Abyss

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== System exclusionist ======

(Namespace: [[plural glossary:start]])

^ Type of term | [[Syscourse]] |
^ Synonyms or near-synonyms | None |
^ Antonyms or near-antonyms | None |

Broadly, a system exclusionist is anyone who believes there should be rigid rules or standards, of any kind, about who is allowed to call themselves a [[system]]. I personally think they are idiots.

===== Beliefs =====

System exclusionist attitudes occupy a vast spectrum. The core and most restrictive variation on the concept is that only [[traumagenic]] systems professionally diagnosed with [[DID]] should be allowed to call themselves systems and anyone else is appropriating the label, but there are various less restrictive variations, such as being willing to acknowledge undiagnosed or self-diagnosed traumagenic systems, being willing to acknowledge [[OSDD]] systems, or, more rarely, being willing to acknowledge [[endogenic]] systems as long as they are professionally diagnosed with DID.

There are further differences among system exclusionist attitudes concerning what attributes of a system indicate they are [[fakeclaiming|faking]], such as the presence of [[fictive|fictives]], the presence of [[introject|introjects]] at all, or the ability to be [[coconscious]].

===== Why is this a bad thing? =====

Gatekeeping always has a negative connotation, but that connotation is not always earned. The //core// motivation of the system exclusionist platform is about protecting a label from being appropriated away from a highly vulnerable group, and that's very reasonable and frankly noble. If that were what their gatekeeping actually //accomplished,// there would be no problem.

The very serious inherent problem with the approach is that DID and OSDD by their nature are poorly understood even in an expert capacity and also cause the afflicted to live in constant self-disavowal and denial. Therefore, systematically gatekeeping the relevant labels to those who actually need them is fundamentally impossible, because there is no reliable way whatsoever to determine who does or does not actually need them, //and// trying to do so anyway is //extremely harmful// because those who //do// need the labels are by their nature highly prone to embracing any possible excuse to believe they don't.

"Sure it's possible to tell who needs the label, just get diagnosed." There are several major problems that make that solution unworkable.

==== Obstacles to diagnosis ====

Perhaps the most obvious is that diagnosis is not accessible to everyone, or for that matter even most people. Psychiatrists willing to diagnose a dissociative disorder are few and far in-between, the diagnostic process is grueling and expensive, and it also costs a lot of money just to see a psychiatrist at all, in general, in the first place.

Compounding upon other problems with seeking a diagnosis is that people who actually have an undiagnosed dissociative disorder are unlikely to seek a diagnosis due to the self-disavowing effect of the disorder, //and// if they //do// seek a diagnosis, the fact that the evaluating clinician //understands// undiagnosed dissociative disorders make people unlikely to seek a diagnosis makes the //clinician// less likely to //diagnose,// because the fact that the patient even came in at all is in and of itself cause for suspicion of imitative or factitious DID.

==== Professional incompetence ====

Less obvious, but more important: Even the professionals who are supposed to diagnose the condition actually don't know jack shit about it. I'm not saying they haven't done their research, I'm saying the //scientific community// hasn't done the research. I'm saying the info //isn't out there.// We understand a lot about dissociative disorders, and I'm not discounting that. But the modern understanding is not nearly sufficient to even reliably diagnose them, let alone treat them.

We don't even know what causes dissociative disorders or how they work. The trauma model remains in conflict with the sociocognitive model. Granted, all modern research supports the trauma model, and none supports the sociocognitive model. I would //love// it if this meant professional opinions would actually //follow// the research and //start actually believing their patients,// but for //some fucking reason,// the sociocognitive model //remains// the widely preferred and practically applied explanation, which makes it not only more challenging but also more //unattractive// to seek diagnosis.

==== Prevalence of undiagnosed dissociative disorders in the general population ====

Fakeclaimers need to understand that dissociative disorders are //more// common than people think, and online presentations of them are //less// common than people think. The internet amplifies the loudest voices, and DID really does sit at 1-2% but that's more common than schizophrenia which is something people get disparagingly accused of having //all the time,// and OSDD is actually estimated at somewhere around an //eight percent// prevalence. In the //non-//clinical population. That's //one in twelve people. Ever. Most people// probably know someone with undiagnosed OSDD. Add that 8% to DID's 1-2%, and it's //certainly// not unexpected for a community spanning a //tenth of the fucking planet// to have a significant online presence. That's bigger than most //countries.// <del>//Possibly all// of them? I'm pretty sure there literally isn't a single country in the world with a higher population than the worldwide prevalence of undiagnosed dissociative disorders and it's not even close.</del>

Okay so actually there are significantly more people in India than people with undiagnosed dissociative disorders in the whole world but not //very// significantly more. Like it's not even a factor-of-2 difference. It's insane to me that more than a tenth of the world lives in India by the way. Same story with China actually, there are more people in China than there are people with undiagnosed dissociative disorders in the world, but those are the only two countries you can say that about. If all the people with undiagnosed dissociative disorders got together and formed Undiagnosed-Dissociative-Disorderland it would be the third most populated country on earth.

"But wait, wouldn't that mean the kind of //child abuse// that //causes// these disorders is //also// a serious epidemic?" Yeah! It is! A lot more young girls are sexually abused by adult male family members than people care to think about. Same with parents hitting their kids. And verbal abuse, don't get me started on verbal abuse, yelling at your kids isn't even illegal or culturally unacceptable, of //course// verbal abuse trauma is going to be //fucking everywhere.//

==== Being visible does not invalidate us ====

"But what about the fact that they're so public about their plurality? Doesn't that make it probably not disordered, because they aren't disavowing it?" First of all, people who publicly identify as plural disavow their plurality //all the goddamn time.// Most of them compulsively tell themselves they're faking //every single day,// no thanks to //you// lot. Also, most plural people don't even //claim// to have a dissociative disorder. They would //agree// that they aren't disordered. And many of them aren't. But //if// they //are,// then that means they're disavowing having a dissociative disorder even when they embrace being plural. I don't think you understand how many layers of irony they're on, it's like 5 or 6 right now my dude. //Also,// I sure don't hear //system exclusionists// disavowing //their// DID, does that mean //they// don't have it? Of course it doesn't.

==== Non-disordered plurality is different from a dissociative disorder, but not incomparably so ====

Dissociative //disorders// are presentations of //pathological// dissociation. They do //not// encompass //all// dissociation. Modern understanding under the trauma model of mental disorders is that //pathological// dissociation is inherently traumagenic.

Dissociation encompasses a wide range of experiences, both pathological and otherwise. Alteration of identity is one such possible experience, and //pathological// alteration of identity is exclusive to dissociative disorders, //not// because it's //alteration of identity,// but because it's //pathological.// The trauma model of mental disorders as currently understood claims //nothing// about the existence, nonexistence, or possible causes, of //non-//pathological alteration of identity.

"But there's no such thing as non-pathological alteration of identity---" You won't find any literature anywhere that explicitly says so. Psychopathology is an //evolving science// of //how// and //when// psychological mechanisms become pathological and how to //treat// them, //not// a //prescriptive taxonomy// of //what// psychological mechanisms //absolutely can or cannot// be regarded as pathological.

You aren't going to logic away or gatekeep away the simple reality that some people have other people in their head who exist for non-traumagenic reasons, are very real to them, and possess some degree of independence but don't meaningfully make their life harder. No psychiatric literature or research whatsoever tries to make the claim that dissociative //non//-disorders can only happen through childhood trauma, and you have no business making that claim either. The existence of someone who works roughly the same way on the inside as you do is not a personal and directed insult to you just because you work that way because of severe psychological wounds and they don't. And if, despite having different reasons, they work in a comparable way, they should be allowed to use comparable language for how they work.

==== In summary ====

Regardless, and in conclusion: Although modern psychiatric practices have a good success rate in //treating// dissociative disorders, their //egregious// unreliability in //triaging// them makes a compelling case that the medical terminology //should// be appropriated into a less rigorously structured community. That case being: There are fucktons of undiagnosed dissociative patients and non-pathological dissociators slipping through cracks in the institution wider than its mom's asscrack and they need somewhere to go, quit turning away your own kind you oblivious fucknuggets.

===== System exclusionists aren't evil =====

//Some// system exclusionists are //just// bullies, but many are DID-diagnosed traumagenic systems who jump at any possible excuse to exclude others and lord their trauma over others //not// because they're just mean people like that, but because they are fucking traumatized and unable to ever feel safe. And that's how they end up making it everyone else's problem and perpetuating the cycle of violence.

It's really sad. I'd probably be like that too, if my abusers had done any worse than what they did. For that matter, if a system exclusionist is reading this right now, they probably think I //am// the one who's like that, and they are the victim here---assuming they don't simply [[fakeclaiming|think]] I'm not even [[traumagenic]] at all. And to that I would have nothing to say except that I'm sorry for the hell on earth they had to live through.

I speak harshly of them in this glossary, but I don't think so little of them as it may seem. They aren't //idiots.// That was an exaggeration. The way they adapted was actually brilliant, on the contrary, and they should be proud of surviving. Their //opinion// is just //egregiously incorrect,// in a way that causes lots and lots of hurt, and I think their own pain blinds them to that---as by [[DID|definition]] it does to many other things.