Member Identity

Names and Pronouns

Members of a system frequently have an individual name (or names), and they should be referred to using this unless otherwise indicated. Systems might also agree on a name to use to refer to the whole system (or the body) which is often called a “System Name” - This can come in the form of a mononym, a first and last name, or frequently in the form of “The [name] System”.

Systems may also have preferences about how to refer to them (purely as members, purely as the system, or a mix) as well as particular first and second person pronouns to use. A fairly standard case would be a system using identical pronouns to a houseful of singlets - “I” for a member, “We” for the system, “You” for a member, “You / You all / Y’all” for the system.

Many other configurations are possible, including “Semiplural” pronouns such as Wei/Muis for first person and You&/Your& (or “You/”, “Your/”) for second person.

Gender

Inclusion

It’s important that the gender and transness of the members of a system be respected overall, especially when including them in spaces and conversations for specific groups.

Pronouns and Gender

Members of a system often have differing pronouns, including he/she/they/it, various neopronouns, and various second person pronouns (such as second person it/its). These should be respected and used, adapting to request.

Frequently, this is because the members of a system have different genders, and will then also have different gendered words they’re comfortable and uncomfortable with. This should be respected. As a note, some members and systems may consider their pronouns to be an extension of their name, rather than related to gender at all.

Transness

With high levels of intersectionality between trans folk and plural systems, it’s important to outline how a plural system or its members might view or relate to transness. For some systems, being trans is simply the state of the physical body and the system overall, and all members are neither trans nor cis (as they have no AGAB). Some are similar, but consider all members cis, or all members trans - sometimes regardless of how each individual member aligns with the AGAB of the system. For other systems, transness exists on an individual level, with each member considering themselves trans or cis based on their lived experience and gut feeling.

Attraction, Sexuality, Aro/Ace Spectrum

Inclusion

Members of a system often have differing sexuality and preferences, and should be included in the spaces with which they identify. If a system feels that they are incapable of excluding one of their members from a space in which they don’t belong, a discussion should be had with that space to determine how to proceed.

How a particular system accounts for consent is related to how they cooperate and communicate. For this reason, it’s important to understand that especially when a matter relates to a system’s body, the consent of the fronting member is not necessarily enough. A system needs to have functional cooperation to guarantee consent - with this knowledge, a fronting member may give their word that the consent is universal, or members may be asked one at a time to be thorough.

Appearance and Humanity

Self-Image

Members of a system frequently have an appearance (or “Self-Image”) that differs from the physical appearance of the body. Some singlets experience this as well, but it’s exceedingly common amongst pluralfolk - this is because if many members of a system were to identify with the same body, they couldn’t do so uniquely. Some members might have only a slightly different appearance to the body (or think of themselves as always wearing different clothes), others might have a self-image of an entirely different person, and others still might have a self image that isn’t human at all.

Nonhumanity

Many pluralfolk don’t see themselves as human - instead they might see themselves as other living creatures (real, mythical, fictional, or something only they can describe) - as more abstract entities (e.g. a shadow) or concepts (e.g. “Fire”) - varying wildly based on the system configuration. Nonhumanity is a much larger concept that occurs in singlets, but again is quite frequent among plural systems. There are many nonhuman subcultures that partially define this experience (though riddled with causal prescriptivism) - one notable example being the Voidpunk community, whose plural members might believe their nonhumanity to be a result of society’s concept of “human” being innately singular.

Shortcuts

Frequently, pluralfolk will use words to describe their appearance that don’t literally describe themselves, but are instead a “shortcut” to give a general idea of what they look like. The vast majority of nonhuman pluralfolk are (self admittedly) of effectively their own species or type, not an existing one - so pre-existing concepts are applied to speed up the explanation process. Sometimes that means using “cat” to mean “taking on some physical features of a cat”, or using “minotaur” to mean “appearing similarly to the form of the mythical minotaur”, but at other times it can mean supplying references (photos of celebrities and fictional characters, passages from fiction, etc) to give a rough idea to others.