Multiplicity

That this is the only feedback the person is getting is *very telling*. It means that they're not getting much help from here, so I for one feel like I should give them advice on other communities that might give them a better response.

Frankly, people with DID do technically fit here, the user info says so. But right now they're a minority and there are communities with far more experience and knowledge on these matters. It's only fair to mention them. It's a case of them being welcome here, but they might want to try somewhere else *as well*.

From:

echthros.livejournal.com

One of the beautiful things about LJ is that you can belong to more than one community at a time. Suggesting someone try another community doesn't mean they have to leave this one.

From:

darkest-art507.livejournal.com

When i first got into therapy in the early 90s my psychologist made the diagnosis that I had MPD among other issues. My current therapist who is a recent graduate told me that MPD and DID are the same thing. That is why I didn't bother to put MPD and DID in my post. I honestly thought that i would just be repeating myself.
I'm sorry if my post caused any problems, I just want to understand what is happening to me. So I take it That DID is not the current term for MPD and that my therapist is clueless about both issues.

From:

shandra.livejournal.com

They are in North America, where MPD was renamed DID. So your therapist is right in that sense. In other countries MPD has stayed as the term.

In this multiple community (and some others) people have made the distinction between having serious/pathological issues of dissociation (DID), serious/pathological issues of multiplicity (MPD), and being multiple/plural.

But it's not that common a distinction beyond the boundaries of specific multiplicity communities. It'll be interesting to see how the usage continues to evolve. Language can be a very tricky thing.

I wasn't confused by your post. :)

From:

tir-nan-og.livejournal.com

Some of the anti-trauma bias I occasionally read in here is rather offputting, if I may say so.

Absolutely, I do not believe, nor does anyone else in here, that trauma magically creates multiplicity in someone who would have been a oneselfer ('singlet') otherwise. However, wether one is plural or a oneselfer, they can be subjected to child abuse and rape. I mean, most of my friends are NOT plural, and yet I hardly know a one who has not been physically messed with in some damaging way. In our culture, it seems to be very common.

I think I can understand the irritation a plural group without any trauma in their history would feel, or a how a person who prefers to keep things to themselves might feel when members of the community need to get things of their collective chests. Still..just as multiples with trauma or difficulty functioning as a group are frequently directed to *dividedminds*, I must point out that there is a group where trauma and difficulty functioning is off topic- and that's *plural living*.

From:

Your doctor may not be aware that they're not the same. He may have been told they were. The ISSD wants therapists to believe DID is just the new name for MPD, but it isn't. The difference is in the way it is handled.

http://www.astraeasweb.net/plural/allison.html Dr. Ralph Allison explains here why they changed it.

http://www.issd.org/indexpage/isdguide.htm scroll down to "Integration as an overall treatment goal" This is what the ISSD wants mental health professionals to do who work with multiples. They don't have to, but if a doctor who doesn't know much about it, wants to find out. they're liable to go to the ISSD as supposedly the "experts", and this is what they will find.

Some people really have DID, some people have MPD in the old, classical sense, and some people are multiple. They're not all stamped out of a cookie cutter. It's been routine to go to mental health professionals for help with multiple-related issues, but they really don't want to touch it anymore. There's been too many extremes and craziness and scandals and lawsuits. The whole industry had to retrench itself and cover its own ass for its own mistake, and blame the clients -- accusing them of being attention-seeking if not delusional. So the official word now is that the people in a multiple system aren't people -- just split-off parts of one very confused person. And some of them might be. I'm not saying that never happens. The problem is the cookie cutter routine -- treating all multiples that way.

From your previous posts you sound like you don't need DID therapy, because you do better as a group, but more like the old MPD therapy, which often left open the option of staying plural and not integrating (e.g. Truddi Chase or Nancy Ross). In your case, where as you say your multiplicity is tied to your previous abuse -- you've seen by reading this community that that's not true for everybdy, but it is for some -- it sounds like you need to be able to work on your abuse issues without losing people. Or hearing that it's all just delusional and shoving antipsychotic meds at you to "stop the voices" which seems to be the road many clinicians are taking in a more current redefinition of multiplicity as a thought disorder (especially if you tell them you function better as a group).

That's one reason we suggested you try Many Voices -- Lyn is pretty good at locating doctors who are serious about multiplicity. It doesn't mean you aren't welcome here or can't participate in this community.

From:

The problem I see with communities like fragmentedminds is that they might tend to reinforce the idea of multiplicity as helplessness. Also, the idea that all multiplicity is related to dissociation. More of the standard, Wilburian or therapy-driven kind of thing. I'd hope they would sign up at both communities, that way they can be here and get examples of non-helplessness no matter what their origins, but get info there that might help them too.

From:

shadowechoes.livejournal.com

I agree. I think that if instead of automatically referring people elsewhere as soon as they mention a diagnosis of DID/MPD or that they dissociate would:
a) stop reinforcing the sterotype that the other communities out there are for "disordered" multiples and this community is only for "empowered" multiples.
b) give members of this community a chance to discuss dissociation - I feel like it's automatically assumed that no one here has any experience with such things because yanno, we all have to be above that - or that if you do, it's taboo to bring it up.

I'm also put off by the anti-trauma overtone of the community. By that, I just mean that it seems that systems who do have a history of trauma that helped along their multiplicity are looked down on as less functional, or that they're just DID and dissociating instead of really being multiple.

Maybe some of the new members could use our help to get out of the "disordered" state of mind. I know that when We were first becoming aware of being multiple, it scared some of Us and We were just uneducated about how you can be multiple but still functional. We were diagnosed with DID, but it wasn't until We learned more about just what the diagnosis means and how it is different from multiplicity (or even from MPD), We just didn't know any better. Maybe if more emphasis was put on welcoming these new members to the community here and helping them understand instead of just ushering them off to another community to foster their feelings of being disordered, things would be different. Sure, people can be a member of more than one community, and yes people are being polite when suggesting other communities.. but I agree that it still sets a tone of unwelcomeness.

From:

whispersong.livejournal.com

i'm part of both comms & i've not seen what you mention IE reinforcement of the multiplicity as helplessness idea.

i've seen much support there & comfort though.

{J}tatiana

From:

whispersong.livejournal.com

i agree with you on all your points, esp plural living. we stopped going there b/c it was too...off-putting shall we say.

{J}tatiana

From:

I agree. In the first stage I think it's good if they get advice and help from over there that a lot of people here can't give, but I am a member of both and very much encourage other people to do the same, as it encourages education in both directions.

From:

Telling people to crosspost to elsewhere is not implying that here is only for empowered multiples in any way. Of course, if people want to read that into it, I can't stop them.

Also, the only reason dissociation doesn't get discussed here is because nobody ever seems to have much to say. I don't see anybody suggesting it not get brought up here. Just that there seems to be more people who can help in other communities. What people bring up anywhere is up to them.

If the choices here are 'making people feel welcome' vs directing them to more specialised resources *as well as here*, then well, I'd rather help people than try to fly by the seat of my pants with what little I think I know of DID.

From:

Maybe not helplessness, but I certainly see it reinforced there as a condition to be cured, rather than something to be worked with.

From:

tigrin.livejournal.com

I agree... it says right in the information about the community that anyone is welcome here, as long as the discussion is about multiplicity in some way. Even still, I don't feel comfortable posting here except to make a comment. there have been times I've posted things and been indirectly slammed... things like, oh, everyone experiences that, just subtle invalidation, even if that's not how I meant what I said. I think it's just like any other community in this sense, but there are definitely taboos here, and the sense of.. if you're not this, if you haven't had this experience, if you experience this, then you are not multiple, you don't belong around us.

From the kind of welcome multiples or anyone with a related experience usually get out in the world, whether it's with psychologists or just regular people... you'd think people who have had a similar experience might be a little more accomodating. I'm not saying people should walk on tight ropes all the time about what they say. I'd rather assume that people here are mature enough to take what others say with a grain of salt. but no one should feel like they have to meet a standard just to speak their mind or ask a question, or that their validity is always being questioned. I don't see anyone here as being the authority on anything, yet quite a few people act like it.

people do sometimes see this as a problem they need help with. I don't think that's offensive, and yet some people consider it to be. I can read any sort of multiplicity account now and find something others would consider offensive, whether it's someone with a stereotypical personality (a little, a protector, etc.) (just my use of the term personality is one right there)... which is sad... you only need to watch communities like this for maybe a month or so (been watching it a lot longer than that) and you pick up all that stuff pretty quick... pretty soon, there's absolutely nothing you can say that isn't going to offend someone. which is nerve-wracking to say the least. I understand why people might have a problem with it. and I can easily see people getting defensive over this because, oh, it's their fault if they can't handle offending someone.... but I think people should be encouraged to talk about their experiences, no matter how "offensive"... it's the silence that makes it the worse, feeling like you're all alone and you can never talk about it....

*shrug* just my thoughts. perhaps I don't have the right to say anything because I'm not "multiple" by everyone else's standards.

From:

Hmmm... I think what it comes down to is whether the underlying message is 'someone in this group might be able to give you good advice' versus 'get out and go to this place instead because you don't belong here.' If someone is using it as a polite way of saying 'get out of here,' I would agree that it isn't appropriate. On the other hand, if a system has no experience with dissociation or trauma, they probably won't be able to give as much advice as someone who does have experience with such things, so they may refer people elsewhere simply because they don't have any other suggestions to give.

I wouldn't say that anyone doesn't belong here unless they're actively flaming or trolling. I try to give a fairly wide margin for things which aren't specifically about multiplicity if they may be of interest to many posters-- for instance, information/links about the mental health industry have, in the past, been a topic of interest to many here, whether or not they are in therapy.

From:

I can read any sort of multiplicity account now and find something others would consider offensive, whether it's someone with a stereotypical personality (a little, a protector, etc.) (just my use of the term personality is one right there)... which is sad... you only need to watch communities like this for maybe a month or so (been watching it a lot longer than that) and you pick up all that stuff pretty quick... pretty soon, there's absolutely nothing you can say that isn't going to offend someone. which is nerve-wracking to say the least.

To be perfectly honest, any kind of large community is going to have a problem with terminology. In the LGBT community, for instance, there are people who prefer to use the term 'queer' for themselves, and people who can't stand being called queer. I've seen more than one campus LGBT organisation succumb to infighting over the use of the word. There's enough debate over terminology in the transgender community alone to give you a headache-- the appropriateness of gender-neutral pronouns (zie, hir, etc) and which are best, whether terminology like 'primary' and 'secondary,' or 'low-intensity' and 'high-intensity' transsexuals have any meaning, whether 'hermaphrodite' is an offensive term, etc. It can honestly be like a minefield at times, and I think that communities in the process of self-definition have the biggest risk of coming to blows (metaphorically or otherwise) over it.

Part of the problem in both the LGBT and multiple communities is that we've been labeled for so long by outsiders and had our ability to self-define taken from us. Some people chafe at the use of terms which were/are used to define us by those who pathologised us, and I think that's a lot of what underlies arguments about words.

The best thing I can think of to do is to put together a list of common words and mention which ones are known to be disliked by a sizable amount of people. It's true that you'll probably never get full consensus on anything: there's bound to be someone or other who insists that they don't identify with this word or that word.

For me, at least, there's also a difference between someone saying they choose to call themselves by a specific term, and applying that word as a blanket term to others. I don't care if someone else wants to call themselves an alter, I just don't want to be called that. I don't want to come across as condemning anyone for calling themselves a word that I don't identify with, though.

*shrug* just my thoughts. perhaps I don't have the right to say anything because I'm not "multiple" by everyone else's standards.

Who says that other people's standards have to define you? According to some doctors, we're not multiple because 'real' multiples aren't supposed to know there's anyone else. What do you think of yourself/selves as being?

From:

Yes (*pointing to what you said*).

From:

spookshow-girl.livejournal.com

Someone will always find something offensive.

Have you ever heard the story of the boy, his father, and the camel? If not, I'll hunt it down. You might find it interesting, if disheartening. ;)

--Me

From:

tigrin.livejournal.com

For me, at least, there's also a difference between someone saying they choose to call themselves by a specific term, and applying that word as a blanket term to others.

I agree... I think it's fine for people to use whatever terminology they want, if they identify with it and it makes sense to them... as long as they don't assume that's the only correct term... I think it's difficult to know what will or will not offend someone in particular, unless you know someone... if someone asked me a question using a term I felt didn't apply to me.. I would correct them if I felt it necessary, otherwise I can usually figure out what they mean. I don't think people usually mean to be offensive when they say certain terms... sometimes people don't know any better, usually it's just impossible to know what every single person does and does not consider offensive.

Who says that other people's standards have to define you? According to some doctors, we're not multiple because 'real' multiples aren't supposed to know there's anyone else. What do you think of yourself/selves as being?

Ah yeah, I forgot about that... I don't think anyone is here to define anyone else. I think it's just a subconcious thing you sort of pick up, even if you're aware that everyone else's experiences do not define the validity of yours. I'm not sure what I consider myself... right now I'm in a sort of doubtful state... but I did consider myself plural/more than one in some way, though not particularly 'healthy'.

From:

tigrin.livejournal.com

True, it's impossible to please everyone. think that's a good reason to be patient with people, though.

It sounds familiar, how does that story go..?

From:

But why would they do that? Fact of the matter is, YOU are the one who wants the information on it, and you could wind up spending hours going through those links.

(I noticed you apologised, so I'm not gonna chew you out or anything)

From:

shatterstorm.livejournal.com

*laughter* More than one of us adores you. :)

From:

shatterstorm.livejournal.com

A lot of it depends on interpretation of intent. I don't know diddly about autism, but if someone was asking about it and I didn't see anyone answering, I'd offer some references. Some of the rest of us just wouldn't answer.

It is a good point to bring up. Having someone around who speaks up when they spot a possible problem is a plus. :)

From:

shatterstorm.livejournal.com

You aren't the only ones dealing with being trauma-born around here. *waves*

Think about breaking what you're learning into smaller chunks. We broke it down into multiplicity, working on internal communication/functioning, and dealing with trauma issues.

The best advice we've gotten regarding dealing with abuse issues (several of us have PTSD) is to change how you relate to it.

If you focus on how you work thru what happened to you, you're dealing with it from a position of power. Powerful people can improve their lives. If it is all about what someone else did to you, you're relating to things as a victim.

From:

You got referred to

soulbonding because you had a number of social and personal issues pertaining to your subjective world. They tend to talk about that more over there. Doesn't mean you can't talk here too.

Letting others do your research for you is not a good idea. You might spot things that pertain to your situation that they'd miss because they don't know your situation as intimately as you do.

I'm gonna let the insult go this time, but please be careful.

From:

You were the one interested in finding these things out. Other people on the community may not be interested in DID information, and some may have limited time and internet access. If you have access to a library and you want to research a particular topic, you don't ask others to go look up all the information you need and then get upset if they won't do so. People help as they can, but most people won't go out of their way to track down information for someone they don't know when that person can do it themselves.

From:

There are people in this community who do have trauma in their pasts, and whose systems might have been affected by trauma in some way, but don't talk about it because they consider it private. This isn't to say that considering one's trauma a private issue is a 'better' approach than wanting to discuss it with others-- a lot depends on the person and the nature of the trauma. However, please don't assume that someone who doesn't talk about trauma is necessarily 100% okay, or thinks that only systems with no trauma backgrounds can be truly functional.

From: