Sysphobia/Sysmisia

Potentially Unhelpful Terms

Some terms, while still in active use, have been identified as having the potential to cause harm to others - especially when used to refer to systems generally or without asking a system's preferences. Careful consideration should be made before using these.

A list of these terms along with reasons they may be considered harmful (and in what contexts) is supplied below

• Host / Primary headmate
  • Used to refer to a headmate as being the most notable, complex, or present compared to other members.
  • Devalues other members of the system as being “secondary”, “accessories” or in extreme cases “property” to the primary headmate.
  • “Host” is also used to refer to a headmate that performs some kind of central function of the system, which is not harmful in the same way. Hosts might be the member that fronts when the body wakes up, that helps others speak and move the body, or simply that finds it the easiest to front.
• (The) Original
  • Used to refer to a member of a system who is seen as existing before the self-discovery of the system.
  • Causal Prescriptivism. Many systems simply don’t have an “Original” headmate, and find the concept uncomfortable.
  • Should be avoided even where it applies in favour of more explicit phrasing.
• Multiple Personalities
  • Used to describe the nature of a system (or all systems).
  • Causal Prescriptivism. Also, describing system members as “personalities” is reductive. Might imply relation to MPD (see below).
• “People with MPD/DID/OSDD” (in place of “Plural”)
  • Used to describe the nature of a system (or all systems).
  • System Bucketing. Also sysmedicalism - implies that systems must receive a specific diagnosis in order to be plural.
• Alter
  • Used in place of “headmate”, specifically to refer to those other than the “host”/”original”.
  • Implies headmates other than the host can only exist as “alternate versions”.
  • Remains appropriate for specific systems (at their request) - not appropriate to prescribe onto others.
• Traumagenic/Endogenic
  • Used to describe a system’s (psychological) causality as being based in trauma or not.
  • Causal Prescriptivism and System Bucketing. This supposed binary doesn’t exist without discarding all non-psychological casualties (or distaste for causalities altogether) a system might have.
  • Even when used to describe a specific system, best practice is to talk more explicitly about a system’s beliefs.
• Persecutor/Protector/Etc (Headmate Archetype Labels)
  • Used to describe a specific system member as being of a certain archetype or nature, with a particular function.
  • System Bucketing (#3 - Member Archetypes). Harmful in that it devalues the individual and pushes them away from further self exploration
• “More Plural” or “Less Plural”
  • Used to talk about togetherness/separateness of individuals and systems, as well as when talking about median systems.
  • Plurality is an umbrella, and a community - all pluralfolk are the same amount of plural - though some do have plural experience more or less often. Medianity and median systems (as an example) are not “less plural” for being more intertwined.
• “That Person is Plural” or “That Person has a plural system / has plurality”
  • Used when referring to a specific member (or more practically, a host or previously-presumed-singlet).
  • Systems are plural, and members and systems alike are often referred to as pluralfolk. Referring to a person as “having” plurality trivialises their existence and has heavy sysmedicalist connotations.
• “You four (bodies)” or “There are six people (bodies) here”
  • Used when referring to a group of people, specifically counting by body (regardless of whether all involved are singlets)
  • Applying a body-based counting system to a plural system can be insensitive. Few systems consider themselves countable as “one person” - even when only one member fronts at a time.
  • Avoid the phrasing unless you know better. In cases where it’s necessary, work around the issue by saying things like “five systems/singlets” or “five user accounts”. Using “you four” to refer to a system of four can still be very appropriate.
• "New" System / Newly Plural / Etc
  • Used to describe systems that have recently discovered themselves, or recently come out to the speaker
  • Most systems simply aren't new, and those just learning the words to describe their experiences now, or allowing themselves to feel repressed things, are not "new" to plurality.
  • Better terminology includes "inexperienced system", or with specific regards to time, "green system" (popularised in MMO games for new players)

Common Prickles

The Silence of Singlet-Normativity

From the point of self awareness, wider society instils that singlethood is the sole truth of every individual's existence. Much of the apprehension over plurality exists simply because most people aren't exposed to the concept at all. As a result, repressed systems frequently feel a fear that they will become "too complicated" to be accepted or liked by their friends. Just like for other forms of neurodiversity, instilling neurotypicality in this way oversimplifies people's lives and experiences and ignores any outliers. Neurotypical-normativity trades acceptance and care for slight convenience - often without realising it has done so.

Difficulty of discovery (and adjacent subcultures)

Because of Singlet-Normativity, most presumed-singlets don't have the exposure required to question their singlethood for quite some time. Beyond this, most people's first exposure to plurality is through lenses dissimilar to the one presented here - sysmedicalism, psychological horror, poor fantasy-plural media representation, and so on - often, these lenses are far more narrow, involve causal prescriptivism, or cast aside the concept as fantasy entirely.

In addition, many questioning pluralfolk (and singlets alike) have had encounters with cultures and communities that interact directly or indirectly with plural experience, without defining it as completely as plural communities are able to. One example is the Tulpamancy community, which is based around the practice of "creating" a system member (usually a Fictive) through great effort - often without any consideration towards the ethics of doing so, or of treating any living entity as a "creation". Often the possibility of doing so isn't considered either for that matter - It's not uncommon for those involved to attempt the process only to instead uncover a repressed headmate (sometimes without realising they have done so - leading to unhealthy dynamics).

Representation in Media

Plural representation in media is often poor, in various different ways. Very few instances of plural representation are explicitly plural, and many could be considered "fantasy-plural" - invoking some sort of supernatural or technological causality for a plural system's existence (relocated souls, recovered AI, etc). Common harmful or stereotypical depictions include:

• The Jekyll and Hyde: i.e one "normal person" (expect white men) and one evil murderer with little regard for others.
• The Yin and Yang: two system members that are "opposites" (common in media where the system must integrate to be "cured")
• The Straight-Talker and the Funny-guy: Mostly harmless when not treated like an illness to be pitied or cured. Two system members include one self-serious, often stuffy member, and one who's always cracking jokes.

Victims of the Slippery Slope

Some homophobic and transphobic rhetoric, especially political messaging, utilises the sysphobia of the larger population in order to further their arguments (e.g. "I don't accept my child talking about their imaginary friend, so why would I accept my child telling me their gender"). Fearmongering political messaging and even horror films play into the idea that a plural system is innately scary or disconcerting. Many plural systems live fulfilling lives both in and out of the closet, and the lack of exposure to this through media representation and education allows this harmful practice to occur.

Objectification and Privacy

Plural systems are frequently populated by members with complex individuality - life experiences, feelings, friends, memory. However, misplaced feelings in seemingly supportive onlookers can lead to devaluing these individuals by treating them like shiny new costumes for the singlet they were presumed to be - assuming they already know each headmate before meeting them, voicing positive feelings about them, and so on. Plural systems do not exist for the entertainment of others, and should never be treated as such.

Similarly, one shouldn't assume that familiarity with a system during repression is an invitation to ask about a system, its configuration and contents, bonds between headmates, or conflicts and struggles. Every system has a right to privacy.

The Neurodiversity of Plurality and Why Support is Critical

Plural systems that are directly confronted by sysphobia are primarily attacked through rhetoric that dismisses the existence of plurality altogether as a premise. Frequently, sysphobia uses this premise to imply that a system that believes in their own existence must be incapable of rational thought, or knowingly fabricating their experience to some end (attention, distraction from personal issues, etc). Singlet allyship is particularly effective against these kinds of sysphobia, as showing that many kinds of people are capable of understanding and respecting plural systems undercuts the argument. Beyond this unwanted influence, systems often feel that accepting singlets around them mitigate feelings of imposter syndrome, at least in part.

Plural experience is a diverse thing, and it's worth noting that like other kinds of neurodiverse communities and support, plural support can be effectively applied to help singlets with overlapping difficulties or issues - just like how neurotypical-adjacent people can be taught to stim through extreme stress, singlets can be shown how to better handle dissociation, separate self image, and so on. The umbrella of plural experience is wide, and the skillset most plural systems need to develop for their every day can easily help singlets and those experiencing brief plurality.