neurodivergency

Just generally speaking...

I love to see people expressing themselves in unique ways and honestly specifically in ways that do not conform to "normal" society. I think its really cool and neat that people express themselves how they like and express themselves in ways that challenge pointless and/or unnecessary social rules and norms and I believe the norm of being a "consistent singular individual in society" and just general individualism is honestly just such an unnecessary social norm.

This isn't really one of my large points because I say this with a lot less of a firm and full chest cause I do draw a line with the transID stuff (no I will not be taking discourse on that) but like.. generally speaking, I really love to see the dismantling of the concept that people have to be a "consistent singular individual" around me. For a number of reasons - all three main ones off the top of my head being my views as a person with opinions on academic-research regarding the topic, as a POC Buddhist, and as someone who just would like to stand in solidarity to all mental-oddities - I think it is a really important and productive thing to see the social norm of individuality to be changed from a "norm" to one of my options.

I think a large issue people have with endogenics and what not is that they're "cringe" or "making people with DID/OSDD look like jokes" and while thats a valid feeling to have and people with DID/OSDD aren't "wrong" for feeling that way, I think its largely a miss directed feeling that follows the same flaws of almost any other "respectability politics" and advocates that push for assimilation rather than acceptance in society.

In this sense, I actually like to see endos as having a similar goal of making it so that people don't assume that being more than one is inherently a mental illness which BY THE WAY, as someone who is act final fusion / functional multiplicity / late stage DID recovery, is INCREDIBLY important to me as I am not inherently experiencing a severe mental illness when my severe mental illness is largely considered "in remission / remissed" just because I choose to still experience myself as more than one.

Plus, yeah, some of them are cringe (/affectionate) but I honestly think people need to be unapologetically cringier anyways for society to grow and get over a lot of its prejudices so like, yeah maybe that type of "cringe" isn't my cup of tea but its still an ally in my ideal cringification of society /hj (plus people with DID/OSDD can be cringe too and I clap for them as well)

As a whole, I think accepting endogenics as a valid experience to have is progress to a better more accepting, less white-western centric, happy world as well as one that actually is a safe place for people who are in late stage DID/OSDD recovery to feel free to experience their disorder in whatever way is natural, safest, and works best for them.

It's honestly hard to be pro-functional mulitiplicity and anti-endo on practical sense in my opinion as someone who is At That Place because functional multiplicity kind of requires you do detatch the experience of being more than one from the inherent disorder that caused it and once you kind of get to that point.... its just really hard to still see the anti-endo perspective as it becomes really apparent that there really are some benefits to NOT TRAUMA COPING of experiencing yourself as more than one.

But anyways, I've been writing for an hour and a half so I'll leave it there. I wish I had a better way to tie this up but... *shrugs*

[eeveecraft]

This Blog's Stance on Radqueers

Just had to block an account saying that you can't be pro-endo but be against radqueers. Why? Well, I recently discovered what a radqueer is, and I'd like to enlighten you, so you don't make the mistake of mistaking them for something they're not.

What's a Radqueer?

Well, if we input that question into a search engine:

The fact that the fucking MAP Wiki pops up as the third result is already concerning!

This is what the Radqueer Wiki states:

Radqueer is the term used to refer to a radical political movement that advocates for paraphiles, transids, and other ostracized identities to be accepted in mainstream queer spaces. The term was originally coined in late 2021 by now deactivated Tumblr user foucault-divine-mephisto as a response to "the puritanism, hypocrisy and general rejection in the Queer community regarding a range of marginalized and stigmatized Queersexualities (paraphilias), internal identities (transage, transabled, transill/transnoso, transpecies, alterhumans/transnonhuman etc) and behaviours (social, sexual eccentricity etc). " Since its original coinage in 2021, the community made a steady increase in popularity, though never branching out of obscurity.

Oh? Paraphilias? You mean... as the National Library of Medicine defines it:

Paraphilias are persistent and recurrent sexual interests, urges, fantasies, or behaviors of marked intensity involving objects, activities, or even situations that are atypical in nature. Although not innately pathological, a paraphilic disorder can evolve if paraphilia invokes harm, distress, or functional impairment on the lives of the affected individual or others. A total of eight Paraphilias are listed in the DSM V and include pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, frotteurism, fetishism, and transvestic fetishism.[1]

If you thought zoophilia was missing, don't worry, it's under "Other specified paraphilic disorder," as stated in this Advances in Psychiatric Treatment paper.

Oh. Yeah, including those paraphilias. So... why are we wanting to allow people with conditions that makes them far more likely to hurt children and animals into queer spaces? And if you think the Radqueer Wiki isn't also including paraphilic disorders in the definition, well, here's one of the definitions from the good ol' MAP Wiki:

RadQueer is unconditionally inclusive of: ALL trans-x/transid identities (and supports all their social and medical transitions) ALL paraphilias and the multiplicity of their related contact stances (anti-contact, complex-contact, neutral-contact, restricted-contact, pro-contact). — Pro-c’s on “potentially harmful paraphilias” (if acted upon) are completely welcomed in the RadQueer community if they stay behaviorally non-offending/non-active. Ex-offenders are welcomed too! Debating on contact stances is totally acceptable as long as it doesn’t directly incites to committing offenses ~

Oh? You're skeptical because that's from the goddamn MAP Wiki? Fair enough. This one's from Radqueer Info's carrd:

Here's more elaboration from their FAQ:

So, to summarize: a radqueer is someone who is accepting of ALL paraphilias, including paraphilic disorders, and other "controversial" identities. There's other things they accept that are eyebrow-raising at minimum, but let's stay on topic.

Why is This Bad?

Let me make it clear, as the National Library of Medicine stated, paraphilias are not inherently harmful. It's paraphilic disorders like pedophilia and zoophilia where it leads to the harm of others or the person with the disorder is when it becomes an issue. Being accepting of paraphilic disorders can normalize these behaviors and also convince the person with the disorder that they don't need help. This is like MAPs saying fucking pedophilia belongs under the queer umbrella, and hopefully, you all know why that is a massive fucking NOPE.

Conflating queerness with literal disorders that compel a person to harm children, animals, and/or non-consenting adults is quite frankly, fucking insulting. Being queer does NOT make you more likely to harm others, it does NOT urge you to harm others. A grown dude consensually having sex with another consenting grown dude is NOT the same as a grown man violating a child, period, I can't believe I have to fucking state this.

And just to draw back to my original statement, this is also NOT the fucking same as being pro-endogenic. Endogenic systems, like queer people, are NOT more likely to harm others because they're endogenic. Does me having five Dragons in my head make me more likely to torture some non-consenting person for sexual gratification? No. But if I'm sexually attracted to such a prospect, then yes, that makes it more likely for me to do it.

Notice the language I've used throughout this post, I'm saying having these disorders makes you more likely to engage in harmful behaviors, it does NOT guarantee someone with these disorders WILL do these horrible things. Experiencing attraction is not a crime, nor do thought crimes exist, but acting on this attraction is. A pedophile is not an inherently evil person, but they become one when they act on their attraction and ruin a child's life for good. Same goes with other paraphilic disorders.

Instead of being allowed into the queer community and offered the same acceptance as non-disordered identities, these people should be redirected into getting treatment and help before they do end up causing irreversible harm. However, if they haven't done any harm, they shouldn't be demonized and harassed. Harassing and demonizing these people just causes them to recede further into harmful thinking and behaviors, and it will cause them to seek solace with other people who will encourage that thinking (Think of the "MAP Pride" movement as reference).

And especially with "accepting" these paraphilic disorders, it allows communities based around them to form, which allows echo chambers to form that can make someone with a paraphilic disorder even MORE likely to become a perpetrator. It's like being around a bunch of binge drinkers. If you're around a bunch of binge drinkers for long enough, you're far more likely to start binge drinking yourself.

So yeah! You can absolutely be pro-endogenic and anti-radqueer. I'm anti, "Allowing people who are at higher risk for harming people on the same level as queer people." Like, do you not see how harmful of a connotation that is? It's equating queerness to literal disorders, harmful disorders at that. And after all the queer community's done to prove we AREN'T disordered/inherently harmful, conflating that with paraphilic disorders that are defined by harm is such a slap to the face.

Conclusion

There's other issues with the radqueer label that I could bring up, but this post is long enough as it is, and I hope the stuff I have listed is enough reason already to not like this label. It is important to be inclusive, but not inclusive to the point where innocent people are harmed because of it. Now that I know what radqueer actually is, I'm definitely concerned by their presence in the endogenic tags, and I don't think it's a good idea to welcome them with open arms.

If we happen to have any radqueer followers, I really hope you read this post in full and see where I'm coming from. If you still don't agree, you're free to unfollow! I don't want people who are fine with allowing people with paraphilic disorders in queer spaces instead of encouraging them to get help following this blog.

7-19-2024

[circular-bircular]

Hey. Wishing endogenic systems a good day. Get yourself a treat. Go out and get a lollipop or smth.

[ur-fave-is-plural]

Welcome to ur-fave-is-plural

Inspired by another blog i cant find anymore :( RIP

We make edits for people using any origin flag suggested! We are pro-endo! If you do not specify a flag we will just use the plural flag.

We tag the name, source, and flag in each post, let us know if you want any specific tags as we may often be unfamiliar with your source!

We will block who we wish not to interact with us, which includes those who are anti-endo, trans-id, or pro/comship. We don't often check who is asking before interacting bc we're pretty scatterbrained at times so just putting that out there.

Feel free to reblog this if you want to promote it!

Thanks!

[korya-elana]

Anti: Spreads misinformation Me: Clears up misinformation Anti: "show proof that endos exist and dont send a fucking carrd link challenge" (actual copy/paste of what they said) Me: provides sources in multiple venues Them: "i hate to inform you but we have a life and dont feel like wasting time or energy" (another actual copy/paste)

You guys have GOT to do better. If you ask your sources, read the damn sources provided instead of being so bitter that you're wrong you spread intentional misinformation just because you don't like being proven wrong. If you ask for conversation, you don't get to be a dick to the people who wasted their time coming to give you what you wanted.

Disclaimer: While this conversation was with an anti, this goes for EVERYONE regardless of stance because I have seen pros do this shit too.

[plurality-is-mundane]

Mundane plurality is "hey can you put my playlist on for me? Cool thx dude"

.

[polychaeteworm]

I just wanna say, I've never seen an anti-endo over 26. They always tend to be like 23 and under.

And they always act like they know more about mental health topics than people with 5-10+ years of life experience on them.

Guys. If you are in a traumagenic system, maybe don't chase discourse and argue with people ten years older than you while you're still cooking the decision-making part of your brain and there's more than one traumatized cook in the brain kitchen. Speaking from experience.

[hidden-collective]

rawr-

I'm kinda upset with our detailed the hands are compared to everything else :(

[wondercourse]

if your "pro-CDD" advocacy involves fakeclaiming pwCDDs who are pro-endo, it's not pro-CDD. it's just anti-endo. please stop pretending it's for all pwCDDs when so many of you are willing to catch them in the crossfire because clearly they're having it INCORRECTLY and FAKELY (/sarcasm) due to them believing that... [squints at paper] ...plurality and CDDs are two separate concepts that have heavy overlap, rather than a singular entity with two aspects that are inextricable from one another.

it's not about caring about people with CDDs. if it ever was, it's not anymore. it's just about hating endos.

btw this goes the other way too (i.e., yes you hate anti-endos but are you normal about pro-endos with CDDs and non-CDD plurality, including outside of western cultures), it's just that the initial example is more common in my experience + it's fresh on my mind