#plural culture conversation

[identityarchitect]

because im a nosy bitch who has distaste for current plural culture I'd love to hear your thoughts on current plural culture

(for me. the amount of information thats acceptable and expected to be shared will be the DEATH of my sanity)

Oh, jesus, where do I even begin. This got unexpectedly long so I'm going to put it under a cut.

Like you said, the amount of information shared is scary. Both because there are like 13yo recently discovered plurals who get this idea that it's a good or necessary thing to share as much information as possible about ones system, and nobody ever uses the privacy features on PK. It's one thing to keep track of info about headmates and another thing entirely to be posting a whole list of front triggers in a headmate-intros discord channel.

Speaking of headmate intros, I kind of have a love/hate relationship with the complicated description templates. On the one hand, I do like it when stuff is pretty. But on the other hand, there's a lot of kind of casual ableism/sanism in the plural community, as much as we'd want to pride ourselves on being relatively free of it. Fancy description templates, typing quirks, special characters in headmate displaynames, are all inaccessible to people using screenreaders or anyone with issues reading. And I try to be understanding to people with typing quirks because we have a few headmates with interesting ways of communicating and I get it, but like, you've really gotta provide a translation.

There's also just the way people interact with each other? Consistently using tons of tone tags, not asking about you& preferences (which tbf, in an ideal world preferences on you& are part of a generic introduction like preferences on headmates/alters/sysmates/parts and system/plural/etc). Trying to tag for every single possible trigger.

A lot of very large plural spaces (and frankly any large space that tries to account for triggers) end up with this issue where at some point, the trigger list is just too long. People aren't going to remember it, so anyone who is anxious about censoring correctly (which is everyone, because current plural culture has this way of making anxiety significantly worse) is going to be double-checking the list every five seconds, or just decide participating in conversation outside of more lax areas, like tw- channels, isn't worth it.

So they have to make a choice between cutting down the existing list, examining things and deciding if they're a common enough trigger (or bad enough, or if the user is in the server enough, or whatever the metric is) to remain on the list: or, they simply continue expanding the list and try to make it easier for people to censor or reference the list. But if they cut down on the list you inevitably have people who are like "wait, why is fires on there but not birthday parties? there's only one person in the server who's triggered by fires but five who are triggered by birthday parties", or "why did [obscure, situation-specific trigger] get removed? isn't it just as serious?" and etc.

And then there's moderation teams, which are... ok, let me make a venn diagram.

(No shade to teenagers. There are probably good teenage mods out there. I just haven't met them.)

Speaking from personal experience here, a lot of plural discord moderation relies on the current plural culture, which skews itself towards being extremely polite and nice and understanding so as to avoid unintentionally upsetting other people. (This is another one of the ways in which plural culture can and often does end up exacerbating anxiety & anxiety-adjacent behaviours/disorders like OCD.) So you have this discord server that doesn't really need moderation aside from admin stuff like adding channels or bots and pinning messages that regular users don't have the permissions to do. Then some person comes in and they're regularly talking about triggers out of the blue, acting aggressive towards other users, and because everyone wants to be polite and accepting, this user doesn't get dealt with for a very long time, especially because the mods just have no idea how to actually moderate. They don't have the confidence to make verdicts and use the power they have, and kick/ban users when necessary.

In essence, current plural culture wants to treat and trust every stranger like a close friend. You can run a discord server with little to no rules and give everyone admin permissions and whatever the hell: it's just got to be a closed friend discord server full of people that you know well enough to trust. And not only does this make plural spaces vulnerable to bad actors, it also makes them very uncomfortable to be in, as an aplatonic person who really doesn't want randos on the internet acting like we're childhood besties.

In that same vein, is it just me or does everyone and their mother seem to want a partner system? It's been actual years atp since I've been in a plural server that's actually active but there's this weird romantic overtone where any other system could be a potential partner system if you become emotionally close enough to them. Then if you're aro, or romance repulsed, or just not looking to date, or in a relationship already and not poly (which also, I get that dating as a system is a vastly different experience from dating as a singlet, but not everyone is poly), it feels like they just switch to a QPR instead of a romantic relationship? IDK, maybe that's me projecting since I'm QPR-repulsed. But it feels like the primary assumption for 'emotionally close' is 'romance or QPR' in plural spaces, in a way that feels different from regular amatonormativity. IDK it probably is just regular amatonormativity. But you'd think plurals would have deconstructed it even a little bit, right, since dating as a plural is such a vastly different experience. Whatever.

And canonmates. God. Ugh. Ughghhghj,. Look I get the inherent loneliness that comes with being an introject that has strong exomemories, but the resolution to this is not "try and start a relationship with a stranger who you only share one quality with (i.e remembering the same things from source)". Dear god. I have a not very good relationship with canonmates, since an ex of ours would in essence use them against us, but like. Augh.

And spiritual systems. The other day I saw a post on the plural subreddit that was like "Does anyone else live a double life?" and it was this introject describing the disparity between their IRL life and their in-headspace life. But they didn't clarify that it was in headspace and not like, an alternate world or something, so there was a comment being like "Uh, this is a dangerous lack of source separation." FUCKING source separation. I always get so mad at source separation.

I hate to label ourselves but our experiences most closely align with the general idea behind spiritual systems (this is as close as we will get to a concrete label). And it really seems to me that people will bring up spiritual systems as a gotcha against sysmeds and anti-endos, since the DSM technically validates spiritual systems by explicitly excluding them from the diagnostic criteria, and then turn around and act like spiritual systems either don't exist, or are delusional. (This is what I was thinking about earlier when I said the plural community has something of a sanism problem.)

Everyone assumes that in order for an introject to be healthy, they must have a degree of source separation, must be able to go "Yes, I know I am not my source, I recognise I will never be my source, etc". And if an introject can't, it's inherently dangerous and bad for them and the system must (even potentially against the introjects' will) make efforts to separate them from their source.

But even aside from all the sanist implications there, this completely falls apart when you think about spiritual systems. What about gateway systems, who do have headmates come from outside of the body? What about soulbonds, who are that character in their own universe? What about systems who don't want to prove that they're spiritual enough to be exempt from this 'if you think of yourself as your source in any way you are delusional and must be treated' BS?

Our V1 is literally V1 the robot from Ultrakill. This has never caused issues for it, or for us. I don't predict that it's going to.

Like, wasn't the general narrative around introjects "they have differing amounts of separation, differing opinions, and differing connections to their source. above all else, you should treat introjects like people, and ask them if you have questions about how they want to be treated!"? For ages it feels like that was the narrative, and now it's "introjects should be separated from their source, although they're allowed to have whatever opinion on it. in order to treat an introject like a person, you must acknowledge they're not literally a fictional character every fucking pictosecond".

There is definitely a lot more that I probably have to say on the topic but that's all I can think of right now.

Oh wait ok hold on I'm back because I remembered roles and origins and got mad again. Origins my most beloathed.

I could talk about the traumagenic/endogenic binary and how it's complete BS and even when we could be considered traumagenic we still had headmates that weren't traumagenic in origin, and how endogenic systems of all kinds can and often do have trauma that does and doesn't impact their system functioning, and trauma impacts systems in so many more ways than just if Sonic the Hedgehog showed up because you were being abused or just for the sake of being there, and 90% of the apparently well-meaning endo-ok sysmeds that talk about the necessecity of separate traumagenic and endogenic spaces are actually talking about disordered and nondisordered systems and EVEN THEN it's STILL a fake binary, but people more eloquent than me have probably gone over that.

I hate the assumption that every system has origins. We don't, and we're never going to. Even with the general idea being "nobody needs to tell you their origins and if you pressure them you're a dick" there's this expectation of knowing or labelling your origins. If you know your origins, you should be able to label them. If you don't know your origins, there are labels for that. What if someone doesn't give a shit? And again, what about spiritual systems, who don't have origins for other reasons?

Ok, I also just went and found some DMs with a friend so here's me quoting myself:

"it feels to us like the plural community doesnt strictly expect or want noncomplex plurality or a noncomplex relationship to ones plurality, but that these are sort of entry requirements to plural discord servers and other similar spaces"

"it feels like theres a collection of behaviours that you havr to perform like being in plural discord servers has always felt close to masking for us"

AGH AND PROBLEMATIC INTROJECTS. FUCK I HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

Roles are kind of similar to origins, imo, where it's this very simplistic and false structure and there's a pressure to box oneself and ones headmates into it. Like even when people acknowledge roleless systems, it feels like that's all they acknowledge, y'know? Like in their head there's systems where every headmate has a specific purpose and performs it to a T, and there's systems where this isn't the case. When it's so much more complex than that. For example: us! We're primarily roleless, and the things each headmate does is more like a volunteer job than a role, y'know. Except for this one headmate who found a role on Pluralpedia and went "that's me" and now it has a role.

It also feels like there's a specific set of roles each system should have, right? Like there's this idea that even if a system doesn't label or have roles, they still have the protective headmate who gets righteously angry on others' behalf, and the stressed and overworked caretaker, and the littles who use uwu-speak, and the serious and scary gatekeeper, and it's the nuclear family isn't it. They've recreated the nuclear family. One father and one mother and two and a half kids and the 'friendly' neighbourhood cop. Jesus. (The host can be the grandparents.)

And more than that there's... okay, right, how do I word this one.

Let's think about layers. Layers are distinct areas in headspace where different groups of headmates tend to reside. Beyond the base assumption that everyone has a consistent, laid-out, easily accessible headspace, there's this weird overtone that a system without layers is like, a system without layers yet, right? Like the two types of system are "systems that have layers" and "systems that don't have layers, but could" and there's no space for "systems that can't have layers". I think that's kind of what I'm getting at with the origins and roles bit, right? People nominally accept systems that don't have origins or roles, but there's this sense that what they're actually accepting is "systems that have origins" and "systems that have origins, just not public ones" or "systems that have roles" and "systems that have roles, and just don't label them".

This ties into the spiritual system bit, I think. It's not "psychological systems" and "spiritual systems" (which is still a false binary), it's "psychological systems" and "systems that believe they're spiritual systems" or "psychological systems whose spiritual beliefs impact their systemhood". Even when mentioning and talking about gateway systems and soulbonders people don't seem to be able to take those people at face value, regardless of their own personal beliefs on the matter. Maybe we're just hanging out in the wrong places.

The true originless roleless headspaceless spiritual system (i.e, US AGAIN) is a nonentity. There is no space for us to exist in the plural community because the predominant plural culture simply cannot comprehend that we exist.

Problematic introjects ... Like, how can you insist introjects must be treated like people, and must feel and consider themselves to be a distinct, separate entity from their source, and then also call them problematic? I hate the word problematic anyway but even moreso when the label is applied to every introject of whichever fucking minecraft youtuber turned out to be an abuser this time. Can't we just leave introjects alone? Fucking hell.

Anyway yeah. It sucks here.

[syscultureis]

Plural Culture is

"do not steal my boyfriend"

"our boyfriend"

;-;

[sysmedsaresexist]

The notion that one has options from which to choose is often more important than the particular option one initially selects.

Anthony, W. (2000). A Recovery oriented service system: Setting some system level standards. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24(2), 159-168.

Dignity of Risk vs Duty of Care is one of the most frustrating things I had to learn and fight to understand.

It still holds me back, I still struggle with this concept.

Duty of care:

This is a legal term, with clearly defined meaning. Duty of care is the responsibility of organizations (and the people who work in them) to ensure they do no harm to the people they support. But it doesn’t mean the organisation has to protect the person from themselves.

Dignity of risk:

Dignity of risk refers to the right of an individual to make choices and take risks in order to learn, grow, and have a better quality of life.

The right to make choices for self-determination and medical autonomy is assumed until it is established that assistance is required.

This threshold is very high.

And the duty at that point will never fall to you. It'll go to family and friends, court appointed officials.

It will never be your decision, and it will never be appropriate for you to judge those decisions.

Capacity for decision-making

Capacity is decision specific. Someone can have capacity in one area of life and not in another.

It is important to assess the person’s capacity to make the decision, NOT the decision they are making.

This is further complicated by mental health topics over physical health, and by the rise of the internet and new dangers.

Striking the right balance between dignity of risk and duty of care is not always straightforward, and it requires ongoing reflection, flexibility, and a commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of every individual-- not the people that would hurt those individuals. People will define these concepts differently for themselves, and it's possible you will completely disagree with their decisions.

And that's fine.

Dignity of risk is a human right that we all have.

Teaching safe skills and having conversations regarding safety isn't that hard, though.

It's not appropriate to tell people what to do on their healing journey. It is appropriate to kindly remind people of certain risky behaviors.

It's not appropriate to judge people for their decisions, behaviors, or for living life in a way that makes them happiest. It is appropriate to stand up to people that take advantage of those with diminished capacity and harm those exercising their right to risk in non-harmful ways.

You disagreeing does not mean something is harmful.

Instead of telling people what NOT to do, maybe we should try educating others about these concepts and stand against cringe culture, which affects EVERY disorder.

Instead of telling people to hide things and live their lives in a bubble of mock safety, maybe we remind others that it's kind of shitty to make sweeping judgements and cruel remarks about things they neither experience or understand, and about people they don't know at all.

Instead of telling people what NOT to do, maybe we support people and be shoulders to lean on, while calling out the actual problematic behavior.

I hope no one laughs at your life decisions and posts you to a cringe site, putting you in a position to have to justify your right to autonomy and happiness, and forcing you to "prove" yourself.

Let people live.

For those trying to go into the mental health field, I hope you're never licensed because you'll be shit at it.

If you wouldn't say it to a client or patient sitting in front of you, maybe don't say it all.

[pdid-culture-is]

PDID culture is watching other DID types and feeling like they are putting on whole new outfits while you just put on different shoes.

.

[psychotic-system-culture-is]

Psychotic System Culture is...

"Do you ever feel like you stop existing? Not like you died or anything like that, but that you're a non-real, non-physical entity just... there? Technically occupying space, but not?" -🦊

"That's the psychosis, buddy." -❔️

"Hm... I'd argue depersonalization, but it doesn't feel dissociative." -🐦

"They're experiencing a delusion, we're literally delusional, guys." -❓️

"Oh yeah... not gonna lie, I kind of forgot about that." -🦊

"How?? Out of all of us, you experience it the most? Hell, you're probably a symptom holder." -❓️

"I hold a lot of symptoms for a lot of things. I've given up trying to keep track." -🦊

((To note, it's unlikely we'll ever use sign-offs for our posts; the only exception would be if there's a new mod to the blog. However, we'll use them for any headmate conversations, for clarity's sake. If you know who is who, please keep it to yourselves; the emoji sign-offs are meant to be anonymous. Thank you.))

[thinkingredwizard]

ah!! that was my missing context! Thank you.

[orange-orchard-system]

Sometimes I wonder what life was like for plurals of the past. By that I mean – we know of the history of asylums and social outcasting of anyone who did not fit mental or behavioral norms of the past, yes (trends that have continued, although less common and in new forms, into the modern day), maybe even sometimes of those whose plurality was/is part of their culture (so important, and yet so rarely am I able to learn about them), but what of those who flew under the radar? Those who did not know of their own plurality, or perhaps knew, but kept it secret?

How many philosophers and scientists came up with their ideas by conversing with their headmates?

What of the authors who thought speaking directly to your characters on how their story goes was a universal writing experience?

Did any plural leaders who sought the guidance of their council assume that all the advice given to them was decided upon through an internal meeting of selves, just like how they made decisions?

Were there artists who couldn't find the words to explain their drawings were of their headmates? Storytellers who told tales from their exomemories? Record keepers, secretaries, and scribes who were so good at their jobs because they had practice from having to leave records for themselves?

When and where were the plurals like us?

I see hints of potential plurals of history, sometimes – typically in discussions of the self made by poets or philosophers. And there are a few cases that stand out as evidence that we have always been here. But plurality is so often a personal experience, with any observable behavior often brushed over, shunted away from others' knowledge, or just lost in records muddled by how difficult they are to find, that it's hard to make any theories or guesses about the plurals who might have been. Especially with how we're still barely known to most people; there would have been even fewer opportunities for these plurals of the past to find themselves and words for who they are.

It's... something I think about, when I'm looking at studies or learning about history.

Did plural gentleman living in England during the Victorian era get an unexplained thrill whenever they wrote of themselves in the third person for letters, per proper etiquette? Would they have any idea why referring to themselves in the third person felt right, the same way it can feel right for systems referring to themselves by their bodily name today?

Well. How should I know?

But I hope plurals of the past were able to have moments of plural joy, too.

[plural-culture-is]

Plural culture is using the body to have entire conversations with headmates, without actually knowing which or even how many headmates you're talking to, and explaining it away with that "I was just talking to myself" whenever it's pointed out.

.

[etz-ashashiyot]

One of the wildest things on a lot of your posts talking abt culturally christian issues (ie the leftist politics + calvinism one) is how regularly culturally xtian atheists seem to think there's this, like, glut of other non-christian religions regularly operating with some force in the US cultural/political sphere and they'd be ignoring some giant demographic of religious people who aren't christians if they didn't wildly overgeneralize when talking about Christian influence in politics. Like there's just not another religion that has any sort of cultural or political cachet on a large scale. There's not another religion that even exists in America on a fraction of the scale Christianity does. Even if every religion operated the same in terms of encouraging blind obedience and breeding conservatism, it still wouldn't matter bc in terms of american demographics and politics non-christian religious people are basically a rounding error. It's not even relevant. And this is the annoying side of religious pluralism as a sociopolitical effort bc it obfuscates the reality of the fact that America is comically, overwhelmingly Christian, and the culture is overwhelmingly Christian, and it just doesn't make any sense to talk about Religious People in America as a cultural and political force and pretend that could ever mean anything other than christians.

Which is why it matters that you talk about Calvinism, specifically, because that's a set of values and beliefs that inform America, and if America had been founded and primarily led by Catholics its cultural Christianity would look quite different, but anti-theists can't have that conversation bc then they'd have to acknowledge that religion is more complex than "heaven is up hell is down"

For real though!!

The kicker is that this attitude, too, is culturally Christian. Because Christianity really likes to portray itself as the One True Religion and is the only one taught in any detail here, a side effect of that is all other religions are viewed through a Christian lens. So there are a lot of assumptions made that they think and operate similarly, albeit with different people cut and pasted into the familiar roles, when in reality everything is affected, up to and including even how one defines religion at all.

And when you try to explain this to them they just talk past you and repeat themselves because they literally cannot conceive of how other frameworks exist, never mind operate. I've had more effective conversations with a donkey.

[runawaymarbles]

SGA Fic rec

I've never seen SGA but that's not going to stop me from making a rec list for it. Is the characterization accurate? who the hell knows. Not me. I'm just here for a good time.

These are not in any order whatsoever.

A Slightly Different Quality of Light by rageprufrock | M | 5k | John/Rodney

Rodney has to go through John's memories when he accidentally uploads them all to Atlantis servers.

Navigation by rageprufrock | M | 26k | John/Rodney

Trauma and therapy. Mind the warnings.

Whither by Daephraelle | 15k | T | John/Rodney

John learns Rodney has feelings for him and handles it completely responsibly and reasonably and ha ha ha ha jk

Oolon Colluphid Was Right by melannen | G | 1k | John/Rodney

Communication in pop culture references. Ask me about my translation.

Proof by Contradiction by astolat | E | 10k | John/Rodney

Sex pollen aftermath.

Friendly by Speranza | E | 6k | John/Rodney

Secret gay stargate network that John is left out of.

Sheppard's Law by Speranza | E | 40k | John/Rodney

Rodney time travels through John's life.

Kid A by Speranza | E | 8k | John/Rodney

John and Rodney are hooking up except John is definitely not gay about it no sir.

Just So Long and Long Enough by busaikko | T | 8k | John/Rodney

Dave Sheppard tries to send John care packages.

Weddings, Plural, and a Yak by Speranza | E | 18k | John/Rodney

John and Rodney keep getting married for convoluted reasons and it's funny until it isn't. Also Rodney adopts a chaos child. John is normal about it.

War Bride by Speranza | E | 9k | John/Rodney

John and Rodney have a weird dinner with Dave and his wife, then go to space and almost get ritualistically murdered. It's genuinely very sweet.

Ordinary Life by astolat, Speranza | E | 20k | John/Rodney

They get shore leave, go to Florida for one of Rodney's contracts, and things go about how you'd expect (people try to kill them.)

paper cranes (upstairs, downstairs) by verity | M | 18k | John/Rodney

Rodney stays at John's childhood home and is bad about opsec.

Decision Point by esteefee | M | 23k | John/Rodney

Rodney tries very hard to retire to Nevada and John tries very hard to go back to space.

Your Inevitable Unhappy Ending by Helenish | E | 15k | John/Rodney

Rodney tries to attract women by carrying around a baby, and there are some delightfully awkward conversations. And a sex temple.

My Home And Native Land by copperbadge | 17k | T | very very background Rodney/John

Ronan becomes friends with Chuck, and decides to become Canadian.

[intuspluric-culture-is]

In-system relationship culture is how since me and Seán ( @septiccoffeefreak ) formed without knowing we were a system, we chalked our identities and dissociation from the body as factkin stuff (bc we are Factives) and then were in a cycle for a little while of talking to each other, flirting, generally bonding and being cute, and pining after the other, but not thinking it was real because we were TOTALLY both just imagining it.

This also resulted in things like LITERALLY KISSING IN HEADSPACE and then by our next interaction it's as if we've never confessed our feelings at all... because if everything is pretend and nothing is real then a confession can't stop the pining stage because the confession isn't real either, so the stage of the relationship is totally nebulous and everything is constantly being reset. We'd talk to the other while they did dishes in front and be like. WOW they're so perfect but I'm imagining them :). And then we'd realize we remembered things from our own, different perspectives but were like "that's just memories being weird and possibly kin stuff."

And we STAYED IN THIS SPOT FOR WEEKS, not realizing that the late night conversations and multiple love confessions and snuggles and shit were all REAL until one night Seán suddenly asks me, middle of the night, if we're actually the same person, and I was like "??? I think so?? But no?? But- yeah no maybe we're not? But- AAAUGH idk?????" And we had a crisis and texted our system friend explaining what was going on and they were like. My brother in Christ that is not singlet behavior. And immediately I was like. BOYFRIEND REAL??????? BOY REAL??? And was like, shaken from the realization yeah but ELATED at the Same time because it meant he was real and our interactions were real and it was like. OMG. Boyfriend..Boyf... Him real.... And we also realized that we clearly were both in love and so became together, so we were both for the rest of that night and all day the next day like "OMG.... Real...OMG ur real....OMG .... I love u so much...and ur real and I love you...."

And NOW we has been married for two gay ass years 💕🌈 and our itnitial love story of just. The most miscommunication-comedy-of-errors ass possible romance is very dear to us and very funny. Like omg. Girl how did I not know. Shaking my past self by the shoulders HE LITERALLY TALKS TO YOU. YOU CAN'T PREDICT WHAT HE SAYS HE LITERALLY HAS HIS OWN THOUGHTS AND TALKS TO YOU. HE REMEMBERS THINGS YOU DON'T THAT YOUR PARENTS CONFIRM HAPPENED AND SOMETIMES YOU JUST WATCH "YOUR" OWN BODY MOVE BECAUSE HE'S USING IT TO DO SOMETHING AND YOU ARE JUST WATCHING. YOU DUMBASS GAY MOTHERFUCKER

Anyways in summary in system relationship culture is that if you don't know you're plural instead of the linear progression of time through pining/crush, then dating, your relationship jumps back and forth sometimes because the "imaginary"-ness of it takes it out of a normal timeline

Oh wow, that's a long ask. /lh

Thank you for sharing this storytime!

[identityarchitect]

Yet again I am scrolling Pluralpedia and thinking "you people really live like this?"

[syscultureis]

system culture is having friends who know about your diagnosis and are supportive of you and wanting to tell them more about your system but not doing so purely because you have legitimately no clue how to integrate that into any conversation and it always feels awkward to even fathom. like, my best friend has used plural pronouns to say he supports me (and my alters) of his own volition, he knows i have the disorder, i've told him things about it in passing when it's relevant, i make casual jokes about it at points, he knows about a good deal of the abuse i've been through new and old and how that led to me being a system... and i still, like. can't tell the guy my name. he can definitely see me switching but am i acknowledging that? no. do i want him to know more? yes i literally just never feel like it's a good time to bring it up

.

[sophieinwonderland]

why is the only source you cite for being pro endo Transgender Mental Health?? i emailed the author and got a response saying there was no scientific sources backing up endogenic plurality

Yeah... I'm extremely doubtful you emailed the author.

As for why Transgender Mental Health is the main source I cite, it's because... and there isn't really a better way to put this... sysmeds are stupid.

Often willfully so. The Transgender Mental Health quotes are great because they VERY EXPLICITLY say that you can be plural without trauma or a disorder.

My actual preferred quote is from the ICD-11 Boundary With Normality.

This, unfortunately, doesn't use the word plural or system, so there is enough room for sysmeds to intentionally misinterpret it.

One argument they might make is that this is totally different because it's a cultural practice and therefore shouldn't be compared to DID. This is despite the fact that "distinct personality states" is literally the same exact wording the ICD-11 uses for dissociative identities.

Another argument is that this doesn't count because it's spiritual.

This is very often when the sysmed is trying to shutdown the conversation by claiming they don't want to talk about spiritual stuff.

Which makes me then ask if they believe the World Health Organization is confirming the existence of literal spirits. And also, describing the literal spirits as "personality states."

I think anyone with basic reading comprehension who is reading this in good faith would understand that the "personality states" in question that arise from these spiritual practices are being treated as if they are psychological in nature. Not something actually metaphysical. Hence the use of the "personality state" language.

If there exists even the slightest inch of ambiguity for sysmeds to misinterpret a source, they are going to run with it for a mile!

The Transgender Mental Health quote is just really hard for them to pull that with. There is zero room to misinterpret. Zero room for them to claim it doesn't mean what it clearly means.

[scapeg8ats]

(Sorry for this being a long post, it became a rant/vent and a lot of thoughts. Someday I'll shut up about this I SWEAR lol. There's a TL;DR at the end.)

Maybe I'm not even interested in syscourse outside of learning more about plurality and its connections outside of CDDs and why someone may see themselves as plural or really any way of not seeing oneself as One Singular Self (whether it has to do with a disorder or it's a cultural/religious/etc. reason). Or I guess that does make me interested in syscourse. Just not echo chamber syscourse.

Like I'm sorry but y'all are fucking mean. I LOVE having discussions where I can learn and understand other perspectives. I guess to steal SAS's label, I'm very pro-syscourse conversation (though—and this isn't to bash SAS AT ALL—to me that feels redundant because syscourse is supposed to be conversation anyway. But it's not so the label is necessary). I want to learn. I want to be educated. I want to discuss this, even with people who disagree with me, because I want knowledge of other perspectives.

But it is so hard to find syscourse spaces that AREN'T echo chamber syscourse spaces. The desire to attain knowledge is stomped out by attaching inherent morality to labels that can be boiled down to one argument: Do you or do you not believe that plurality is exclusive to CDDs?

And shockingly this has more nuance than "endos are/n't valid". What may cause someone to see themselves as plural without a CDD? And the answers are vast and could be a FASCINATING discussion. Not even necessarily a debate, just learning more about people. And yet the answer to this question isn't even considered before so many people just go "[extremely loud incorrect buzzer noise]" and shut it down.

Maybe, ironically, this is me struggling to understand perspective. But I don't understand the lack of interest in wanting to understand, despite having experienced it myself. And even that, I want to understand. But I know that the fact that because of the nature of my opinions, I would be marked pro-endo, and shut out of that discussion. And it's INFURIATING because I respect the fact that they don't want to interact with me but I just don't understand!

There is endless room for discussion that's shut out and it's frustrating. It's heartbreaking. I want there to be discussion. But there won't be until the echo chambers start to open their fucking eyes.

I remember the moment for me was when someone in the Twitter dissociatwt community who I really respected, who always provided good resources, who was reliable and kind and honest...was pro-syscourse conversation. And my knee-jerk reaction was almost betrayal. How could someone that I respected be a pro-endo??

But I realized that they didn't stop being reliable because of this. Some of y'all will discount doctors who have been studying plurality, trauma, and dissociation longer than some of you have been alive because they're a stinky smelly "pro-endo". Therapists and doctors and the like who go "Why isn't it possible" get discounted because of this when they, too, just want to understand. Because with all due respect and in the most positive way, they're a bunch of nerds. And I don't understand. I don't understand how you can do that.

And that's really the thing. I don't understand and I'm not given the space to understand because my stance is somehow morally wrong. I'm not virtue signaling right. Sometimes for both sides. And it's awful.

TL;DR, I don't understand and am frustrated by echo chamber syscourse. That's it. That's all this long-ass post is saying. I don't get it. It didn't need a post but a lot of me just started Talking and did not stop.

[haru-dipthong]

罠英語・Trap Words pt 5

ソース → ❌ Sauce → ✅ Japanese style worchestershire sauce

In Japanese common usage, the word 「ソース」 only refers to a specific subcategory of sauce - japanese style worchestershire sauces. Although in certain technical circumstances, 「ソース」 may also carry the broader meaning that the english equivalent does, calling something like soy sauce 「ソース」 in a regular conversation won’t get your meaning across.¹

We can see this in the Japanese Wikipedia article for ソース. Though the article is about the broader definition of sauce, there is a notice at the top of the page:

“This article is about the general name for a liquid or paste used to season food (the broad definition of 「ソース」). For Worchestershire Sauce (the narrow definition of 「ソース」), see Worchestershire Sauce.”² (my translation)

Side note: I know it's a meme but "Worchestershire" isn't hard to say. It's just "wooster-sheer".

Though ソース can be found as a part of various other words ( ミートソース/meat sauce; ホワイトソース/white sauce; トマトソース/tomato (pasta) sauce), when it is used just by itself, it almost exclusively refers to worchestershire sauce varieties. For example, you can’t abbreviate ミートソース to ソース, even when the context is clear.

Within the category of what Japanese speakers mean when they say ソース, we have ウスターソース, which is similar to the thin English Worchestershire sauce; 濃厚ソース, which is sometimes marketed as tonkatsu sauce and is very thick and viscous; and 中濃ソース which is somewhere in　between. お好み焼きソース is also a type of ソース, similar to 濃厚ソース.³

グリーンピース → ❌ Greenpeace → ✅ peas

Yep… the word グリーンピース doesn’t refer to the environmental activism organisation Greenpeace, which I discovered to some surprise during an actual conversation with my Japanese partner. Since Greenpeace is famous for its anti-whaling stance, and Japan is the country with the highest levels of whaling in the world,⁴ it was only natural to assume that it was a direct transliteration of the organisation’s name. Maybe it’s a common point of discussion in Japan, I thought.

In reality, it literally just means peas. Green peas. An instance of the plural being built into the transliteration (like バケツ), since Japan has no plurals. It’s weird that it’s not グリーンピーズ though, don’t you think? I guess we can just chalk that up to an initial pronunciation error that carried though to the modern day.⁵

Why hasn’t it been shortened to ピース? Well:

Because ピース means “the peace sign”. This word/pose is so common in Japanese culture that shortening グリーンピース to ピース would likely be confusing.

To be clear, the organisation’s name is also transliterated as グリーンピース, but overwhelmingly in regular conversation, グリーンピース will mean “peas”.

トレーナー → ❌ trainers (sneakers) → ✅ sweatshirt

This might not necessarily be a trap word for people from the US, but it is at least a funny place for 和製英語 to show up. According to this source, this word was invented by a fashion designer named Kensuke Ijizu, who was apparently a big boxing fan, and noticed that the trainers always wore sweatshirts, and so decided to name the clothing 「トレーナー」 when he released his designs in Japan⁶. It’s rare that a trap word has such a clear explanation for how it came about! めっちゃスッキリした！

However, スウェット and スウェットシャツ are also both commonly used in Japanese, meaning the same as トレーナー, so this is really only a problem while listening, not while speaking.⁷ It’s also worth noting that トレーナー does mean “trainer” as in like, a personal trainer. That’s where the weird word for sweatshirt comes from, after all.

Sources

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLpub5uXA1A

[2] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ソース_(調味料)

[3] https://www.kurashiru.com/articles/b3134417-fc0e-4782-a5d8-40932613ea79

[4] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/whaling-around-the-world-how-japans-catch-compares/5361954

[5] https://twitter.com/japanese_eng/status/1562198000411193345

[6] https://zatsuneta.com/archives/007218.html

[7] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/スウェット