#sysconvo

[cherubiccluster]

It confuses me when people who are cool with non-disordered and spiritual otherkin are against the concept of non-disordered or spiritual plurality

I don't get how you can accept the concept of

"I am a fox, this identity is not caused by any mental illness"

or

"I am Sailor Moon, this Identity is not caused by any mental illness"

but somehow the concept of "we are multiple people in one body, this is not caused by any mental illness" is too much for you

[hiiragi7]

I know the most common definition of endogenic plurality is "a system formed without trauma", however I really feel there should be a way to define endogenic plurality without mentioning trauma in the definition. By using "without trauma" in the definition, you inherently draw a comparison to traumagenic multiplicity that shouldn't really need to be there. Endogenic plurality is a thing in its own right without needing to rely on the framework of traumagenic multiplicity to define itself.

The current definition defines itself by what it is not; it is not traumagenic. It does not describe what endogenic plurality is, only what it isn't. As a definition, it cannot stand on its own; it relies on the reader already knowing not only what a system is, but what a system formed by trauma is, because the current widespread definition of endogenic plurality is "not that".

As well, not every endogenic plural identifies as a system per se (preferring language such as "collective", for example), so this definition of endogenic plurality feels not only unclear (due to the term system also referring to "system of parts" within a DD context) but also somewhat exclusionary and narrow.

Instead, I propose that endogenic plurality is "the experience of being more than one through psychological or spiritual means".

With that, as well, we can then define traumagenic as "the experience of being more than one due to trauma, generally related to a trauma-based disorder such as DID".

These definitions leave room for various kinds of "more than one", because it does not define exactly what that "more than one" refers to; it could be more than one personality state, it could be more than one person in one body, it could be more than one spirit or soul in one body, it could be more than one identity, so on. This wording is explicitly meant to give space for those who do not fit neatly into either "system" or "non-system" (such as many who identify as "median"), those who do not identify with or use the term "system" when talking about their plurality, and anyone else not mentioned under the current definition.

These definitions are also meant to be loose, not rigid, as to acknowledge and include experiences which blur the lines between the two categories or which are often overlooked (such as traumaendo and endogenic plurals with CDDs).

[greens-spilled-tea]

Anyways something I've noticed is how different spaces have such different reactions towards fusion and splitting. Certain spaces seem to celebrate the formation of a new alter/headmate and are even envious of systems with high alter/headmate counts. I've even come across the question of "how do yall cope with fusions?" with the implication that fusion means the alters/headmates go away or are no longer needed. On the other side of the equation, I've been in spaces where splitting is seen as unequivocally a negative experience while fusion is celebrated. And honestly this difference in opinion and experience is something I want to explore more and understand better. Why is there such a difference? Is this a difference between non-CDD systems and CDD system experiences, or endogenic and traumagenic systems, or something else entirely?

[wondercourse]

y'know what a big pet peeve of mine is?

the phrase "this isn't for you" appended to "pro-/endos dni" on posts about trauma. usually trauma recovery. not necessarily about CDDs (though i'll get into why that's ALSO fucked up in a bit), but just about trauma in general.

i am a big believer in curating your space. i curate mine; i don't like how aggressive syscourse tends to be, so i don't engage in it in the way people may expect me to with my username being "wondercourse" lol. i don't really care what "side" they're on, what matters to me is how they treat others. it is okay for you to set boundaries surrounding your interactions with others, including those you don't want to interact with. i'm not saying you shouldn't do what you need to do to feel comfortable in your space.

but why not leave it at "dni" (this is also about the "fuck off" tag but that's a whole different conversation)? why append "this isn't for you"?

that implies that whatever kind words you said in that post, whatever encouragement you wanted to give, whatever "positive" thing you were trying to do, isn't deserved by the people you don't like.

even if someone who identifies as endogenic is a trauma survivor, "this post isn't for you".

even if they're person with a CDD who happens to "believe in" and/or support people who identify as endogenic, "this post isn't for you".

if you are "wrong" in someone's eyes, "this post isn't for you".

honestly, to me, it minimizes the words. they're not actually for all trauma survivors. they're not for all people with CDDs. they're for the ones that you find palatable. and that's...uncomfortable, to put it as kindly as i can.

and it's so unnecessary. it is not equivalent to just saying "dni". you are NOT the arbiter of what people deserve or don't, especially when it comes to trauma support/solidarity.

and maybe this is just me misinterpreting the phrase! but it just makes me skin crawl. like idk if there's really a way to justify it that would make me go "oh, i get it" because i don't (but i'm open to discussing it). why not treat each other as human beings deserving of respect and healing?

anyway, this has been a long enough post. i'm tired. i don't know if this even bothers anyone else. but it bugs the shit out of me.

oh, i was going to keep this in the tags, but this is something i want people to see: i mostly see this with people who identify with being anti-endo. but if you identify as pro-/endo and you do this "this isn't for you" thing on general positivity/recovery posts, then this is also about you. and if you don't, then it's not lol.

[cherubiccluster]

Every so often, I come up with a what I think is a insightful syscourse post in my head and I'll think I posted it and then I check this blog and see I didn't and by then I forgot the point I has thought of

[hiiragi7]

[Complex answer; pro-endo]

I think that it can be used as a catch-all term, but I find it is often overused in conversations where differentiating language would actually be more beneficial instead (specifically, as it comes to discussions of CDD vs. non-CDD systems); I feel the term "plural" is best used as an umbrella term covering a lot of vastly different experiences rather than a way of saying "all systems are pretty much the exact same regardless of origin, CDD systems are just disordered plurals".

That being said, though, it gets... messy, and personally I don't often call myself plural anymore, because I found it to be inaccurate to describing what I am experiencing (I am not multiple people in one body, I am a person with a divided personality system), but because I am a person with DID, I am often inherently included/lumped under the plurality label when I don't really identify that way. In a lot of contexts, I actually even feel misunderstood or hurt when CDD multiplicity is conflated with non-CDD plurality through use of the plural label, because while both identities are valid, they are different and failure to acknowledge that often leads to misinformation and misunderstandings regarding both sets of identities.

Tl;dr, plural is a good word, but it is sometimes used in ways that feed into misinformation rather than inclusion.

[hiiragi7]

Endogenic Plurality, Disability, & Ableism

Note: For simplicity's sake, this post will be focused on endogenic plurals without a CDD, and uses endogenic interchangeably with "endogenic without a CDD" to be less wordy. Disability and disorder are also used somewhat interchangeably here.

I've been thinking more on the "do endogenic plurals experience ableism for being plural" debate, and something which I really would like to explore more in discussion is how plurality's proximity to disability impacts the ways in which endogenic plurals are treated.

While I see some fair points in each argument, statements such as "if you don't have a disorder, you do not face ableism" and "endogenic plurals only face misdirected ableism" are vastly oversimplifying the actual issues here to the point that they are actually misleading at best and harmfully incorrect at worst.

I have been reading Cripping Intersex lately and it has changed a lot of the ways in which I view disability politics. One thing that this book has made very clear: Saying "I do not have a disorder" does not prevent you from being subjected to discrimination based on an ableist system, and in fact rejecting the disability framework entirely not only does nothing to dismantle that ableism but even reinforces it.

This is not to say that endogenic plurals are "actually disabled/disordered", but rather that plurality as a whole has a proximity to disability in such a way that it is almost inherently subjected to ableism. There is absolutely a socially and medically enforced view of self which excludes any sort of overt plurality, especially in a Western colonialist context. Whether your plurality is actually disordered or not, that does not matter when you are working within a systemic framework which seeks to eliminate anything not defined as normal or acceptable. It doesn't even matter if your plurality is non-pathological; if it is not socially accepted as "normal", it is treated as disordered and to be fixed.

This sort of ableism is not only related to ableism more common to DID, but ableism as a whole. It is related to disability as a socially prescribed status through discrimination rather than black-and-white categories or objective truths regarding disorder and non-disorder. It is related to how saneism defines what is and is not normal and acceptable, rather than what psychology or the medical field defines as "actually" pathological and disordered (though it is important to acknowledge that these two systems heavily interact, as well, and that oppression impacts how the medical system defines pathology).

I reject that ableism towards endogenic plurals is simply "misdirected". To call it "misdirected ableism" is so often used to say that endogenic plurals are not the intended target, but I argue that they absolutely are included as intentional targets because plurality as a whole is a target, explicitly named or not. The determining factor for ableism is not whether someone is "really" disordered or not, but that they are treated as such due to societal standards regarding acceptable and unacceptable ways of being. When "unacceptable" is equated to "disordered" through a saneist lens, you are treated as such - and, you are, therefore, vulnerable to ableism.

I heavily agree with those who have so far spoken about how what people call pluralphobia is so often just ableism (though I also view it as often intersecting with anti-spiritual/religious views and racism), however I feel that we need to take this conversation even further to examine exactly how ableism works and who it affects. This post is also not meant to say "endos are oppressed for being plural", but rather that endos are oppressed through the same ableist systems that affect all plurals/people with CDDs and to expand on that to open conversation about it.

On a final note, I'd like to reflect on how rejection of disability has gone for various movements in the past and how that relates to the modern plural community and its approach to "plural acceptance".

As someone who was diagnosed with autism in the 2000s and saw a lot of push from autistics back then to de-medicalize autism to avoid further forced "normalizing treatment" like ABA, I can say that rejecting the framework of disability and ableism did not help us to dismantle systemic medical violence against autistic people and even isolated many severely disabled autistics who rely on medical interventions and support.

As an intersex person, I can say that the intersex community rejecting the framework of disability and ableism did not help us to end "normalizing treatments" against intersex people and even isolated many intersex people who do identify themselves as being disordered due to their intersex condition.

And as a person with DID, I have learned about how the empowered multiples movement had attempted to reject the framework of disorder and ableism to avoid medicalization and forced fusion, and how that did not help systems who did need medical intervention nor did it do anything to dismantle medical violence or stigma against multiples.

Any sort of wider "Plural Acceptance Movement" that comes into existence will fail if it is not also simultaneously and inherently a disability movement, and this is not just due to the existence of CDD systems. Seperation from disability does not exempt you from ableism or ableist frameworks and systemic oppression. CDD or not, we all as a community are impacted by ableism and cannot find any widespread acceptance while ignoring that. Plural acceptance is disability acceptance.

[greens-spilled-tea]

Protip: if you actually want people to listen to you and understand your point of view and possibly even change their opinion, wishing them harm and hurt and isolation is not going to do that.

Like, I am so so serious. I'm sorry that people have hurt you and you absolutely do not owe anyone anything. But at the same time, further ostracizing others will actually hurt your cause. If what you truly want is for people to understand your point of view, for people to change their opinion, the best way to do that is to actually be kind.

And again, if you don't have the capacity to be kind.... you don't have to. But also don't be cruel. That is how you push people further into their own preconceived ideas and reinforce their own hatred.

[wondercourse]

wow me using the sysconvo tag to actually have a Convo about goings-on in the System? crazy. usually i don't get personal like this (maybe) but there's smth happening lol

uhh this might be a "this is obvious you stupid idiot how could you not know this" moment but just bear with us here. this is like. half a question half just sharing an experience.

so like. two parts (shade and moon) who were very distinctly separate from one another, right. like even when they were together, occupying a similar space in the brain for lack of a better term, they were still Two Guys. very much Two Separate Guys/Two Separate Parts of the Whole. like, definitively.

but now it's like...complicated after processing a lot of stuff.

it kinda feels like two guys but occupying the exact same space and moving in the exact same way at the exact same time. and i'm talking like. "clipping into each other" occupying the same space—like EXACTLY the same space. we kind of feel like both a separate entity from the other two parts and like both of them, so we refer to ourselves both as like. one part AND two? idk

i can't tell if this is just blending (but like. constant) or if we fused (but we still feel kind of a little like two parts)? it doesn't...really matter though bc we're whatever we are now. like if you relate that's awesome and please feel free to share bc solidarity would be cool but i'm not necessarily seeking validation, more so just. conversation. like if you REALLY wanted me to explain what we are i'd say we're an ✨ experience ✨ 😎 or smth silly like that.

so tl;dr, we are now One Guy And Two At The Same Time. we don't know what to make of this yet and aren't exactly labeling it this is more just a thought dump about some Stuff goin' on with us. if this IS a fusion then we've never really experienced one that's felt like this so again if this is a "you should know this dumbass"...don't tell us lol

thanks for reading/listening

[rayssyscourse]

how & why my syscourse opinions have changed over time

i've been meaning to make a post like this for a while now, and i finally sat down to actually write it LOL. for those of you who aren't familiar with me/this blog, i used to be a very steadfast anti-endo. over the past several months i changed my label to endo critical for a while and then ditched labels as a whole. so, what changed me from being firmly anti-endo to being... something that's not that? let's talk about it!

Learning that I had kind of been arguing with a straw man

One of many anti-endos' biggest issues with endos is the idea that they are faking DID/OSDD or are claiming to have a CDD without trauma. As I found out, turns out that's just... not really the case. Most endos aren't claiming to have a CDD without trauma, they're just claiming to be plural without a CDD.

there's room for understandable confusion here. the current state of society sees plurality as almost solely a clinical thing, and equates being plural to having a CDD, as if one cannot exist without the other. this is kind of just... not true.

It IS true that CDDs are, in the vast majority of cases, formed due to trauma. However, that's not their only symptom. In order to be diagnosed w/ a CDD you also usually have to fit other criteria, including but not limited to dissociation, amnesia/memory gaps, trauma at certain ages, etc. So, it's totally possible for somebody to be plural but not have any of those other symptoms, and in that case they most likely would not be diagnosed with a CDD.

Seeing the issues with binary labels

As time went on, the binary labels of "pro" and "anti" seemed less and less helpful to me. Calling myself anti-endo seemed to give people an automatic idea that I hated all endos, and honestly I started to see why. Calling myself "anti" an arbitrary word that described a whole lot of various and involuntary experiences seemed... Not at all helpful. Plus, I didn't like being associated with the aspenfrostens of the world; I didn't want to be seen as the same as people who went around mindlessly harassing random people for no reason. Pro and anti labels didn't really give anyone any information about my actual beliefs, it just gave them a preconceived notion to judge me off of.

Literally just talking to more people

For a long time my only interaction with endogenic systems was a select group of people (well, really one main person) who were really fucking shitty to me. It gave me the incorrect notion that the endogenic community as a whole was the same. As I cut contact with that person and their friend group, and I started this blog and engaging with other people in the syscourse/sysconvo community, I realized that most people were just... regular, polite people. Some people who were especially kind and understanding towards me (even when I was making some shitty takes lmao) were @thecircularsystem, @indigochromatic, and @clover-system. (Thanks guys!)

There's a lot more to say, but thats all I'm up for typing for now. Have a lovely day everyone!!!

[quoigenic-anon]

Wait, that Sysconvo person is already deactivated? Lol, what a speedrunner...

[hiiragi7]

Hello! We saw your post about wanting to find non anti-endo spaces and misinformation on CDDs and wanted to just ask, what changed your opinion on endos? We ourselves are anti-endo but not aggressively or with malice (we dont even post things or interact with the community really, just lurk, so its not like were ANTI-endo ya know? Just that we dont believe or support them) we just want to understand because we ourselves havnt found any compelling evidence or experience that would point to the existence of DID(plurality) without trauma. This isnt to say we wish to challenge your own belief's at all!! Rather we honestly would like to know your thoughts because we see a decent amount of systems say things like "I use to be anti-endo until I was informed" and so if thats the case I would rather be informed! The only compelling argument ive found at this point is people connecting it to spirituality and while I find that a bit offensive as an ashiest who sees that a bit more like appropriation for the sake of religious belief's I understand its a bit of a gray area for most. Very sorry if this came off at all offensively or if this ask is upsetting or unwarranted in anyway please feel free to disregard if so! Its not our intention to cause issue or upset asking this, thank you for your time.

Hi there,

I've never been anti-endo, so I wouldn't say I really changed my mind regarding endos as much as I would say my understanding of endogenic plurals, traumagenic systems, and CDDs has deepened and shifted over time. When I first began learning more about plurality and DID, I didn't know much about endogenic plurals or how they worked nor how they related to DID, but I decided I would trust people on how they perceive their identity regardless of if I understood it perfectly or not and try to learn more.

Regarding your ask, I feel it is important to distinguish the concept of plurality from that of DID. Plurality is very broad; It simply refers to being more than one, which can take a massive variety of different forms because it relates to how people view the self and identity, which is subjective. It may be altered by spiritual, cultural, or individual beliefs, and in many contexts (especially regarding endogenic plurals) it is better understood through the lens of how both sociocultural and individual beliefs regarding the self interact and develop rather than through the lens of pathology.

The plurality seen in endogenic plurality is not the same per se as what many refer to as plurality in DID, or what I personally prefer to refer to as multiplicity in these discussions for clarifying sake so as to not use the same word with a differing definition.

In DID, the multiplicity has been theorized to reflect a divided personality system, or dissociated parts, which is not the same as the plurality described by endogenic plurals. In practice, however, the lines may appear very blurred, as clinical understanding and pathology also interacts with individual beliefs regarding the self and the state of their multiplicity; as an example, many people with DID strongly reject the framework of parts, and prefer to refer to their system's members as people they share a body with, often because they hold individual beliefs regarding what defines personhood that affects the language which they use to describe their system. As endogenic plurals also often describe their headmates as people they share a body with, the difference may not be immediately clear.

To further complicate matters, individual beliefs regarding the self, one's life, and one's identity may also alter the view of how a person believes their system to have formed even if they are DID. I've met many systems who are DID but who also identify as endogenic for a variety of reasons related to how they make sense of their life and memories as well as their sense of self and identity. To give a more specific example, I've known several DID systems who say they were born plural for a variety of reasons (some psychological, some spiritual) but who additionally experienced childhood trauma which they view as the origin of their DID seperate from the origin of their plurality.

It is my opinion that these differences in beliefs and labels are not inherently harmful nor misinformed because they are based in subjectivity, and they may even be beneficial for many people as it gives them a framework to make sense of themselves in that is unique to their individual experiences.

Regarding evidence and endogenic plurality, I also believe that fixating so much on clinical evidence or proof through studies is to misunderstand fundamentally that plurality and multiplicity both relate to an understanding of self that is not objective and as such cannot be easily measured through objective means. The self is not something that is easily understood solely through the context of clinical study; rather, by only examining the self through this lens, you limit your understanding of the self. Rather than a fixation on an evidence which is not easily obtained nor measured, I instead encourage a frameworks-based understanding of plurality, which is already done for multiplicity (the Theory of Structural Dissociation is a framework).

To summarize, DID is a trauma-based disorder, however the multiplicity described in DID is not necessarily the same as the plurality described by endogenic plurals. As well, while a clinical understanding of DID is incredibly important, it is also meaningful to consider how sociocultural and individual beliefs interact with this understanding and how they may alter the way people identify, especially regarding the aspect of multiplicity and self. Lastly, a frameworks-based approach to endogenic plurality such as plurality through the lens of individual beliefs regarding the self may be more useful to understanding endogenic plurality than a focus on clinical evidence is.

[seasidewanderers]

send me syscourse/sysconvo asks maybe? or ask me about anything. I've been out of the loop for a few weeks now

[draconicpetrichor]

i'm bored out of my mind and need to stay awake, can someone send syscourse, sysconvo, or system asks? preferably no origin discourse. TIA!

[seasidewanderers]

I voted hope for better things, because if I don't look forward to getting better, I don't think I'd have anything to look forward to. it is also important to me to find other people who are currently struggling as I am, I just think it's more important to me to hold on to hope and a future of self care and self love

I find that syscourse is often divided between misery and joy. "If you have DID you must be miserable because I'm miserable." "I am happy and joyful because it's important to me to not define myself by my disorder" Of course, the best course of action is a healthy middle ground, but even so I find that most people in the system community tend to lean towards one side rather than sitting exactly in the middle.

So as a system, what means more to you? Are you someone who prefers to find other systems who suffer the same as you that make you feel less alone? Or are you someone who likes to see other systems experiencing true happiness as it gives you hope that you may also be able to be happy despite all the troubles you face? Or do you truly sit in the middle valuing both equally?

[wondercourse]

i'm making this its own post actually because it's really important to me. pardon an anecdote.

i am someone who leaning hard into solely being parts did not work for. i was pushed into it, and while in some aspects it helped and parts of it reflect how i see myself, pushing it SO HARD made things worse. in fact, quite ironically considering its push as the SOLE "pro-recovery" option, it led to me starting to see "unfavorable" parts of me as separate human beings from me and the "good" parts. as in, they were not part of my whole, they were not part of my body. i was experiencing the kind of dissociation that the isstd says to prevent.

this will not happen to everyone. this isn't meant to be a horror story to push you away from parts language (which i still use) or a parts of a whole view of yourself. the whole point is to tell you to do what works for you—and to explain what didn't work for me, and why it might not work for everyone.

that said, as you can imagine, this experience means i am sick to DEATH of people pushing One True Recovery Path™.

seeing my parts as the in-between of parts and people IS seeing them as parts of a whole. it has allowed for integration. it has allowed for healing. it has allowed for me to feel more like one person more than ever.

it seems contradictory, doesn't it? that being people makes me feel like one person. but it works for me. they are me and i am them, that is true—but in the sense that we, as people and parts, are what "i" am.

you do not get to define someone's path to recovery in their stead. you do not get to tell someone you don't know what works for them. what works for you may not work for everyone. again, if solely seeing yourself in terms of parts works for you, that's amazing. not being facetious. i'm glad you've found what works for you.

you do not get to push that onto everyone. period.

i've made a post like this before, but this one is more personal because i wanted to give an example of "alters are never people" not helping everyone.

as with everything in syscourse and systemhood and life, there is nuance.

sigh. i honestly hope the people who need to see this—the ones pushing the One True Recovery Path™ rhetoric—see this. i feel that the likelihood of that happening is low, but still. i need them to see that what they're pushing does not always work. and is also not with the ISSTD meant when talking about parts being "a singular human being".

let people view their subjective experience as they need to in order to move forward. parts, people, both, neither, nebulous in-between, secret third thing, whatever. it is not your place to define a subjective and often deeply personal thing. i keep saying it because i cannot emphasize it enough.

stop trying to tell people what their experiences "should" be. stop telling them they're faking or wrong or bad because they don't fall under that. this doesn't even just apply to the parts and people shit, actually, because this just happens a lot. it's frustrating. immensely so.

god i'm so tired.