A Letter

Oct. 13th, 2021 10:48 am
nsashaell: (Default)
Dear Psychologists,

Some of you know us already, though you don’t know you know us. You know our singletsona. Some of you are our mentors, colleagues, friends. Some of you are even plural like us. Others are our enemies, abusers, toxic people who have caused us and/or our community harm. So it seems strange to address you all at once. But our field has a lot of issues, as you all know. And I’d like to address you all as people rather than some abstract concept of “the field”. Because at the end of the day, all institutions are made of people.

If you are in that corner of the field with all the renegades who are here to decolonize and depathologize and deconstruct, this is less a letter to you. But still, please listen.

Every day, people like us are dying. They are dying from lack of adequate mental health care, lack of access to care, harmful care. They are dying from what psychologists are doing. They are dying from both intentional harm and unintentional harm from people like you.

This may sound dramatic, and I don’t have the statistics to back it up. But it is the truth. I know this because our community knows this. We know what happens to our friends, friends of friends, our relatives. The reason I don’t have statistics is that you are in such deep denial about our existence that we do not have adequate literature to describe our community’s experiences.

It is possible to die from invisibility. When so many of you don’t believe that we exist- that we are lying or faking or watched Split too many times or whatever else you like to tell yourselves- there are real, deadly, consequences. We are passed from clinician to clinician, with “sorry, I don’t do that,” or “that can’t actually be happening,” or whatever other excuses you have. We are abused in hospitals. We lose our jobs, our children, our relationships. We are feared.

We are entering a field where we are dismissed or pathologized. And it is not easy. You don’t make it easy to exist in your space, much less change anything. We are weary from hiding in plain sight all these years, fearing that we will be gatekept out of our career because of the stereotypes you hold about people like us. Being around the negativity is exhausting. Once, in a classroom, DID was brought up in a presentation. A blank silence speckled with nervous laughter ensued. We left the room.

Once, in another class, a professor went on at length about “psychotic personality structure” and bizarre notions about how people with DID can’t think, can’t imagine, can’t function around other people. We were taken aback. None of it made any sense- a singlet conceptualization of something unintelligible to them, overcomplicated and inaccurate, insulting. We began to strategically skip class.

At a clinical site, we were told that people like us are “too severe” to be seen and must be referred out. Knowing that people like us are “too hard” for our site to see is a bad feeling. Are we actually “too” anything? Too broken? Too troubled to work here?

Because for us, these assumptions are damaging. They bring up past fears. We used to be as afraid of ourselves as you are of people like us, because that was all we knew. The pride we have scraped out of that crater full of shame is delicate. It is easily bruised. We think so often, “can we do this?” despite feedback that we are good at what we do. But if you knew about us, what kind of bias would that feedback begin to have?

At another clinical site, anyone could be seen except for people with dissociative disorders. We asked why this is. We were told they are a liability. Are we a liability? People with DID got kicked out of youth groups, out of treatment at that place, just for having the diagnosis. We have a burning question: if you knew, would we have been kicked out as well? Would we have earned the plaque on our wall announcing our completed placement? If you knew, would we be allowed in the building?

These are questions that no one should have to ask around you. “Am I allowed to exist here?” is not a question your trainees should wonder. We should not have to lie on paperwork diagnosing our clients to protect them from your discriminatory policies.

You need to completely reorient yourselves when it comes to plurality. Hiding from 90s lawsuits by avoiding working with us out of fear- this would not be acceptable with any other client population. People who cannot work with marginalized identities are currently being urged to take responsibility for their education. It is becoming required for us to deal with any discomfort we may have around people who are different from us and to open ourselves to learning. Please do this for our plural community.

Psychology is undergoing a revolution, where we listen to our clients’ experiences and we value their points of view more than ever before. It is time to look beyond the strange, tangled singlet ideas that exist in current DID treatment paradigms, which resemble conversion therapy more than anything else and have the potential for great harm to plurals. It is time, instead, to find out from plural people what actually works for and helps them. Community wisdom is not delusion. We have been surviving and thriving for all of human history. We do not need to become singlets to live our lives, and we should not be forced into your ideas of normalcy when it is frankly unnecessary.

If we did not believe in the potential of psychology to help people like us, we would not be subjecting ourselves to everything you put us through. We would not be learning from you and joining you in the future if we did not respect psychology as a discipline, or you as psychologists. Please, let’s make room for my people. And perhaps, for future plurals, there will be less hate, less death, less fear. Maybe, in future generations, it will be easier for aspiring plural psychologists to make it, and we can add our unique wisdom. Let’s make that happen, together.

Sincerely,
Your student(s)

DIDish

Mar. 14th, 2020 10:48 am
nsashaell: a jackal looking pensive (shawnpensive)
I finally got around to watching a youtube video that friends of ours were interviewed for. I thought it was really good, and actually respectful in a surprising way; most plurality-related content not directly made by plurals tends to sensationalize or stereotype, but this one was okay. Here's the link if you haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7JK6pattE&t=467s


We have to admit we had kind of been putting off watching it, despite assurances that it was actually good. The reason for this is probably the fact that we tend to have a lot of confusing feelings after watching DID-focused content, such as people who identify with the DID label talking about their experiences, or academic literature or course materials related to DID as a diagnosis. Having plural friends and being in a psychology program tends to expose us to that sort of thing pretty frequently.

The confusing feelings come in different... flavors, I guess. On the one hand, there's some shame-trauma-triggery stuff from our complicated internalized ableism issue. Growing up, despite our entire extended family being full of people who have various and sundry neurodiverse issues, mental health was something our family didn't talk about. If it was talked about, it was talked around, with this dark implication of something being inherently wrong with whoever was experiencing the issue. Because of this, we as a group have a deep-seeded feeling that being different and having unusual mental characteristics means there is something wrong with us. That's been a focus of our therapy because it does need to be addressed for us to kick our habit of feeling ashamed about our plurality and trauma issues, which aren't our fault. Shame really doesn't help anything when you're trying to be accepting of yourselves.

But other flavors are a bit more intellectual. We feel unnerved when we encounter DID-related material because we are honestly very confused about our relationship with the community. We identify as plural, and have always argued that we don't have DID because we don't experience functional impairment from our plurality. We've also argued that the supposed cause of DID, early childhood trauma, isn't something we have experienced. Both of these things are technically true- we know how to diagnose, and you can't diagnose most things without functional impairment or distress. So we really aren't diagnosable in the sense of wanting/needing treatment for DID. We still haven't discovered the kind of magnitude of trauma in our childhood that would fit DID's cause- our PTSD comes from experiences that happened "too late" according to theory, and weren't severe enough.

So officially, we don't have DID, despite fulfilling all the other criteria, including the memory stuff (we have a number of workarounds to deal with that). But every group we've met who does have a DID diagnosis and/or identifies themselves using that acronym has so many similarities to us. Also, before DSM 5 added the functional impairment criterion, we did qualify, even if we were really against being diagnosed during that time. Talking to people with DID always feels like we belong, like we're internally doing similar things to deal with life. Those conversations always feel so familiar, like we're speaking with long lost family. The fact of the matter is that most of the people who really get us have DID and the reason we can relate to them is that we're DIDish.

This creates a logical issue. We don't want to identify with a disorder for something we don't believe is disordered in ourselves, but even though we technically aren't diagnosable, people with DID are our people. That's who we're most similar to, and who we understand most naturally. In a way, our completely justified identity label logic separates us out of a group of people where we most belong.

Watching this video, we were thinking about how similar we are to the interviewees. But because the video focuses most on DID rather than general plurality, and continuously emphasizes the trauma aspect and the idea that DID exists to keep people unaware of negative past experiences, it was also really alienating for us. Our plurality did function as a way of covering up our PTSD for a number of years, but trauma wasn't the cause for us. We were already multiple, and aware of each other from a young age.

We recently realized the cause of our multiplicity may actually be early childhood trauma in a previous generation, and that our mental structure was passed down one line of our family tree. It was difficult to uncover this because of how little our family is willing to talk about it, not to mention our own hesitation to talk about our mental health with them. But we recently realized that our multiplicity might have originated in childhood trauma after all- it just wasn't ours. We have a very limited knowledge of epigenetics, but enough to know that each generation uses the experiences of generations before to be born as prepared as possible for the world. We have never heard anyone else talk about multiplicity being passed down epigenetically rather than through generational abuse. But it makes sense.

Our story still doesn't really fit the official DID narrative, even if it has come a bit closer as we find out more. We're still left feeling uncertain about using a label that doesn't officially match and that is subject to change by mental health professionals. But I think we've slowly come to terms with the similarities over time. The question remains, how do we feel included in a community we belong in without fitting that imposed narrative?

-Shawn

Profile

nsashaell: (Default)
nsashaell

September 2024

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 23rd, 2026 02:45 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios