So, we don’t know if y'all have seen our submission for the recent plural conference.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpyPKQSxlU



If you don’t wanna or can’t watch, it’s about our background with plurality and our creation of the endogenic/traumagenic labels. Fun stuff, they say sarcastically. But one thing we didn’t really say is that unfortunately, within all this syscourse garbage, we’ve become unfond of the terms. We’re happy that others like them or find them useful, but looking back, we wish we would have done better. Tried harder. As we’ve said elsewhere, they were a bandaid. Something we threw together and tossed out there, not expecting them to go anywhere. Now that they have, and now that we’re hearing feedback regarding “traumagenic” especially? It might be time for an update.

DISCLAIMER: This is a work in progress. There will be edits.

Last edited 4/5/19.



More under the cut. <3

For “traumagenic”, we wanted to create a term that was inclusive of systems that were created from trauma of all sorts, neglect, and other life stressors. However, it was brought to our attention that… frankly, most -genic terms are going to be a bit lacking. Not just because it’s hard to pin down actual words that are flexible and inclusive of a wide variety of experiences, but because they can be difficult to understand for new systems. We think quoigenic (created by Solipsistful iirc) is wonderful, but with regard to the traumagenic/endogenic debate, it’s just an unsettling feeling that we (as a community) could do more. We could do better.



Some systems feel it pushes trauma in their face, and as others point out, there are systems who don’t feel their experiences were “bad enough”, aren’t ready to call their experiences trauma, or went through abusive situations like neglect . Additionally, there are other situations one may go through that some may or may not consider traumatic, like neglect, that still have a psychological and physiological impact on the human brain. We were busy trying to put together a few alternatives along the -genic labeling scheme, when Emmengard brought to us their concerns and a suggestion we absolutely love.



Because many in the community have been calling for labels that are more flexible, more inclusive, we’re happy to support their new set of proposed terms.



- Adaptive. This would be inclusive of systems who formed due to traumatic, neglectful, and/or other adverse environments. Adaptive systems, or adaptive plurality, is an unintentional process.

- Spontaneous. Spontaneous systems, or spontaneous plurality, is when a system forms on it’s own with no known traumatic event to cause it.

- Created. Systems that are intentionally or unintentionally created, including soulbonders and tulpamancers, would fall under this term. All reasons are accepted for created systems, or created plurality, including as a response to trauma or adverse environments.

- Unknown. For systems who don’t know their origins yet, and for systems who don’t know and don’t care to find out.

- Mixed. A term already in use, mixed systems are systems where there may be more than one origin, complex origins that fit more than one term, or system members with various origins.



(Please note two things: we have not brought up spiritual, physiological, or psychological causes, nor have we brought up DID/OSDD. Many systems of all kinds attribute their plurality to a wide variety of causes, and many systems of all kinds are and are not diagnosed with DID/OSDD. Individual system beliefs and diagnostic status should be considered separate from system origins.)



We have grown to love these terms very fast. They are short, straightforward, and easy to explain. It’s easy to combine them. They are extremely inclusive. In addition, “adaptive” avoids some of the arguments we’ve seen made against “traumagenic”. It would still be completely possible to use -genic terminology; for example, it could be said that spontaneous and created plurality both exist along the endogenic spectrum. But it shifts away from -genic terms in general, which in our opinion is a positive thing overall.



For us, saying that we are a spontaneous/adaptive system is much easier than saying “we’re an endogenic system that experienced trauma growing up which impacted our system”. Does anyone really NEED that information? No. Should it be enough to say we’re plural/a system? Definitely. But does it sometimes help us, when the subject arises or those details are important to a narrative? Yes.



We acknowledge that introducing new terminology can be complicated. And unfortunately, sometimes, it can be divisive. We feel that if these terms are approached with inclusion in mind, and backed by a community push for that inclusiveness, we can hopefully avoid the divisiveness that befell the -genic terminology. Maybe it seems more divisive at first glance, but we believe that’s not the case. These five terms give a name to all the ways to be plural, give them equal weight, and make it easier for systems to customize a phrase that better fits their experience.



There is also, in our opinion, a sense of pride to them. The ability to adapt, create, to embrace the unknown, to just exist, are traits to be celebrated. We are all natural. We all are here because it’s within the capability of the human mind, body, and spirit for us to be here. That, to us, is beautiful. To us, it creates a vibrant, thriving image in our mind of the community, where plural folks of all sort are openly and plainly welcomed.



Of course, people are free to use whatever terminology they feel works best for them. We aren’t advocating a complete removal of -genic terminology from the community, or anything like that. We simply wish to showcase and promote the alternatives that Emmengard have created, and support them as an viable option for those who like using terms to describe themselves and their experiences.



As a bonus, these five terms lend wonderfully to the symbol of plurality– four interlocking rings, with a mix between them. Emmengard created a wonderful version of the symbol, with each ring representing a term in bright rainbow colors, blending together in the middle.



Here’s a link to their twitter post, and the longer explanation on dreamwidth.



Thank you for taking the time to read this. We welcome comments and questions, and hope that we can also get your support.

