#pluralphobia

[thetransfemininereview]

My new essay about the interconnections between transmisogyny and pluralphobia is live right now! It's titled "Transfemininity and Dissociative Identity Disorder: An Undertheorized Intersection," and you can read it here ✨

[tommyssupercoolblog]

Plurality in YouTube series: 😊🌸🌈🫶 we're just chilling ✨😋 casual representation you know ^^ just normal everyday life thinggs 🌈🌈 we accept you 🌈😋🌸🫶🐱

Plurality in Hollywood: THIS WILL KILL YOU AND ALSO EVERYONE ELSE. SEE THAT SYSTEM?? SERIAL KILLER DANGEROUS SO SCARY KILL COUNT ONE MILLION ORPHANS. 🔥🔥🔪🔫😱👹👹 "ALTERS" WILL RIP YOUR SKIN OFF AND WEAR IT 💀💀💀 DO NOT TRUST THESE CRAZY BITCHES YOU'RE A CRAZY BITCH YOU SJOULD BE ON JAIL 👮‍♀️🚓🚔 MONSTER U R A MONSTER EVERYONE WATCG THE FUCJ OUT BEFORE THEY GET YOU!!! They'll fuckin GETTTTT YOUUUUUUHUUUU crazy bitch LMAO die all of you die forever no more systems 🖤❤️‍🔥 go fuck yourself freak

[orange-orchard-system]

I wrote a whole f-cking poem about this that I may or may not publish but. I need to stop looking at syscourse. People are arguing over whether or not pluralphobia is bad enough to care about and what kinds of discrimination it's okay to draw parallels between and I'm just here like. Okay. Great. So anyway, regardless of these slapfights, I'm still stuck depending on openly and specifically pluralphobic family – as in, my own family I directly depend upon who have outright stated their hostility towards systems specifically– to be housed and fed. I have met multiple other systems offline in my local area who are stuck in the same position I am, with unsupportive if not outright hostile and hateful family. We are forced to remain closeted for our own safety and to ensure our basic needs are met. Can we focus on problems like that, please? We can hold the Oppression Olympics after we get a start on making sure vulnerable systems are safe.

[funnier-as-a-system]

For post recognition 🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝

About inter-system dating and that singlet teacher saying its a bad idea -

For context two of our headmates are dating, and honestly I/we dont really know what that looks like aside from them, even when one of them is fronting. Its private, its not for the rest of us to know. So like, its a fact of our system but its also not something Im super knowledgeable about?

That being said. Singlets are encouraged to "take themselves on dates", go to restaurants and movies alone, to not wait for a partner to do nice things with in order to do nice things.

I assume for some systems, intra-system dating happens in the physical world, and from the outside thats literally no different from a singlet doing those "romantic" activities on their own.

Like. What harm can that possibly cause?? "Take yourself on a date but only if theres one of you in your body" is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous when you put it like that, haha! I think it comes from many singlets just not knowing how to respond to plurality, so they treat it with fear and derision, something "other" that must be "fixed" or at the very least "kept away from normal people". When you get into it, there's nothing especially wrong with intrasystem dating, and it's not all that different from the scenario you just described. We've had dates and hang-outs in the physical world like that, and they've been enjoyable events that have deepened our affection for and understanding of each other. I wish I could easily explain to singlets about how that's the opposite of unhealthy for a system.

[pluralprompts]

[Had an error when trying to post an ask. This is our attempt at a work-around.]

Anonymous asked: Could you please put that your pro-endo in your bio? Considering the main difference between antis and pros is that we define "all plurals" differently, it's not very clear what you meant, and I thought you were anti-endo until I went through every single one of your side blogs mentioned in your pinned post

-an anti-endo who loves your prompts, the newest prompts tags just took me off guard <3

As you have noted, We use the term "plural" in our posts and blog name, which is inherently inclusive/pro-endo and has been since its coining decades ago, so I am not going to honor this unnecessary request. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but if you're using "plural" in any sort of anti-endo or generally exclusionist way, you are using it incorrectly, since it originated as an inclusive alternative to terms that had more medical associations. I'm honestly offended that you thought I was part of the same group of exclusionists that has openly and repeatedly told me they want me dead, have sent me gore in response to a positivity post, recently invaded inclusive tags to spread hate, and regularly tell me to kill myself – hell, you yourself are admitting that you are against my right to self-determination if not my very existence, alongside my religious and spiritual beliefs (I don't have to tell you how this in particular is an asshole move, do I?), and believe that you somehow know what's going on inside my head better than I or even – at the very least, if you won't listen to me and the thousands of other endogenic systems about our own lives – the doctors actually studying endogenic plurality do, considering our endogenic origins. I will not block you so that you can see this response, but you are not welcome here. Here is a document full of sources about endogenic plurality existing and being recognized as a real and valid scientific phenomenon, not to mention how it is a cultural, spiritual, and religious practice found around the world; I hope you educate yourself and grow as a person. You seem to be trying to be polite, so I can only hope that you are just someone who has been horribly misinformed about pro-endos and endogenic systems.

However, at the same time, please understand that you are asking a blog with an inherently inclusive term in the title and all their posts, and a pinned post that clarifies yes, they do mean they support all systems (and advise those who don't support all systems not to interact), to put a separate warning in their bio that yes, they actually really do mean it when they say they support all systems. The thing is, I wouldn't have a problem with this request if it wasn't under this context. You yourself have admitted that you read my pinned post; how did you take the section that says all systems/plurals are welcome (and exclusionists like you are not) and somehow think it meant we didn't actually mean all? If you're excluding anyone from your definition of "all plurals" by adding little rules like "must be traumagenic", you don't mean all. You mean some. You, as an anti-endo, as an anti- certain plurals, only support some plurals. Someone who is against part of a community does not support all of a community; they only support the part of the community they are not against, which is only some of the community. This is how quantitative words work. Just because you have decided that the part of the community you personally choose to support and give basic respect to is the only "real" or "valid" part of the community doesn't mean the part you don't support stops existing or stops using the label you claim to support fully and without any restrictions or rules (since that is what supporting all of a community means); you don't actually support all plurals, and I'm concerned that you ever thought you did. I could break out a Euler diagram if it would make it clearer that only supporting some does not mean supporting all, and that supporting all does not mean supporting only a particular group. That's like saying you support all animals while being anti mammals and, at best, believing they're all actually confused and misguided birds – or, as I'll elaborate on in a moment, saying you support all queer people while being an aphobe who, at best, thinks aspecs are all just confused and misguided gays. That is not support, and you are certainly not giving your actual respect to all plurals. I say this delicately, but I don't think you should be participating in syscourse if you have trouble with the concept that excluding people from a label means not being inclusive of all people who use that label.

If a comparison will help you understand our response, especially the passive aggressiveness that I can admit is fully leaking through – this ask is essentially the same as how aphobes, during the years of "ace discourse", would occasionally react with surprise that queer blogs supported aspecs, despite aspecs being documented parts of and contributors to the queer community for decades, and queer being an inclusive term. In essence, "I know you're using an inclusive term that both historically and in the modern day includes people I hate, but I really thought you would agree with me that said marginalized group that I hate shouldn't exist, and that this community would be better off if they were all gone!" Meanwhile, aphobes were posting gore in the aspec tags, making fun of the murder of an asexual girl, spreading lies of pedophilia about anyone who showed support for aspecs, and telling aspecs that they were lying about the discrimination they've faced, that their sexualities were just trauma responses or mental illnesses, that they were broken and needed to be "fixed", that they were "stealing terms" and "making the community look bad", that they were making it all up for attention, or just straight-up to kill themselves. None of these examples are all too dissimilar from what I regularly see anti-endos saying and doing – some of them are the exact same save some of the specific words used by these bigots swapped out for more system specific ones. Just today I saw an anti-endo claim that pro-endos are "grooming children" just by being inclusive, like how aphobes claim aspec people are "grooming children".

Yes, I am aware this is harsh to hear. No, I am not going to apologize – your community and hatred is part of the reason we have traumagenic origins (hello, the one writing this is a protector who split specifically due to the trauma you anti-endos inflicted on us!! In other words, your community is directly responsible for my traumagenic existence!! Should I be thanking you for allowing me a chance to experience the better parts of life? Hm, nah.) and are scared to interact with others who share our own damn disorder. You claim the "main difference" between us and you is that we define "all plurals" differently, but from where we're standing, the "main difference" is that pro-endos aren't regularly traumatizing, harassing, suicide baiting, mocking and insulting, spreading misinformation about, using slurs against, wishing harm on, and fakeclaiming the other side, often for merely disagreeing with them. We just came out of a harassment campaign in which anti-endos spread hate in our inclusive tags and spaces for weeks. I'm fucking sick of syscourse and being told I should kill myself for the "crime" of being inclusive of endogenic systems like the ones that helped me accept my plurality in the first place, or the pro-endos that create resources that help me manage my DID and not be a dissociative wreck all the time. To say the main difference between our communities is "how we define 'all plurals'" is a spit in the face of all the shit I and many, many others have faced from anti-endos like you over the years.

If you change your stance and learn not to hate others for their religions, cultures, traits they can't control, and personal beliefs and choices about their own body and mind, we will be happy to welcome you to our community and this blog. But until then, you need to re-evaluate your priorities and morals in life. Are you fine with being part of a community that twists others' words on the regular to make it seem like they're promoting child abuse? Are you chill with the fact that I exist as a protector to defend my system from people like you, the same way many others in my system exist to protect us from other abusers and threats to our safety and health? Are you okay with telling a living, breathing person you admire and enjoy the work of that you disagree with their identity and existence, and that you ally yourself with those who want them dead just for existing, have even personally threatened their life and well-being, as you have just done with this ask?

What took me off-guard was this ask and just how horribly you seem to be unaware of basic concepts like "plural is an inclusive term signaling someone is pro-endo" and "'all systems' does not mean 'only traumagenic systems'." But I guess in a way, it's only fair; you mistook me for one of those who hate my guts – while I can't tell even as I type this if you are a troll or not.

TLDR: No, we will not clarify in our bio that we are pro-endo, because there is no need to do so when we already use terms that signal that everywhere on our blog, and our pinned post even clarifies our stance in the rare case someone doesn't know the signal. You have been horribly misinformed; you cannot support "all plurals" while being against certain plurals, and "plural" is an inclusive term anyway even without that clarification. Again, you have misunderstood our pinned post which tells anti-endos like you to fuck off, which is almost funny considering we put that section in the post due to the horrendous amounts of harassment we and other pro-endos (not even just endogenic systems; a lot of anti-endos group all of us together as "fakers spreading misinformation") have faced from anti-endos like you. Please go think about the kind of people you're spending time with, and ask yourself if you're okay with being part of the same group of people that wants those like me dead for the crime of existing in a way that doesn't adhere to one specific medical model whose authors acknowledge isn't the only way to be more-than-one, anyway.

Have the day you deserve! <3

[neuroticboyfriend]

Thoughts on endogenetic systems

Endogenic systems are epic. They're actually what helped us start to heal from doctors trying to "cure" us because they thought my headmates were just hallucinations. I was front locked for a long time bc of that trauma (and intracommunity pluralphobia did not help). I'm still very frontstuck and struggle with a lot of denial.

But endogenic systems just existing made me realize that it doesn't matter if my headmates are psychosis or not (and, we did have some identity delusion related alters, so we're partly endogenic too). That opened me up to reconsidering my plurality. I've also realized that even though I've been frontlocked, I myself am a median subsystem (i.e, I have facets - versions of myself connected to certain times in my life).

There's so many ways to be plural, and us experiencing things is what makes us real, not the validations of doctors - especially not singlets.

[sophieinwonderland]

People shouldn't feel safe identifying as being against the existence of a marginalized community.

If they do and it's normalized, it's because there is something deeply wrong with the world that needs to be fixed.

[cavityinmybrain]

i think this pluralphobia discourse that has started is so frustrating in part because people are taking the statement "pluralphobia is not a systemic issue but is instead part of a larger systemic issue" to be saying the same thing as "pluralphobia isn't important" which isn't at all what is being said

[the-alarm-system]

saw wolfentiger’s post on his toxic experiences online, and like fuck

you guys fucking love to call poc trans systems pedophiles. Some of you white pieces of shit will be like “yeah being endo is a white thing but we’d never do that” then go after POC pro endo systems and make sure they get used to the harassment you give them - Ardyn

[neiviele]

Ways pluralphobia could present outside of ableism, racism, or queerphobia:

An endogenic system is pushed away from identifying as plural due to worries from others that it will impact their development negatively, actively impeding their system functioning in the process.

A tulpamancy system finds that they've developed allergies due to being plural, and finds that they need medical care that they can't access due to their plurality. (This disability comes and goes with one headmate.) Additionally, the fear of being called fake and the implication they "did this to themselves" prevents them from seeking help.

A tulpamancy system finds they can't come out to family, because their family threatens them with disowning them for partaking in "demonic activities".

Systems are constantly misled or gaslit into thinking they're not plural for the comfort of others, even when it might lead to self harm or suicide.

A tulpamancy system has to hide their plurality and relationships from friends, family and others around them, causing them stress and added troubles trying to navigate their lives together.

Spiritual systems may need to hide their occult practices and existences from others for fear of persecution, even when other religions might get a pass (for example Christianity and Islam may get a certain degree of social approval even in intolerant climates, as compared to other religions involving active spiritual possession). Some countries might have stricter rules against this than others and persecute anybody believing in or engaging in possession.

A system is stuck in a situation that they cannot escape without external help, but their situation would require their plurality to be explained (potentially putting them in further danger) in order to make sense.

An endogenic system switches at work, and is subject to mockery and harassment for their headmate's reaction to the situation. (Their system is very overt, and system members may struggle to present as one.) Explaining themselves comes at risk of them being fired from work, as this could be seen as an excuse.

A system has their personal information revealed once it's discovered they are one, and after people find this weird. They are doxxed and harassed simply for being a system, not any other traits of theirs.

Some of these I've heard from others, and some we've experienced. Do I think it's "as bad" as racism, sexism, ableism, etc? For many it might not be, since we're generally not getting hunted down in the streets for being plural or being endogenic. But it still exists, and if we were to be more open about ourselves I'm certain the hate would be compounded.

[tommyssupercoolblog]

Hey why does the YouTube search for introject bring up "how to get rid of an introject" "scared of losing friends because you have an introject" "un-introject things" "destroy introjects (aka perform an exorcism)" ? I feel. So awful what the fuck. Also for the exorcism one- introjects aren't demons you dumbass. Alters aren't DEMONS BRO???

Apparently introjects are viewed as evil and cringe and a thing to be killed so....wow. um. Feeling very unsafe in the chilli's tonight knowing people think that about people like me

[orange-orchard-system]

"dehumanization is the weapon of the enemy and it is wrong to do to anyone" also goes for systems btw.

Dehumanization is the process of denying someone's humanity or personhood; to say they do not occupy the same position as a full human person, and as such, are not to be treated as a full human person. It's often used as the reasoning behind being cruel to someone – "They're not a person like you and I, so it's okay to treat them as lesser.", essentially. It's not always as clear-cut as "this thing isn't a person", nor will those dehumanizing others always realize that's what they're doing, but it's typically an intentional effort to divorce "acceptable humans" from "unacceptable monsters/things/devils".

Dehumanization is a shitty thing to do. It is still a shitty thing to do when the victims are systems and/or the headmates in systems.

Whether you see our selves, or the selves of anyone else, as people, parts, or anything else, you need to treat us like people. Denying us this position of personhood is to deny us rights and respect. To do so is to declare that we are lesser than you, that you don't need to listen to or care about us; that it's okay to treat us poorly and differently. To prevent this, then (and some system punching you in the face down the line, sorry not sorry, talk shit get hit (especially when your "shit" is a key component of fascism)), you must learn to recognize when you are treating us not only as other, but as lesser.

If you force parts language onto all of us with the excuse that it's impossible to be more than one person in a single body, you're dehumanizing systems. If you tell headmates that they're not allowed to use the same vocabulary as real people – whoops, I mean singlets [PT: real people – whoops, I mean singlets / end PT] to describe themselves, you're dehumanizing systems. If you make a rule that introjects are not allowed to go by their own names in your community, but real people – whoops, I mean singlets [PT: real people – whoops, I mean singlets / end PT] who happen to have those same names are allowed to, you're dehumanizing systems. If you deny us the right to have our own religious and spiritual beliefs the second those beliefs involve our plurality, you're dehumanizing systems. If your argument is "this would be fine if you were a real person [PT: a real person / end PT] the only one in your body, but you're not, so it's not", congratulations! You are dehumanizing systems. You are denying them the position of personhood. I do not trust you, you need to take a step back and correct yourself, and until you do that, I don't think you're a safe person for any marginalized group or person to be around, since you've shown yourself to be someone who is all-too-happy to buy into the excuses of why it's okay if we're treated like shit.

I want to make it clear that this isn't an argument against parts language. Some systems or individual headmates don't like to call themselves people and choose to call themselves parts, and that's fine. But no matter the language someone(s) uses for themselves, you still need to treat them like people. You need to watch the way you talk about us, you need to unpack your pluralphobia and sanism, and you need to respect each headmate as an individual with their own thoughts, emotions, opinions, experiences, and worldviews, even when that means simultaneously respecting them as part of a whole. Some systems using parts language is not an excuse to treat them, or any other system, like shit. Respecting how someone wishes to be referred to does not give you free range to disrespect them in other ways.

"But isn't it impossible to be more than one person in a single body?" Personhood is a concept, not a law of nature, as seen by how easy it is to take it away. Therefore, whether it's "impossible" is not only irrelevant, but impossible to determine for certain. Whether or not individual headmates meet some arbitrary standard for personhood*, you still need to show them the respect you would anyone who is the only being in their body. You need to hold your gddamn tongue [PT: hold your gddamn tongue / end PT] if you don't believe it's possible to have more than one person or self or part or anything else in the same bodymind. I do not care about your personal beliefs, have whatever philosophical views you want, just don't make them the problem of anyone else. Don't share your opinion where it's not explicitly asked for, and don't be surprised if you're called an asshole for telling strangers that you don't consider them real people.

* We don't even have a standard, btw! There is no standard! We're still figuring out how to define consciousness, and you think personhood is somehow a concrete, perfectly defined, and universally understood idea? You must be joking if you think it's some sort of law of the universe that one body = one person. Get out of here.

"But (marginalized group/person said) –" yeah, I hate to tell you this, but you can be part of a marginalized group and still a fucking asshole. Especially when it comes to a group you don't know much about and don't interact with all that often, thus leaving your preconceived biased unchallenged. It doesn't become okay to dehumanize a group just because you're not top of the pecking order. Transphobia is still transphobia when it comes from a cis woman; pluralphobia is still pluralphobia and dehumanization is still dehumanization when it comes from someone who is part of a marginalized group.

"But this headmate doesn't identify as human!" Yeah, cool, not an excuse to be an asshole to them or treat them as lesser. Seriously, this is not a comeback. "I think it's okay to treat others badly if they identify in a way I don't like despite it harming no one and obviously being important to them." isn't an own. And neither is the implication that it's okay to treat anything that isn't a human like shit; this just makes it sound like you're fine with animal abuse.

Dehumanization is basic cruelty that borrows from the fascist playbook. It's wrong to do to anyone, and that includes systems and individual headmates. Systems, plurals, and all others who are more-than-one – you don't have to sit and take it. You can tell them off for it. You can tell them this is unacceptable. You can tell them exactly what flavor of shit they're spewing. You deserve the full respect and rights that anyone else is given. Spit in the face of bigots. And may everyone who's ever been dehumanized for being more-than-one find unexpected luck this week – you deserve it for ever having to put up with such bullshit.

[funnier-as-a-system]

Hiii. Not sure if this even counts as a question to be fair, nor is this a funny suggestion, but like.

For my final project in college I'm kind of making a game concept about plurality (as a system host myself) and uhm long story short I guess.

I made two characters-alters, one of which is female and the other is male, and the teacher who curates my project was like (super paraphrased) "I'm getting some romantic connotations here and I think we shouldn't show people that you can literally date yourself, cuz that seems super unhealthy" and he then backed down a bit and was like "well it's not really normal so maybe think about that some more".

And so like. The concept I'm making is based on the complicated relationship between me and my co-host. I am heavily basing the characters on me and that co-host, I am heavily using the issues we had in our relationship, to hopefully be able to show people who are new to plurality that you shouldn't treat your alters the way me and my co-host treated each other before, because THAT is what was unhealthy.

All of which is to say, right now I am married to that co-host and I'm very happy about that, but my teacher's words quite hurt me. Like I literally don't even understand what could be so unhealthy about in-system dating. How rare even is that? Is my perception of in-system dating just that skewed, since nearly all our alters are in a relationship with each other? Most importantly, am I faki-

(Also, by saying that, the teacher inadvertently recommended me to make it a gay ship. Lol? I wish I could make one of the characters an enby like me and avoid the issue entirely, but I can't) (My husband The Co-Host said that the teacher is just rude)

There's nothing inherently unhealthy about intrasystem dating. I've found most people who claim it's "unhealthy" actually mean "I find it weird and I can't distinguish between my personal discomfort and something that's actually bad." – a frustrating argument, but one we're familiar with, and one that should largely be ignored unless you're looking to engage in an educational discussion with someone who holds this view. Others claim it is unhealthy because it "encourages division/dissociation between headmates", but this is largely based on the idea that headmates having any sort of personal identity or self-identification gets in the way of achieving final fusion, which has its own flaws as an argument, including final fusion not being the goal or healthiest option for all systems, as well as ignoring that [harmful] dissociation may increase if a headmate does not have any sort of personal identity to distinguish themselves from the rest of their system with. In short, the arguments against intrasystem dating tend to boil down to "I think this is bad for you because it doesn't fit into what I think people should do", which only shows one's own close-mindedness.

Since plurality is an unfamiliar concept to most people, they don't have the experience necessary to distinguish between genuine red flags and something niche that just takes time to get used to the idea of. Intrasystem dating is niche, but it's no more inherently unhealthy than other kinds of niche dating, like t4t partnerships. The same argument has been used against polyamorous relationships for being similarly uncommon and going against what people expect of relationships (particularly romantic ones), but those are not inherently unhealthy either; it goes to show that people will reuse the same arguments against any kind of relationship they do not approve of, rather than taking a step back and considering for themselves if a particular relationship dynamic is inherently unhealthy. While intrasystem dating can be unhealthy, it is not inherently so just due to the relationship dynamic.

When backing down, your teacher said intrasystem dating is "not really normal", and that truly is the crux of this argument. People do not like that which does not fall neatly into their understandings of "normal", and think anything that isn't normal is automatically bad. This is untrue. I would say to hold strong to your original vision for your project, not just for yourself/ves, but because refusing to fall in line and pretend to be "normal" is how we achieve progress. Even if your teacher doesn't change his mind, your work may introduce the concept to someone else, making it less unfamiliar (more familiar) and more normal to them, leading to more people understanding and accepting not just systems in general, but intrasystem dating specifically.

Speaking of, to answer your question, while intrasystem dating is uncommon, I don't believe it's especially rare – I could name several of our headmates right now who are in a polyamorous partnership with each other, as well as a handful of other couples. We've known many other systems who have had some or all headmates dating each other. It's not the most common topic to talk about in the community, but it is certainly a topic frequent enough to be brought up from time to time.

Your teacher was rude and incorrect. I have sympathy for the hurt you feel because of his pluralphobic words, and I hope you're able to feel better about this incident soon. Remember, staying true to yourself will almost always feel better than hiding who you are for the comfort of others, so if you feel safe enough to go for it, push onward and continue your work with all its authenticity and intrasystem dating included. I wish you luck in your game development and your final project!

[pluralprompts]

Prompt #1,681

That wasn't Character A.

Character B's breath froze in their lungs, staring back at the unfamiliar, apathetic gaze of whoever – whatever – was possessing Character A's body. Several seconds passed as both watched the other without a sound (save for the pounding of blood Character B felt more than heard from their heart) – but the one in Character A's body looked away first.

"You can tell, can't you." It wasn't a question. It didn't have the cadence Character A would use when asking a not-question, but it wasn't a question. "Before you say anything, you should know I don't want to be here any more than you want me to. I'm waiting for Character A to get back, same as you."

Character B's breath escaped them at those words – all at once and in a wheeze. "What?"

[moonpool-system]

Host-centricism is a plague on the plural community inflicted by ableists & pluralphobics, and it's fucking exhausting. The immediate assumption that the host is the only one to post important things erases our individual voices and reinforces the disgusting concept that the host is simply "roleplaying" as us. I'm fucking sick of it. I EXIST, I'M REAL. The host isn't more important than me, we're not a fucking dictatorship. I'm just as alive, I exist just as much as they do, and I have a fucking say in this plural community too.

Guess we'll go ahead and start signing off with whomever wrote the post.

- Eclipse

[sophieinwonderland]

I am never going to buy into the pluralphobia-deniers argument that all pluralphobia is misdirected ableism when discrimination against systems often manifests in the form of religious persecution.

"You're only being discriminated against because people see you as having a disorder" really doesn't fly when the people discriminating against or abusing you are claiming you have a demon in you.

I am lucky enough to have avoided this, but that's probably because we don't flaunt our plurality offline, and it's not something that's really known about by people that aren't immediate family. And we are lucky enough to have a pretty supportive family where others haven't been.

But this doesn't change the fact that many systems have experienced persecution by people who did not, in fact, see them as having a mental disorder.

Fear and prejudice against multiples is far deeper (and older) than just being ableism.

And it's frustrating to keep having to come back to this conversation with people who want to deny that systems are actually discriminated against for being systems. For being plural. For being any flavor of multiple in one body.