Terminology Debates
"What it comes down to . . . is a debate about language. . . . We're talking about the politics of language, the politics of multiplicity. Granted, it's an issue people take very personally, but if you can't separate the issue of the language used to identify a group ("those people over there," "left-wingers," "hockey fans," "multiples") from your own self-definition, you can't discuss it rationally."
- Jeren Tay'avamar (of Shaytar)
- Jeren Tay'avamar (of Shaytar)
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
Terminology debates in syscourse focus on the vocabulary that systems use to describe their experiences.
People who identify as systems often have a unique way of expressing themselves. This usually involves a mix of both medical and nonmedical terminology, using definitions that may vary per person. For many, the terms they use are deeply personal and often an extension of their identity (or identities). |
Even though there are many contrasting views on plurality, the language people use to describe it often remains the same! This means that different people may have very different understandings of certain terms depending on their own viewpoint(s). Because of this, it's easy for some topics to become lost in translation between people who have different understandings of the same vocabulary.
2. Terminology Usage
There has been a growing interest towards the terminology usage of people who experience plurality or multiple selves. It isn't exactly known what the most frequently used labels are or how they may differ between people with and without a dissociative disorder (DD). While research up this alley is virtually non-existent, a handful of non-academic surveys and polls have been hosted over the past few years.
The Plural Positivity Experience Survey, created as part of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference (PPWC), asked participants to vote how they identified in regards to their trauma and dissociation. From over 800 responses, 2% choose "it's just baggage", 3% choose "traumatized", 5% choose "dissociative", 22% choose "multiple", 27% choose "plural", and 35% choose "DID".
The Plural Positivity Experience Survey, created as part of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference (PPWC), asked participants to vote how they identified in regards to their trauma and dissociation. From over 800 responses, 2% choose "it's just baggage", 3% choose "traumatized", 5% choose "dissociative", 22% choose "multiple", 27% choose "plural", and 35% choose "DID".
In February, 2021, I hosted a poll to ask the Tumblr DID/OSDD community what their preferred label(s) were out of five options. They were able to choose as many options as they wanted. Out of 108 responses I received, 2.8% choose an unspecified other option, 2.8% choose "I'm a plural", 3.7% choose "I'm a multiple", 44.4% choose "I'm a system", and 46.3% choose "I'm a person who has DID or OSDD-1".
In March, 2021, someone made a similar poll essentially asking the same question to the Twitter DID/OSDD community! In this poll, there were four options and respondents could only select one. Of the 119 votes it received, 4.2% choose "plural", 6.7% choose "multiple", 28.6% choose "person with DID/OSDD", and the vast majority of 60.5% choose "system".
3. Contentious Terms
System
Unsurprisingly, a frequently contended term in system discourse is the term 'system' itself.
People who experience plurality often use 'system' to refer to their entire collective of residents. They may describe themselves as a system (e.g. I'm/We're a system) or refer to their internal residents as their system (e.g. This is my/our system). The reason this term has become so contentious is because, just like with plurality, many people have different opinions on what a system is and who should be labeling themselves as one. |
Some people believe that this term, in the context of multiple selves, should only be used in relation to certain dissociative disorders (DD). One of the main reasons for this often falls on the history of the term. Many people are just using it in the same way that it has commonly been used both in the clinical treatment of DD and within the DD community throughout history--places where non-DD plurality never needed to be implied.
Others believe that since the majority of people with DD use the word 'system' to describe their medical symptoms, this important usage should not be muddled.
There are also those who feel that it is appropriative for people without DD to use 'system' similarly to how people with DD use it [1]. The logic behind this is that since the term emerged to communicate the experience of DD, using the term for something that is not a DD is an appropriation of those mental disorders.
According to OK2TALK, the appropriation of mental disorders is when people use the language of mental disorders to describe their non-disordered experiences. In an article on the subject, they express, "When people begin to appropriate mental illnesses to describe their everyday life events, those who have no knowledge of mental health will take these descriptions as gospel, thus invalidating the struggles of those who are dealing with a potentially debilitating disorder." They go on to detail the struggles that people with mental disorders face, of not being taken seriously and being unable to find help, when their language is erased [2].
On the flip side of this syscourse, there are many people who believe that non-disordered plurals have every right to call themselves systems. Many argue that using 'system' outside of the context of DD is not appropriation. One reasoning for this is that the term 'system' is a widely used term that's used for many things both inside and outside of mental health. Another reason is that non-disordered plurals have been calling themselves 'systems' for over two decades. Dreamwidth user LB_lee has openly expressed their support for non-disordered plurals using the term 'system' on many occasions, arguing that while 'system' may have originated as medical terminology, it was reclaimed as "a term of identity and/or pride" by plurals of all kinds [3].
The debates are not as simple as exclusion versus inclusion, however. Due to the plethora of plurality-related terms that make use of the word 'system' within them, there are many people who have expressed concerns over being unable to tell the difference between what is related to dissociation and what is not [1][4].
In 2019, I wrote about my experience when I first joined the online plurality community. Back then, there were no boundaries between what terms, concepts, and topics were and weren't medical in nature. Due to the conflated vocabulary and concepts, I was led to mistreat my dissociative symptoms as non-disordered. It resulted in severe psychological harm. The sad part is that stories like mine are unfortunately common among people with dissociation and trauma who use the Internet. Many people who had once been heavily involved in the online plurality community have come forward to talk about how the enmeshment of terminology had deterred them from the correct resources, led them to mislabel their own experiences, and/or prevented them from getting help [4]. Regardless of who uses the term 'system', it's important to illustrate clear boundaries between disordered and non-disordered experiences.
Others believe that since the majority of people with DD use the word 'system' to describe their medical symptoms, this important usage should not be muddled.
There are also those who feel that it is appropriative for people without DD to use 'system' similarly to how people with DD use it [1]. The logic behind this is that since the term emerged to communicate the experience of DD, using the term for something that is not a DD is an appropriation of those mental disorders.
According to OK2TALK, the appropriation of mental disorders is when people use the language of mental disorders to describe their non-disordered experiences. In an article on the subject, they express, "When people begin to appropriate mental illnesses to describe their everyday life events, those who have no knowledge of mental health will take these descriptions as gospel, thus invalidating the struggles of those who are dealing with a potentially debilitating disorder." They go on to detail the struggles that people with mental disorders face, of not being taken seriously and being unable to find help, when their language is erased [2].
On the flip side of this syscourse, there are many people who believe that non-disordered plurals have every right to call themselves systems. Many argue that using 'system' outside of the context of DD is not appropriation. One reasoning for this is that the term 'system' is a widely used term that's used for many things both inside and outside of mental health. Another reason is that non-disordered plurals have been calling themselves 'systems' for over two decades. Dreamwidth user LB_lee has openly expressed their support for non-disordered plurals using the term 'system' on many occasions, arguing that while 'system' may have originated as medical terminology, it was reclaimed as "a term of identity and/or pride" by plurals of all kinds [3].
The debates are not as simple as exclusion versus inclusion, however. Due to the plethora of plurality-related terms that make use of the word 'system' within them, there are many people who have expressed concerns over being unable to tell the difference between what is related to dissociation and what is not [1][4].
In 2019, I wrote about my experience when I first joined the online plurality community. Back then, there were no boundaries between what terms, concepts, and topics were and weren't medical in nature. Due to the conflated vocabulary and concepts, I was led to mistreat my dissociative symptoms as non-disordered. It resulted in severe psychological harm. The sad part is that stories like mine are unfortunately common among people with dissociation and trauma who use the Internet. Many people who had once been heavily involved in the online plurality community have come forward to talk about how the enmeshment of terminology had deterred them from the correct resources, led them to mislabel their own experiences, and/or prevented them from getting help [4]. Regardless of who uses the term 'system', it's important to illustrate clear boundaries between disordered and non-disordered experiences.
System Medicalist (Sysmed)
System medicalist, usually shortened to sysmed or sysmedicalist, is a term that arose from the plural community, most likely on Twitter towards the end of 2019 (example of early usage). The term was not actually coined with a set definition and, as a result, is often used in a variety of ways. Despite that, it is mainly used to describe those who believe that systems must always be caused by trauma or tied to a medical disorder [5]. Pluralpedia expresses that sysmeds "often seek to exclude other kinds of systems from general plural spaces, believe other systems are faking or mistaken as to their own identity, or otherwise seek to exclude others from identifying as plural" [6].
The term sysmed was modeled after transmedicalist, a word that's often shortened to transmed. Transmeds are people who believe that being transgender is contingent on gender dysphoria and undergoing medical transition. In the same vein, sysmeds are people who believe that being a system is contingent on having trauma and a mental disorder. This parallel has incited a lot of controversy.
Many transgender singlets have expressed discomfort with 'sysmed' due how it equates their experiences to diagnoses like dissociative identity disorder (DID). Others view the term as a co-option of the language that transgender people use to convey their oppression. One Twitter user comments that sysmed is a "term stolen from trans people describing their oppression and people who contribute to that oppression, violence, and trauma" [7]. Likewise, there are people with DD who have stated that they find it marginalizing and invalidating for their experiences to be equated to being transgender [8][9].
Many people in favor of the term 'sysmed' see importance in having a label for the medicalization of plurality. Some also believe that the comparison to transmedicalism is fitting. "The term sysmed, or originally, pluscum, exists not to equate the experiences of plural systems and trans people, but to point out identical rhetoric," says the coiner of 'pluscum' (based off of the transmedicalist term 'truscum'), a term that was used on Twitter before 'sysmed' [10].
The term sysmed was modeled after transmedicalist, a word that's often shortened to transmed. Transmeds are people who believe that being transgender is contingent on gender dysphoria and undergoing medical transition. In the same vein, sysmeds are people who believe that being a system is contingent on having trauma and a mental disorder. This parallel has incited a lot of controversy.
Many transgender singlets have expressed discomfort with 'sysmed' due how it equates their experiences to diagnoses like dissociative identity disorder (DID). Others view the term as a co-option of the language that transgender people use to convey their oppression. One Twitter user comments that sysmed is a "term stolen from trans people describing their oppression and people who contribute to that oppression, violence, and trauma" [7]. Likewise, there are people with DD who have stated that they find it marginalizing and invalidating for their experiences to be equated to being transgender [8][9].
Many people in favor of the term 'sysmed' see importance in having a label for the medicalization of plurality. Some also believe that the comparison to transmedicalism is fitting. "The term sysmed, or originally, pluscum, exists not to equate the experiences of plural systems and trans people, but to point out identical rhetoric," says the coiner of 'pluscum' (based off of the transmedicalist term 'truscum'), a term that was used on Twitter before 'sysmed' [10].
Pluralpedia states that sysmeds "are not those who believe that DID/OSDD-1 systems should have their own spaces, or that traumagenic plurality is different than other forms, but rather those who exclude others from being considered plural entirely" [6]. This is a sentiment that I wish was more wide-spread than it actually is.
|
I see so many dissociative people get labeled as sysmeds for flimsy reasons, even when they are fully supportive and inclusive of all plurality. For example, I witnessed the creator of a newsletter get placed on a sysmed blocklist simply for making the newsletter about trauma & dissociation and requesting that things stay on that topic! This seems to be a common occurrence and it's just really sad. Many dissociative people are concerned that they'll have to forfeit the medical language, resources, and spaces that they need in order to not be labeled as sysmeds [8].
Traumatized Scum (Traumascum)
Arising on Tumblr in February of 2019, traumascum is a syscourse-related phrase that was created to delineate trauma-based systems who exclude endogenic systems from system spaces. It is derived from the phrase "true transsexual scum," which is often shortened to truscum. Truscum are transmedicalists who believe that gender dysphoria and often medical transition are necessary for someone to be genuinely transgender. Just like the term sysmed, traumascum has seen a great amount of controversy for the same reasons, as well as many people who believe it's inappropriate to call trauma survivors "scum" [9].
Natural Multiplicity
Sometime between 1995 and 1998, "natural multiplicity" was coined by Astraea's Web to suggest that MPD was not a disorder and did not stem from childhood trauma or abuse [11]. While "natural multiplicity" was sometimes used to describe non-disordered plurality, a phenomenon separate from dissociative disorders, it was also used to push traumatized and DD folks out of their own community. Many non-disordered & non-traumagenic plurals documented this with disdain [12]. Many folks felt that "natural multiplicity" implied that DDs or traumagenic plurality were unnatural. In 2014, the term "endogenic" was introduced as an alternative to "natural" [13]. Many non-traumagenic & non-disordered plurals adopted this term along with other new terms that were created, however, a small handful might still identify as "natural" despite its history.
References
- firedrake. (2018). [Blog post]. Internet Archive. Retrieved from web.archive.org/web/20181217104007/https:// firedrake.tumblr.com/syscourse.
- ok2talk. (2019). Stop Appropriating My Mental Disorders [Blog post]. Retrieved from ok2talk.org/post/ 183634210655/stop-appropriating-my-mental-disorders.
- Lb_lee. (2017). A Brief History Of The Use Of "System" In Non-DID Spaces [Blog post]. Retrieved from lb-lee.dreamwidth.org/881645.html.
- justanothersyscourse. (2021). Guys, I'd like to hear some of your experiences! [Blog post]. Retrieved from justanothersyscourse.tumblr.com/post/646647018086858752/guys-id-like-to-hear-some-of-your-experiences.
- DNI Definitions
- System Exclusionist - Pluralpedia
- chihuahua rescue femme Q ⚢ ∞ ★ on Twitter: "Found out sysmed, like blerf, is yet another bullshit term stolen from trans people describing their oppression and people who contribute to that oppression, violence, and trauma, to whine about shit that is unrelated."
- What is a sysmed? - Dissociating Dingo (tumblr.com)
- Quark 🔇🐏 on Twitter: "Sysmed/Traumascum aren't good words. 1 - The term traumascum is tone deaf. 2 - It coopts intracommunity issues from trans people & implies DID is an identity--I don't "identify" as traumatized. I don't "identify" as having CPTSD. I don't "identify" as having DID. It is insulting."
- UnregisteredHyperCadence ☄, Soon-To-Be VTuber on Twitter: "if the term sysmed bothers you fucks so much, we can always go back to using pluscum instead" (archive.org)
- 1990s - Plural Deep Dive (weebly.com)
- Victime Survivor or Empowered (archive.org)
- NOT HERE TO PLEASE — Long ramble on terminology creation. (archive.org)
- Freepik
- Me
- Me
- Me
- Many Voices Press, April 2005
- Many Voices Press, June 2007