An artist I really respect who's also a system made a post about plurality the other day that really frustrated me. They said one could make a strong argument that someone who experienced another part in their brain that spoke, felt autonomous and completely separate, but couldn't control the body isn't "plural".
Nothing said here discounts my personal experience, but I guess I was annoyed because the take felt very...idk what's the plural version of a transmed LMAO. It's that brand of take that only serves to create some arbitrary, unhelpful distinction between who's actually "valid" or not when we've already established it long ago...no where in the DSM-5 does it even say to be diagnosed with DID that your alters have to take control of your body. The criteria are:
-
Two or more distinct identities or personality states are present, each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self.
-
Amnesia must occur, defined as gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic events.
-
The person must be distressed by the disorder or have trouble functioning in one or more major life areas because of the disorder.
-
The disturbance is not part of normal cultural or religious practices. The symptoms cannot be due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (such as blackouts or chaotic behavior during alcohol intoxication) or a general medical condition (such as complex partial seizures).
Criterion 1 uses the words "are present" which is very intentional to me. No where does it elaborate on the extent of that presence. It doesn't say they need to possess you or influence you. They just have to exist. The existence of "more than one" is undeniably a plural experience to me!!!
I was so annoyed by this post that I talked briefly to ANOTHER system whose informed and considerate approach to talking about OSDDID was really admirable to me, because maybe if this take was broken down in another way it would click for me.
He was very kind, and he did help me a lot! He said, to be fair, they aren't saying that it's NOT a plural experience, just that you could make a strong case that it isn't. And he could personally see to SOME extent why someone would feel that experience alone wasn’t plural. Because some people do in fact exist in that capacity and aren’t plural. While some are!
It clicked for me then. Even if I ultimately didn't agree with the thought experiment to begin with, I'm happy to at least understand where they were coming from more. Here, I'll post my exact response:
"It actually does make A LOT more sense to me after hearing someone break it down in another way... cause yeah like, I experience [what they said] just as a writer with the characters I make feeling "autonomous" and I personally never thought to consider that abnormal or a plural experience. It's also completely normal to have inner self critics and the like without that being a plural experience. In contrast, with my alters, there is a level of inner conflict and external consequence that I face from their wants and needs being expressed (or ignored) that I don't get from any of those other things. My OC is not going to get for real mad at me and like idk. Cancel plans with a friend in retaliation for disagreeing with them.
I'm rambling now, but tldr: I can sort of understand what they mean in a "If this separate identity you experience has no tangible effect on your actions or life, you could technically make a strong argument for that not being plural cause you would only ever have to consider the needs and blast radius of one person/self at the end of the day..."
Long post, but idk I was proud of myself for going out of my comfort zone and seeking the advice of a peer for something that was nagging at me and it actually having a positive effect on my mood yaaay :>