This article exists to explain the concept of system origin and the many different system origins that exist, as well as to debunk much of the misinformation out there about system origins and to serve as a sourced guide on system origin for easy referencing.
This article contains some information which is extrapolated from the personal experience and theorization of its authors, as members of a system who have all been in the plural community for many years. Anything which is not directly proven with a source may be anecdotal, theorized, or logically assumed. This is by no means an exhaustive resource, and we encourage individuals who wish to learn more about system origins or who are concerned about the validity of information presented here to do further research. If there is any information that you believe is incorrect or missing from this resource, we welcome others to get in contact with us via social media and suggest changes to this article, and we will update this article as new information comes out or in any other case we feel it is necessary.
This guide will assume you are familiar with and understand what plurality is and what systems are. If you don’t have that background knowledge, this guide will likely be very unhelpful and confusing. For beginner information on plurality and systems, see:
What Is System Origin?
System origin is exactly what it sounds like: the origin of a system, as in what caused a system to originate/first form. The process of a system forming or a person becoming plural can be very complex and have many different complicated causes, and there is little to no scientific research on the topic, with most information coming from the decades-long history of discussion and development within the plural community. System origin is not a concept referenced directly in academic research on systems and/or dissociative disorders, but rather is constructed by systems themselves as a way to describe and label their experiences. The academic field of psychology has theorized on potential causes of developing various dissociative disorders such as DID and OSDD, but with extremely limited scope and little to no evidence-based research, and it has not constructed any theory for the formation of plurality outside of the context of a dissociative disorder, despite acknowledging such experiences as being possible in the DSM-5 criteria for various dissociative disorders.
There are common terms that refer to specific system origins, but due to the fact that forming a system can be very complex and is severely under-researched, many systems may find these terms oversimplified or inaccurate when describing their unique origin. Not all systems use any origin label at all, and many systems keep information about their origin private, as it may involve trauma and other personal details one may not want to share. There are also many systems who, in order to explain the many causes or complex cause of their system forming, use multiple different origin labels. Since system origin labels are a concept constructed and utilized by the plural community itself and are not psychiatric terms, individual systems must define for themselves how they choose to explain their system origin(s), and there are many different labels systems use and different ways to do so, with no strict rules or limits on how to use these labels.
It is very important to note, system origin is completely different from disordered and non-disordered status. A disordered system can be of any origin(s), and a non-disordered system can also be of any origin(s). (These terms will be explained later on.)
Common System Origin Terms
There are two system origin terms which are the most commonly used: traumagenic and endogenic. These terms were coined in a Tumblr post by the Lunastus Collective, who discusses the process of coining these terms, their history, as well as common misconceptions about them in an interview with The Plural Association’s offshoot site, Power to the Plurals. All information here reflects these terms as they were originally defined and continue to be used in the plural community today, despite some common incorrect uses of the terms, which the Lunastus Collective explains in the aforementioned interview.
Traumagenic systems are systems who were formed by trauma. This does not specify that the trauma must have been at a certain age, that the system must be disordered, that the system formed involuntarily, or that the trauma must have been a certain kind of trauma. The term includes any system who became a system because of trauma. The Lunastus Collective explains, “It is common nowadays to see people use the term ‘traumagenic’ as a synonym for having DID/OSDD, and vise versa. This is far from the case. Using ‘traumagenic’ to mean ‘a system with DID/OSDD’ is inaccurate; saying ‘DID/OSDD system’ to mean ‘traumagenic system’ is also inaccurate… There are traumagenic systems that never met the criteria for DID/OSDD, or were diagnosed at one time but have since lost that diagnosis.” Though the term “traumagenic” is often conflated with the disorders DID and OSDD, as explained by the system who coined the term (in reference to system origin), these are two separate labels with entirely different meanings.
Endogenic systems are systems who were formed by some cause other than trauma. This does not specify that the system must be non-disordered or that the system formed voluntarily. The term includes any system who became a system because of something that wasn’t trauma. On the endogenic label, the Lunastus Collective states, “[The term endogenic] was created to mean systems that felt their plurality was due to a neurodivergence, from a psychological cause other than DID/OSDD, from some sort of spiritual cause, with a friendly outlook towards tulpamancy or soulbonding. Literally, it’s inclusive of any and all systems or plural folk that do not attribute their plurality to trauma.” The term “endogenic” also, like the term “traumagenic,” has often been misinterpreted and misdefined due to assumptions that all endogenic systems share certain characteristics, when by definition any system who formed for any reason that was not trauma may use the endogenic label regardless of any other traits or experiences they may have.
Despite these terms being opposites, they are not mutually exclusive. If a system formed because of a traumatic event in combination with another factor that was not trauma, they would be both traumagenic and endogenic, since they were both formed by trauma and formed by a cause that was not trauma at the same time. For example, a system that formed as the result of experiencing trauma as well as spiritual practices may identify as both traumagenic and endogenic. These two terms are also not two overarching categories that every system will fall into at least one of, and many systems identify as neither traumagenic nor endogenic, as they feel the simplistic and binaristic nature of the terms is not sufficient to describe their experiences. There are many other terms for system origins, including both microlabels that fall under the traumagenic or endogenic umbrellas as well as origin labels which fall outside of the traumagenic/endogenic binary entirely.
For example, mixed origin systems (sometimes also called multigenic or polygenic systems) are systems who use multiple different origin labels. Protogenic systems are systems who were born systems, rather than being singlets who became systems later in life. Parogenic (sometimes called willogenic) systems are systems who formed intentionally and intentionally created system members. Neurogenic systems are systems who formed due to some neurological cause such as a preexisting mental condition. Spiritual or spirigenic systems are systems who formed due to spiritual causes. Metaphysical or metagenic systems are systems who formed due to spiritual causes. Quoigenic systems are systems who don’t know their origin(s) or don’t want to share them. Agenic systems are systems who simply have no origin at all. There are many other system origin labels besides just these, and new labels are continuously made by the plural community to describe the unique experiences that there are not yet labels for.
It is also of note that individual system members can have origins that differ from the origins of a system as a whole. (For example, a system originally formed by trauma could later form a new headmate through purposeful metaphysical practices.) There is no consistent way this experience is labeled in the plural community, and it is up to each system with this experience to choose what labels to use. Some systems may describe the whole system’s origins as the origins of each individual member, such as a system initially formed by trauma who has endogenic members describing themselves as a mixed origin traumagenic and endogenic system. Other systems may describe their origins simply as the origin that initially formed their system regardless of the origin of headmates that formed later, such as a system initially formed by trauma who has endogenic members describing themselves simply as traumagenic. Neither way of labeling this experience is “correct” and it is simply a matter of personal preference.
All system origin terms, like any other subjective community-built terminology, are a matter of self-identification. It is up to a system to decide for themselves how they identify and with what labels they would like to describe their system origin, if any labels at all. System origin labels are in no way prescriptive, like a diagnosis might be. What makes a system any given system origin is identifying with that label.
What Are Disordered And Non-Disordered Systems?
Disordered systems are systems whose plurality is disordered, usually part of/caused by a specific disorder associated with plurality. This typically means the system has DID or OSDD, though some systems will use “disordered” to refer to the fact that their plurality itself is part of a mental illness/disability that they do not have a specific diagnosis for. Non-disordered systems are the opposite: systems whose plurality is not disordered or part of a disorder. Though disorders like DID and OSDD are clinical diagnostic labels, the term “disordered” is itself a general distinction used in the community to describe systems who identify their plurality as causing clinically significant distress and/or dysfunction. In academic literature, there are distinctions made between systems who do or don’t have a specific given disorder, but not between disordered and non-disordered systems as general overarching categories.
The DSM-5 recognizes in its exclusion criteria for DID cases in which systems, as in multiple states of consciousness or people inhabiting one body/brain, exist without DID or OSDD. However, it does not explore or call attention to non-disordered systems except to mention that they exist and should not be diagnosed with DID/OSDD, since they do not meet the diagnostic criteria. This is because the DSM exists to categorize and inform the treatment of disorders, and a condition that is not a disorder and does not need to be treated would not be mentioned except in the case that it relates to the diagnosis or treatment of another condition which is a disorder. In the case of DID and OSDD, systems (or those with experiences that meet the definition of being a system who do not identify as such) that don’t meet the diagnostic criteria for DID/OSDD are of note because they share at least one major experience with those who have DID/OSDD, and so their experiences may resemble those of people with DID or OSDD even though they do not have either.
In the DSM-5, there are two exclusion criteria under the diagnostic criteria for DID which affirm that it is possible to be a system, to be more than one person or state of consciousness in one body, while not having DID or OSDD. The first, criterion C, states, “The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” Therefore, if one has any of the other symptoms outlined under the diagnostic criteria of DID (or OSDD by extension) but does not experience clinically significant distress or dysfunction as result of those symptoms, they do not meet the diagnostic criteria for and do not have DID or OSDD. There is also another. Criterion D states, “The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice.” Therefore any system whose plurality is part of a (broadly accepted, which is subjective and not explicitly defined) cultural or spiritual practice also does not meet the criteria for DID or OSDD. Being a system/plural is one of the diagnostic criteria for DID/OSDD, specifically criterion A, but these two exclusion criteria must be met in order to be diagnosed with either disorder. It is possible to be a system and to meet criterion A without meeting the rest and without having DID or OSDD.
The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for DID are as follows:
A. Disruption of identity characterized by two or more distinct personality states, which may be described in some cultures as an experience of possession. The disruption in identity involves marked discontinuity in sense of self and sense of agency, accompanied by related alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, and/or sensory-motor functioning. These signs and symptoms may be observed by others or reported by the individual.
B. Recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events that are inconsistent with ordinary forgetting.
C. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D. The disturbance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted cultural or religious practice.
Note: In children, the symptoms are not better explained by imaginary playmates or other fantasy
E. The symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or another medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures).
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
The DSM-5 also states on OSDD:
This category applies to presentations in which symptoms characteristic of a dissociative disorder that cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning predominate but do not meet the full criteria for any of the disorders in the dissociative disorders diagnostic class. The other specified dissociative disorder category is used in situations in which the clinician chooses to communicate the specific reason that the presentation does not meet the criteria for any specific dissociative disorder. This is done by recording “other specified dissociative disorder” followed by the specific reason (e.g., “dissociative trance”).
Examples of presentations that can be specified using the “other specified” designation include the following:
1. Chronic and recurrent syndromes of mixed dissociative symptoms: This category includes identity disturbance associated with less-than-marked discontinuities in sense of self and agency, or alterations of identity or episodes of possession in an individual who reports no dissociative amnesia.
2. Identity disturbance due to prolonged and intense coercive persuasion: Individuals who have been subjected to intense coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, indoctrination while captive, torture, long-term political imprisonment, recruitment by sects/cults or by terror organizations) may present with prolonged changes in, or conscious questioning of, their identity.
3. Acute dissociative reactions to stressful events: This category is for acute, transient conditions that typically last less than 1 month, and sometimes only a few hours or days. These conditions are characterized by constriction of consciousness; depersonalization; derealization; perceptual disturbances (e.g., time slowing, macropsia); micro-amnesias; transient stupor; and/or alterations in sensory-motor functioning (e.g., analgesia, paralysis).
4. Dissociative trance: This condition is characterized by an acute narrowing or complete loss of awareness of immediate surroundings that manifests as profound unresponsiveness or insensitivity to environmental stimuli. The unresponsiveness may be accompanied by minor stereotyped behaviors (e.g., finger movements) of which the individual is unaware and/or that he or she cannot control, as well as transient paralysis or loss of consciousness. The dissociative trance is not a normal part of a broadly accepted collective cultural or religious practice.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
You may notice, it does not say in the diagnostic criteria for DID or any of the listed presentations of OSDD that one’s system must be formed by trauma in order to have either disorder. In fact, neither mention trauma much at all, and definitely not as a requirement for having either disorder. To meet the diagnostic criteria for and be diagnosed with DID or OSDD, it is not necessary to have any trauma history at all. This means that any system can be diagnosed with either disorder regardless of their origin(s), so long as they meet the diagnostic criteria of what they are diagnosed with.
That said, DID and OSDD are commonly understood to be disorders caused by trauma. This is per one of the most common theories on the formation of DID and OSDD, the Theory of Structural Dissociation. The ToSD is used primarily to guide research as well as treatment for DID and OSDD, but importantly, its view on trauma as the cause of DID and OSDD does not inform the diagnostic process. This is because amnesia surrounding trauma is common in both disorders, and can in many cases be very severe, so screening for trauma as part of the diagnostic process would prevent people with DID and OSDD from being diagnosed, and requiring trauma as a diagnostic criterion would be even worse in terms of generating false negatives. Those claiming that having any kind of trauma is a requirement for being diagnosed with DID or OSDD are incorrect, and likely assuming that because the ToSD’s use in treatment of and research on DID/OSDD that it is also applicable to diagnosis, when this is not the case as per the DSM-5.
Also, the ToSD is not the only theory on the formation of DID and OSDD. There’s also Disorganized Attachment Theory, Discrete Behavioral State Theory, and A Biopsychosocial Model just to name a few examples. The ToSD has also faced much criticism and is not universally accepted by systems or by psychologists/in research of dissociative disorders. See, for example, this criticism of the ToSD by Paul Dell, who created the multidimensional inventory of dissociation used to diagnose dissociative disorders. Though the ToSD and it’s view on trauma as a key component of DID and OSDD is based on a reasonable surmise of the research available on the disorders and is practically helpful in treatment contexts, it is by no means verified scientific fact, and should not be treated as such. A theory should be thought of as an assumption: as in, based on the information currently available, this is what researchers think is true and assume is true for the sake of further study, and they have done some research to test and support that assumption. DID and OSDD are notoriously under-researched conditions, so even the best and most comprehensive theories are incomplete, especially when considering the logistics of proving that a disorder is formed exclusively by trauma and both the efficacy and ethical question of performing any study which would directly prove this as fact.
[The theory of structural dissociation of the personality (TSDP)] is not perfect. Even the best of theories are mere tools. They do not reflect an objectively existing (i.e., subject-independent) reality, and the search for knowledge and wisdom is forever. This is what the term ‘wijsbegeerte’, the Dutch word for philosophy, expresses, the desire (begeerte) to gain wisdom (wijsheid). I am thus open to incessantly improving TSDP.
Ellert R.S. Nijenhuis, creator of the theory of structural dissociation (of the personality). “Boundaries on the concepts of dissociation and dissociative parts of the personality: required and viable.” Psichiatria e Psicoterapia, vol. 34, 1, pp. 55-85. 2015.
Issues Surrounding Origin & Disordered Status
There are certain online communities and groups who hold exclusionary beliefs about the plural community and believe that certain kinds of systems are not real systems. Claiming that a system is not real and is faking being a system (without concrete evidence, such as an admission of guilt) is commonly referred to within the plural community as “fakeclaiming,” a slang term with no identifiable origin. This is widely recognized among the plural community to be an ableist and deeply harmful practice.
Fakeclaiming cannot and does not help any system, but does frequently and deeply harm many. This is because it is impossible to know the subjective inner workings/mental experiences of another person and therefore impossible to prove or disprove that any system is faking, especially based off of limited information such as what someone posts online, unless someone openly admits to having faked being a system. Fakeclaiming does not address the issue of singlets faking plurality (which itself is nowhere near as much of an issue as it is often made out to be) or make plural communities safer, but it does generate hostility towards marginalized neurodivergent people, force them to repress their true selves while conforming to what their oppressors deem acceptable in an attempt to escape marginalization, and create an environment in which it is considered acceptable to scrutinize and harshly judge systems, which easily develops into toxic community dynamics of leadership through fear and intimidation. To exclude some systems from the definition of system and to claim that they are therefore fake/not systems, no matter how careful or well-intentioned those doing so are, inevitably causes these harmful cycles and creates unsafe communities.
These groups, which accuse some systems of faking or some kinds of systems of being fake, do so because they believe that in order to be a system one must fit a specific narrow set of criteria, and they often heavily scrutinize other systems both inside and out of their community to ensure they continually meet these criteria. Such groups are known for frequently fakeclaiming systems they perceive as not fitting their exclusionary model of plurality well enough, though they may not always directly confront the systems they believe to be fake with accusations of faking. Though exclusionary beliefs range in severity, the common thread among them is the belief that being a system is exclusively a medical disorder caused by trauma, and that non-disordered as well as non-traumagenic systems do not exist. Those who hold these beliefs are typically called system medicalists (often shortened to “sysmeds”) due to the fact that they medicalize all plurality against the will of plurals who do not wish to be medicalized and believe that being a system is strictly and only ever caused by having a medical disorder.
There are also other terms to refer to specific exclusionary beliefs that one may hold about plurality. Those who are antagonistic towards or fakeclaim endogenic systems are often called “anti-endos” as “endos” is a shortened term for endogenic systems. “System gatekeepers” or “syskeepers” may also be used to refer to anyone who has any kind of exclusionary beliefs about plurality or who gatekeeps the plural community. Though some of these terms (such as “syskeeper”) have known coiners or initial use cases, most do not have traceable origins, though it can be assumed their initial use began on Tumblr when system medicalist groups began to pop up and gain traction. System medicalists may be either plural or singlet, though they are often themselves systems, since their ideology is about plurality which makes singlets less likely to come in contact with it in the first place.
System medicalism and exclusionary behavior in the plural community is likely a prominent issue due to the fact that all systems face ableist oppression (due to being neurodivergent, due to diverging from the neurotypical neurotype of singlet), and oppressed communities often end up in cycles of what is called crab mentality. This is when (specifically as applicable in a broad group of marginalized people) those with certain privileges undermine, exclude, or otherwise harm those in the same group with less privilege than them in an attempt to escape their oppression and assimilate into the social class of their oppressors, often resulting in these less privileged members understandably responding with backlash, resulting in a back-and-forth conflict. Like this, marginalized communities have a tendency to fracture into opposing sides which continually sabotage one another, despite both facing the same broad category of oppression, in an attempt by both to escape that oppression.
There is also a tendency for members of marginalized communities with the ability to do so to adopt strict medical views on their marginalized identity in order to legitimize themselves in the eyes of their oppressors, even when this is at the cost of harming and/or excluding many members of their community. Having an identity which is palatable to those outside the community (such as by being defined and dictated by the psychiatric system, excluding that which does not yet have comprehensive research and which the psychiatric system is not motivated to research, despite the fact that this ignores how systemic ableism influences academia and the psych system) does indeed allow for one to assimilate better into society as a whole and seek acceptance more easily and quickly, but this abandons and harms marginalized people who are not able to achieve an identity that is palatable in that way. These same patterns of behavior can be seen in other communities which face other kinds of oppression.
Unfortunately, many communities inundated with system medicalist ideology are also communities for DID/OSDD, or even general trauma survivor communities. This causes some systems to cling to system medicalist rhetoric in order to maintain access to crucial spaces and support which they may not be able to access elsewhere, such as recovery communities. Communities which subscribe to system medicalism also tend to be very insular due to the belief that all inclusive systems are ableist, or in some cases even the belief that all inclusive systems are faking being systems, which would make associating with them morally wrong. This can create cycles of toxicity that prevent systems from expressing more inclusive opinions, being more accepting of certain systems, or even associating with more inclusive systems at risk of losing their mental health support system, friends, loved ones, and their community as a whole. Due to these high stakes, hostility and tension surrounding this issue is quite high.
However, this hostility surrounding system origin and the existence of system medicalists is quite new in the span of the plural community’s entire history. As explained in LB Lee’s sourced timeline of the plural community, Quick’N’Dirty Plural History, system medicalist ideology has existed for many years in the plural community in less extreme and pervasive forms, but more extreme exclusionary rhetoric and fakeclaiming didn’t gain much traction until a few years ago, primarily beginning on Tumblr and spreading to other platforms as time went on.
Misconceptions & Misinformation
“System” is the term for a person who has DID or OSDD, and all systems who don’t have either disorder are co-opting/stealing the term.
This claim is unsubstantiated, and logically does not make sense. System is not a term that’s exclusive to DID/OSDD systems because it’s not even a term that’s exclusive to all plural systems, as in many people/states of consciousness sharing one body. It’s a general word that has more specific uses and meanings than it does letters. There are operating systems, systems of oppression, skeletal systems, mass transportation systems…
Even within psychology and psychiatry, the use of “system” is not exclusive to DID and OSDD. For example, Internal Family Systems is a therapeutic model that describes people as units of individual parts and calls those units systems. The use of “system” to describe a group of things, parts, or individuals that somehow work together or are interconnected is not exclusive to DID/OSDD, nor does it originate with DID/OSDD, even when solely considering the use of the term within psychology and psychiatry. To claim that non-disordered systems are somehow co-opting the term makes absolutely no sense.
Systems can only be formed by trauma, and the only real systems are the ones who have DID or OSDD. Science has proven that endogenic and non-disordered systems aren’t real.
This is the belief at the center of system medicalism. In order to address it, first there must be an established definition of what being plural/a system is in the first place. A system is defined as two or more states of consciousness or people/individuals inhabiting the same singular body and brain. This is the definition used by the plural/system community for decades (see, again, Quick’N’Dirty Plural History), and as previously explained, it is not exclusive to DID/OSDD systems. Using this definition of system, the system medicalist argument does not hold up.
Being multiple states of consciousness and/or people who inhabit one body is by no means an experience exclusive to those who have experienced trauma, and to say so is to dismiss and erase the history not only of the plural community itself but of the many cultures and religions for whom the experience is part of their spiritual or cultural practices. Not everyone with the experience which fits the definition plurality may label themselves as plural or a system of course, but this demonstrates just how many ways there are to become what meets the definition of a system, many of which are not trauma. To say that it is not possible for a system to form without experiencing trauma is to say that these cultural and spiritual experiences are false, which has dubious implications at best. Not to mention, these cultural/spiritual and other non-pathological experiences which meet the definition of being a system are acknowledged by the DSM-5 under exclusion criteria, specifically criteria C and D, in the diagnostic criteria for DID.
If one accepts that these cultural and religious practices are legitimate ways to have the experience of being multiple people/states of consciousness inhabiting one body (which, again, meets the definition of being a system) as the DSM-5 does, and if one accepts that these experiences cannot be accurately classified as DID or OSDD as the DSM-5 does, one must logically also accept that it is possible to be a system without having DID or OSDD. Even if one does not accept any of this, believing that non-disordered systems do not exist is directly in disagreement with the DSM-5, and one must prove criteria C and D of the DID diagnostic criteria as incorrect/unnecessary in order to make that claim.
The presence of alters alone is not quite enough for a person to be diagnosed with a mental “disorder”. For a dissociative disorder to be diagnosed the person must have either clinically significant distress, or impaired functioning in a major area of life. This means that it is possible to be mentally healthy and a multiple, this is referred to as “healthy multiplicity”.
Traumadissociation. “Alter Identities in Dissociative Identity Disorder (MPD) and DDNOS”
There is scientific research that proves that trauma can cause a system to form, but there is no scientific research whatsoever that proves that trauma is the only thing which can cause a system to form. The psychiatric system is not motivated to research plurality which is not inherently disordered, because they cannot cure or treat something which is not a disorder, which means researching non-disordered psychological phenomena generates no profit for them. However, there has been some academic exploration of endogenic and non-traumagenic systems, and the evidence generated by it alone is compelling.
The little research existing on endogenic and non-disordered systems, sparse as it may be, universally affirms their existence at very least as a distinct possibility. Though this research, similar to research into dissociative disorders like DID and OSDD, has very limited scope and is mostly in early stages, it cannot be dismissed as mere speculation or a generally disbelieved theory. According to all in the field of psychology who have addressed the concept of non-disordered and endogenic systems, it is either possible or certain that they do in fact exist. There is no research which even suggests that it is not possible for endogenic and non-disordered systems to form, and there is some that suggests it is. The most reasonable response is to defer to what little scientific evidence is available, while seeking further research and clarification. As for this available research, some will be listed below.
As you may notice, much of this research is old, some of it very old, and some of it uses outdated terminology, but none of it is outdated. For research to be outdated, there must be newer research that contradicts, corrects, or expands upon it. None such research exists for any of the examples provided here. Once again, because of the lack of profitability to motivate research on non-disordered systems, this research is very sparse. The examples used here are not exhaustive, but some of the most significant.
Ross (1991) studied the general population of Winnipeg searching for an indication of Dissociative Identity Disorder in the general population. He found 3.1% of respondents to an interview could fit the criteria of Dissociative Identity Disorder. However, of these 14 individuals (out of 454 participants), the majority (8) seemed to be radically different from Dissociative Identity Disorder patients in therapy. These individuals often did not report abuse history and often reported experiencing little psychopathology.[…] Ross describes a number of possibilities that explain these findings. He contemplates that the non-pathological group could be false positives, that the individuals could be amnesiac for abuse, that the Dissociative Identity Disorder could be in remission or that:
Regan McClure, 1994. “Towards a theoretical framework of the etiology and structures of multiple personality.” A Thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts, Graduate Department of Applied Psychology, in the University of Toronto.
“‘multiplicity exists in a non-pathological endogenous form in the general population. About 2% of people may be natural multiples who do not have dysfunctional posttraumatic MPD. They may simply have a highly dissociative psychic organization’ (Ross, 1991, p. 510).
Multiple Personality Disorder or Dissociative Identity Disorder is generally deemed to be the most severe dissociative disorder, in which trauma not only induces amnesia but also fragments personality. Our own alternative thesis is that trauma only induces amnesia (in those who are predisposed to dissociate) and that multiple personality without amnesia is a normal individual difference upon which dissociative reactions to trauma may be superimposed.[…] Our thesis predicts that many more, totally normal people with multiple personalities, but no amnesia, never even come to the attention of the clinical psychological establishment.[…] Present findings support our hypothesis that multiple personality, without amnesia, is a normal phenomenon.
Robert G. Kuzendorf, Melissa Crosson, Antoinette Zalaket, Jerold White, and Robert Enik. “Normal dimensions of multiple personality without amnesia.” Imagination, cognition, and personality, Vol. 18(2, pp. 205-220, 1998-99.
There may be in the general population a large number of people with MPD who are high-functioning, relatively free of overt psychopathology, and no more in need of treatment than most of their peers. They may not have abuse histories and may have evolved a creative and adaptive multiplicity. If these people exist, virtually nothing is known about them.’ (Ross, 1989, p. 97) The phrase “if these people exist” expresses some doubt that there can be “high-functioning” individuals with multiple selves, continuing the discourse of dysfunction. However the phrase also highlights a gap in the scientific research. Functional individuals who live with multiplicity are most likely not documented because of the very fact that they are functional and do not seek therapy. At present, the only documented cases of functional multiplicity are self-documented, for example on internet pages. Although this is not persuasive evidence for the scientific community, such data cannot be summarily dismissed simply to hold to the dominant discourse.
Kymbra Clayton. “Critiquing the Requirement of Oneness over Multiplicity: An Examination of Dissociative Identity (Disorder) in Five Clinical Texts.” E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Clinical Section. 1(2), pp. 9-19, 2005.
See, also, this page, which lists a few more academic papers on non-disordered plurality.
Endogenic/non-disordered systems are all traumagenic/disordered systems in denial of or unable to remember their trauma.
This statement, inherently, is deeply ableist towards all systems, including DID/OSDD systems. To believe this statement is to believe that neurodivergent people (specifically those with dissociative amnesia) should not be trusted about their own lives and experiences, including about what trauma they say they did or did not experience. It denies the agency of systems to define the narrative of their own lives in favor of insisting that someone else can or should dictate their experiences for them and deny what they claim their experiences to be. Worst of all, it rests on the assumption that those with DID or OSDD should not be believed about what they say their experiences to be, simply because dissociative amnesia is a symptom of those disorders. It allows ableists to use someone’s experiences of dissociative amnesia against them, as an excuse to disbelieve them.
It is true that it is possible for a DID or OSDD system to believe they have no trauma when they do have trauma due to experiencing dissociative amnesia. However, this does not make it in any way acceptable to claim or even imply that a system of any kind is not to be trusted about their own lives and experiences. The harm in allowing a system to believe that they have no trauma when they do have trauma they don’t know about is none, and this is itself normal for the course of DID and OSDD recovery. The harm in claiming that they are wrong about their own memories is not only stripping them of the autonomy to define their own experiences/lives but also potentially forcing a system to confront their trauma before they are ready and without the appropriate processes, which can result in severe harm to a system’s mental health.
It is never acceptable to deny someone’s experiences (or lack thereof) with trauma. It can only ever harm others, often does harm others very deeply, and does not help anyone in any way.
“System medicalism” and “sysmed” are transphobic terms.
This accusation rests upon the idea that because the term “sysmed” sounds similar to/has the same suffix as the term “transmed,” it must be transphobic. This doesn’t make sense for a few reasons.
Transmedicalists (shortened to “transmeds”) are those who believe that being transgender is solely caused by the medical/psychiatric condition gender dysphoria, and that by extension being transgender is solely medical. Both transmedicalism and system medicalism are kinds of medicalism: ideologies which medicalize an identity which is not solely medical by claiming that it necessitates a medical condition of some kind. The terms to describe these ideologies both mention the concept of medicalization, because that concept is undeniably at the center of both. In these ways, the terms are similar, but the fact that they share these similarities does not make the term “system medicalism” or the term “sysmed” transphobic.
There is no verifiable information on who coined the term “system medicalism” or when, but the term is itself a direct explanation of what the ideology it represents is; those who medicalize all systems against the will of those who wish not to be and believe being a system is inherently medical are system medicalists. Therefore it should be assumed, absent of any evidence to the contrary, that there was no transphobic intent or implicit message in the term’s coining. The fact that there are basic etymological similarities between “transmedicalism” and “system medicalism” as well as a shared suffix in the shortened version of both terms does not make the term “system medicalism” transphobic, because that similarity has no transphobic implications, and the shared suffix between the two terms almost certainly exists because of the shared concept of medicalization between the two ideologies the terms describe.
It also may be claimed that comparing system medicalism and transmedicalism, as in the ideologies themselves rather than just the terms used to describe them, is transphobic. This, too, does not make sense. System medicalism is an ideology that medicalizes all systems and insists that systems who do not have certain disorders are faking being a system. Transmedicalism is an ideology that medicalizes all trans people and insists that trans people who do not have a certain disorder are faking being trans. There are many similarities one can point out between these two ideologies, including the use of medicalization in both, and unless one finds issue with either of these statements about what both ideologies are, those comparisons are based solely on the factual reality of system medicalism and transmedicalism. Pointing out that these similarities exist and therefore comparing the two ideologies is in no way transphobic, it is a statement of literal truth.
It also cannot be ignored how this accusation, that comparing system medicalism with transmedicalism is transphobic, is so often levied against trans systems in a way that is itself transphobic. Those who are comparing the two ideologies of system medicalism and transmedicalism are, at least by a very vast majority, exclusively those who are victimized by both: trans systems. To claim that a trans person should not be allowed to compare their own experiences of facing transphobia to other experiences they have and that doing so is transphobic is not only incorrect, but itself deeply transphobic, as it silences trans people attempting to speak on their own experiences of facing transphobic oppression and the intersection of that experience with others. Such accusations, specifically accusations of transphobia made against trans systems for comparing the transphobia they face to other experiences, and especially when made by those who are not themselves trans, trivialize transphobic oppression in an attempt to silence trans people.
If someone who was not themselves trans was comparing transmedicalism to other issues or other kind of oppression, that certainly would be an issue, but this frankly does not happen in the plural community. Trans people comparing the transphobia of transmedicalists, which they themselves face, to other ideologies, is not transphobic.
Tulpamancy is culturally appropriative.
This misconception is based off of a specific instance of drama which began on Tumblr and rapidly spread, involving a specific user who made a carrd which was widely shared and which contained misinformation. As of now, we have not done enough research into this topic to feel confident comprehensively explaining this ourselves, but this incident and misconception has already been explained at length by others with sources and evidence. To learn more, we recommend this resource on tulpamancy, which explains what it is as well as common misconceptions about it, including this one.
Endogenic and non-disordered systems are invading the spaces of trauma survivors and should not be in trauma survivor spaces.
Endogenic systems can be trauma survivors. It is possible for a system to form for a reason that is not trauma and to also have experienced trauma before. Endogenic systems should absolutely be allowed to exist openly and freely in trauma survivor spaces, because many of them are trauma survivors, and endogenic systems who have survived trauma deserve fo be in those spaces just as much as any other trauma survivor does.
The same goes for non-disordered systems; it is absolutely possible for a non-disordered system to have experienced trauma at some point and still not be disordered. A system can be a system, experience trauma, and still not meet the diagnostic criteria for DID or OSDD. Anyone who has experienced trauma deserves the support and resources they need, and non-disordered systems who are also trauma survivors should not be denied these resources.
One should never assume that a system has not experienced trauma just because they are traumagenic and/or non-disordered. One should never assume that anyone has or hasn’t experienced trauma, because someone’s trauma is deeply personal and none of anyone’s business unless they want it to be.
Changelog
- 4/5/22 – first published/posted, planning to add information about the ICD-11 alongside DSM-5 info, add a section on misconceptions about endogenic systems and psychosis, and add various scientific studies that have been conducted on tulpamancy
Many Storytellings 
Leave a comment