#so basically they become plural

[gailynovelry]

Alternate Universe where Morekai ends up being Silamir's Herald and they timeshare his body back and forth.

[godblooded]

quick it’s 7 am push your enby-in-high-valyrian trans rhaegar agenda.

this explains it way better than me.

[10-dutchies-12-bicycles]

HEY DO YALL THINK THE "/CHRONO" URL SUFFIX THING WOULD WORK FOR MY DRAFTS??????????

[steampunk-raven]

you draw a zombie for 3 minutes and suddenly she’s a plurality metaphor

[in-class-daydreams]

Note: Gojo & the reader are ~40 in this, Sen is 18, and the guy you're seeing (if you don't already know who it is) is aged up accordingly (~30)

Imagine your and ex-husband Gojo's son Sen finding out you're seeing someone.

"You're going on a date?!" Sen asks in disbelief. "With who?"

You smooth out your outfit and check yourself out in the mirror. This look is one of your best, if you do say so yourself.

"Does it matter?" you ask neutrally. Sen is just mature enough to not blatantly freak out at this revelation, but only just. The less he knows, the better.

"Of course, it matters! I need to know who to hunt down if you disappear!" he replies, hands flying up to fist in his hair. "I need to vet this guy!"

Your ex-husband appears in your bedroom doorway. "Who are we vetting?"

Clenching your prospective clothing in your hands, you grumble, "Doesn't anyone knock any more?"

Satoru leans against the door frame like he's someone's booktok boyfriend (he used to be your booktok husband but that's beside the point). He takes in how you've cleaned up and instantly recognizes your date look. Of course, he's only seen it a million times.

"Oh, the kid didn't know you had boyfriend?" he asks.

"Boyfriend?!" Sen cries. Your temple throbs. "Who is he?"

Satoru shrugs. "I dunno, I just know he exists and his one move is sending flowers because he's basic."

"He's not basic and he is not my boyfriend!" you shout, throwing your hands in the air. "We go on dates, yes. We're seeing each other. 'Boyfriend' implies exclusivity, and none of the people I'm seeing are my boyfriend."

Your son and ex-husband stare at you wide-eyed. As Sen gets older, the black roots of his hair have become his last line of defense against looking like a carbon copy of his dad, and having both a young and old(er) Satoru look at you with their stupid big blue eyes is unsettling. Someone hurry up and blink.

"What?" you ask tiredly.

This time it's Satoru that has something irritating to say. "'People?' As in plural?"

"Satoru, don't start."

Sen raises his hand. "I'm with dad on this one. I don't trust anyone with you, not even dad--"

"Thanks, kid."

"--much less strangers."

Part of you understands that your son and ex-husband are the two people in the world that love you the most. Growing up as isolated as you did, your younger self would never have imagined having the both of them in your life. They're just trying to protect you.

The other part of you is on the verge of telling them both to step the fuck off.

You're all saved by the doorbell ringing and before you can even react, both of them are at the door interrogating whoever's on your porch. But you always met up with your dates instead of them picking you up in case of this exact scenario. There was no way he came to the door without your permission.

Sprinting to the door, you find your son, your ex, and a terrified-looking deliveryman holding a bouquet of flowers. You shoo the boys away from him and accept the flowers with thanks and a generous tip for dealing with them.

There's a handwritten note attached. It reads:

You didn't think I'd let you walk out the house without a present, right? Pretty girls need pretty flowers.

You can't hold in a grin. He always found ways to go above and beyond even without an official label.

"Well, at least he's a sorcerer," Sen says. He gestures to the note, "There's a teeny bit of residual CE on there. Not enough for me to recognize, though."

You try not to make your sigh of relief obvious. Sen was still in training and Sukuna said his ability to recognize specific cursed energy needed some work. Getting advice from his dad would help, but your son got his stubborn streak from you.

"Well, good. I don't need you tracking him down." Handing the flowers to Sen, you ask, "Put these in a vase for mama, please?"

Sen, ever the obedient son, runs off to do so immediately. You fondly watch him round the corner into the kitchen, then double back to grab you and place a kiss on your cheek.

"I don't like this, but please be safe, mama! Call me any time, I'll be there," he says, then returns to his task.

Once he's out of sight, you slip your shoes on, holding Satoru by the shoulder to stabilize yourself.

"I'll be back before 11. There's pasta in the fridge and I just washed the sheets in the guest room if you want to stay over," you tell him. Pulling up the back of your shoe, you look up at Satoru to find him stock still looking past you. You can't see his eyes, but you can tell they're fixed on the card you received.

That's when you remember that while your son may not yet be at full potential, veteran sorcerer, strongest in history Gojo Satoru knows damn well who sent you those flowers.

Shit.

Click [here] for more of Sen being mean to his dad | Ask stuff about Sen and the fam [here]

[foone]

Ok so: Old English (450-1150, roughly) had a word "cwen". It meant queen/princess/woman/wife. It is where the word "queen" comes from.

(so yes, all women are queens. Linguistically, they are!)

But I had to dig deeper. Linguistic rambling after the cut.

But this word got brought into Middle English (at least) twice:

1. The first was basically English's "queen" : female monarchs. They also used it for some female nobles and queen consorts, but yeah. What we call queens.

2. The second was a word for a woman of "low birth", a sex worker, or an elderly woman. It was "woman (diminutive)".

But these two words came from the same one. And the way that happened is weird:

See, Old English is an inflected language: you decline nouns for different grammatical uses.

Middle English was slowly turning into the (mostly) analytical language that English is today.

So Middle English has two words which come from different cases of one singular Old English word: cwen.

Middle English took the nominative of cwen and made it into "queen" (mostly. Spelling wasn't as much as a thing, so that's also "quene" , or just "cwen"), giving it the modern meaning: a queen.

Middle English also took a different case (accusative/genitive/dative, or plural nominative/accusative, I'm not sure which) of cwen and made it into "quene". Or, given that spelling still isn't a thing yet, "queen". Or hell: cwene, queene, quen, qween, qweene, queyne, qwenne, qwhene, or kuene.

So we've got two words: queen/quene(female monarch) and queen/quene(female(negative)).

And then those evolved into the English words:

1. Queen (archaicly spelled Quene)

2. Quean (archaicly spelled Quene).

The second has become archaic itself, but it is used in two derived words:

1. cot-quean, which means an effeminate man or one who does "woman's work". This obsolete insult was also used to mean...

2. Cuckquean: a woman with an unfaithful partner, the female version of a cuckold* (or the sexual fetish for same)

So yeah. That fucking spelling of "quean" has been slightly bothering me every time I've seen it used in questionable erotica***, so eventually I had to look it up.

It's the same root word as Queen, but gets spelled differently because it took a very slightly different route through Old/Middle/Modern English.

* the fact that both of these are gendered raises an obvious question: what's the gender neutral/non-binary version? "Cuckold" is named like that from the Old French "-auld" which is just a namish suffix, and the cuckoo** bird. It's basically "Mr. Cuckoo". Unhelpfully the Old English word for "person" was "mann". Middle English? Also "man"! I guess you could use the middle English persoun and make it "cuckpersoun", but frankly I hate that more than "cuckquean".

** I've always felt this naming is backwards. I get that we're referencing the fact that European cuckoos are brood parasites, but the thing is... it's backwards! Cuckoos don't "get cucked", Cuckoos "cuck" other birds. They lay their eggs in other bird's nests for the other birds to raise. Those other birds are the ones getting cucked! DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT ACCURACY IN LINGUISTIC ZOOLOGY OR IS IT JUST ME?

*** If Tumblr gave me the ability, I'd make these words wiggle up and down in a curvy**** motion, for added goopy grossness.

**** I almost called it "sinusoidal" but I realized that may be a bit much and also I can't spell "sinusoidal"

[syllvarin]

Non-traumagenic plurality: How could it be possible?

First off, let's start with what some anti-endo folk mean versus what they don't mean with traumagenic plurality

They mean systems caused by/as a response to trauma and traumatic events, and those who are still affetced by them, aka systems who are disordered, DID/OSDD/UDD.

What they don't mean is systems who have trauma in their origin along with other causes. They do not believe a system can very well be traumagenic but function smoothlessly due to recovering, or have multiple origins.

Note: We are a diagnosed DID system with mixed (trauma/ramcoa/neuro/para) origins. Yes, we know what we are talking about. No, that doesn't mean we can't do mistakes, but we will try our best to be as accurate as possible. We will include scientific articles, DSM-5 DID checklist, and many more in this post.

How can that be possible?

1st: Brains are quite complicated. Research on brain functions is far from being complete, it is a long road that we are still at the very beginning of. We still don't know how brain exactly works let alone how it can form seperate conscious identities and work them together. We do know headmates exist based on brain MRI's ( link here ) That proves us that systems indeed, exist.

2nd point i want to make is that science is not done in a linear fashion. We are studying to be neuroscientists ourselves and the very core of what makes science doable is MONEY. Yes, in this capitalist system even the most seemingly basic research requires funding, money, and a goal that can be monetized to get done. Reseaches on female autonomy, rare disorders and "demonized" disorders such as DID is therefore not often as it is not easily capitalized and funded.

Therefore we do not have enough research to prove or disprove that the only way of becoming a system is through childhood.

And that brings me to my 3rd point, where we will take a look at what DSM-5 (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) says about diagnostic crietria of DID. We will see how it is a dissocative disorder, not a trauma disorder.

Found under dissociative disorders (not trauma disorders!), checklist for DID is as follows:

See how none of those checklist include trauma as checklist? Yes DID is commonly caused by trauma but not always. Yes it commonly is created during childhood but not always. Those arent in diagnostic criteria.

Definitive feature is not trauma, it is distinct personality states or experience of possession.

DID is associated with traumatic events, does not mean it requires it.

DID can manifest at almost any age (DSM-5 is saying that, folks)

What's more is OSDD doesnt even have a definitive checklist like DID. it is found under differential diagnosis, with other disorders. PDID (partial DID where one part is frontstuck a majority of the time) is also up to psychiatrist's evaluation rather than a concrete checklist.

4th point is : What about Structural Dissociaton Theory?

This theory is as it goes: The theory of Structural Dissociation works off of the assumption that everyone is born with different ego states that later merge in life. Those different ego states operate for different actions in life, that later integrate into one person during ages of 4-6. Trauma disrupts that integration and causes ANP (apparently normal parts) and EP (Emotional parts). EP's are stuck in the trauma while ANP's are not.

source: The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization" by Onno van der Hart, Ellert Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele. 

Yes, theory. Theories are not concrete. They can be disapproved, they can change, they may not fit every experience. Structural dissociation only explains how DID can manifest at childhood, but we already know by now that DID can manifest at almost any age.

So I personally think basing everything on a theory about how DID might've been caused (which doesn't even perfectly explain every possible way) is not as fault-proof as one might think it is.

Point 5: experiences of "multiple identities" exist for so long into history (people who are possessed, talk to themselves, act weird at times, are very different at times, etc), way before any DID/OSDD terms were created. And actually, how can we know how many people in history have had this experience when the very society we are in is very scared of them? It is fair to say only the disruptive cases must've been noticed, and majority of them probably were either deemed as crazy or exorcised as they believed those people were possessed by spirits. Just because your experience does not fit with others and just because science hasnt done anything to back them up, doesn't mean people's lived experiences are false. Why would so many people tell that they are a system when they are not? We are not living in a place where being a system is happy or fun, we are not in a society where its profitable or anything. It literally gives a person zero + points for being plural if they arent. It would be a nonstop roleplay they have to keep up throughout every aspect of their life; and at that point, it must be either impossible or that person is already plural and not roleplaying when no one is looking at them.

Creating headmates is on the same basket. A person with DID can create headmates in blink of an eye (we know from oursleves) sometimes splitting threshold is so low you may split off multiple people at once. You cannot know what is going in a person's mind, and what mechanisms work for creating a headmate. If they claim they did, it is very much no chance they are faking being different people 24/7. It *is* a real chance that they actually did develop a headmate. If you do not believe them; ask them about their experiences. I am %100 positive that if you actually listen to them, you will see those people are only trying to live their life.

Also, if you think healthy systems cannot exist and only way to be a system is through dissociation and dysfunction; then why would DID systems try to heal anyway? Wouldn't that just be sanist and ableist to expect all of them to turn into singlets because healthy multiplicity isnt a thing?But no, it is a thing, and healthy multiplicity and recovery is possible for systems. DID and other disordered forms of plurality do indeed exist, and they are indeed, treatabe in multiple ways according to what a person feels comfortable with. That is also a system's right to heal however they please. They don't owe anyone their right to stay as plural or become a singlet.

6th point I want to make is about: Why do we even care?

If a person says they have multiple people in their head, why do we care and tell them they are faking? They are not claiming to have a diagnosis, even if they did; if their situation is causing a distress to them, then they ARE diagnosable and that therefore is none of our business, again.

Last point I want to make is how endogenic DID is possible. yes, possible. remember how trauma is not in diagnostic criteria and DID can happen at any age? If endogenic plurals can happen, they can also form DID at later in life. They can also become disordered due to an event in their life. They can lose harmony and become so dysfunctional they need professional help. That doesn't mean they are no longer endogenic or some other origin, that simply means their state is different than what it was and they need help.

End of our post. Thank you for reading.

[falciesystemessays]

I honestly think that Dizzy's entrance to Guilty Gear Strive should be as much of A Moment for plural systems as Bridget's was for trans women. The character's not out yet, but every bit of promotional material for the character points in a very promising direction. So for people who don't go here, or who have only played Strive, allow me to tell you why a character trailer for a three-year-old game put me on the verge of tears.

For some quick context, plurality in a person is essentially the state of having multiple entities in one's head. The most commonly known form of this comes from having dissociative identity disorder, formerly known as multiple personalities. But plenty within the plural community (including me) have a broader umbrella for the term. The main terminology you'll want to know for this is that a "system" is a group of entities within one body (I for example am part of the Fal'cie System), and "aspects" are entities that aren't quite separable from the host, because they're the manifestation of specific parts of them. For the record I am very aware of how buckwild this sounds to an outsider, and I frequently get existential about it. A lot of characters in anime and games are incidentally plural due to their layers of fantasy nonsense. Some examples of this in action are Yami and Yugi from Yu-Gi-Oh, Sora gaining Ventus's heart in Kingdom Hearts, and the explicit dissociative identity of the Storyteller System in Ace Attorney.

Now then! To sum up Dizzy's backstory real quick, Dizzy is a Gear, basically a living weapon, and the daughter of original antagonist Justice. Most of her character up until this point has been desperately trying to cover that and live among humans, to... mixed avail. In the series' story mode she manages to start a family with the human deuteragonist Ky Kiske, who loves her a lot despite formerly being one of the best Gear-slayers. Ky is such a wonderful character, because throughout the series we see him go from hating Gears to tolerating a few of them to having a kid with one and actually becoming a little bit Gear himself. But this essay isn't about Ky Kiske.

In actual gameplay, as in the 1v1 fighting game battles, the main thing stopping her from relative normalcy is her two wings, Necro and Undine. The reason I say this character is a plural dub is because these wings are actually aspects of Dizzy, Necro being her rage and Undine her compassion. A lot of Dizzy's attack animations in Guilty Gear XX (the one where I've played Dizzy a lot) actually have Necro doing violent things while Dizzy herself is either distracted or afraid. This continued in Guilty Gear Xrd, where her instant kill move (every character gets one) has Necro unleashing a fuckoff gamma ray while Dizzy begs him to stop. Worth noting also that gamma rays are one of the moves her mother Justice used. Dizzy and Necro have clearly not been getting along, and while it's fun as a fighting game character bit, there is a certain level of sadness to it.

But in Strive? Oh my god, she looks so happy now! So at peace with herself and with her system. Lemme just rattle stuff off right now.

-Dizzy's attack animations all put her in control. Necro and Undine do a lot of fighting still, but never without Dizzy's control. They are fighting in tandem.

-Dizzy's victory animation has her hold out two hands. Undine naturally puts her whole hand onto one, and Necro finally puts a single finger on the other with a smile.

-Their super move, Gamma Ray, starts out with Necro and Undine firing a beam, and Dizzy getting scared. But after glancing at them and realizing it's okay, she joins in on the beam attack.

-She has a new move now, Michael Sword (Pronounced Mik-hai-ull), a full-screen slash that Justice used to have, indicating that she's come to terms with her origins and wants to use them for good.

-God, her opening animation and taunt where she communes with the animals like a Disney princess. Her new beautiful design. Her new theme song! She has never been this happy in her life!

The thing is, right, I can imagine people saying that this character growth isn't remotely the same kind of moment as Bridget's, because Dizzy's whole thing is based in sci-fantasy that could never be real in the same way that like, dissociative identity is real. Plenty more would deny that plurality exists at all outside some deluded roleplayers. And, I mean, was series director Daisuke Ishiwatari really thinking about people like me when choosing to take the character this way? I don't know, honestly. But I do know that Dizzy's character arc is authentic, to me. If there's one thing Guilty Gear Strive's story is really good at, it's giving long-suffering characters some well-earned peace. And if this is how Strive Season 4 is starting, I can't wait to see what they do next.

[fanworks-library]

bemerkt | △

(you get a tattoo at a shady parlor. It ends badly, or perfectly, depending on who’s doing the telling) - suggestive; bill x enthralled reader

—

It’s 1am and everything is funny. The people, the cars and even the buildings look hilarious, sliding and wavy as if the world is running on a damaged projector. It’s all so entertaining that you barely feel awkward when you duck into a late-night tattoo parlor, tacky neon signs screaming about $50 micros into the night. You laugh gregariously when the grim-faced employee tries to hand you the design book and wave it away, telling them to choose.

That was probably your first mistake.

An hour later, you stagger your way home with your shoulder stinging. Your eyes can't really focus too well on the final design, but you can vaguely make out the basic shape of a yellow-and-black triangle through the wrap, pain radiating out of the ink like you've been branded.

Every step aches.

—

The next morning the tattoo is gone.

Humiliation burns at the idea of paying 50$ for a temporary tattoo. You can't even remember the address of the little hole in the wall and like a moron you paid in cash, so you decide to eat the cost and pretend it never happened.

Foolishly, you think that's the end of it.

—

At first, you think it's bugs.

Little darting things flick over your legs, your arms, your face, so fast and uncomfortable you can't help but squirm. It takes you a few days to realize that it’s not even bugs, plural, it’s a single entity—the same size and shape every time. You try to get a better look at it and are rewarded exactly once with the sight of three sharp corners and a shell so bright it resembles gold.

—

That's when the twitching starts. Your limbs misbehave randomly, knocking over items and grabbing without any input from you. You watch as your hands stiffen around things that are, without fault, dangerous. Gasoline. Razors. Your fingers lock around a butcher's knife and you spend 10 minutes prying your grip loose, ignoring the odd sense of disappointment that follows. The gold hallucinations appear more and more often, too, something like whispering creeping into your mind. 

Move that. Break this. 

Then, eventually; Not bad!

At first you ignore it, but the volume gets louder and louder until you forget what else you’re supposed to be doing and relent, letting the alien movements pull you along like a fish on a line. In return the voice spoils you with praise, drenching you in flattery so thick you almost drown. You let it string you along, burning bridge after bridge in pursuit of more and more. Even your intimate moments are invaded, your sense of privacy burning away under the spotlight of a single glowing eye. What you want becomes what we want, what he wants—you stop bringing home hookups from the clubs and open yourself up to him, letting the voice talk you through the highs. You’ve perfected a system; through you he makes his intent known, breathlessly watching your own hands cup your chest, pinch the fat of your thighs.

He tells you that you can call him Bill. Says he doesn’t need your name because he’s calling you his. The best thing he’s ever had. With those words ringing in your ears like church bells you pack your bags, leave your keys with the landlord. It’s not important anymore. You have a bus to catch.

Heads up; we’re taking a trip, he says, his voice rushing through your head like the tide. Oregon’s not too far!

You nod, already dozing off. The distance is so irrelevant— you’d go to the moon if he asked. Almost asleep once more, you nearly miss when he speaks again.

…I’ll think I’ll keep this one.

—

(just being normal rn. don’t even worry)

ao3 mirror

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

I was reading through Leona's Playful Land card lines and a certain line jumped out to me. (btw I'm using mysteryshoptls translations!)

 "Fellow is a typical omnivore. He’ll wag his tail at both the carnivores and herbivores, just to swipe the tastiest morsels he can."

I don't think we've ever seen Leona refer to anyone as an omnivore outside of this moment. I know it's been established that he calls people herbivore's because he doesn't exactly respect them. It does make me wonder what the distinction is between an herbivore, omnivore, and carnivore to him.

Interesting 🤔 “Herbivore” is general term Leona uses to refer to several other individuals or groups of people. Here is one example—note that "herbivore" is not capitalized, and is therefore a general noun, and the plural form is used, meaning it is not exclusive to Yuu:

But yes, "herbivore" is not meant to be a cute silly ha-ha endearing nickname in spite of how commonly it seems to be utilized as one in the fandom; from how Leona implements it (often when he is annoyed at others for forcing his hand or in that languid, arrogant tone he usually takes), the phrase is derogatory and implies "herbivores" are weak and passive. And he, a carnivore, is above you in strength and in the literal food chain. In doing this, Leona is basically looking down on everyone.

It's fascinating to see that Leona refers to Fellow as an omnivore; the implied definition here also serves in the carnivore-herbivore dynamic we've become accustomed to up until this point. According to Leona's voice line, an omnivore is someone who caters and kisses up to both carnivores (the strong) and herbivores (the weak), switching it up when it best suits him and his needs. Fellow is an opportunist willing to do what it takes for his own survival. He's adaptable, someone whose strength lies in the middle—and that's what makes an omnivore. Whether Leona actually respects them more than an herbivore or not... That's yet to be determined since we've seen him use the phrase so little compared to herbivores.

I’m surprised we haven’t heard Leona use “omnivore” for Ruggie?? Because Ruggie too is someone who kisses up to whoever will best serve his needs (and Leona is aware of this, as he mentions Ruggie sticking with stronger people as a means of survival on book 6). Maybe it’s because Leona knows Ruggie on a personal level so he doesn’t even bother with anything but his actual name. He generally gives a “nickname” to people he doesn’t like, such as “lizard” for Malleus, “octopunk” for Azul, “radish sprout” for Idia, “Azul’s henchman” for Jade, etc. Personally, I'd also like to think that a part of Leona at least respects how Fellow makes up for his magical deficits with his quick-wittedness (y'know, putting aside all the objectively heinous shit Fellow was complacent to and participated in). Man's just making the best of a shitty hand of cards he was dealt, not much different from Leona's own circumstances or even Ruggie's. And hey, Fellow's aware of his own strengths and how to maximize them, something that Leona often stresses the importance of in vignettes, events, and the main story.

Those are my thoughts, at least! ^^

[alexanderwales]

One of the things they went over when I took linguistics was the "euphemism treadmill", the tendency of initially-clinical or neutral words to undergo pejoration to the point that someone felt the need to replace the pejorated word with one that was clinical or neutral. And then of course the process of pejoration would start again.

The best example of this were words related to what we now call intellectual disability. In the past, "idiot", "simpleton", "moron", "feeble-minded", and "imbecile" were all relatively clinical terms. (This is one of those things that's often repeated, but if you go looking at newspapers from the 1920s, you do kind of wonder whether the negative connotations were just completely acceptable then, especially when they're talking about the successes of sterilizing the feeble-minded.)

The reason that pejoration happens is that while the word changes, the societal attitude toward the underlying thing most often does not, and so if they change the word and declare that this new word is totally neutral, then society's negative view is just going to keep making those words take on bad connotations. This will happen even with the most anodyne descriptions, like "mentally handicapped", which Google will inform you with a little warning is offensive and dated.

The linguistics class I took in the early 2000s spent a little time on the word "retarded", which by then was well on its way to complete pejoration (federal law was changed in 2010, from "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability"), but had not reached the point when it was "the r-slur". If I recall correctly, this was when "mentally handicapped" was still relatively in vogue, and sitting in that classroom I had thought that "retard" was going to go the way of "moron", a word that was used exclusively in a disparaging way. I thought it would be about as acceptable as calling someone an imbecile, I guess, which is impolite but which doesn't rise to the level of "slur".

But no, I was wrong. The euphemism treadmill will probably continue because we have not done anything about the underlying condition (that people with intellectual disabilities are less valued and looked down on), but "retard" has now become a slur, even if every other fucking word for low intelligence is still in common use as a disparagement.

It's wild how much you can see people dancing around this. I said above that Google gives an "offensive and outdated" tag to the term "mentally handicapped", but they also give that to "retarded". However, if you go to "imbecile" they don't give that tag. To save you the trouble of looking it up:

noun: imbecile; plural noun: imbeciles

a stupid person.

archaic a person of low intelligence.

Ah, lovely. So it's okay, because it just means "a stupid person", it used to mean "a person of low intelligence", but it doesn't mean that any more, so ... not offensive, I guess?

Except hold on, what does "stupid" mean again?

adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest

having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.

Oh, okay, I see. So in the archaic sense "imbecile" meant a person of low intelligence, but now it means a person who has a lack of intelligence. Totally different, very understandable. Nevermind that "imbecile" was pejorated in the same way that "retard" was, and that using a negative word to refer to someone who is lacking intelligence is basically the same thing.

I think if you want to fight against the pejorative use of the word "retard", you should probably be fighting against a lot more words, and you should definitely be fighting against the societal view that people with lower intelligence are lesser. You can fight the language issue all you want, but it's just going to lead to more cycles of pejoration. There's no way that switching over to saying "person with a learning disability" (as it seems the UK bureaucrats now favor) is going to somehow end it.

Personally, I'm the kind of person who just goes with the flow. I think people with intellectual disabilities are just as much people as anyone else, deserving of care and compassion, but I also value intelligence at least as much as my surrounding society does, and while I do make attempts to temper my language, saying that an idea is stupid rather than casting contempt on a person who is stupid, that's a mighty fine line to tow, and ... people just don't care. If I call a politician a moron, no one will bat an eye. I will refrain from saying the r-word, because people get mad at you when you do that. I think if I got hit in the head tomorrow and became intellectually disabled, I would be more or less happy with this.

I don't have a strong principled stance, more a stance of "come on, what are we doing here". Euphemism treadmill goes brrrr, language gonna language, I just wish the whole linguistic and social process didn't feel like some out of control machine that wasn't actually doing anything for anyone, and that people would pay more attention to the underlying mechanisms for how/why pejoration actually works. Changing the word is not going to usher in an era of understanding and equality, we've proven that, haven't we?

[doin-just-fine]

MAJOR UPDATE: Questioning systems or systems in a doubt spiral pls read.

I recently told my therapist about potentially being a system. This was a scary move because she has previously had some iffy takes about systemhood. But I told her because I trusted that she would meet me where I was at and help me navigate , at the least, the general idea of not understanding my own brain if nothing else which I was ok with. I told her and it went as expected. I explained why I thought I might be a system but also the doubts I had about it and how it was distressing me to not understand myself. She agreed to use the language I was using for it and was happy to help me through (as is her job) and also because whether it was systemhood or not it was something in me that was trying to be seen and we would work on figuring out what it was.

Fast forward a few session, and I was going through another bout of "what the fuck even is my brain". I was starting to realize that my "systemhood" is very different from the things I've been seeing online. In the ways that it's different to other systems is: - I'm always in the front, always in the captains chair - I have no amnesia because I never switch out - My hyper-vigilance never lets me dissociate fully though i definitely "check out" in my own way - Head mates just feel like vague ideas or emotions

But the ways that are similar are: - These vague ideas or emotions have opinions and feelings that are different from my own. - Though they are vague, I can definitely tell they are separate from what I have come to understand as "me" - I become "a different person" in the sense of my attitude, vibe, behavior, and opinions change from where they were 5 mins ago, but I am still me, just a different me.

Anyway, I was already trying to make sense of all of this and was not planning on talking about it with my therapist because nervous... However, my therapist ask me about it first. She asked some clarifying questions about my partners system vs my own and how they are different. When I explained what I just wrote above to my therapist she said "Thats what I thought and I owe you an apology."

Basically, my therapist, like any good therapist should when confronted by something they don't know a lot about, had been doing research on complex forms of trauma and coping. Things in the same vain as CPTSD and Plurality including those two topics. She had specifically been reading a book called "The Body Keeps The Score" (TW it is a book about trauma and studies of trauma so it has details of case studies that some people may find incredibly triggering). I did some research on what exactly the book was talking about in regards to "systemhood" and from what I've found, chapter 14 at the end of a section called "Writing to yourself" and the first parts of chapter 17 have interesting information regarding systemhood and how its not entirely limited to things that are diagnosable like DID or OSDD. It seems to talk about how we all have several selves and trauma can get in the way of those selves communicating effectively. My therapist told me about this book and what she learned from it and apologized to me because the book made her realize that she was wrong and that I was in fact a system....

The session ended and I just kind of sat there... not sure how to feel but definitely feeling relief and validation.

After doing research on the book to write this I have some words of wisdom. If you are a questioning system or are doubting your validity remember this: The human brain is so incredibly complex and no one actually understands how it does anything beyond its basic physical functionality... the conceptual abilities of our mind are a mystery. How we define self is just theory. If you don't fit into boxes, labels, identities, or diagnoses that does not mean your experiences aren't real. You are going to be ok. Understand YOUR mind and how it works for YOU, not through a label or diagnosis. If those things come later, great! Do not let them destroy you just because you don’t fit perfectly. I am a system. Simply. No types, labels, or diagnosis. I am a system. I have a unique experience because my brain is no one elses. I am a system. I may not have people in my head in the traditional sense but I'm also not alone up here either. I am a system. I am a system. I am a system. Nobody has the right to deny me this for they do not live behind my eyes.

As I understand myself: I am a system.

[buntress]

⌖ What Is Non-Harmful Transitioning?

[PT :: What is non-harmful transitioning?]

As the term Desirdae has become more popular, a thing I have noticed is people not understanding what "non-harmful transitioning" means. Which is quite fair! It's a very, very vague term that can be used in a multitude of ways. So, in order to curb this slightly, I feel it necessary to elaborate on what, to me at least, non-harmful transitioning entails. If the original coiner, @ghosting-plural-userboxes or @desirdae-archive would like to add anything I would love that! Ty for making this term btw, it's been genuinely so helpful <3

───

⌖ What is harmful transitioning?

[PT :: What is harmful transitioning]

I think in order to get into what non-harmful transitioning is, we should first get into what qualifies as harmful transitioning. So, to me, harmful transitioning is as follows ::

Transitioning by using methods of self harm, such as cutting, burning, bleaching ones skin, etc.

Transitioning by harming others, whether physically, emotionally, or spiritually // metaphysically.

Transitioning by putting yourself in traumatic situations, such as putting oneself in a situation to be groomed, assaulted, physically or emotionally harmed, etc.

Transitioning to have a disorder // disability one does not have, such as harming oneself in order to acquire a physical disability or enacting stereotypical behaviors to "act" as if they have a certain mental illness or disability.

Transitioning in a way that harms minorities of all kinds. Such as using blackface, yellowface, asianfishing, etc in order to "transition" towards different POC identities.

Transitioning to hateful and bigoted ideologiess that harm others.

Simply put, transitioning in a way that actively harms yourself or others is harmful transitioning.

───

⌖ So, what is non-harmful transitioning?

[PT :: So, what is non-harmful transitioning?]

Having gotten some basics of what counts as harmful transitioning out of the way, let's get onto examples of non-harmful transitioning!

Dyeing ones hair as a form of transition.

Partaking in more foods of a specific culture in order to feel more comfortable, while acknowledging one is not part of that culture (this enters a grey area with headmates, as not everything is black and white)

Accepting ones disabled traits, that they already have, and learning that no matter how they experience it, it is enough.

Learning more about cultures in order to feel more comfortable with yourself, while still acknowledging you are not a part of that culture. (Again, gets muddy when it comes to headmates)

Getting piercings, body modifications, etc done by professionals as a form of transition.

Starting HRT or other forms of medical transitioning.

Getting cosmetic surgeries (nothing that would change the appearance of your own race, of course) done by professionals as a form of transition.

And likely many other ways to do it that aren't harmful! There are really, truly, so many ways to go about this that aren't harmful I promise you. I can think of an infinite number of ways to do this stuff non-harmfully.

───

⌖ What makes Desirdae different from TransID?

[PT :: What makes Desirdae different from TransID?]

Simply the means of which one may transition. Desirdae is firmly anti-harmful transitioning for any reason while TransID is pro all forms of transition, harmful or not. You can see this in terms like transnazi, transrace, transplural, and many transharmful identities that it is often encouraged to transition into these things, despite the harm such things do. Desirdae, on the other hand, actively discourages harmful transitioning. So while things like Desirharmful, Desirskintone, etc do exist it is actively said by the creators that one should not harmfully transition into these terms. I will say, many do not make it clear that for some terms there is no way to non-harmfully transition*. But I chock this up to people being, rightfully, tired of constantly having to explain their experience with this term isn't inherently harmful. But it is still an issue I believe should be fixed when possible. * [PT :: there is no way to non-harmfully transition]

───

I understand the worries many have towards Desirdae. We do not want just another TransID clone to take over and create yet another space full of radqueers who push for things like legalization of non-consensual relationships or what have you. That is a fair worry to have, and it was a worry I initially had as well. But in exploring these terms and the community that they have fostered, I have found that this is quite the opposite. It is a community based purely on consent, recovery, and a safe space for people to speak on their issues where as radqueer and transID often push anti-recovery and anti-consent rhetoric. This is the key difference between these two terms, I believe. One feeds into harmful behaviors and seemingly pushes people to the worst versions of themselves while the other is more of a "hey, I understand these feelings, I feel this way too, it's not OK but we can recover together."

If I missed anything, am incorrect about something, or if one has questions I myself am more than happy to answer. While this is not a term and community I created, it is one I am happy to be a part of and want to grow into something helpful.

Thank you for reading, I hope you all have a lovely day. Remember to be kind, anger towards fellow mentally ill queers does nothing but push the agenda of the oppressors <3

[fromfiction]

hii!

idk if you knew this, but "soulbond" and "plural identity" are vv harmful terms

:( theyre pro endo (endogenic, aka a "system" without trauma) and endos scientifically cant exist. /info

basically, systems like ourself stem from childhood trauma. before the ages of 9-12, your brain is physically unable to create a solid identity. normally, by that age, what we call "facets" or "fragments" of identity will either:

- fuse together, creative your identity (which is ever-changing but now has a "root"); or

- disappear for any reason

but when someone goes through extreme trauma before that age, those facets are unable to develop properly and instead become identities. this results in DID/OSDD/USD, which are the only ways plurality can exist.

soulbonding is (and correct me if im wrong) the practice of creating a spiritual connection with someone or something, or bringing their soul/spirit into your body. this is similar to introjecting (having an alter form based on a real person, fictional character, etc.) but alters cannot be made intentionally as they form at the brain's subconscious and not the conscious. therefore, it isn't possible and soulbonding is purely misinformation.

likewise, "plural identity" is equally harmful if not even more so because it implies that one can just "identify" as a system or as having fragmented identity, which in turn mutes the people like me whove been through horrible things and had to suffer for it our whole life. if plurality was an identity, then 100% of real systems would identify as singlet because it really isnt fun.

please remove those from your blog... /nm /lh

I am begging you to at least think about what you're doing and saying when you come to a person and ask them to negate and deny their entire personhood and entire lived existence to make you comfortable and to conform to your worldview.

This is what you are doing when you come to a spiritual plural or a spiritual fictionkin and say "stop using those words, because I don't believe in those things".

When you say "DID/OSDD/USD, are the only ways plurality can exist" to someone who has lived the past 30 years of their life as a spiritual plural system you are saying "you don't exist, and I want you to deny your own existence for my comfort."

You are literally coming to me and telling me my soul doesn't exist.

You don't think that's a fucked up thing to say to someone, even if you believe it?

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Writing Refresher: "Each"

Each - refers to every one of two (or more) individuals/objects within a group.

Typically describes countable nouns (which you can represent in singular or plural form), rather than uncountable nouns (which cannot occur in plural form).

Can function as a distributive, pronoun, adjective, or adverb:

Distributive - a word that refers to one or multiple entities within a group of countable nouns. In some situations, words like “individually,” “exclusively,” or “separately” can be synonyms for “each.”

As an indefinite pronoun - “each” refers to a general group without naming who or what it refers to.

As an indefinite adjective, "which "each" describes nouns in a general manner without specifically naming who or what they are.

As an adverb, you can use “each” to mean “apiece.”

SINGULAR & PLURAL FORMS

The word “each” refers to a singular subject (within a group of countable nouns), so it is technically a singular word.

Writers who use “each” to refer to the subject of a sentence should modify the number of the verb depending on whether the subject is singular or plural.

If “each” appears before a singular noun or subject, use the singular verb form.

If it follows a plural subject, use the plural verb form.

THE PRONOUN PHRASE: "EACH OF"

Can be confusing to use before a plural noun or other pronoun.

Often incorrectly used: the plural verb form (“each of them have”).

In this case, the correct choice is the singular form of the verb (“each of them has”).

EXAMPLES

“Each member of the team is interested in becoming a leader.”

The phrase “each member of the team” (which is singular) calls for using the singular present tense form of the verb “to be” (which is “is”).

“They each have multiple degrees in different subjects.”

In this example, the plural pronoun “they” requires the plural verb “have,” separated by “each,” which means that every individual member of the group possesses the same distinctions (“multiple degrees in different subjects”).

“Each one of the houses has a brand new window treatment.”

A singular verb is still correct to use with collective nouns (which are singular nouns that refer to more than one person, place, or thing).

Using the phrase “each one of” before the collective noun “the houses” makes the singular verb “has” correct.

This rule also applies to plural pronouns such as “them.”

“Each photograph in the collection was beautiful.”

In this example, “was” is the correct verb choice to refer to each singular photograph in the whole collection, which is a group.

“Each of my siblings is going to school.”

Even though “siblings” is a plural subject, the modifying phrase “each of my” requires using the singular form of the verb “to be,” which is “is.”

Source ⚜ More: Writing Basics & Refreshers

[sophieinwonderland]

Hiveminds and Multiplicity

When thinking about Hiveminds, I realized that hivemind connection is a spectrum, with many plural or plural-like experiences across it.

At the same time, both the beginning and end of this spectrum are singlet experiences. I decided to represent this with my own horseshoe theory.

Unconnected Individuals

This is pretty self-explanatory. These are totally separate individuals with their totally separate bodies. These are not even the slightest bit plural. Or, at least, not for any hivemind related reasons.

Mind-Linked

Now we drift into plural territory.

At this point, the individuals have some sort of mental link to each other. Mind links can range in levels of complexity.

At a low level, this may mean feeling each other's emotions or sensing when something really bad happens with no words or other communication. The most basic form of this might be "twintuition" in shows, where twins can magically sense when something happens to another no matter where they are.

At high levels, this can come with full verbal communication and other hallucinatory experiences.

Mind-linked systems often have strong barriers between them, only being able to transfer limited information, and maybe only in specific circumstances.

But the mind-linked are having plural experiences. They have someone else feeling their emotions, hearing their thoughts. It's very similar to sharing your mind with headmates. As this connection grows, they may end up becoming...

The Multiple Hivemind

At the top most point of the horseshoe, all mental barriers have been torn down.

They're still multiple people. They still have their own individual identities. But the link has become so great that they can read each other's thoughts whenever they want. They can share memories and skills freely between them, being both multiple and completely connected at the same time.

The Median Hivemind

Having achieved perfect connection, identity starts to erode. The median hivemind starts becoming its own collective identity.

Individuals in the median hivemind still retain agency and sense of self, but are also blending together more now and feel less like separate people.

The True Hivemind

At this point, there is no distinction between identity of the members. The hivemind is now one singlet spread across multiple bodies. A contrast and opposite to traditional plurality, which is multiple agents in one body.

...

We Can Get Weird With This...

Okay, that's a basic overview of how hiveminds work and evolve with singlets. But... what if some members of the hivemind aren't singlets?

Now things are going to get weird because hiveminds and mental links enable a lot of peculiar things that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

What if an old headmate goes dormant for years. In that time, the system becomes linked to a hivemind and specifically become either a median or true hivemind where they all identify as the same thing? What if that headmate comes back to find everyone else in the system is part of this hivemind with their identities melded into it, but the new headmate is still separate?

Or what if a multiple hivemind enabled headmates originating in the same body to front in multiple bodies at once, essentially allowing system hopping as a thing in those specific circumstances? What one of the members of an in-sys relationship used someone else's body (consensually) to be with their partner?

Or what if, for whatever reason, only one member of the system had the connection to the hivemind while the rest didn't?

Or... imagine that there are two systems with a strong mental link. They become a multiple hivemind with headmates able to speak freely to each other and even share an inner world. Then two headmates, one from each system, interact more and end up fusing. What does this mean? Which body is theirs? What happens if the link is severed?

Or in the same vein, what if a hivemind starts out as existing between 5 singlets? They become connected and end up being a multiple hivemind, and share an inner world. What if the hivemind created a tulpa together in this inner world, and none of the members are sure whose tulpa it actually counts as?

...

Anyway, if there's any takeaway from this, it should be that plurality is weird. Hiveminds are weird. And put them together and you get a weird sandwich. 😁