Read on Twitter
When engaging in conversations about advocacy with our community, the needs of those who’ve achieved healthy multiplicity are left out of the conversation, or sidelined to focus on activism surrounding only disordered DID experience.
Thread:
Thread:
If DID is a disorder (which it is), the goal is for the disordered aspect to be a transient state of being. In that, you want to heal, you want to recover, you want to become non-disordered. Whether that’s through final fusion or through healthy multiplicity is a personal choice
Published studies show 2/3rds of our community choose healthy multiplicity - and a recent (though more informal) survey of hundreds of systems by Dr Emma Sunshaw showed that above 90% of systems wanted to achieve healthy multiplicity.
Add these two things together - disordered DID (hopefully) is transient, and the majority are trying to achieve healthy multiplicity - healthy multiples should be a large chunk of our community. Arguably more than those with disordered DID, but that’s just speculation
So that’s why it’s particularly perplexing to us that in activism, DID gets the spotlight, to the point where we barely hear about efforts surrounding healthy multiples, or when there brought up, its brushed off.
Obviously there’s some reasons that contribute to this (similarly to how DID gets more research funding): As DID is a disorder, folks are in pain, they need help, they need to heal. Creating access for DID systems to access tools to heal is incredibly important for our community
Disordered DID focused activism is incredibly important - however, that doesn’t mean others in our community should get pushed to the side, and shouldn’t have folks working to make them feel welcome, included, and safe in society.
At the very least, the needs of healthy multiples should be given serious consideration, and not brushed off because “the only time we talk about multiplicity is when it’s disordered, and we shouldn’t normalize a disorder.”
And yes, this sometimes means implementing structural changes in spaces for healthy multiples, that for certain DID systems, might be the opposite of helpful. It doesn’t necessarily mean the change is inherently bad, it just means there’s conflicting access needs for the space
Conflicting access needs example: Bright lights trigger severe migraines in one person, so they need the lights dimmed. Someone else has low vision, and when the lights are dimmed, can’t read words on the chalkboard - so they need the lights bright. Their access needs conflict
In this way, if something doesn’t work for folks with DID, but *does* help folks with healthy multiplicity, that doesn’t mean it’s bad activism or should be thrown out. It means that there are two different populations, and access should be adjusted to who’s in the space
And fundamentally, our point here is the wants and needs of healthy multiples shouldn’t be dismissed or thrown out because they are in conflict with the needs of some DID systems. Their wants and needs are still important, should still be worked towards, and should be heard.
And the truth is, good activism will fight for the needs of BOTH communities.
Just because an activist project, writing, or suggestion doesn’t solely focus on the disordered aspects of DID, doesn’t mean it’s not important activism intwined with the DID community.
Just because an activist project, writing, or suggestion doesn’t solely focus on the disordered aspects of DID, doesn’t mean it’s not important activism intwined with the DID community.
We can’t just stop talking about our community members once they heal. We can’t abandon folks once they no longer have DID. We need to actively include healthy multiples in our community and our activism, or we’re doing a disservice to them, our community, and our future selves.
