the-entities-syscourse

[the-entities-syscourse]

stance on sophieinwonderland? we're just curious to know as a parogenic system/plural if people agree with us - Lola&, d.s.g - in case we come back

Hi Anon!

We honestly don't even know a drop of information on the sophieinwonderland situation, but we'd be happy to answer this ask at a later time if someone is willing to gives us a post/doc/whatever with the rundown!

Thank you!!

-Haz (☣︎)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Your daily reminder that being endogenic is not a radqueer identity

We are radinclus (supporting all good faith identities, contradictory labels, non-harmful paras & transIDs, microlabels, and anti-harassment, anti-c) which is very much different than radqueer (where harmful paras & transIDs are included).

We've seen a lot of people, radqueers and anti-endos alike, claiming that being endogenic makes you a radqueer or endogenic plurality is inherently a "radqueer thing". It is not. There is a differentiation, and that conflation of the two is kinda dangerous! (considering that the rq community in itself is dangerous in certain ways and pushing endogenic plurals towards that is...yikes, but we won't get into that right now)

Thank you for tuning in to this reminder <3

-Hazard (☣︎)

[the-entities-syscourse]

You wanna know what really grinds my gears? The fact that there are so many anti-endo discord servers, especially self-ship ones. I can’t even express my love for fictional characters without the risk of being fakeclaimed.

Hi Anon!!

We have sooo many opinions on this oh my gosh!!

It also grinds our gears when non-plurality focused spaces have rules about who is allowed! That shouldn't be a thing! Especially if people who aren't plural are making those calls (which is what we have seen in many of these spaces before). It excludes people from communities they'd otherwise be in, is pointless overall, and shouldn't even be a thing!!

We get having boundaries in plural spaces (even if we don't advocate for them and think exclusive spaces for plurals (an inherently inclusive term) are stupid) but having them outside is kind of ridiculous imo.

Self-shipping has nothing to do with endogenic plurality.

-Hazard (☣︎)

[the-entities-syscourse]

hey! not a syscourse thing but your color scheme is kinda low contrast and hard for us to read, just wanted to let you know for our fellow folks with visual impairments ♡ /nm

⚓️ Ishmael | he/they/star ⚓️

Hi Ishmael!

Thank you sososo much. We didn't think about that too hard when picking our colors (despite having vision problems ourselves) and just though "Ooo red!!"

Hopefully that problem has been fixed and our blog name/bio is now readable!

Sorry about that!! Anyone is free to let us know if anything similar occurs in the future :) We're happy to make adjustments for our visually impaired friends :3

-Hazard (☣︎)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Kind of a hot take but I feel like if singlets are in syscourse spaces to learn its not sucy a big deal but if they're there to argue then its kinda weird

Hi Anon!!

YES. This is exactly the point we were trying to get across in our last few posts about this topic.

It's fine if singlets participate in the system community by learning, making friends, asking respectful questions, and so on but it crosses a line for us when they start arguing about syscourse, speaking over plurals, and forming staunch opinions about "validity" when it is not their place, and never was.

Thank you!

-Hazard (☣︎)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Yes!! We are indeed on the same page!!

Someone in the comments basically explained what we meant, and we replied with more clarification on what we meant by "syscourse" in this scenario :)

-Kitti/Zee/Amor/Kami (🎤 )

Hm. I agree on the post you made 22 hours ago besides one thing. Singlets can have syscourse stances in my opinion. Like our singlet friends can be pro-endo, and it isn't fair to say they can't pick a side because there's numerous reasons - theyre partnered with/friends with a plural - they formerly believed they were plural, were plural, or were involved in plural spaces - they have an interest in plurality - they do/don't have a view on the idea of sysmedicalism - they work in medical fields/are involved with DID, OSDD, or other CDDs - numerous other reasons. idk thoughts?

~🦜🌼💗 [please tag as #🦜🌼💗anon, no spaces at all]

Hi Anon!

Lemme explain our opinion further in depth :)

Our personal opinion is that singlets shouldn't be involved in syscourse because we have had soo many singlets, involved in the community or not, act like they are professionals, decide that since they know someone with a CDD or someone who is plural that they know how it works, just randomly comment rude shit on our posts (mostly on Tiktok), and so on.

We do agree that those who formerly believed they were plural/were plural at one time are important to the community and their experiences are valuable and valid, but otherwise we feel sort of uncomfy with singlets speaking on syscourse.

We are, of course, infinitely willing to engage with singlets that want to learn about plurality, but since it's not their space, and they themself aren't plural, they shouldn't have an opinion on it.

It's just like how people who don't need reproductive care shouldn't be speaking over or making decisions about reproductive care or how people who aren't trans shouldn't be speaking over or making decisions about transness.

They are not plural, so they shouldn't be speaking over plurals or making decisions about plurality.

Sorry for going on kind of a rant, again this is just our personal opinion, if you don't agree, then you don't agree and that's that!

-Kitti/Zee/Amor/Kami (🎤)

[the-entities-syscourse]

hi @angelgutz-sys again uh

*leaves a box of your& choice of pastries in your& inbox :3*

Teehee thank you very much!!!!

We love chocolate chip cookies and cannoli's :3

-Kitti/Zee/Amor/Kami (🎤)

[the-entities-syscourse]

is ‘singlets shouldn’t be involved in syscourse’ code for ‘singlets shouldn’t be anti endo’ or do you hold pro endo singlets to the same standard of ‘that’s not your place’

Hello Anon!

Nice gotcha :3

But! While, yes, we would rather if singlets do have syscourse opinions they are pro-endo, because it is the actual informed, backed by research (crazy, right??), and not extremely hateful/exclusionary stance, we still would prefer if they stay out of it!

So (insert applause here) nice try, but nope! Thanks though c:

-Kitti/Zee/Amor/Kami (🎤)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Hm. I agree on the post you made 22 hours ago besides one thing. Singlets can have syscourse stances in my opinion. Like our singlet friends can be pro-endo, and it isn't fair to say they can't pick a side because there's numerous reasons - theyre partnered with/friends with a plural - they formerly believed they were plural, were plural, or were involved in plural spaces - they have an interest in plurality - they do/don't have a view on the idea of sysmedicalism - they work in medical fields/are involved with DID, OSDD, or other CDDs - numerous other reasons. idk thoughts?

~🦜🌼💗 [please tag as #🦜🌼💗anon, no spaces at all]

Hi Anon!

Lemme explain our opinion further in depth :)

Our personal opinion is that singlets shouldn't be involved in syscourse because we have had soo many singlets, involved in the community or not, act like they are professionals, decide that since they know someone with a CDD or someone who is plural that they know how it works, just randomly comment rude shit on our posts (mostly on Tiktok), and so on.

We do agree that those who formerly believed they were plural/were plural at one time are important to the community and their experiences are valuable and valid, but otherwise we feel sort of uncomfy with singlets speaking on syscourse.

We are, of course, infinitely willing to engage with singlets that want to learn about plurality, but since it's not their space, and they themself aren't plural, they shouldn't have an opinion on it.

It's just like how people who don't need reproductive care shouldn't be speaking over or making decisions about reproductive care or how people who aren't trans shouldn't be speaking over or making decisions about transness.

They are not plural, so they shouldn't be speaking over plurals or making decisions about plurality.

Sorry for going on kind of a rant, again this is just our personal opinion, if you don't agree, then you don't agree and that's that!

-Kitti/Zee/Amor/Kami (🎤)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Hello, Cruel King from @angelgutz-sys here.

We would like to know your take on the situation regarding the user @/rabb1x and their side accounts- mainly their persecutor, who has been harassing us for quite a while. (We'd block if Player didnt have a savior complex.)

Thank you all kindly, and it is a pleasure seeing you in our notes.

Hello Cruel King!!

We weren't super up to date on this situation but from backscrolling on your blog to see...WOOF

System accountability is immeasurably important. I don't care how you see your headmates, individual people, parts of a whole, whatever, y'all still share a body, and that body has a digital footprint, and the things you say through that body, surprise surprise, have an effect on other people!

Just because your headmate is a persecutor and they are doing "persecutor stuff" that does not make it okay for them to harass people. You need to work on that, maybe even restrict/monitor internet access, because that's not okay!

Being plural doesn't give anybody an excuse for doing things that would also get a singlet in trouble.

Harassment is inappropriate no matter what you believe or who you are.

-Kitti/Zee/Amor/Kami (🎤)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Sorry for recent relative inacitivity!!

We have been working on our BAH blog super hard (sly, shameless self-promo...zillyhoo-bah...) and haven't been posting a lot on this account!!

Here's some more recent syscourse opinion(s) of ours:

✶ Polyminds are valid if they wanna call themselves that, plurality is different for everybody!!

✶ Anti-endos usually just have a lot of hate in their hearts that people don't have to "suffer" like they do to be plural and often end up watering down CDDs to "plurality disorders" with their insistence that plurality is disordered-only despite also claiming CDDs aren't "alter disorders" (which they aren't, they are much more complex than that)

✶ This is just kind of a fact, PluralKit and SimplyPlural are pro-endo! So is Tupperbox (hence the tul! prefix for command, it was originally for tulpas)! All of them can be used by anyone, not just plurals (as stated by the people who made them!!)

✶ Singlets shouldn't really be involved in syscourse, it's not your experiences and it's not your place to "choose a side" one way or the other

✶ And the obligatory, all plurality is valid, BAH blogs are awesome, believe people's personal experiences, the brain is weird!

-Jay (💀)

[the-entities-syscourse]

my opinion is that endos can exist but they shouldn't invade CDD spaces and reclaim system terms because those were made for specifically pwCDDs

Hello Anon!

We agree with you to an extent, but we do have something to say about this.

Firstly, yes, it is great to have spaces for traumatized individuals to talk, find support, and community, but we believe if something is marketed as a "plural/system community" exclusivity gets...icky. Considering that both terms are inclusive of endogenic systems and it's a tad misleading! This of course doesn't really apply to friend group-esque communities, but more public ones!

Though (as we have learned from lovely people educating us, thank you so much again we are forever grateful, shoutout to @/sysmedsaresexist), "system" is indeed originally a medical term, it has shifted and changed so much throughout the years that it generally is inclusive of all types of plurality, since it can easily be used to describe them all!!

From our knowledge, the only terms (that we know of, there are probably more) made specifically for CDD plurals are "multiple" and "alters" (as in they are clinical terms used to describe the clinical experience of a CDD)

Otherwise, terms like plural, fictive, factive, and so on are all endogenic-made terms!!

-Jay (💀)

[the-entities-syscourse]

i saw you mention once about having a account where you sorted through/cataloged lesser known system identies. Do you mind sharing that tik tok account? But of course, only if you feel comfortable with sharing!

Hi, of course!!

Our Tiktok (where we catalogue system origins, right now we're in the A's) is collectionofentities!

-Kandi (🌈)

[the-entities-syscourse]

None of this is at you, just explaining my side, and saying thank you for the clarification post

When someone says, "there's no cut-off age," you then have to clarify that that doesn't mean adults can develop CDDs, because that's the automatic implication

If there's NO cutoff, then you must be able to develop it later

It may not be set in stone, but the actual science behind why it has to be early childhood is really important, and therefore the clarification is important

And it's important to talk about how manifestation =/= development, and that's what the DSM means when it says that symptoms can manifest at any point over the course of life, but that childhood trauma occurs "usually" before 5-6, with some wiggle room (I personally think it's age 12 based on my own research, Spiegel thinks it's 9, there's one doctor who thinks it's 16, but he's the only one)

A lot of systems think they can't have a CDD because their system formed at a later age, or that adults can develop CDDs, but that's not what the cut-off means, it's about trauma before that age range, during important milestones, and then the system can appear at any point

All the people feeling invalidated in your replies shouldn't feel that way, they fall within the normal CDD development and the DSM, and it's more important to explain these concepts than make an overly simple blanket statement that feeds into myths that can harm young CDD systems trying to figure it all out ):

Thanks for the talk, though!

-sysmedsaresexist

We generally just have issues with not realizing our posts could be misinterpreted in certain ways (damn you that thing where you dont realize other people experience things differently than you (i forgot what the term was))

We more meant that the cutoff isnt sealed in stone and it floats around based off of how the person's brain works (e.g. neurodevelopmental disorder) (I feel like we're sounding like a broken record, sorry) but we get what you're saying.

We did not mean that adults with fully integrated brains can form CDDs, just that the age where CDDs stop being formed is sorta nebulous (idk if thats the right word). And we second what you said about manifestation being different than formation.

Thank you for sharing all this, we genuinely appreciate it, we just get kinda standoffish when people don't understand exactly what we meant and we're trying to work on that (sob)

-Kandi (🌈)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Clarification on this.

Firstly, we were not saying adults with fully formed minds can form a CDD. Nowhere in this did we say that! We just said the age could most likely be pushed back because of neurodevelopmental disorders.

Secondly, there is no concrete age where one can definitively say this is where you stop being able to have a CDD. As the original asker said, it fluctuates person to person due to the complexity of the brain.

Thirdly, nowhere in this post did we say trauma was "optional" to have a CDD. We are a firm believer CDDs form from trauma. Plurality is different. Don't claim we said things we didn't say, thankyouverymuch (/only a little mad)

Fourthly, we're kinda anti-psych in general for our own personal issues that have nothing to do with this, so we get iffy around this stuff sometimes.

Thank you to the concerned person for correcting us and for sending some resources over, we appreciate it. This was just another instance of us not thinking about how our post could be misinterpreted before hitting the post button (our fatal flaw)

We BEG that you ask for clarification on any of our posts before assuming things. (this is not meant to be a passive aggressive post, just clarification)

-Kandi (🌈)

This is not syscourse persay (i am pro endo) but it says nowhere in the DSM an age limit of when trauma happens for DID or OSDD to form. So i dont understand when people comment like, you cant possibly have that bc you got that trauma at _______ age. Which even if it was, brains are very complicated. What if they are intellectually disabled or have other mental disabilities? Surely that wuld affect how DID or OSDD forms. There are also cases of DID and or OSDD forming in adulthood, so it isnt imposible. Im just tired of people gatekeeping identities when it wasnt a requirement in the first place

Hihi!

We had to reread the DSM-5 for this one (page 331 of the DSM, page 726 of the PDF)!

But, yes! You are actually correct on this one, the DSM does not specify an age cutoff and if you'd like to check for yourself, read it (linked above, it's free)! We've heard whispers of the idea that other disorders such as ASD can affect the age a CDD develops at, given that neurodevelopmental disorders do in fact affect your brain development! It's in the name! We've just never seen any concrete studies on it, if anybody has one we'd love to read it!

Below the cut we'll insert some screenshots we gathered that support what you're saying!

-Kandi (🌈)

Note the use of the word "often" in the last screenshot, often ≠ always!

Plus the full diagnostic criteria, which never mentions age.

[the-entities-syscourse]

Are you going to make any kind of correction post? Or do you just not care about spreading myths and misinfo?

Hey Anon.

Wild assumption that we're online 24/7, we take breaks and have other things to do, we usually just have Tumblr running in the background.

We are trying to look into this further but so far nobody has sent us any studies which is uh...what we're looking for. So if someone would kindly send us some in our messages we would love that! We are willing to correct misinformation when given resources as to how/why its misinformation and a correction of what is the actual truth.

(also e.g. means "for example", it is not an all-encompassing statement, not at you, just a general statement of something we've seen)

-Kandi (🌈)

[the-entities-syscourse]

Funny how a lot of anti-endos claim to be the ones harassed by endogenic plurals and to be anti-harassment for the most part and then this happens to us on like...a regular basis because we post community terms on our TikTok with big red text on the top that says "!! NOT A CLINICAL TERM !!" in all caps

(screenshots below the cut since they include death threats and someone going out of their way to harass us (we don't have our discord linked in any way to our TikTok, yet they went far enough to contact us on there and Simply Plural)

-Kandi (🌈)

Maybe next time just keep it to yourself. (Also don't use the same name as the one you used to previously harass us; there's no way we're accepting your frq that way. (/not advice, just a quip))