Its Been Said Before (and Probably More Eloquently) But I Do Think Any Discussion About How Self-dx Is

Its been said before (and probably more eloquently) but I do think any discussion about how self-dx is "problematic" is meaningless until the systems under which diagnosis exists stop being ableist, racist, fatphobic, etc-- I would much rather, for example, that a person identify with the plural community and then later decide that they're a singlet, than have more parts of the plural community face trauma, oppression, prejudice, humiliation, etc from doctors just to 'prove' they're 'really plural'.

Setting that to the side-- I'll get back to it later-- the current process of medical diagnosis itself often includes people who are ostracized from parts of the plural community online.

The main schism between people who are anti self-dx and those who are not (at least as far as plurality goes...) is that those who are against self-dx have a misguided belief that there is a criterion for diagnosis that a patient must have early childhood trauma-- a criterion not present in the DSM in the first place. Though the 'early childhood trauma' theory of dissociation is the most supported and most likely theory for disordered, diagnosable plurality, that doesn't mean that that theory will in all cases be correct, in the same way that a similar chain of events could happen to two people and leave one traumatized for life and the other fine after a few months.

Its true that in many cases, disordered plurality has potential correlation with traceable traumas from early childhood, but that doesn't mean that all cases of even disordered plurality specifically come from trauma (and, of course, since disordered plurality comes often with memory problems, even if there IS a trauma it is likely the memory of it is obscured or inaccessible, and the people who are now experiencing plurality-related distress may not believe that trauma exists), and this is something reflected in the fact that the DSM only looks for current symptoms and experiences, and does not question the traumatic history of a patient whatsoever in screening for dissociative disorders.

Its provable that non-disordered forms of plurality exist (integration - both into a single being, and the more modern definition of the memory gaps and conflicts that cause distress being reduced), whether those forms come after a period of disordered plurality, or if, in some cases, a collective never experiences a clinically significant amount of distress, its scientifically and anecdotally recognized that these forms of being exist.

It is also true that many forms of plurality (even forms that do cause significant distress) are difficult or impossible to discover or diagnose. In many cases, the dissociation experienced by nature is intended to hide/conceal itself as a form of protection, which categorically makes it significantly more of an ordeal to discover-- and even more of an ordeal to have clinically recognized to the degree of an official diagnosis.

Going back to my original point about the system of diagnosis, its also objectively true that massive parts of medical institutions (psychologists and psychiatrists, doctors and other health practitioners, and insurance companies) have implicit and explicit bias against so-called "rare" or "severe" disorders, behaviors, and experiences. Even if there were a hypothetical person who fit EVERY criterion for DID in the DSM, and experienced a provable trauma at an early stage of development that could be connected directly to their experience of dissociation, and was conscious of their dissociation, there's still many cases where they would be completely reasonable to not pursue a diagnosis-- because of prejudice in the medical system, fear of reduced chances of employment, societal ostracisation, a lack of safety in their situation of living, the desire to not be institutionalized-- I could go on.

The truth is; we don't know enough to say for certain the cause of plurality in every or even any case, and it seems much more valuable at least to me to create a community built on a basis of curiosity about different modes of existence than it is to create one functioning on a system of suspicion and gatekeeping.

Hey does anyone wanna hear me talk about our interpretation of the minecraft lore and taxonomy of the mobs + some of the flora

reblog this to pet the user you reblogged from please

We should bring sillybandz back for gen alpha

I love seeing a meme and being like oh, tumblrs going to love this one

Since the OP made their post unrebloggable (and blocked me. Both actions they are well in with their right to do)

I'm going to make my response it's own post because I think the point is important

-

As someone who is autistic and has BPD and CPTSD and loads of trauma yes you sometimes need to change how you interact with others to keep people around

When I was 13 I hit the few friends I had when I was angry

I had to change that in order to keep those friendships

When I was in my early 20s if I was losing an disagreement with my husband I would threaten to kill myself. My husband told me it hurt him and was cruel and manipulative behaviour, because it was.

So I worked hard to change that to keep my relationship

It's easy to say "I shouldn't have to change for others" and that's true to an extent. You shouldn't change your interests or passions or dim your light. And you should have space to be imperfect and flawed and not have to pretend your ugly bits aren't real. But if something you are doing it causing other people harm you kinda need to change that.

That's called "living in a society"

People adapt to each other and make space for each other in their lives. You adapt to them and they adapt to you

You start being more diligent about throwing away the empty toilet roll because it really bothers them. They start warning you before they run the blender because you hate loud noises

I stopped threatening to kill myself because I was mad I was losing an argument and my husband stopped being so vocally judgemental amount media he personally dislikes

There is a certain type of person who heard the phrase "your emotions are valid" and took that to mean "my emotional reactions and my behaviour are always objectively correct because my emotions are valid and if you have an emotional response or react to what I'm doing negatively then you are wrong and you can't be hurt because my emotions are valid"

And that's a recipe for disaster

Your emotions are valid to feel. They are how you feel and there are reasons you feel the way you do

However, your reactions and behaviour are something you can learn to control and can be irrational

We live in a society and we as people change each other as we interact and that isn't necessarily a bad thing

everyone's like wehhhhh why doesn't doctor house gets suuuueeed! like my man. literally every patient he sees is someone that's been trying to find a diagnosis for ages. i could live with a little medical malpractice if it were coming from someone ready to break into my home to look for allergens and not simply half heartedly listen to me before suggesting I lose weight and take ages of back and forth arguing to order a single test