#i dont know what to tag this as actually lol | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

tempesttz · 4 months ago

Text

i feel like causing problems today: correcting actual endogenic misinformation on the anti endo blog about "correcting misinformation"

WARNING: VERY LONG POST ABOUT SYSCOURSE BELOW THE CUT! you have been warned. stay safe! :3c

[/image id: screenshot of tumblr blog @antimisinfo, the blog's profile picture, and the blog's header stating "correcting misinformation." end id.] (before we get into this, some of these images will be very bright! i will try to provide accurate image ids to every screenshot i post. stay safe!) okay so see this account right? op has no clue what they're talking about. addressing pronouns right now, i was going to refer to them by their preferred collective pronouns but i can't find them? i checked their carrd and their alters all had different pronouns and their about me just says this

[/image id: text stating, "horned haters is a subsystem filled with alters who hate endos / pro-endos. our whole system does but we are more passionate about it and plan to try make as many safe spaces for anti-endos as we possibly can!" end id.] so at least i know they prefer alters. cool [happy] so far okay whatever they REALLY hate endogenic systems thats cool thats whatever nothing new there but

[/image id: five images of different flags, likely did/osdd related, anti endo related, or something similar. text underneath flags states "system hot takes," "anti endo support group," "anti endo system terms," "agre and littles safespace," and "fictive stuff." end id.] jegus dude you weren't joking about being passionate about hating. this is like, grade a hater here. but i digress this probably isn't the post to be screwing around on i'll keep the screwing to a minimum i promise. that being said i don't promise to be nice, i do not owe anyone kindness, especially when they are not kind to me. i will try to be polite. so this is already splendid right but you would think with this many accounts dedicated to hating endogenic systems (they also own anti endo vents, i think?) they would at least know what they're talking about, right? right?????

[/image id: text reading "so what are endos? endos or endogenics are people who claim to have did/osdd without trauma or claim to have alters/be a system without having did/osdd." end id.] source: endos / endogenics and why they aren't valid, may 8 2024 for the sake of convenience, i'm going to be referring to did/osdd as osddid from now on. okay so first of all, anyone who claims to be endogenic while having osddid is almost definitely also traumagenic and has reasons rooted in trauma, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. endogenic is a broad, personal label. an endogenic system with did could be one with a lot of created alters or headmates. or just two created alters, headmates, etc. who knows! it's a very personal label after all. that being said, to have osddid, you have to have some form of trauma in almost every case, because trauma is what causes the dissociation, amnesia and other symptoms of osddid. anyone who's arguing to the contrary is wrong. you cannot have osddid without trauma? "so tempy, endogenic systems aren't real! they don't have osddid!" wrong. you can be a system without having osddid. for just one example, sourced from the national library of medicine, pubmed central, "multiplicity can be placed along a continuum between identity disturbance and dissociative identity disorder (did), although most systems function relatively well in everyday life. Further research is needed to explore this phenomenon, especially in terms of the extent to which multiplicity can be regarded as a healthy way of coping." (2017) taking some bookmarks from your sixth grade english class (which i can only hope you have passed by now, if you are on this website,) we are going to use some inferences. if multiplicity isn't dissociative identity disorder, but it is a state of being multiple and a system, what do you have? a system without osddid. "but tempy, that doesn't mention osdd!" that's because osdd wasn't a medical term before the dsm-5. not to mention, it stresses that "...most systems function relatively well in everyday life..." and that "...multiplicity can be regarded as a healthy way of coping." osdd is a disorder and an osdd system's plurality is disordered. non-disordered plurality is a thing that exists, and almost all non-traumagenic plurals are non-disordered! so we're already off to a terrible start. op isn't creating a distinction between plurality and osddid, likely because they believe that osddid is the only way to be plural. this not only was disproved above by a literal scientific article on a .gov website, but also the icd-11.

[/image id: text stating "boundary with normality (threshold):" which then moves a line down to a bullet point stating "the presence of two or more distinct personality states does not always indicate the presence of a mental disorder. in certain circumstances (e.g., as experienced by 'mediums' or other culturally accepted spiritual practitioners) the presence of multiple personality states is not experienced as aversive and is not associated with impairment in functioning. a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder should not be assigned in these cases." end id.] so someone can experience multiple personality states without it being part of a mental disorder. and it's not dissociative identity disorder, and it can't be otherwise specified dissociative disorder, so... i wonder what it could be? well, many things! all under the wonderful way-too-vague umbrella that is endogenic plurality. oh, you need more proof? how about we look to a book written by eric yarbrough, a psychiatrist who specializes in lgbtq issues:

[/image id: text reading "the phenomenon of plurality is unknown to most mental health clinicians. most professionals know this condition as dissociative identity disorder (american psychiatric association 2013), although plurality and dissociative identity disorder are not exactly the same. being plural, or having two or more people existing in one body or space, is just one part of the diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder. many people who are plural do not experience distress from the existence of others within themselves." end id.] what was that, psychiatrist eric yarbrough in your book transgender mental health which was published by the american psychiatric association?

[/image id: text reading "plurality is a more patient-centered approach to what has historically been referred to as dissociative identities. this is not the same as the dsm-5 diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder (american psychiatric association 2013). plurality makes up just one part of the larger diagnosis and does not necessarily cause distress. although many people who are plural have a history of trauma, there are just as many who do not. a plural system is a collection of all the alters present. with some people these alters might come and go, whereas with others they are static and waiting to be discovered." end id.] this is not the same as the dsm-5 diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, huh? it's just one part of a larger diagnosis and doesn't necessarily cause distress, huh? still not convinced? rapid fire! zarah eve, sarah parry: "not all multiplicity is based in trauma" (2021) mick cooper: "neuropsychological research has demonstrated the inherently divisible nature of the brain and consciousness" (unsure, likely pre-2013) zarah eve, kim hayes, sarah perry: "multiplicity experiences are phenomenologically distinct from clinical dissociative experiences" (2023)

kymbra clayton: "there may be in the general population a large number of people with [multiplicity] who are high-functioning, relatively free of overt psychopathology, and no more in need of treatment than most of their peers. they may not have abuse histories and may have evolved a creative and adaptive multiplicity." (possibly 2005)

the entire endogenic and non-traumagenic resources google doc, created by a diagnosed traumagenic system can we at least establish there's been a recorded medical existence of healthy, non-disordered multiplicity in psychiatric fields and that this isn't something that someone just made up on tumblr one day? okay, cool, thanks. now i wonder if there's a word for that. oh wait. it's called non-disordered plurality and tends to be much more common in non-traumagenic systems. by now you've probably forgotten the actual reason this post exists, so back to antimisinfo!

[/image id: text reading "why is this bad? this is misinformation because as far as science knows did/osdd is a trauma based disorder (specifically caused by trauma in early childhood, which is speculated to be 1-9 / 1-12 years old) and your brain would not split/create alters without reason. you cannot have alters without having a disorder, this is common sense as it's not normal to have alters. to add onto this endos also take over our communities and teal our terms. (we'll make a post with further information on that in the future.)" end id.] okay so first off non-disordered systems exist, let's stop talking about osddid as if it's the only way plurals can exist. second off, you can be multiple without having a disorder, it's literally highlighted in the icd-11 that non-disordered multiplicity exists. see above for disproving that. this is not common sense, because as seen above people can experience multiplicity without it being disordered, therefore meaning it is "normal," though not realistically normal as all plurals are a minority. normal =/= bad/disordered. cool? cool now, onto "endos take over our communities and steal our terms." i have no clue what terms op is talking about (tried to find their elaboration on those terms but it seems they haven't posted it), nor have i ever gotten an actual comprehensive list of terms they think we're stealing, but here we go: the terms traumagenic and endogenic were created by an endogenic system

[/image id: text reads "an important part of the development of these terms involves our journey towards identifying as plural. we have used a lot of terms for ourselves over the last thirty years; since 2014, we have identified as endogenic, but have known we were plural since at least 1990. the road" text cuts off. end id.] the term plural can be traced back to 2003 and even in its oldest records recognize the existence of non-traumagenic plurality. it has always been an inclusive term

[/image id: header reads "heart's home." text next to it reads "join date: january 02, 2003." text underneath reads, "this is my site for people that have mpd did, {;} also i agree that not all is cause by trauma. {;} i was on the ring from ring world and did not know this was moved." end id.] introject is a psychiatry-focused word, meaning that it could be claimed to be osddid exclusive, however multiple communities have used them in tandem for years. it can be traced back to this glossary which was written before the dsm-5, or pre-2013.

[/image id: text reads "introject - introjection occurs when a person (singlet or plural) internalizes another person (real or fictional) into his or her mental space. in classical psychology, the introject is usually a parent, whose advice for good or ill becomes integrated into the person's moral system. more broadly, many people experience introjects as a kind of muse, inspiring them to creativity or self-improvement (a psychologist would call this an "internalized imago"). (psychiatric)". new line. new line text reads, ""introject" is seen as derogatory by some, because it is a psychiatric word and seems to imply that such people of necessity are unreal. They prefer terms like walk-in, soulbond, or fictive. having an introject does not necessarily mean you're multiple. it is an experience common to singlets and plurals. some multiple systems report adopting people from books, films, or real life, making them part of the group and allowing them to take the front if they desire." so, having introjects hasn't even always been seen as a fully plural experience! singlets used to be considered to be able to have introjects too! isn't that cool? not to mention, they also have a definition for fictive in there, recognized as a wider plural term! cool, cross that off the list... oh? what's this?

[/image id: text reads "system - a group of persons in one body. also, the operating system by which a group governs itself. multiples have many different names for this: group, collective, clan, household (or house), family, etc. (may have originated with a few multiples writing for the amateur press; we first read it in an early mpd book.)" end id.] so non-disordered plurals have used the term system since ever too... not to mention, hey, look at this term!

[/image id: text reads "empowerment is for all multiples. It is not only for natural (non-trauma) multiples; you can be empowered and be a multiple who was born as one person and split due to child abuse. In fact, if that's your situation, empowerment is a wonderful thing for you, and is something your therapist (if any) ought to be encouraging." end id.] wow... non-trauma multiples. look at that. is that enough terms? if you want me to look up more, feel free to suggest anything the endogenic community is "stealing" that haven't been used synonymously and consistently in both traumagenic and endogenic spaces since before traumagenic and endogenic were terms. okay back to misinformation.

[/image id: text is a link that reads "there is also a carrd that explains why endos are bad and debunks a few myths if anyone is interested in it! if not continue reading." end id.] i didn't need to click on this to know it was the why endos are bad carrd. this is the most touted anti endo carrd in existence. i'm so sick of seeing it i'm not even addressing it today. it's wrong and blames endogenic systems for systemic issues like "making actual systems be less believed." not a verbatim quote, but you can go read it for yourself and then scroll up and read everything i just said again.

i've never actually seen another anti-endo carrd. which is saying something, because there's a lot of endogenic carrds, some better than others. carrds in general aren't reputable in most situations, unless they cite other sources, which the why endos are bad carrd doesn't. it cites a google doc about cultural appropriation and the theory of structural dissociation, which is about osddid, not non traumagenic plurality. it also implies that anyone identifying as endogenic has been lied to, is traumagenic and in denial, is a singlet who's experiencing a factitious disorder or other disorder misleading them, or are a singlet faking because they think it's "fun." no comment, i'll talk about it in length another day.

[/image id: text reads, "why can't you have did/osdd or alters without trauma? as far as science knows did/osdd is a trauma disorder and in order to have alters in the first place you require dissociation, which is also a trauma (or stress) response. here are tons of medically reviewed sources that say this:" image ends. end id.] once again, not osdddid. also, "as far as science knows..." see above. science knows about non-disordered plurality. op goes on to list a bunch of articles about dissociative identity disorder, that talk about dissociative identity disorder. they are wonderful articles about dissociative identity disorder and prove that individuals with dissociative identity disorder (and by extension otherwise specified dissociative disorder) experience that disorder due to trauma. that being said... non-disordered multiplicity is a thing, and endogenic systems still don't have osddid. seeing a pattern?

[/image id: text reads, "what about religious beliefs / tulpamancy? first people are not required to believe or participate in your religious beliefs (and religious beliefs are not exempt from criticism) and second tulpamancy is a closed buddhist practice that has nothing to do with being a system and should not be compared to being a system nor should it be included / involved in system communities. Note that the dsm-v also says that in order to have did; "the disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice." <- this does not mean it's possible to have alters due to a religious thing, if anything it says they cannot be counted as alters / as a system." end id.] okay so i corrected this in the image id, but op actually wrote "tuplamancy" twice. lol first off, tulpamancy isn't a closed buddhist practice. a tulpa is a theosophical term that was originally inspired by the tibetan buddhist nirmāṇakāya, translated as in tibetan as sprul-pa. "the western understanding of tulpas was developed by twentieth-century european mystical explorers, who interpreted the idea independently of buddhahood," according to wikipedia, sourced from tracking the tulpa (2015). a google search could tell you this. did you research any of the communities you are attempting to debunk past listening to what people who agree with you say? if you've decided in the past three months that google is your friend, i would google "echo chamber." second off, people absolutely are not required to believe or participate in your religious beliefs, and religious beliefs are subject to criticism. however, they should also be respected. this post, along with most other things you have had to say, have not respected spiritual plurals. not to mention, not all non-traumagenic plurals are spiritual. not to mention, not all tulpamancers are spiritual, in fact, most aren't. "modern practitioners, who call themselves "tulpamancers", use the term to refer to a type of willed imaginary friend which practitioners consider to be sentient and relatively independent. modern practitioners predominantly consider tulpas to be a psychological rather than a paranormal concept. the idea became an important belief in theosophy." see: wikipedia again. i mean, if you want me to go find scientific articles about this i can but wikipedia has plenty. go check the sources on wikipedia. this should have been the first thing you did if you wanted to "combat misinformation," by doing actual research before posting. op then starts talking about did. see: not all plurals are disordered. op also takes the time to shit on spiritual multiplicity again, which i will rightly ignore, refer to two paragraphs ago. it's midnight and i would like to finish writing by 1am.

[/image id: text reads, "to add on, no you cannot pray to be a system or transition into being a system. if you were to pray and one day magically become a system you are either in denial or you've convinced yourself you're something you're not. believing you can be a system without trauma or that you can become a system by praying is like believing you can get autism from vaccines or drinking too much dairy milk, that's just not how it works." end id.] this is a half-truth! you cannot pray to become a system unless you count spiritual possession (and frankly that responsibility lies on the individual in question), and you cannot pray to have osddid as that's a dissociative disorder that stems from childhood. you technically can transition to being plural (created systems are a thing, intentional and unintentional creation of headmates has been recorded dutifully since at least the early 1900s (see: tracking the tulpa, 2015). for the sake of it, here's a sciencedirect article about authors who experience different forms of hearing their characters in their head, who's recounts all sound very similar to non-disordered plurality. "believing you can be a system without trauma or that you can become a system by praying is like believing you can get autism from vaccines or drinking too much dairy milk, that's just not how it works." maybe if all plurality is disordered. it isn't. see above when i showed multiple examples of non-disordered multiplicity. believing that all plurality is disordered is like insisting that god created everything on earth after being presented with the theory of evolution. the analogy goes both ways.

[/image id: text reads, "what about mixed origin systems? Mixed origin systems are not a thing. did/osdd forms purely from trauma, you can't form from a mix of trauma and not trauma, that's not how it works. if you identify as mixed origin you are likely in denial and really need to come to terms with the fact that you are either traumatized or you're not a system at all." ] okay so first of all people can be traumatized past the age of twelve. ooh burn i know crazy. not to mention, plurality in general is known to be experienced by neurodivergent individuals, who as a minority are more likely to experience some form of trauma. this isn't a controversial statement, right? i don't have to prove this, right? cool great thanks. oh hey i just found a really flat ginger ale this will now fuel the rest of this post. there's this crazy concept, some people can be traumatized without it causing them to be disordered. or, a person with osddid could have created headmates, therefore making some of their system of non-traumagenic origin. personally, i was a system before i was traumatized. this caused my plurality to have some very trauma-based aspects, trauma holders and trauma-focused roles. that being said, my plurality (mostly lol) isn't disordered and my first recorded headmate was a created/spontaneous headmate at the age of ~nine.~ isn't that cool? anyways i've been medically recognized as plural so you can't fakeclaim me [silly] i dont have osddid. don't fit the diagnostic criteria. but i've been experiencing headmates since 9 and have recognized my plurality since 12. i'm 18. most of my headmates can be sourced to when i was 13-15, as that's when i experienced the most trauma (i'm better now stay safe though yall). that's decidedly after the gracious "1-12" estimate you gave, op. not to mention, we created headmates intentionally at the age of 12. so what's up with that op? what am i? okay i'm done being anectodal, i just took the opportunity to parry a personal opinion with a personal anecdote just to further drive the nail in that people like this exist and are living breathing sentient individuals with lives outside the screen and many of us have been plural since ever. i sourced non-traumagenic multiplicity to before the dsm-5 just in this post alone, not to mention tulpamancy (many tulpamancers don't consider themselves plural/multiple or part of the community).

[/image id: text reads, "what about other kinds of origins? Other origins like "willowgenic" and all that bullshit? Yeah no, same thing as endos, not possible. look above for all the proof you need, did/osdd is only caused by trauma. traumagenic is the only valid origin." end id.] i dunno if i told you this but did/osdd isn't the only form of plurality because not all plurality is disordered. also, spelling every origin you don't agree with incorrectly in a post that's supposed to be informational doesn't lend to your credibility. it's spelled willogenic. you're welcome. also, the word "traumagenic" was created by an endogenic system (see above, during "endos are stealing our terms," first link). you're appropriating our terms, buddy. [silly]

[/image id: text reads, "but I gave myself did! / but I created my own alters! no you didn't. that isn't possible, you cannot turn yourself into a did/osdd system and creating alters is a coping mechanism, not something you do for fun, sources on this;" text ends. end id.] half truth! you can't give yourself osddid because it's a dissociative disorder that forms due to childhood trauma. you can, however, create alters/headmates. see above when i talked about tulpamancy. op goes on to link more resources about dissociative identity disorder that don't mention other forms of plurality. not all plurals are disordered, let's move on.

[/image id: text reads, "isn't being a system like the same as being trans or being lgbtq? no, many endos compared the two but they are completely different. Being lgbtq is an identity, it's something you are born as. being a system is a debilitating disorder caused by severe trauma, it is counted as a disability which is;" text ends. end id.] first off i gotta say it again, not all plurality is disordered. op goes on to explain why did is a disability, which is true. that's just true. but again. not all plurality is disordered. second off, half truth! being a system is not the same as being lgbtq! that being said, a lot of systems are part of the lgbtq community, both due to its known effects on gender and sexuality and because a lot of them are neurodivergent. speaking on the internet plural community here, anyways. a lot of anti endos are referred to as "sysmeds" as a reference to "transmeds," people who believe that all people who are transgender must have a disorder in the form of gender dysphoria. sysmeds are people who believe that all people who are systems must have a disorder in the form of osddid.... same thing different font debunked not all systems are disordered. anyways.

[/image id: text reads, "but the dsm-v says that trauma isn't required! no, the dsm-v actually says csa isn't required, there are other forms of trauma that don't involve csa or child abuse. To act as if it saying that the trauma isn't always ca or child abuse means that it doesn't require trauma at all is extremely invalidating to those who are traumatized in ways that don't involve child abuse or csa." end id.] both of you are wrong jesus christ. okay so first of all the dsm-v heavily implies that trauma is basically required in order to have osddid.

[/image id: text reading "dissociative identity disorder is associated with overwhelming experiences, traumatic events, and/or abuse occurring in childhood. the full disorder may manifest at al-" text cuts off. end id.]

[/image id: text reads, "the dissociative disorders are frequently found in the aftermath of trauma, and many of the symptoms, including embarrassment and confusion about the symptoms or a desire to hide them, are influenced by the proximity to trauma. in dsm-5, the dissociative disorders are placed next to, but are not part of, the trauma- and stressor-related disorders, reflecting the close relationship between these diagnostic classes. both acute stress disorder" text cuts off. end id.] second of all the part of the dsm-5 that goes over dissociative identity disorder doesn't mention sexual violence once. the best i can assume this claim came from is an old belief that most dissociative identity disorder trauma if not all is inherently sexual.

[/image id: text reads, "promoted by charismatic individuals such as cornelia wilbur -- that multiplicity was almost always caused by severe, repeated child abuse, usually sexual, and was an extreme form of dissociation." end id.] so... where did you get this info, op? you didn't give us a source, after all. and again.... not all plurality is disordered. so this is a pointless argument to make. shit, i'm out of ginger ale. and it's 1am. it's okay i'm basically done right? uh, right?

[/image id: text reads, "but this source claims endos exist / did doesn't require trauma! most of those sources are extremely old and / or made by endos (or pro endos) themselves. (we'll make a more in-depth post on this topic some other time, but for now this is all we have to say on it)" end id.] first off i dated every source i cited, most are post-2013 and the newest is from last september (sep 2023). the oldest is ~2003. you're welcome. second, if you denounce every source given matter how reputable because it's "written by pro endos," you'll only end up listening to people in your own community. hey, remember when i asked you to google "echo chamber?" also, i'm waiting for that post, op. also also, for the sake of it, not all plurality is disordered, so why are we mentioning did again? oh yeah, because you don't believe in non-disordered plurality. is that because all the sources proving their existence are pro endo? hey, fun challenge, if you're over the age of 21 and find yourself wishing to, take a shot every time i reiterate not all plurality is disordered. [joking]

[/image id: text reads, "but we don't know everything about the human brain! you're right, we don't. the brain is mysterious, but we do know enough to know that it doesn't do these kinds of things for no reason. we know the brain reacts to trauma and we know what the difference between a normal brain and a disordered brain is. just because we don't know everything doesn't give people an excuse to jump to conclusions and spread misinformation. it is better to stick to what science currently knows which is the theory of structural dissociation, which is the current theory about how did/osdd forms, and so far no one has been able to disprove it. and before someone says it, no it is not only a theory, it is a scientific theory which is;" end id.] hey i have this fun concept for you not all plurality is disordered. also, just to throw it out there, otto van der hart, the guy who created the theory of structural dissociation referencing the haunted self and doing so along with ellert neijenhuis, suzette boon and kathy steele, had his license revoked years ago for abusing his plural patients. not to mention they promote only referring to the "client" and not the "parts," and only referring to alters as "parts of the client." i recommend reading this article on power to the plurals, and if you feel like some extra reading, you can also check out this old article about how psych professionals used to be encouraged to bait or purposefully leave information out or use different names for integration to attempt to coerce their plural patients into final fusion. in conclusion, not all plurality is disordered, source your shit, and if you're going to talk about only dissociative disorders at least get your claims right. thank you. stop spreading misinformation.

dave got a blinkie for his post so now i want one

[/image id: green and yellow blinkie gif with the words "written by jade harley!" in pixelpoiiz font. end id.]

[/image id: blinkie with a dark blue, almost black background featuring multiple stars, one of which twinkles. contains text reading "written by kankri." in the pixeloid sans font. end id.]

84 notes · View notes