#power to the plurals | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

circular-bircular · 5 months ago

Note

Hi, sorry this is a big ask but what are your thoughts on this article?

https://powertotheplurals.com/why-the-theory-of-structural-dissociation-is-ableist/

We don't know enough to go through and say exactly that it's wrong but something feels wrong? Like that's not our experience being treated by someone who believes in the theory of structural dissociation.

Also this article was introduced to me as the argument against sysmeds but the theory of structural dissociation has grown since its creation and I can name two people who came up with theories that are the basis of modern psychiatry who should never practice.

Again though we don't really know enough to say any of that for certain and I hope we don't look silly.

Alright, let's start clearing out my drafts and inbox with this lovely ask!

I have been sitting on this ask for eons. I got it, wanted to work on it but died during the school year by way of teaching being hell, and then promptly forgot it existed. However, a thousand and one people have broken this article down for the sheer absurdity of how bad it is. Like, it's really bad.

This article is 1000% just fearmongering bullshit to steer people away from a very, very valuable theory. Anon, you do not need to feel the need to sway your opinions on the ToSD -- first and foremost, above all else, you determine what helps you the most and what theories benefit your system. Not anyone else's sayings.

But let's dig into it, shall we?

We start off with a huge image of a video about Otto Van Der Hart, author of The Haunted Self and a very instrumental psychologist in the understanding of DID. This is immediately followed by the following statement:

The above video was recently released after one of the authors of Structural Dissociation lost his license for life and can never practice again.

[VERY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]

He's not one of the authors of Structural Dissociation. He's one of the authors of The Haunted Self. He did not invent the theory; the Theory of Structural Dissociation was not the invention of The Haunted Self. The ToSD was the invention of many, many, many people working together to understand pieces of dissociation, and Van Der Hart, alongside Kathy Steele and Ellert R Nijenhuis, created The Haunted Self to publish a focused overview of everything related to it. To call him "one of the authors of the theory" is really discounting the fact that this theory is far more wide-reaching than just The Haunted Self.

But that's me being a little nitpicky.

Me being VERY nitpicky is their linked article immediately after this statement with the falsehood about how Final Fusion only works 12.8% of the time. This has been thoroughly debunked. Here's an example of a debunk! I'm incredibly frustrated to not even be able to get to the bulk of the article, simply because they're so insistent on plugging their own misinformation.

Then a link about Otto Van Der Hart losing his license... Then another link about it... Why is this necessary for "The ToSD is ableist"? Seems like you meant "Otto Van Der Hart is ableist" and your editors just got confused by the 4 letter word. Let's see, one last PTTP link... Okay, article time!

Anyone who has watched a DID youtube video, or read a few posts in a support group, has seen it pass by: The theory of Structural dissociation, written by Ellert Neijenhuis, Onno van der Hart, Suzette Boon and Kathy Steele.

Very confused why you keep saying the ToSD was written by these people, but you continue on to acknowledge that the ToSD was not written solely by these individuals. This article feels disjointed as fuck and there's only actually been like... two paragraphs! How did you manage that?

It’s good to know that in 1987, the writers of this theory already referred to us as parts, not personalities or alters, as the common terms were back then. Now, you might think this was progressive, ahead of its time — but was it really?

Yes. It was. As someone who is relieved to be seen as a part of a whole, rather than a distinct personality who is wildly out of control, I'm thrilled to see parts language in my history.

It was actually, psychologist and psychiatrist Charles Samual Myers, who in 1916 wrote about Apparently Normal Part (ANP) and Emotional Part (EP) after acute trauma in WW1. So it is fair to say that the theory of Structural dissociation borrowed these terms, not introduced them, as is readable in the haunted self. (page 4)

Yep. So why were you so insistent for so long that the authors of the Haunted Self "created" the theory when... you're literally acknowledging some of the history of the theory here?

Let's see... you then acknowledge another author who should also be credited as helping to create the ToSD, once again contradicting the start of your article...

It is also good to realize that the theory of Structural dissociation is neither about DID, nor is it about alters, as many of us Plurals know them. They speak of ‘dissociative parts of the personality’, caused by trauma. Nota bene, not early childhood trauma, trauma in general. As this theory of structural dissociation also explains single trauma, repeated trauma in adulthood and (early) childhood trauma. It is used to describe changes that are diagnosed as (c)PTSD, trauma related borderline personality disorder, DID and more.

Yeah, this part is true! The ToSD is not only about DID, or childhood trauma, or even repeated trauma. It's... about structural dissociation. It's in the name. Not sure why so many people are so confused about that.

As you can see in this image, all types of Structural dissociation have EP and ANP elements which Myers talked about. In other words, the theory puts forward that all traumatized people have ‘dissociative parts of the personality’ as this is just the collective name for the EP and ANP. Thus, plurality does not just happen in DID, as many people with DID like to claim.

The theory of structural dissociation is not about plurality. You said it yourself that it is neither about DID nor about alters. It is about trauma causing dissociative parts of identity. All traumatized people have dissociative parts of identity, but that does not mean that all traumatized people are plural. Because that's what you're poking at by listing that as plurality.

These dissociative parts of identity are not necessarily fully formed parts. From every single person I've met with PTSD, their ANP/EP structure is nothing like mine -- not just in the fact that I've got more of that sort of thing, but in the fact that their ANP and EP don't have goddamn names. Their parts of self are not full identities that take over the body; they're states of mind.

Now, does that preclude someone from calling that plurality? No. People can call anything plural, if they feel that label fits. But to suggest, looking at these charts, that it is universally plurality -- that the existence of ANP/EPs is plural inherently -- is jumping the shark to the largest degree.

(Lastly, as a syscourse side note -- please stop conflating DID with Anti-Endo in your posts. "Many people with DID like to claim" just say anti-endos. Just say sysmeds, for fucks sake, I would prefer that to you making it about DID)

From which we can conclude that OSDD, complex PTSD, borderline personality disorder or extreme stress may also have alters as we Plurals know them, or at least as the ‘dissociative parts of the personality’, which this theory of structural dissociation calls us. – From a Plural perspective, I do not understand the differences, besides being integrated less in DID (or tertiary Structural dissociation) compared to more integrative capacity in secondary Structural dissociation of the personality.

"I don't understand the differences, besides (lists the vital difference to why DID is called dissociative identity disorder)"

Also, not a single person was arguing that OSDD does not have alters. That is baffling to me why you included that on the list. Furthermore, yes, these could be plural -- but they are not alters similar to DID. There is a major difference there, in that in DID, the alters are fully developed identities, whereas in most cases of PTSD and borderline personality disorder, they aren't. But I will give you credit here -- this time, you said "MAY" also have alters. And yes, I would give you that credit -- some people with borderline personality disorder may see their splits as plural in some way.

But I have found, through talking to people with various trauma based disorders, that often, my alters are very different from their whatever they are experiencing. Because, once again, I am far more distinct. I've actually spoken once to a friend of mine with PTSD and OCD on this topic, because (due to her OCD), after meeting me, she believed she might be plural. It wasn't the case, but her states of being were distinct enough that she felt that way, however briefly. And then she stopped identifying that way, as it was harming her mentally to do so. While that is not the case for every individual who feels plural, it was the case for her. I don't want to look at PTSD and say, "This makes someone inherently plural," because it doesn't.

So, simply put, the ToSD is not about plurality. It is about dissociation of a single personality; not about multiple personalities. While the other disorders listed in the theory can be plural, they are not inherently so. (And this still has not explained why the author believes the ToSD to be ableist).

If DID is not Plurality, then why have such a thing as a DID diagnosis? What is the difference then between complex PTSD and DID, if not the Plurality? – More on this topic next time!

I've deliberated on this point for awhile (and I do NOT care to try to hunt down if PttP made good on their promise and made another article about this idea). I actually tried to discuss it in a server I'm in, which went a bit in a loop due to "plurality" being inherently seen as endogenic plurality (maybe I'll make a post about that sometime).

But leave it to my singlet partner to knock it out of the park, lol.

They brought up the fact that they have spiraling depression; depression that is worsened by other disorders they have, such as ADHD and anxiety. It just loops around continuously. Now, they could have a hypothetical diagnosis (just like C-PTSD would be, as that's not an actual diagnosis that exists) of "Spiraling Depression." But would that diagnosis be as informative as their multiple diagnosis of depression, anxiety, and ADHD?

By having the specific diagnosis they have, they're able to get more clarity on symptoms and understanding of what's happening. And I think that's a compelling argument for DID over C-PTSD in this case. Because, PttP, like it or not, plurality is disordered for many individuals. Even if the symptoms of DID and C-PTSD do overlap in many ways (and differ -- for instance, C-PTSD has far less correlation with dissociation and amnesia, and DID has far less correlation with emotional regulation problems and flashbacks to trauma), they overlap in such a way that it is important to be specific.

And yes, DID is specific in the fact that alters are part of it. No, DID is clearly not just plurality with C-PTSD, as you argue. There's a lot of different factors that differentiate the two disorders. But even with the large amount of overlap they can have (to the degree that the two are so highly comorbid that I see people argue you can't have DID without the other), the plurality is disabling for many individuals. And I say this as an individual who is not disabled by their plurality, and yet is diagnosed with DID.

The reason there's such a thing as a DID diagnosis is because having multiple, dissociative identities is disordered for many individuals. For me, I am disordered by my DID in the fact that I deal with severe amnesia that distresses me, as well as issues that correspond to C-PTSD. The treatment may be similar -- but if I were simply diagnosed with C-PTSD, I would not get the specific care I need, that being an assurance that my individual parts get the help they need. Which you, PttP, rally against later in this article (at the Systematic Approach to Dissociation section).

The haunted self states that Structural dissociation has become chronic in those patients with trauma-related disorders. (page 12.) Which, first and foremost, means that Structural dissociation is not a (trauma-related) disorder on it’s own, as some people claim these days.

Accurate. It's a symptom, not a disorder. I believe what PttP is getting at here is the claim that dissociation is only a symptom of dissociative disorders; however, that's now what that sentence actually says, and it's incredibly frustrating to see this pair of sentences to try and make that claim. "The Haunted Self says that structural dissociation is chronic in patients with trauma-related disorders. This means that structural dissociation isn't a trauma-related disorder." Okay, yes, but that does not negate that it is talking about disorders, not plurality.

However, I point this quote out for a different reason. The theory of Structural dissociation idolizes integration. And although they say that ‘’no one has to go away’’, they also clearly explain to therapists, to not engage with us ‘dissociative parts of the personality,’ unless absolutely needed. Instead it is suggested that the therapist speaks whenever possible, through the ANP fronting. We the Plurals, then have the most integrative capacity, which basically means we can integrate the experience best. Which should be encouraged by the therapist at all times. I can understand how it is useful that ‘everyone’ listens in during therapy. But this should not be the case when we express ourselves!

And here we get to the bulk of the picture; PttP's hatred of anyone who so much as dares consider final fusion as an option for recovery.

First, let's correct a major misconception that I have had to correct timelessly in my time on systumblr. Integration is not final fusion. Integration is the lowering of dissociative barriers in order to communicate and function with your system as one whole; this could be through working together (functional multiplicity) or through fusing into one being (final fusion). And, as a few users in sysumblr have pointed out recently, these two things are not diametrically opposed. There's no hard and fast line between FM and FF. They're both just signs of recovery, and any recovery is beautiful. To shame anyone for going a specific route that makes them feel better is shameful in of itself, imo.

Second, let's tackle the image that PttP provides and show you why their quotes-out-of-context are complete bullshit.

"ALL interventions need to be geared toward increasing integration and decreasing dissociation" -- All treatment needs to be geared at helping alters connect with each other and decreasing memory barriers.

"Always use interventions at the highest level of integration possible, e.g., if the client can work with all parts, it is not necessary to work with parts individually" -- I can communicate with all of my parts. My therapist does not need to explain to each of my 14 parts the same exact thing each time they show up; he can work with me one week, and the next week, Curtis will remember what we discussed and can continue without my therapist needing to explain what we did last week -- I just make sure that Curtis is on the same page as me before that session.

"Use integrative language. 'Parts' language is OK, but emphasize 'Parts of you.' Parts should not be treated as individuals -- An individual as in someone who is not sharing a body. An individual as in someone who is a separate body not sharing it with 13 other people ffs. By focusing entirely on "You're an entirely different person," then it's going to be really hard to convince a patient in the throes of flashback, "I know YOU didn't experience that particular trauma, but that other person did, so now it's your problem to deal with" without reminding them that you are together in this one body. (Furthermore... This just straight up isn't as common in modern therapy, at least from what I've seen and experienced. I had to CONVINCE my therapist to stop fucking calling my parts "people" because it made me angry to be stuck in this body. Now I use parts language, and I'm not stuck in this body, I AM this body).

Lastly, I want to highlight: "Always be curious about what a part is unable to realize: this is the treatment target" -- this, to me, is so vital, and I feel like PttP skips over it. This is connected to the "highest part of integration" point; if a part isn't at the highest part of integration. If a part cannot realize something, it is up to the therapist to help them treat that. For instance, I just worked on EMDR yesterday with my therapist on realizing I am capable. Shockingly, about two EMDR sessions ago, Curtis did that same realization -- but as a part, I couldn't realize that myself. So my therapist had to work with me, as a part, directly.

So, to recap: this is all fairly standard, healthy guidelines for working with systems. Don't pit the parts against each other by implying they're all completely separate, work on communication and lowering barriers, and don't repeat yourself when you don't have to.

How's PttP feel about this?

"And although they say that ‘’no one has to go away’’, they also clearly explain to therapists, to not engage with us ‘dissociative parts of the personality,’ unless absolutely needed." Nope. I don't see that anywhere above. "Instead it is suggested that the therapist speaks whenever possible, through the ANP fronting." Also incorrect; nowhere in the above picture does it suggest that the therapist speak through the fronting ANP. That would certainly make my therapy difficult, given that we don't even have clear ANPs; my therapist just works with whoever is out. "We the Plurals, then have the most integrative capacity, which basically means we can integrate the experience best. Which should be encouraged by the therapist at all times. I can understand how it is useful that ‘everyone’ listens in during therapy. But this should not be the case when we express ourselves!" Wow, it sounds like whoever wrote this article feels very separated from their other parts. It sounds like the therapist will need to work at the highest level of integration possible, which is really low for your system. Your therapist would need to work with individual parts far more than mine would, because you don't have a high level of integration currently. Nowhere does it ever suggest that your ANPs need to be out for therapy. That's your jaded and biased view of a completely neutral statement.

To me, it sounds as if they want to make us all like OSDD, where one part regularly fronts and others speak through them. And although I think there is a dissociative spectrum, I do not think that changing the diagnostic criteria we meet from the diagnosis of DID to OSDD will lead to ‘healing.’ And in DID, in particular, requiring all communications to relay through one particular (perhaps malleable or favored) ‘alter’ that sounds a lot like silencing to me. Because the therapist (or any other outside person,) can never know (for sure) whether the part who is presenting, is truly conveying all information which is coming from inside. This book talks a lot about shame, but forgets that our ANPs might not feel comfortable repeating what those EPs just said inside, and that the information may be so overwhelming for them as to cause them to have intense dissociative symptoms. Half-truths might reach the therapist.

"They want to make us all like OSDD" -- not a thing. Stop fearmongering.

"Changing the diagnostic criteria we meet from the diagnosis of DID to OSDD" -- Part of the reason I am all for getting rid of both of those diagnosis and just changing it to CDD, so that people can't make this absolutely batshit argument.

"Relay through one particular (perhaps malleable or favored" alter" -- Already reviewed this, but jesus christ I hate that you just called them malleable. That is so horrifically ableist, to suggest that the fucking therapists -- people who are helping systems -- are just trying to manipulate an alter. Fuck that.

"The therapist can never know for sure whether the part who is presenting is truly conveying all information which is coming from inside" -- =_=.... "Hey, Wade, good to see you! So, what do you remember from last week?" "Wow, hey therapist, I am going to tell you the honest truth, I remember exactly jack shit." "Alright, so let's review-" It's as simple as that PttP. When we aren't able to communicate, we just... review. And if I decided to not be honest with my therapist... well that's just a fucking waste of three hours (two for driving, one for session) and money (gas and session cost).

The final few sentences is running with their misinterpretation of what the image was actually saying, so I'm not going to harp on that any longer.

The writers of this theory of structural dissociation explain dissociation as experiencing separation in simple terms and in more difficult terms use the meaning of the term dissociation, formulated by Pierre Janet (1859–1947), ‘’Structural dissociation is a particular organization in which different psychobiological subsystems of the personality are unduly rigid and closed to each other. These features lead to a lack of coherence and coordination within the survivor’s personality as a whole.’’ (Preface Haunted self)

To translate that, for the layman: Structural dissociation is when parts of the personality are separate from each other, leading to a lack of consistency in a person's being. This can be represented as plurality (such as in CDDs) or as just inconsistent singular personality (such as in PTSD).

They explain integration as ice cubes melting and the water coming together, or dams breaking and water coming together. Which to them equals no one goes away. Everyone is still there, it’s just one body of water now.

Because they're singlets who don't get it. Rather than being a bitch about it, we could... explain in better terms, which so many fucking people have done. For instance, I use the puzzle piece metaphor for ourselves. We are each one puzzle piece; when we come together, you can still see the lines that show I'm a piece of the puzzle, but we are now together. But even if we use their metaphor... Nobody went away. The ice cube melted, but that doesn't mean you suddenly have less water. You're still there. Just together. By phrasing it as "going away" when fusion happens, you're purposefully fearmongering what actually happens in fusion; it's coming together, not someone going away.

To me, it sounds more like soup, because not everyone in a system is the same, like with water. So you throw in your EPs and ANPs (and those are very limited terms for our diversity!) and then you have a soup. Although soup is great, it is not the same as the loose ingredients. A potatoe is a potatoe. A carrot is a carrot. But potatoe-carrot soup is something new and different. You cannot remove the potatoe from the soup, it is no longer a whole potatoe. And potatoe-carrot soup cannot do the same things the original potatoes and carrots could do.

.... I will not lie, this confused the fuck out of me. Is this another analogy for integration? Very confused. Have fun though.

We know from a 6 year follow up study that only 12.8% of participants were able to reach integration as described in the theory of Structural dissociation. (page 4) That is a very low percentage. In any scientific research for medicine or therapy for example, a 12.8% positive outcome would not be tolerable. Yet the whole theory of treatment within Structural dissociation is based on it.

Once again, this was debunked (same link as above). Also, the ToSD isn't fucking based on fusion. It's based on structural dissociation. Yknow. As it says in the name. The therapeutic treatment is based on integrating past dissociation. Yknow. Integration. Not fusion.

A chronic disorder, often debilitating, with a much-respected and idolized healing option with only 12.8% success rate, sounds ableist to me

... how? Genuinely, how is it ableist? Ableism is discrimination against disabled people. How is... How is trying to help people with a disorder discrimination?

Favoring OSDD over DID comes from singular normative biased thinking

This just straight up isn't happening, you just read something in the worst faith possible and pissed on the poor because of it.

The haunted self has a chapter dedicated to phobia of dissociative parts. Maybe the writers, should re-read the chapter and apply it to their own way of thinking.

Oof ouch the edge. Anyways, now I want to read that chapter, I'm curious if they go into the shame around splitting in DID.

It also sounds to me, as if clinicians say something else to our face, then what they write in their books. Especially when it comes to alter integration or final fusion as Kluft calls it.

Integration and Fusion are not the same thing, and a clinician in 2019 (when this article was written) may not match the novel that was published in 2006, based on psychology from as early as 1916. It's almost like shit progresses and time keeps moving! Remarkable I know.

Although I do not think personalities is the right term for us, nor is the word parts. It is derogatory, dehumanizing & it is taking away from our autonomy, roles and authenticity as individuals.

[Stares in "I have never felt more alive, authentic, and real than when I was referred to as a part of a whole"]

[Stares in "I use it/its pronouns and this individual probably hates that huh, if they're so against dehumanization"]

[Stares in "Just tell your fucking therapist what goddamn language you prefer, because I had to do that too, you aren't fucking special"]

Anyways. Parts language is not universally derogatory, dehumanizing, or taking away your individuality. For me, it has been incredibly healing. Furthermore, it is genuinely what is happening from a medical standpoint. From a medical standpoint, splits in DID are occurring due to, you guessed it, trauma. You don't suddenly just... get possessed or mitosis a new person in your brain who is entirely separate from you. The parts of you are parts of you, regardless of how you label them, because you are composed in one body. If we get into possession and endogenesis, then remarkably, the ToSD does not apply, because the ToSD is strictly about structural dissociation. Not plurality.

And so I often wonder whether the alter integration they desire, equals just not being Plural anymore in the minds of the writers of Structural dissociation. If it does, it makes sense to diminish us to parts. And it also makes sense to claim “no one has to go away”, if they never believed we are separated in the first place. After all, it is the ‘experience of separation’, not actual separation, as they say, we did not split off. So was using the term ‘parts’ in 1987 progressive, or a step to further diminish, gaslight and silence us?

If you wonder about this often, you need to step the fuck away from system spaces and touch some grass.

Integration is not fusion, I cannot stress this enough.

Fusion does not equal no longer being plural; ask any fused system (or hell, just a fused part) and they will tell you, flat out, "I'm still us, just different." If someone no longer wants to identify as plural due to fusion, is that not their choice? Why would you care about someone else's experience that much?

Being parts is not diminishing anything, as someone who uses parts language.

If we are multiple parts, and the ToSD acknowledges us as multiple parts, then clearly the ToSD acknowledges we are separate. The goal of the theraputical practices that revolve around the ToSD is to help lessen the separation between parts. Not remove us entirely. Still not sure where you got that idea from, other than your fearmongering about Fusion.

Using parts language was literally just people looking at MPD systems and going, "Huh... you know, maybe that is a single person and not multiple people crammed into one body. Maybe that is just a severely traumatized individual, and we should treat them as a person, same as anyone else."

Or maybe they were all high on cocaine. That's possible too.

Here is my problem with how the DID community treats this theory. From the community feedback it seems that many of you do not want integration, as explained in this theory. And you cannot cherry-pick the sweet parts, when it comes to theories like this. Especially not when integration is so interwoven with this theory. The theory of Structural dissociation is often presented as truth in our communities, even though this theory is not widely accepted, not acknowledged, not proven (or provable) and hence just a theory like any other – there are many theories about DID.

Obligatory "integration and fusion are not the same." Furthermore, this idea is based on community feedback in 2019. I can't wait for 2029, when things will be completely different once again. Lastly, the theory is widely accepted. It is the most accepted theory of how dissociation works structurally that we have. While there are other theories about DID, I have not seen any of them that better describe my experiences or make as much sense. (And, unsurprisingly, you don't add any of those alternative theories here).

You also cannot say you like the application of this theory for DID, but not for borderline and vice versa. The theory comes as a package deal by explaining a progression of Structural dissociation. I think many people did not read all of the haunted self, as it’s long and dry. And even though most quotes from this article come from the first few pages, it is information many do not know. I read the book twice and followed a conference with its writers. I hope this article explains things, to those who endorse this theory without having actually read it. There are many more questionable things about this, but I cannot address them all.

This article only explained your personal vendetta against fusion and parts language, and your lack of ability to comprehend a percentage point. It did nothing to further the understanding of plurality, as the ToSD is not about plurality, and it didn't even explain why the ToSD is ableist. Nowhere have you explained how the ToSD itself is discriminating against disordered/disabled individuals. You just threw the word out, primarily while focusing on the therapeutic practices that utilize the ToSD. Even if we came to an agreement that the practices that utilize the theory are ableist, that does not make the theory itself ableist. Good grief.

Obviously it is not needed to throw away the baby with the bath water either, that is not what I am proposing. What I am proposing though, is that you take a second look at the theory you endorse and why.

I endorse it because it is the clearest understanding of structural dissociation I have found, and it helps me to conceptualize myself as multiple parts within one whole. If that doesn't work for you, congrats, the theory doth not apply. You can find therapists who don't agree with it and who will work with you directly without the ToSD.

But to say it is ableist because it doesn't fit your particular framework is prideful at best and fearmongering at worst.

Because if you just like the part about how we are not split off, but born with different self-states you can quote Putnam. And if you like the idea of PTSD consisting of EPs and ANPs, you can quote Myers. And if you like fusion integration, you can quote theory of Structural dissociation.

Nowhere in the theory of structural dissociation does it suggest you need to fuse. Nowhere in the Haunted Self does it suggest you need to fuse. Nowhere in modern therapeutic best practices does it suggest you need to fuse. You are simply trying to scare people, at this point.

That's... about it for the article. It is horrific from everything I was seeing, and I cannot even begin to process the lack of context. I think it's because, as Stronghold says in the comments, this article was based on a conference they attended. They attended a conference where people discussed the ToSD.

Would it not be better to say, then, that the conference is ableist?

But that wouldn't really draw in a big crowd, would it? Not as many clicks or views. Why not challenge the entire theory? That would get a lot more views. A lot more clicks and attention. Isn't that the point of articles like these? To be seen and viewed?

I implore everyone to remember that this was an opinion article. It is not based on fact; it is based on the authors own bias. This is Stronghold's personal feelings about the ToSD, based on their personal interpretation of the ToSD, based on their personal beliefs on fusion. They try to use quotes to back up their claims, but their claims are entirely based on opinion.

So, to counteract that: From my opinion, the ToSD is not ableist, and while ableists have used it in the past to hurt others, that does not make the theory itself bad. The theory is incredibly useful, and everyone who struggles with dissociation or trauma disorders should do a bit of research into it to see if the framework works for them.