![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Frustrating ~syscourse~
We hate to bring up Tumblr "syscourse" on here, because it's terrible and negative, but we're so annoyed with it and we don't want to actually post about it on Tumblr for fear of attracting drama/gatekeepers, so we'll just rant about it on here a little bit.
Ok, I'm sure we're preaching to the choir but...
It bothers us to no end that we keep seeing systems using endogenic as a synonym for "has never experienced trauma" or "basically neurotypical". Endogenic and traumagenic say absolutely nothign about a system's history besides where their system came from, endogenic systems can have experienced anything that traumagenic systems have (though if they haven't that doesn't make them any less real either ofc).
Same goes for assuming that traumagenic means "must have experienced abuse". It's perfectly possible for a traumagenic system to have formed from trauma that is not abuse. We're not saying that it's totally common, but just that nobody should make any assumptions about any system's history based only on whether they identify as endogenic or traumagenic (or neither/both/anything else). I mean, these gatekeepers are also using traumagenic to mean DID/OSDD systems only, also, so there's that, but yeah.
Last thing is all the hate on exotrauma, too. Like, we're fairly sure that the term was created specifically to differentiate from trauma that is not exotrauma to avoid comparing the two directly (which isn't to say that exotrauma can't be extremely hard to deal with, and we know systems for who exotrauma manifests exactly like the trauma that they've experienced in this life). Nobody's saying that exotrauma is exactly the same as trauma from this life, that's why the term was coined ;o; (I think, anyway? If we're wrong tho lemme know). It's not harming survivors to talk about exotrauma straight up. First people were mad because they thought folks who have exotrauma would invade spaces/take resources for people with ""real trauma"" (quotes bc exotrauma is real, not because anyone's trauma is fake), and now that there's a great, separate term for it that allows for differentiation, gatekeepers are like "don't use that word!!"
Ugh it's just so frustrating and pointless. We're glad there isn't drama like that here (at least we haven't seen any!).
Ok, I'm sure we're preaching to the choir but...
It bothers us to no end that we keep seeing systems using endogenic as a synonym for "has never experienced trauma" or "basically neurotypical". Endogenic and traumagenic say absolutely nothign about a system's history besides where their system came from, endogenic systems can have experienced anything that traumagenic systems have (though if they haven't that doesn't make them any less real either ofc).
Same goes for assuming that traumagenic means "must have experienced abuse". It's perfectly possible for a traumagenic system to have formed from trauma that is not abuse. We're not saying that it's totally common, but just that nobody should make any assumptions about any system's history based only on whether they identify as endogenic or traumagenic (or neither/both/anything else). I mean, these gatekeepers are also using traumagenic to mean DID/OSDD systems only, also, so there's that, but yeah.
Last thing is all the hate on exotrauma, too. Like, we're fairly sure that the term was created specifically to differentiate from trauma that is not exotrauma to avoid comparing the two directly (which isn't to say that exotrauma can't be extremely hard to deal with, and we know systems for who exotrauma manifests exactly like the trauma that they've experienced in this life). Nobody's saying that exotrauma is exactly the same as trauma from this life, that's why the term was coined ;o; (I think, anyway? If we're wrong tho lemme know). It's not harming survivors to talk about exotrauma straight up. First people were mad because they thought folks who have exotrauma would invade spaces/take resources for people with ""real trauma"" (quotes bc exotrauma is real, not because anyone's trauma is fake), and now that there's a great, separate term for it that allows for differentiation, gatekeepers are like "don't use that word!!"
Ugh it's just so frustrating and pointless. We're glad there isn't drama like that here (at least we haven't seen any!).
no subject
Anyway… part of what makes it hard to talk about the possibility of DID formed by means other than abuse is that… 'abuse' is a very versatile shorthand for a lot of different experiences. There's the obvious stuff, sure, but then the line gets fuzzier. Do you call bullying abuse? It's interpersonal trauma with clear aggressors…
So slowly the umbrella of abuse grows larger.
Part of how the textbook we're reading conceptualizes the formation of DID is that it's the result of someone reaching a breaking point. A sufficiently bad breaking point — defined as an experience so aversive and overpowering that someone can't cope, is overwhelmed, and splits — causes traumagenic plurality, and subsequent breaking points help perpetuate it.
So (assuming that's even close to accurate) it becomes a question of… what things that don't fall under the umbrella of 'abuse' would cause such a state. "Kidnapping.a child to a different country where they're isolated and don't know the language" was my first guess, but that… sounds way worse written out loud than I expected, huh. (Would explain some things, though.) Death in the family, maybe?
I don't know if this is the most useful hypothetical exercise, but it is kinda interesting.
no subject
Anyway, I appreciate y'all's input a lot!
- Carson & Co.