Deep Dive Log:
Tumblr Syscourse
The purpose of the deep dive logs is to share my more in-depth research and thoughts on the online plurality community's history. All logs have a general content warning: I will be showing and discussing topics that can be sensitive or even triggering, not limited to trauma, abuse, plural-related harassment, and prejudice towards people with disorders and disabilities. Take care of your mental health and read at your own discretion!
Disclaimers: Some sources and names may be censored for the sake of maintaining the privacy of non-influencers and personal accounts. Do NOT harass anyone mentioned. I do not condone antagonistic behavior. Furthermore, please don't use my writing to start drama or discourse.
Disclaimers: Some sources and names may be censored for the sake of maintaining the privacy of non-influencers and personal accounts. Do NOT harass anyone mentioned. I do not condone antagonistic behavior. Furthermore, please don't use my writing to start drama or discourse.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
Welcome to the worst page on plural deep dive (/joking). On this page, you're going to find nearly all of my sources and notes that I found while deep diving Tumblr Syscourse. Don't ask me how long this took, lol.
If you're currently thinking "THIS IS WAY TOO LONG; I CAN'T READ ALL OF THIS!!!" then you'll like my summary of Syscourse History much better. Literally everything on this page is summarized there in only a few paragraphs. If this long page is more your style, though, I hope you enjoy it...!
Here are some important reminders before we get started: This page ONLY tackles the topic of syscourse on Tumblr. It doesn't reflect what syscourse was like on other platforms. It also doesn't reflect what the system, plural, or dissociative communities were like outside of syscourse. Don't let this page fool you into thinking the communities were nothing but drama and discourse. As always, I highly encourage readers to do their own research, think critically, and come to their own conclusions.
I feel like it's also important to point out that this is A LOT of information about an upsetting subject. Please, please don't overload yourself. Try reading a little bit at a time. Don't force yourself to keep going if it's getting overwhelming.
Now, are you ready to dive in?
If you're currently thinking "THIS IS WAY TOO LONG; I CAN'T READ ALL OF THIS!!!" then you'll like my summary of Syscourse History much better. Literally everything on this page is summarized there in only a few paragraphs. If this long page is more your style, though, I hope you enjoy it...!
Here are some important reminders before we get started: This page ONLY tackles the topic of syscourse on Tumblr. It doesn't reflect what syscourse was like on other platforms. It also doesn't reflect what the system, plural, or dissociative communities were like outside of syscourse. Don't let this page fool you into thinking the communities were nothing but drama and discourse. As always, I highly encourage readers to do their own research, think critically, and come to their own conclusions.
I feel like it's also important to point out that this is A LOT of information about an upsetting subject. Please, please don't overload yourself. Try reading a little bit at a time. Don't force yourself to keep going if it's getting overwhelming.
Now, are you ready to dive in?
2. System Advice Blogs
Most likely starting around 2011 and onwards, Tumblr saw a trend of advice-giving plurality blogs. These blogs were mostly inclusive spaces, usually run by non-traumagenic plurals, with the goal of answering questions and giving advice to other individuals who identified as a system, multiple, or plural. There were also advice-giving blogs that focused more on dissociative disorders (DD). Some of these were inclusive of non-DD plurals while others were less favorable towards them.
Although I've looked through tons of archived, long-running, and inactive advice blogs for this deep dive, I decided to share a few so you can look at them for yourself. You'll find them listed below with their potential creation dates as well as their focus:
Although I've looked through tons of archived, long-running, and inactive advice blogs for this deep dive, I decided to share a few so you can look at them for yourself. You'll find them listed below with their potential creation dates as well as their focus:
|
Let's talk about blogs that were focused on all plurality because these were the most plentiful in the earlier years. Even though many of these blog owners did not connect plurality to mental health or trauma, their blogs were still inclusive spaces for all people. So, they often ended up receiving questions and interest from people with mental health conditions and trauma. While some blogs were better at clarifying boundaries between medical and nonmedical experiences, everything was usually referred to with the same terminology.
Questioning or newly discovered systems would often go to these blogs seeking advice or information. While it may now be obvious to me what is and is not related to DID, it was not obvious to me when I first joined the community. It's definitely not obvious to the average onlooker, either. Many of these blogs presented their advice as if it was applicable to all systems, including people with DID (X X X).
I feel like it's necessary to take a look at some of the submissions these blogs received to fully understand how this could have caused problems. Imagine you're a person with DID and you're going to these blogs for advice. You might be misled into believing the following misinformation:
Questioning or newly discovered systems would often go to these blogs seeking advice or information. While it may now be obvious to me what is and is not related to DID, it was not obvious to me when I first joined the community. It's definitely not obvious to the average onlooker, either. Many of these blogs presented their advice as if it was applicable to all systems, including people with DID (X X X).
I feel like it's necessary to take a look at some of the submissions these blogs received to fully understand how this could have caused problems. Imagine you're a person with DID and you're going to these blogs for advice. You might be misled into believing the following misinformation:
- DID isn't a disorder, it's something you get from thinking differently (X)
- Or something you get from a past life (X)
- System residents can be "evil" and that you need to "get rid of them" (X)
- Your DID can be "reset", meaning your entire system will suddenly disappear forever and be replaced by a completely new one. You would also be told that you can purposefully choose to make these "resets" happen (X)
- Without any therapeutic work, alters can temporarily fuse at will to create a new, distinct identity . . . then unfuse back into their original identities, usually through some sort of dance much like how it works in the show Steven Universe.
- Alters can "walk into" your mind from alternate dimensions or from someone else's mind, perhaps even "evil" alters walking into your system to harm you. You would also be told that you have the ability to "remove" or "kick out" alters from your mind (X X X X)
- Your system residents can travel to someone else's mind. You would also be told that you can effectively turn people plural by sending your alters into their minds (X X X)
I'm drawing from personal experience, as well. When I first joined the online community, I was convinced of the majority of the things on the above list. I'm not the only one, either. So many people fall victim to this misinformation about DID, and you can find many of their stories that have been documented on blogs (X X X X X).
Why does this happen?
One of the most glaringly obvious reasons to me is the fact that both plurality and dissociative disorders are severely misunderstood. These concepts are shrouded in centuries-worth of stigma and controversies. The psych field has consistently battled over how to understand our experiences, what causes all of it, what's real and what's not, and whether any of it is worth believing in. The plurality community has also battled over this, too. Misinformation is rampant as a result.
Be it their intention or not, these system advice blogs were enmeshing medical and non-medical experiences. By doing this, they led many people to believe and treat dissociative disorders like they're non-disordered plurality.
Be it their intention or not, these system advice blogs were enmeshing medical and non-medical experiences. By doing this, they led many people to believe and treat dissociative disorders like they're non-disordered plurality.
Some people began to take notice of the misinformation these advice-giving blogs were spreading, intentionally or unintentionally, about DID. Many attempted to dispute this misinformation.
New blogs were even created specifically to combat the misinformation in a more respectful way, like This Is Not Dissociative and Integrated Mind. Many criticisms were made on the online plurality community and its plurality advice blogs. For example, in 2015, a blog called Why not Dissociative Degu published criticisms on That Multiple Feel about the harmful misinformation they were spreading. |
In this post, WNDD gave a very thorough breakdown of the various misinformation and harmful advice TMF was giving out, supported by evidence and factual sources. They also pointed out that the blog often “linked to resources with questionable credibility, false information or antagonistic assertions toward dissociative disorders and the field of psychiatry. Namely, Astraea’s Web." This was actually something I noticed with several of these older advice blogs on Tumblr—many of them referenced, supported, or even interacted with websites and blogs that were rather antagonistic towards the DID diagnosis and the people who fit it (X).
Interestingly, inclusive plurality blogs didn't seem to be offended when they were called out like this. In fact, from what I can tell, many of them were respectful when they were alerted to the way they were harming people with dissociative disorders. Several of these advice blogs attempted to make amends for the misinformation they had been spreading. That Multiple Feel, for example, purged their old blog and vowed to stop giving out advice.
Things were seeming okay and respectful . . . but flash forward a couple of years and, suddenly, this was a problem all over again. In fact, it was even more of a problem. Yet, this time, the atmosphere surrounding the situation was entirely different. Instead of listening to and respecting the voices of the dissociative community, inclusive plurality blogs were actually encouraging behaviors that were harming the dissociative community. Instead of respectfully critiquing and alerting blogs to misinformation, the dissociative community was often attacking non-disordered and non-traumagenic plurals. Things had shifted to become so terribly aggressive.
So, what changed? I believe the answer to that is syscourse.
Interestingly, inclusive plurality blogs didn't seem to be offended when they were called out like this. In fact, from what I can tell, many of them were respectful when they were alerted to the way they were harming people with dissociative disorders. Several of these advice blogs attempted to make amends for the misinformation they had been spreading. That Multiple Feel, for example, purged their old blog and vowed to stop giving out advice.
Things were seeming okay and respectful . . . but flash forward a couple of years and, suddenly, this was a problem all over again. In fact, it was even more of a problem. Yet, this time, the atmosphere surrounding the situation was entirely different. Instead of listening to and respecting the voices of the dissociative community, inclusive plurality blogs were actually encouraging behaviors that were harming the dissociative community. Instead of respectfully critiquing and alerting blogs to misinformation, the dissociative community was often attacking non-disordered and non-traumagenic plurals. Things had shifted to become so terribly aggressive.
So, what changed? I believe the answer to that is syscourse.
3. Where Tumblr Syscourse Began
Non-disordered & non-traumagenic plurality, often called natural multiplicity or plurality at the time, was gaining a lot of exposure on Tumblr—much more than it ever had when it was in its rather secluded circle of forums and webpages. Now, anybody anywhere could potentially be introduced to the idea of natural plurality if it happened to be reblogged onto their dashboard. Integrated Mind (2012) witnessed this shift in exposure and described it as such (X):
“For many years the multiple community on Livejournal existed within itself; though occasionally targeted by mock communities, it remained free of skepticism by outside parties. I’ve noticed those who have migrated from LJ to Tumblr seem woefully unprepared for their beliefs, carefully caressed and nurtured by others of similiar faiths for years, to be scathingly judged.”
|
During this time, the otherkin community on Tumblr was also gaining a lot of exposure. The concept of otherkin was often under intense scrutiny from people outside of their community, especially the idea of fictionkin. According to the Otherkin Wiki, fictionkin are “those who identify as something that is considered fictional, typically a fictional character(s) or species” (X).
The otherkin community on Tumblr, particularly the fictionkin side of it, took great interest in the idea of non-traumagenic plurality. While otherkin did have some past involvement with the non-disordered plurality community, I personally believe that it was something else that sparked this sudden and intense interest on Tumblr. I believe that it was because of the term fictive.
The term 'fictive' was most likely adopted by the non-disordered plurality community sometime around 2009 as a replacement for the medical term 'introject' (X). Before that, fictive was used more so in the soulbonding community under its Merriam Webster definitions. The terms fictive and fictionkin both sound very similar, and it's easy for people to get them mixed up. This was especially common on Tumblr. It seemed like fictive was mixed up so often with fictionkin, that it led a lot of people to accidentally merge the two concepts into one.
Eventually, plurality became so highly associated with otherkin on Tumblr that many people, even the people identifying with these concepts, did not know that there was a difference between them. I read many posts around this timeframe where people said things like 'fictive/fictionkin' or 'multiple/otherkin' because they saw them as different words for the same thing. I also found many posts explicitly about plurality, even about DID, that were tagged as otherkin. There were even blogs dedicated to this enmeshed concept of multiple/otherkin. For example, something called a canon call blog was rather popular in the otherkin community. These blogs connected fictionkin who believed they shared the same past life together. Now, there were blogs being created to serve the same purpose for fictives, such as a blog called Fictive Talk.
In 2012, Fictive Talk published a post that I feel perfectly reflects how enmeshed plurality and otherkin was on Tumblr. In this post, they described various contrasting theories for how fictives/fictionkin could develop, one being psychological and others being otherworldly. It genuinely seems like they're treating fictives and fictionkin as the same thing, however (X). Many others on Tumblr were doing the same thing.
Obviously, this all led to a lot of discourse.
What was most interesting to me, however, was that this discourse came in layers. It wasn't straightforward at all. Discussions would unveil new issues and misunderstandings which, in turn, would lead to new discourse arising in almost rapid-fire succession, rinse and repeat. Everybody seemed to believe that they were all talking about just one thing, but if you break it down there were actually multiple topics being debated. Because of this, these different discussions would end up muddled together. No one was on the same page, everyone was confused and getting angrier, and it was all a mess.
Now, let's try to make sense of that mess.
The otherkin community on Tumblr, particularly the fictionkin side of it, took great interest in the idea of non-traumagenic plurality. While otherkin did have some past involvement with the non-disordered plurality community, I personally believe that it was something else that sparked this sudden and intense interest on Tumblr. I believe that it was because of the term fictive.
The term 'fictive' was most likely adopted by the non-disordered plurality community sometime around 2009 as a replacement for the medical term 'introject' (X). Before that, fictive was used more so in the soulbonding community under its Merriam Webster definitions. The terms fictive and fictionkin both sound very similar, and it's easy for people to get them mixed up. This was especially common on Tumblr. It seemed like fictive was mixed up so often with fictionkin, that it led a lot of people to accidentally merge the two concepts into one.
Eventually, plurality became so highly associated with otherkin on Tumblr that many people, even the people identifying with these concepts, did not know that there was a difference between them. I read many posts around this timeframe where people said things like 'fictive/fictionkin' or 'multiple/otherkin' because they saw them as different words for the same thing. I also found many posts explicitly about plurality, even about DID, that were tagged as otherkin. There were even blogs dedicated to this enmeshed concept of multiple/otherkin. For example, something called a canon call blog was rather popular in the otherkin community. These blogs connected fictionkin who believed they shared the same past life together. Now, there were blogs being created to serve the same purpose for fictives, such as a blog called Fictive Talk.
In 2012, Fictive Talk published a post that I feel perfectly reflects how enmeshed plurality and otherkin was on Tumblr. In this post, they described various contrasting theories for how fictives/fictionkin could develop, one being psychological and others being otherworldly. It genuinely seems like they're treating fictives and fictionkin as the same thing, however (X). Many others on Tumblr were doing the same thing.
Obviously, this all led to a lot of discourse.
What was most interesting to me, however, was that this discourse came in layers. It wasn't straightforward at all. Discussions would unveil new issues and misunderstandings which, in turn, would lead to new discourse arising in almost rapid-fire succession, rinse and repeat. Everybody seemed to believe that they were all talking about just one thing, but if you break it down there were actually multiple topics being debated. Because of this, these different discussions would end up muddled together. No one was on the same page, everyone was confused and getting angrier, and it was all a mess.
Now, let's try to make sense of that mess.
4. Otherkin versus PluralityPeople were conflating the ideas of otherkin and plurality. When the otherkin community was critiqued, ridiculed, or disbelieved, the plurality community was often unfairly dragged into the mix. This was usually done under the false idea that they were the same thing, but other times it was also done because they were just very associated with each other on Tumblr at the time.
Many plurals sought to smooth this all over by explaining what plurality was. I saw several posts attempting to explain the differences between otherkin and plurality. |
“The validity of plurality isn’t contingent on otherkin or fictivity, which are DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. I’m not 'against’ either, but I’m tired of seeing them being conflated constantly,” exclaimed The Fen Group in a rather exasperated post where they implored people to stop conflating the two (X). A different blog exclaimed in their own post, “for the love of god stop saying that fictives and fictionkin are the same thing because the two experiences are completely separate” (X). These blogs both expressed that they were tired of seeing people conflating otherkin and plurality, which is completely understandable. To combat the conflation, their posts both explain what systems are--wait a minute.
These blogs both defined systems differently. The first post defined systems as something that can be non-disordered. Yet, the second post defined systems as exclusively being connected to mental disorders. And they weren't the only ones doing this.
This is how a new problem began to arise on Tumblr.
As the people on Tumblr who identified with terms like plurality or systems began to explain these concepts to others . . . many realized that some of them were giving very, very different explanations. Some were defining it as certain DDs, others defined it as only non-disordered plurality, and then some defined it as both. This same exact scenario has happened before in the past. However, it was now happening on a much grander scale with people who had never been exposed to some of these opinions before. If there's one thing that should be known about Tumblr, it's that it isn't exactly gentle when it comes to differing opinions.
5. Inclusive Plurality versus Exclusive Plurality
Due to the conflation of otherkin and plurality, people were attempting to explain what plurality even was. This was what led many individuals to realize that there was a large discrepancy in how everybody was defining it. It would be defined as dissociation, not dissociation, a disorder, not a disorder, trauma-caused, not trauma-caused, and then sometimes all of the above.
Because of all of these conflicting explanations and arising discourse, people got confused. Like, very confused.
For example, one blog made a post telling people that multiplicity did not exist. An indivdiual replied, mistakenly believing that the blog was saying DID did not exist. The original poster responded, "I'm not going after D.I.D. I'm going after Multiplicity." Others would respond, reiterating that multiplicity and DID were the same thing (X X).
Another blog wrote, "DID is not the same thing as a Multiple System. DID is when horrible traumatic events happen to a person at a young age and to deal with the trauma they have to split their consciousness into multiple parts. 'Headmates' are, according to y'all, souls of other beings that somehow wandered into your brain" (X).
All around, it was kind of a mess.
Because of all of these conflicting explanations and arising discourse, people got confused. Like, very confused.
For example, one blog made a post telling people that multiplicity did not exist. An indivdiual replied, mistakenly believing that the blog was saying DID did not exist. The original poster responded, "I'm not going after D.I.D. I'm going after Multiplicity." Others would respond, reiterating that multiplicity and DID were the same thing (X X).
Another blog wrote, "DID is not the same thing as a Multiple System. DID is when horrible traumatic events happen to a person at a young age and to deal with the trauma they have to split their consciousness into multiple parts. 'Headmates' are, according to y'all, souls of other beings that somehow wandered into your brain" (X).
All around, it was kind of a mess.
6. Uncritical Inclusion Divides the Community, Again
Let's talk about what happens when inclusion is taken to such an extreme and unhealthy degree that it creates an unsafe space. I don't know if there's an official term for this so I'm going to be calling it uncritical inclusion.
Uncritical inclusion is so enticing to the plurality community because we're people who are constantly invalidated and disbelieved by society. An uncritically inclusive plurality community includes everyone and validates everything. That sounds great on paper! Yet, when inclusivity is more important than protecting a community from harm, it ends up bringing in harmful people and practices, and expects everyone to validate that. It excludes the voices of more vulnerable members which eventually forces them to flee what has become a dangerous space. Uncritical inclusion has a history of dividing the plurality community and there are plenty of archives to back this up.
It was almost like a law within uncritically inclusive plurality spaces to include and even adopt everyone's beliefs without any questions. Acceptance wasn’t the basis of this uncritical inclusion, because people can accept others’ beliefs and identities without needing to change their own beliefs/identities. There were obviously members abusing this unspoken law to get away with morally questionable or reprehensible behavior. For example, I came across many blogs expressing concern over uncritically inclusive plurals condoning predators on the basis that "everyone is valid" (X).
Uncritical inclusion is so enticing to the plurality community because we're people who are constantly invalidated and disbelieved by society. An uncritically inclusive plurality community includes everyone and validates everything. That sounds great on paper! Yet, when inclusivity is more important than protecting a community from harm, it ends up bringing in harmful people and practices, and expects everyone to validate that. It excludes the voices of more vulnerable members which eventually forces them to flee what has become a dangerous space. Uncritical inclusion has a history of dividing the plurality community and there are plenty of archives to back this up.
It was almost like a law within uncritically inclusive plurality spaces to include and even adopt everyone's beliefs without any questions. Acceptance wasn’t the basis of this uncritical inclusion, because people can accept others’ beliefs and identities without needing to change their own beliefs/identities. There were obviously members abusing this unspoken law to get away with morally questionable or reprehensible behavior. For example, I came across many blogs expressing concern over uncritically inclusive plurals condoning predators on the basis that "everyone is valid" (X).
"Inside the community itself, those who did find reason to implore logical skepticism (eg: I don’t believe in this) were called out as bigots and drama-mongerers. To be a member of the multiple community and not be labeled a troll, one must accept any post that pops up no matter how fanciful, untruthful, or downright disgusting it may seem. This is why the community suffers from intense inner conflict and it is no wonder."
|
Probably in 2012, Integrated Mind wrote an essay called 'I'll Believe You if You Believe Me' - on Otherkin and Multiple Systems where they went over the very concerns that many others shared. They claimed that, while it was important to be respectful of people, the online plurality community was taking it too far.
“There is no base for the multiple experience, therefore no one can exercise judgment of what is right and what is not,” They explained. There were no taboos in the community because anything and everyone could be plural. Integrated Mind reasoned that, because of this, the community was addictive, harmful, and allowed people to get away with dangerous behavior and beliefs. To prove this, they showcased real examples of harmful behavior being defended because of the unspoken policy to include everything. They also detailed how individuals who condemned said harmful behavior were being shamed and pushed out of the community.
“There is no base for the multiple experience, therefore no one can exercise judgment of what is right and what is not,” They explained. There were no taboos in the community because anything and everyone could be plural. Integrated Mind reasoned that, because of this, the community was addictive, harmful, and allowed people to get away with dangerous behavior and beliefs. To prove this, they showcased real examples of harmful behavior being defended because of the unspoken policy to include everything. They also detailed how individuals who condemned said harmful behavior were being shamed and pushed out of the community.
The opinions that Integrated Mind and many others had weren't coming from an outside perspective. It seemed like the ones who were mostly talking about this subject were the ones who were actually once members of the uncritically inclusive plurality community. I have this experience too.
On Integrated Mind's about post, they discussed how they had previously been a member of the uncritically inclusive side of the community on Livejournal. They stated that notorious troublemakers were abusing the community-wide belief that everything must be included. Because the moderators could not let go of this 'include without questioning' philosophy, many within the forum decided to jump ship, including the author of Integrated Mind. This can be corroborated by various posts on the forum, even from the moderators themselves (X). |
A different user expressed a similar reason for leaving the uncritically inclusive plurality community on Tumblr. Their blog post explained how they didn't believe the community was a good fit for them because of its all-inclusiveness. It was too bent towards the supernatural for them. I feel like this excerpt from their post sums up everything perfectly:
"And so the 'net' cast over multiplicity comes to look a certain way. And as part of the community, me and my system get caught in that net. And that net doesn't fit us. At all. As long as I stay a part of the community, everything done in the name of multiplicity or said in the name of plurality, comes to effect the way people judge me and my system. There is this thing people say in the community a lot, which is that their actions don't hurt anyone. But that isn't true. Because they color the understanding that non-plurals and even other plurals have of multiplicity in general . . . Their actions make people assume things when they encounter me."
|
7. Appropriating, Faking, and Invalidating
As people continued to argue over what constituted as plurality, DID got brought into the spotlight more and more. However, it seemed like the more DID got brought up, the more people started taking issue with the idea of non-disordered plurality. The confusion and discomfort brought about by it only seemed to increase with each passing year. By 2016 and onwards, it seemed like every system space on Tumblr was being infiltrated by syscourse.
How did this become such a problem?
Let's go back to the otherkin discourse for a bit. When I was looking into that, what I was not expecting to see was how intertwined it was with social justice discourse. Apparently, in 2012, it was a hot topic to debate how 'oppressed' otherkin, and subsequently plurals, were. One blog at the time explained it as such (X):
How did this become such a problem?
Let's go back to the otherkin discourse for a bit. When I was looking into that, what I was not expecting to see was how intertwined it was with social justice discourse. Apparently, in 2012, it was a hot topic to debate how 'oppressed' otherkin, and subsequently plurals, were. One blog at the time explained it as such (X):
"Lately and especially on Tumblr, the otherkinners have started to frame otherkinnery in terms of social justice—like they're being abused and discriminated against and this is a serious social injustice . . . All the same goes for so-called 'multiples'—people who believe there are other people living in their head, and all of these people need their identities validated."
|
People were outraged that some otherkin were comparing themselves to systematically oppressed groups (X). It seems like many users did not believe that the struggles of otherkin, and subsequently plurals, were comparable to the struggles of, let’s say, people with mental disorders--wait a minute!
DID is a mental disorder. Yet, it seemed like many people didn’t know this because it was so conflated with non-disordered plurality which was being conflated with otherkin. Suddenly, people with a mental disorder were being told that their experiences were not comparable to having a mental disorder (X).
Obviously, that would be a bit of a shock.
DID is a mental disorder. Yet, it seemed like many people didn’t know this because it was so conflated with non-disordered plurality which was being conflated with otherkin. Suddenly, people with a mental disorder were being told that their experiences were not comparable to having a mental disorder (X).
Obviously, that would be a bit of a shock.
Let’s keep in mind here that many people saw terms such as 'multiplicity' and 'systems' as exclusively defining DID. Several people had no idea that non-disordered or non-traumagenic plurality existed; non-medical usages of these terms in the context of multiple selves was very new at the time. This led to many confused users falling under the impression that non-disordered plurals were no different from those who purposefully fake or invalidate DID. Social justice politics egged this on.
Many (what I believe to be) singlet-run blogs would comment on egg on this drama. In 2012, one blog expressed that the discourse over plurality should be less about oppression and more about “an utter misunderstanding of mental illnesses and the making of pathological disorders into something trendy to be flaunted, or used as a piece in privilege poker” (X). Another said, “are some of you aware that you are on a website where . . . defending the ‘rights’ of . . . fandom roleplayers who appropriate dissociative identity disorder is considered the pinnacle of liberal activism” (X).
|
Many system-run blogs took action and attempted to dispel the idea that plurality, exclusively DID in this context, could be non-traumagenic. Some users insisted that there was no such thing as non-traumagenic plurality because DID was a posttraumatic condition (X X). Many others wrote posts detailing how hurt they felt by the idea of natural multiplicity (X X). One blog wrote a rather distressed post in 2014 that said:
“Natural multiplicity. Explain this, world? Please? I do not understand. I have DID. It sucks. Its hard. The Trauma in my life was repeating and excruciating, and it will take years to undo the damage . . . I feel made fun of when people talk about multiplicity, like it can be normal. I feel like they are pretending, or just want to have fun while it's a fad.”
|
As unfortunate as this whole mess was, it makes sense to me that this happened. Even though the non-disordered plurality community frequently claimed to not have DID, they were often using the mental disorder to explain their non-disordered experiences. They used vocabulary that was both used by and heavily associated with the dissociative community. Because of all of this, many people began to accuse the non-disordered plurality community of appropriating DID and the terminology associated with DDs.
In 2016, A dissociative blogger made a post expressing that non-disordered folks claiming terms like system made them feel like their disorder and trauma was being claimed by people who experienced neither. Someone responded, explaining to them that non-disordered/non-traumagenic plurals had been using this sort of terminology for over a decade. In response, they replied that "just because people have been using this term for 10+ years, does not mean it's okay. It is still appropriative."
In another archived post, a non-disordered plural was receiving a slew of anonymous messages about how hurtful it was for people without DDs to use terms like 'system' (X). One message asked, "Why are you taking terms from a disorder and using them to describe something completely different?" In response, the non-disordered plural asked "why are you invalidating my experiences and existence, and the experiences and existence of many other people?"
In a thread of blog posts regarding the topic of appropriation, I came across a secondhand account of someone insisting terms like multiplicity belonged to people on the dissociative spectrum. They said, “Why do you think you have a right to a term that was created by dissociative people as a way to separate ourselves from the stigma attached to DID, and then contribute to that stigma by denying the reality of mental illness? Why do you invite yourself into spaces for disordered people but reject the disorder?” They claimed that the terms’ appropriation invalidated and trivialized the experiences of people with mental disorders. They suggested that the non-disordered/non-traumagenic plurality community should create new terminology—ideally terms that were completely unrelated to DID (X).
In response to the accusations, many members of the uncritically inclusive plurality community denied that they were being appropriative (X X X). Some attempted to dispute the idea that terms such as system could even be appropriated (X). On the other hand, some individuals decided to take the suggestion and actually come up with new terms such as:
In another archived post, a non-disordered plural was receiving a slew of anonymous messages about how hurtful it was for people without DDs to use terms like 'system' (X). One message asked, "Why are you taking terms from a disorder and using them to describe something completely different?" In response, the non-disordered plural asked "why are you invalidating my experiences and existence, and the experiences and existence of many other people?"
In a thread of blog posts regarding the topic of appropriation, I came across a secondhand account of someone insisting terms like multiplicity belonged to people on the dissociative spectrum. They said, “Why do you think you have a right to a term that was created by dissociative people as a way to separate ourselves from the stigma attached to DID, and then contribute to that stigma by denying the reality of mental illness? Why do you invite yourself into spaces for disordered people but reject the disorder?” They claimed that the terms’ appropriation invalidated and trivialized the experiences of people with mental disorders. They suggested that the non-disordered/non-traumagenic plurality community should create new terminology—ideally terms that were completely unrelated to DID (X).
In response to the accusations, many members of the uncritically inclusive plurality community denied that they were being appropriative (X X X). Some attempted to dispute the idea that terms such as system could even be appropriated (X). On the other hand, some individuals decided to take the suggestion and actually come up with new terms such as:
Creation of Origin Labels
On August 8th, 2014, an individual coined some new terminology to be used as alternatives for multiplicity, plurality, and system. We'll call these origin labels (X X).
The plurality community on Tumblr seemed to immediately take a liking to these terms in particular. Out of all of them, endogenic and traumagenic seemed to be the most popular. |
Even though the coiner intended for these words to be alternatives to terms like 'system', the non-disordered plurality community was reluctant to let go of the system-related vocabulary. One user stated, “while I still think non-DID multiple systems have every right to the words [multiplicity, plurality, and system] and any talk of ‘appropriation’ is BS, I like the origin-based -genic words. Much better than things like ‘natural multiplicity'” (X). Many others shared the same opinion.
Eventually, the non-disordered plurality community would end up mixing this new terminology with the allegedly appropriated terminology rather than replace it. As such, 'endogenic system' swiftly became the more popular word on Tumblr for what used to be called natural multiplicity or natural plurality. Obviously, this didn't solve the initial issue. Because the community was still using the system-related terms, the accusations of appropriating, faking, and invalidating DID only continued to grow...
Eventually, the non-disordered plurality community would end up mixing this new terminology with the allegedly appropriated terminology rather than replace it. As such, 'endogenic system' swiftly became the more popular word on Tumblr for what used to be called natural multiplicity or natural plurality. Obviously, this didn't solve the initial issue. Because the community was still using the system-related terms, the accusations of appropriating, faking, and invalidating DID only continued to grow...
8. System Fakers versus System Gatekeepers
By 2016, Tumblr syscourse had truly blown up and was only getting bigger and bigger. Other social media websites like Twitter were beginning to take notice of it and participate in it. This is when it became common to call this conflict between systems "system discourse" or syscourse.
In the previous section, I explained how, through discourse, many people discovered they had contradicting ideas of what constituted plurality. Due to this, so many misunderstandings were arising. Many people mistook the idea of non-DID plurality as non-DID DID. Because of this, these people began to accuse non-disordered plurals of appropriating or even faking DID.
It's evident to me that many of the people making these sorts of accusations did not know that non-disordered plurals were not claiming to have DID. I didn't know this either. Even if an explanation was attempted, it was usually lost in translation because of muddled terms like "system" (X). This is how I believe Tumblr's system community, specifically the DID one, started to become extremely panicked over "fakers" (X). |
A mass of blogs were created to combat the rising misinformation. However, unlike the earlier misinformation-tackling blogs, these blogs were much more antagonistic. They were created with a focus on witch-hunting, ridiculing, and antagonizing people they believed to be "fake systems". Blogs like this included Multiple System Failures, Systemhop, and many more.
This extreme harassment of non-disordered plurals and people with DID/OSDD who do not fit certain standards is the basis of something I'm going to call the exact opposite of uncritical inclusion. There isn't an official term for this, so I guess I'll call it uncritical exclusion. While uncritical inclusion often demands the blind inclusion and validation of everything, this uncritical exclusion demands the blind exclusion and invalidation of certain things.
. . . Any other Tumblr vets remember the days of these witch-hunting blogs and meticulously reviewing your own system list out of fear that you would be deemed a faker? Anyone?
. . . Any other Tumblr vets remember the days of these witch-hunting blogs and meticulously reviewing your own system list out of fear that you would be deemed a faker? Anyone?
Uncritical exclusion affected all of the online communities, including the dissociative community. I know many people with diagnosed DDs who were placed on witch-hunting blogs and called "fake systems" for ridiculous reasons, like having fictional introjects of certain characters or the host alter being a different age from the body (which would have assuredly gotten me called fake too). Non-disordered/Non-traumagenic plurals, especially endogenics, were often seen as the "templates" for system fakers. Of course, there were also people who were just genuinely scared about Imitative DID and malingering. All around, it was messy.
Also, for some horrifying reason I did not and will never understand, the syscourse's favorite phrases at the time were "kill fake systems" and "go die". Beware of that if you decide to go deep diving any old blogs...
It's no surprise to me that people began labeling these types of blogs as "system gatekeepers". However, it wasn't just uncritically exclusive people who were called gatekeepers. Uncritically inclusive folks would start calling everyone with differing views gatekeepers, too. Suddenly, a whole lot of people were being called the gatekeepers of the system community, some for very legitimate reasons and others for merely giving criticism or not having fully formed opinions.
One DID blogger in 2015 expressed their concern with this in a post. They explained that, because of the narrative that anyone who did not blindly accept all systems were gatekeepers, it made it difficult for them to share accurate information on DID.
Also, for some horrifying reason I did not and will never understand, the syscourse's favorite phrases at the time were "kill fake systems" and "go die". Beware of that if you decide to go deep diving any old blogs...
It's no surprise to me that people began labeling these types of blogs as "system gatekeepers". However, it wasn't just uncritically exclusive people who were called gatekeepers. Uncritically inclusive folks would start calling everyone with differing views gatekeepers, too. Suddenly, a whole lot of people were being called the gatekeepers of the system community, some for very legitimate reasons and others for merely giving criticism or not having fully formed opinions.
One DID blogger in 2015 expressed their concern with this in a post. They explained that, because of the narrative that anyone who did not blindly accept all systems were gatekeepers, it made it difficult for them to share accurate information on DID.
"The narrative of 'Support all Systems no matter what!' in the community is extremely harmful, and so is the platform of 'anyone can be a system and you don't get to define their experiences for them!' . . . For you to insist that you don't need trauma to have DID/OSDD-1 b is to insist that our experiences as abuse and trauma survivors are not legitimate. For you to insist that anyone can be a system regardless of if they fit the diagnostic criteria is to insist that our lifelong struggles coping with horrific abuse are not legitimate . . . The second we try to stand up for ourselves and correct your heinous misinformation that makes it incredibly difficult for us . . . to seek help and resources we’re horrible gatekeepers! Why are we, the traumagenic DID/OSDD-1b community horrible, awful people if we don’t respect your appropriation of our illness but the second you all illegitimize our abuse, that’s our problem?"
|
While these concerns were all perfectly valid, people also needed a way to communicate how they were being harassed and chased out of their communities. Things only escalated from here. I guess the best way I can describe it is that the online community was tearing itself apart.
I cannot stress enough how nasty things got from all slices of the syscourse pie. Let me share one moment that occurred in 2017.
One non-disordered plural suggested that non-disordered plurals weren't faking DID, it was actually the gatekeepers who were faking it (X). Many people hopped on board with this idea. In the thread shared, one user stated, “The tables will have been turned; while it was on us to prove our legitimacy, now it’s on them to prove theirs.” This would be, unfortunately, a foreshadowing of what was to come.
Many people, including myself, were accused of faking their mental disorder because of what they were saying in syscourse. These fakeclaimers were even demanding that people with DID involved in syscourse should publish their medical records online to prove that they weren’t faking (X). Although I could not find any public posts (which is good, honestly), both a fakeclaimer and several witnesses claimed that someone did post their medical records because of this (X).
People were doxxing themselves because of syscourse.
There was suicide baiting, harassment, call outs, stalking, hatred and mockery infiltrating tags, hateful blogs that disguised themselves as all-inclusive, etc. Regardless of which "side" of the syscourse someone was on, the opposite side would demonize them. They were either an "inclusionist" or an "exclusionist", not a person. For those of us who have survived abuse, being treated in this way very much mimicked the way our abusers have treated us, and very often it counted as abuse, too. It was triggering, it was scary, and, most importantly, it was unfair. Nobody deserved it.
It makes sense to me how, at the end of the day, both groups of people here were often expressing how terrified they were of the other group (X). In 2019, I even wrote a post on the harassment I have witnessed in the syscourse. The amount of violence that resulted from this discourse was immense. It's horrifying, it's something I wish wasn't real, but it is and it's so damn sad.
For anyone who has been harmed by syscourse, my heart goes out to you. I wish you the best with your recovery.
I cannot stress enough how nasty things got from all slices of the syscourse pie. Let me share one moment that occurred in 2017.
One non-disordered plural suggested that non-disordered plurals weren't faking DID, it was actually the gatekeepers who were faking it (X). Many people hopped on board with this idea. In the thread shared, one user stated, “The tables will have been turned; while it was on us to prove our legitimacy, now it’s on them to prove theirs.” This would be, unfortunately, a foreshadowing of what was to come.
Many people, including myself, were accused of faking their mental disorder because of what they were saying in syscourse. These fakeclaimers were even demanding that people with DID involved in syscourse should publish their medical records online to prove that they weren’t faking (X). Although I could not find any public posts (which is good, honestly), both a fakeclaimer and several witnesses claimed that someone did post their medical records because of this (X).
People were doxxing themselves because of syscourse.
There was suicide baiting, harassment, call outs, stalking, hatred and mockery infiltrating tags, hateful blogs that disguised themselves as all-inclusive, etc. Regardless of which "side" of the syscourse someone was on, the opposite side would demonize them. They were either an "inclusionist" or an "exclusionist", not a person. For those of us who have survived abuse, being treated in this way very much mimicked the way our abusers have treated us, and very often it counted as abuse, too. It was triggering, it was scary, and, most importantly, it was unfair. Nobody deserved it.
It makes sense to me how, at the end of the day, both groups of people here were often expressing how terrified they were of the other group (X). In 2019, I even wrote a post on the harassment I have witnessed in the syscourse. The amount of violence that resulted from this discourse was immense. It's horrifying, it's something I wish wasn't real, but it is and it's so damn sad.
For anyone who has been harmed by syscourse, my heart goes out to you. I wish you the best with your recovery.
9. Syscourse Data
Before finishing this off, I feel like it's worth adding some interesting Tumblr syscourse data that I found while deep diving. I remember there being a lot of Tumblr syscourse surveys when I joined the community. Unfortunately, I could only find two old ones...but I remember there being more!
Syscourse Survey (2017)
In 2017, a blog hosted a survey to gather the syscourse opinions of Tumblr's system community. Of the 128 systems who responded, 119 identified with either DID or OSDD.
Excluding all self-written answers, about 84% of respondents voted that they did not think plurals without DID/OSDD should be included in DID/OSDD spaces, and about 64% voted that they did not think non-disordered plurals should use the terms systems, alter, and multiplicity. About 58% of respondents had an experience of being harassed, threatened, or otherwise harmed by "a syscourser on the opposing side."
Excluding all self-written answers, about 84% of respondents voted that they did not think plurals without DID/OSDD should be included in DID/OSDD spaces, and about 64% voted that they did not think non-disordered plurals should use the terms systems, alter, and multiplicity. About 58% of respondents had an experience of being harassed, threatened, or otherwise harmed by "a syscourser on the opposing side."
Communication Survey (2017)
Another survey was done in 2017 with the purpose of allowing the "communities to safely and anonymously speak up about their experiences and feelings. Hopefully, this survey can be the pathway that leads to a healthier understanding between us all." Find the results here: X X. 152 participants took this survey, with 104 of them identifying with either DID or OSDD.
Excluding self-written answers, once again, 51% of the people with DID/OSDD voted that "multiplicity" exclusively defined people with DID/OSDD. Meanwhile, 81.3% of the non-disordered voted that "multiplicity" did not solely define people with DID/OSDD. When asked how often they were listened to about multiplicity, the majority of people with DID/OSDD voted a 2 and non-disordered plurals voted a 3 on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). Both groups of participants agreed that the other groups often spoke over, ignored, and silenced them. 42.7% of people with DID/OSDD expressed that they felt very negative when people claimed to be systems without DID/OSDD, and 67.3% believed that "system" was a term exclusively describing DID/OSDD experiences. 93.5% of non-disordered plurals voted that they believed "system" was not a term exclusively describing DID/OSDD experiences.
Excluding self-written answers, once again, 51% of the people with DID/OSDD voted that "multiplicity" exclusively defined people with DID/OSDD. Meanwhile, 81.3% of the non-disordered voted that "multiplicity" did not solely define people with DID/OSDD. When asked how often they were listened to about multiplicity, the majority of people with DID/OSDD voted a 2 and non-disordered plurals voted a 3 on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). Both groups of participants agreed that the other groups often spoke over, ignored, and silenced them. 42.7% of people with DID/OSDD expressed that they felt very negative when people claimed to be systems without DID/OSDD, and 67.3% believed that "system" was a term exclusively describing DID/OSDD experiences. 93.5% of non-disordered plurals voted that they believed "system" was not a term exclusively describing DID/OSDD experiences.
DD Community's Syscourse Views Survey (2022)
I tried to host my own survey on March 33, 2022, specifically for the DD community. The experience was very interesting. Over a span of two months, I received a total of 426 responses! That's way more than any survey I've ever hosted. I wasn't expecting it to blow up so big. I only deleted 2 of these responses due to one self-admitting to not being in the DD community and another for just being a death threat (how charming...).
Obviously, I'm not a professional so this was just a casual survey. It was completely anonymous but I still asked that only members of DD community respond. I posted it on my blog and tagged it with all syscourse "stances" such as pro-endogenic, anti-endogenic, and just general syscourse. Each question had a stereotypical pro, anti, and none/other answer. It wasn't done perfectly, but I don't think I'd ever be able to make a survey that makes everyone happy!
I opted to make the results public while the survey was still running, which probably wasn't the best idea. When the results started leaning towards a specific "side", some people started accusing me of purposefully tailoring the survey for that side even though I myself don't have the same beliefs that this "side" has. In the feedback section, people stopped giving feedback and just started trying to discourse with each other and me. What a nightmare. If I ever host any surveys like this again in the future, I definitely won't be making the results public until the survey is over.
Anyways, here are the results of the survey:
Obviously, I'm not a professional so this was just a casual survey. It was completely anonymous but I still asked that only members of DD community respond. I posted it on my blog and tagged it with all syscourse "stances" such as pro-endogenic, anti-endogenic, and just general syscourse. Each question had a stereotypical pro, anti, and none/other answer. It wasn't done perfectly, but I don't think I'd ever be able to make a survey that makes everyone happy!
I opted to make the results public while the survey was still running, which probably wasn't the best idea. When the results started leaning towards a specific "side", some people started accusing me of purposefully tailoring the survey for that side even though I myself don't have the same beliefs that this "side" has. In the feedback section, people stopped giving feedback and just started trying to discourse with each other and me. What a nightmare. If I ever host any surveys like this again in the future, I definitely won't be making the results public until the survey is over.
Anyways, here are the results of the survey: