On plural inclusivity and “plural they”, part 2

Three days ago I wrote this blog post detailing my thoughts, investigations and choices regarding plural inclusivity and the pronoun “plural they”.

Since then I’ve been getting feedback, and talking and thinking about pronouns even more than my usual obsessive amount. (I even started yet another new curious but unofficial survey, which you’re all invited to take part in.)

My brain is very tired now. :D

When I first came out (about 10 years ago) and started learning about pronouns, I researched “singular they” pronouns a little bit - in part because lots of people were arguing that singular they wasn’t a legit pronoun, so I wanted to understand more. At that time, the “singular they isn’t grammatically correct” and “singular they can’t refer to a specific known person” arguments were very prevalent, and every trans person I encountered understood out of necessity that singular they is defined as “they/them used to refer to one person.”

Hand on heart, it honestly did not occur to me that a significant number of people might not know that’s what “singular they” means. “Singular they” is the name that lexicographers and other people who study language collectively call “they/them when referring to one person.” It’s a useful name, to refer to a pronoun set with a slightly different use case and, usually, spelling to match. And for some reason I thought that my experience from a decade ago, where understanding of this name was universal, would obviously still be relevant. (It is not.)

It’s a sign of progress, since singular they for nonbinary people is so much more commonly accepted that every nonbinary person doesn’t need to know the name “singular they” and what exactly the name means and how it is used differently from third-person regular/plural they.

If calling the set “singular they” on the annual survey doesn’t add clarity and help people find their pronoun set, I will stop using that name, and switch to providing the meaning instead. I’m thinking maybe something like replacing:

❌ Singular they - they/them/their/theirs/themself (plural verbs, i.e. “they are a writer”)

With:

➡️ They - they/them/their/theirs/themself (for referring to an individual, i.e. “they are a writer”)

This all started because I’ve been asked by a few people to combine singular and plural they in the annual survey, and just call it “they” instead of “singular they”, so that plural people can choose it.

I’m not going to combine two pronoun sets into one in the annual survey, because they are two pronoun sets that have different meanings and use cases, and (usually) different spellings.

I am considering adding plural they to the checkbox list, NOT as a way to include plural people (because arbitrary inclusion isn’t a reason for adding any term that is written into textboxes by under 1% of people), but because it might be useful to compare with singular they. Having said that, I am so far undecided, but leaning towards not including plural they. The “comparison” words that are on the list despite being chosen by under 1% of participants (binary, cisgender, etc) are gender-related words. The plural/singlet spectrum is unrelated to gender, and therefore not something the Gender Census would proactively investigate. If plural they is typed into textboxes by over 1% of participants that’s a whole other situation, and it would be automatically reconsidered.

If a checkbox term or pronoun isn’t accurate for you, don’t choose it! Type something in a textbox instead, so I can know it’s popular.

On plural inclusivity and “plural they”

In the Gender Census feedback box and elsewhere I have frequently been asked:

1. to make the annual Gender Census survey more inclusive of plural participants, and
2. to add “plural they” to the checkbox pronouns list alongside “singular they” in order to be inclusive of plural participants.

It’s a rambling topic, so I’ll address them in sections in that order.

~

INCLUSIVITY RE: PLURAL PARTICIPANTS

I’ve been inviting plural people to take part in a short survey about the Gender Census, asking questions that help me get a feel for the issues involved and asking about whether people feel included in the survey (and why or why not). At the time of writing there have been 139 responses, I will leave it open for ongoing feedback, and I’m unlikely to be publishing the spreadsheet of results in full because the responses are off-topic and very personal. However, I will refer to some individual responses as well as my personal experience discussing inclusion with plural systems.

Here’s a graph based on the responses so far:

I’m asking for direct feedback about this issue because over the past few years plural folks have been one of the more consistently vocal groups in the feedback box of the survey and elsewhere, which would usually be fine, but I’ve been finding it very overwhelming and confusing. I think that’s because the advice/demands/questions have been unusually inconsistent, often to the point of being in direct opposition to each other, and the result is that I have no idea what to do.

Before now, most plural people have understood that it’s quite a nuanced issue. When asked I would explain that if they felt that filling it in once for the whole system made more sense they should do that, and if individual system members felt strongly that they should participate alone then they could do so.

This year it got to the point where I had to make a decision and write unambiguous, easy-to-follow guidance about how plural people should fill in the survey, because I had one system submitting dozens of responses and giving the exact same three points of feedback, paraphrased, over and over - making it look like many unconnected people felt strongly about these particular issues, when in reality it was all this one system. I decided that, to be as fair as possible, plural people should fill in the survey once per body.

When I posted about the “once per body” policy on social media I received very little direct feedback, which leaves me in the position of not knowing whether that’s because I did it right and you have no complaints or because you’ve all jumped ship! The statistics and comments from the plural feedback survey are very helpful in this regard:

It seems that plural participants, on the whole, are fairly understanding about it all, often supportive, and are still able to participate. (“Unknown” and “no strong feelings” together are a much higher proportion than I expected.) Some positive feedback included appreciation for the ability to select as many gender identities and pronouns as one wants. Common arguments against the policy include feeling that system members are not treated as people in their own right, which is understandable; the Gender Census is designed to present practicable data about nonbinary people for use within a system that assigns one identity per body, socially and bureaucratically. A “once per body” policy makes sense when prioritising nonbinary people, but adds to the list of crap that only plural people have to struggle through when they’re not the main focus of the research.

I was surprised that only a couple of people pointed out that some systems have amnesia between members, and so some systems may participate more than once per body unintentionally. (I understand that this is unavoidable, and I certainly wouldn’t be upset about it. Sometimes non-plural people participate more than once by accident, too! On the scale we’re talking about, I’m unlikely to even notice it happening.)

Back when I first started to get requests to make the Gender Census more plural-inclusive, my first move was to ask people what exactly they felt excluded by. Responses to this have been continuously nebulous, to the extent that I don’t think I have ever made any design changes to the annual survey at all as a result. I also asked what they would do to improve the survey and help them to feel included, but this has yielded very few viable ideas for how to move forward, just because so many of the ideas that people suggest are mutually exclusive.

As an example, I spoke to one member of a system who expressed, understandably, that their experience of themselves as plural inextricably affected their experience of their gender(s), and after some discussion they concluded that the two were so intertwined that it made the most sense for it to be included in the identity question, e.g. a checkbox called “plural” alongside nonbinary, genderqueer, trans, etc. I explained that I don’t arbitrarily add things to the checkbox list, but it would be counted if it was typed into a textbox underneath, and if it went over 1% I would consider adding it to the checkbox list. They became increasingly angry. The only way this situation would make sense for them moving forward was if I added “plural” as an identity checkbox option immediately. Conversely, just a couple of weeks previously I had spoken with a member of a system who was very vocally distressed at the idea of plurality being conflated with gender, and wanted to make sure that I never added “plural” as an identity checkbox option.

As another example, in the plural feedback survey when I asked people how they felt about the “once per body” policy, a member of one system was against it and said “it feels like this policy doesn’t recognize us as separate people”, but a member of another system was in favour and said “we’re encouraged by our therapist to think of ourselves as dissociated parts of a whole. So we’re all one person, just not directly connected like a singlet [non-plural person] would be. From that perspective, it makes sense to keep us as one person in the gender census, no matter how many genders we have.” It’s not possible to reconcile these two perspectives.

From the very beginning up until now, the unifying theme for feedback from plural people and their allies is “please be more inclusive of plural people.” That’s a really good start! After that it becomes a plate of tangled spaghetti.

Here are some themes I’ve managed to tease out, and my thoughts.

• “Each system’s alter should be able to participate in the survey individually if they want to.” Some systems have literally hundreds of alters, and several systems have acknowledged in the feedback survey that this is probably both impractical for many plural people and unfair on singlets.
• “We’re okay with taking part once for all of us in the system, but we’re just checking all the boxes that apply to at least one of us, and some of those are explicitly disliked by at least one of us. This is uncomfortable.” I think that’s… probably okay, actually. Other subcategories of participants whose identities fluctuate that strongly (e.g. a genderfluid person who is sometimes very male and sometimes extremely not male) or whose pronouns are context-dependent are also in this predicament. Participants often express a desire to rank their identity terms by importance, accuracy, fluctuation or frequency. The survey aims to collect broad and fuzzy data about a very large group of people, to monitor trends and let people know what language we’re comfortable with on the whole. This survey just isn’t looking for that kind of nuance.
• “We’re okay with taking part in the survey once for everyone in the system, but there should be a way to separate out responses about different alters within that one response.” It’s literally impossible to program the survey to have infinite subsections for each alter, but if it were possible, what would I do with the data? I think the most likely approach would be combining into a list of identities etc. “per body”. The participant would feel better for being able to enter different words for different alters, but it would be more work for them, and it would be more work for me to process responses from plural people just to have them be counted like those from non-plural people.
• “There should be a ‘plural’ checkbox in the identity list so that we can express that our gender is influenced by our plurality.” I consider adding terms to the identity checkbox list when they’re typed into the textboxes by over 1% of participants. There are some situations where I’ll make an exception to that rule, but it’s unusual and this isn’t one of them. Whether you enter a term using a checkbox or a textbox makes no difference to how well-represented you are in the results.
• Maybe just a question that asks if you’re plural, with a checkbox? What would this checkbox do? Plurality is beyond the scope of the survey, along with things like height and eye colour. It would allow curious people to analyse the responses using plurality as a variable, but I wouldn’t include it in any analysis in an annual Gender Census report.

That last one is particularly interesting, because it’s what I actually did in the supplementary survey. I wasn’t 100% sure in advance whether or not I would need that information for the singular vs. plural they issue, so I included an “I am/we are plural” checkbox just to be on the safe side. As far as I could tell, the survey was no more or less materially inclusive than the annual Gender Census survey. There were a couple of interesting patterns to report in the statistics, but the main things I noticed were:

• Feedback saying that the survey wasn’t inclusive of plural people was non-existent.
• Several people thanked me in the feedback box for making the survey plural-inclusive.
• Several people promoted the survey on social media by using its plural-inclusivity as a selling point.

Again, the supplementary survey didn’t take a different approach. There was no particular difference in language, there was no indication that whether or not you’re plural would be integral to the reporting of the results or even used at all, the only difference was the existence of a checkbox that let participants declare their plurality.

That’s all it took to cause a complete U-turn in feedback. A checkbox that doesn’t relate to gender or connect to any of the other questions in any way, and isn’t particularly statistically useful based on the supplementary survey. It doesn’t make the survey more inclusive, it just acknowledges that some participants are plural, and gives them a way to declare it.

Whether or not participants are plural is beyond the scope of the Gender Census, which aims to collect broad data about how we as nonbinary and otherwise genderly-interesting people want the world to see and describe us. It just doesn’t make sense to include questions about plurality in future surveys. But I’m honestly amazed and a little confused, because until the “once per body” policy was added it seems that there wasn’t actually anything about the Gender Census that prevented plural people from participating, at least not more than anyone else whose genders change significantly over time.

~

SHOULD “PLURAL THEY” BE ADDED TO THE CHECKBOX PRONOUN LIST?

This is something that participants often ask me to do in order to make the survey more plural-inclusive, so I decided to seriously consider it.

The first draft of the supplementary survey asked over 1,000 participants about this issue, but I had to scrap those responses and then redesign and restart it because, even though dictionaries are fairly clear on what exactly “singular they” is, a lot of survey participants who are not dictionaries seemed to be in disagreement (or confusion) about what singular they and plural they actually are. I have been unable to find any academic or reference articles online using the phrase “plural they” at all.

Here are some of the things people have told me recently:

• “Singular they” is when you use “they” with singular verbs, e.g. they is a teacher.
• I can’t say that I use “singular they” pronouns because I always say “they are”. “They is” just sounds wrong to me.
• “Plural they” is when you use “singular they” pronouns to refer to a system/someone who is plural.
• “Singular they” and “plural they” are grammatically identical except for the name.
• “Singular they” and “plural they” are functionally the same and should be combined into one option called “they” in the annual survey.

Let’s start by stating what we do know for sure.

~

THEY VS. SINGULAR THEY

For the record, “singular they” is defined by its purpose and context, not the specific words used.

Wiktionarysays:

they(third-person, nominative case, usually plural, sometimes singular, objective case them, possessive their, possessive noun theirs, reflexive themselves, or, singular, themself)

It then goes on to specify three use-cases:

• third-person plural, referring to two or more people
• third-person singular, referring to one person
• “indefinite pronoun” - people; some people; people in general; someone, excluding the speaker. E.g. “they didn’t have computers in the old days.”

So we’ve got “they” (groups), “singular they” (individuals), and “indefinite they” (an “other” that is ambiguous in number).

Again, I have never found anything academic or, er, dictionarical (lexicographical?) that calls any of the forms “plural they”, so my first job is to find out whether what Gender Census participants are calling “plural they” is the same as what the dictionary just calls “they”, which is defined as the set used to refer to two or more people. For the purposes of this article I will call it regular “they”.

~

WHICH WORDS MAKE UP SINGULAR THEY?

Even though most dictionaries will state which words make up singular they, and it’s usually they/them/their/theirs/themself, if you change individual words within the set or even around the set it is still called “singular they” if it is used to refer to only one person. This might happen due to regional or cultural variations. So whether you say “they is a writer” or “they are a writer”, whether you say “themself” or “themselves”, if you’re talking about only one person, it’s still singular they.

In the annual survey, singular they is consistently chosen in the checkbox pronoun options by the most participants, usually more than twice as popular as the next most popular option. (I use the dictionary-provided set, and I’ve checked it’s still the most commonly used in several polls and surveys along the way.) In the annual survey, singular they is presented as:

singular they - they/them/their/theirs/themself (e.g. “they are a writer”)

~

WHICH WORDS MAKE UP PLURAL THEY?

I had never heard of “plural they” before people started asking me to add it to the checkbox list in the feedback box of the annual Gender Census survey, but it seemed clear from the name that it is meant to be contrasted with singularthey, and I wondered if perhaps everyone else had been calling regular “they” (for referring to two or more people) “plural they” this entire time and I just hadn’t noticed.

It was specifically presented to me by participants as a pronoun that a plural system could claim, and that a plural system might prefer over singular they. This tallied with my initial assumption that “plural they” may just be regular “they” referring to groups, since a system is a body containing two or more distinct individuals, so if they wanted to be referred to as a group then singular they would be inappropriate and regular “they” would fit.

I went to the pronouns spreadsheet of the 2021 Gender Census, and took every pronoun set that was named and copied it into a new spreadsheet. I ran a query to list all sets that contained both the words “plural” and “they” in the name field. There were 71 results, out of ~44,500 total responses. I ran another query to find out what these people were entering in the reflexive field, and here’s what I got:

• themselves - 61 (85.9%)
• theirselves - 3
• them - 2
• themself - 2
• themself (plural) - 2
• theirself - 1

So I think it’s safe to say that the set that people are calling “plural they” uses “themselves” as the reflexive, which is consistent with dictionaries’ reporting of regular “they”.

I conclude that most people do mean regular “they” when they refer to “plural they”. “Plural they” seems to be they/them when used to refer to two or more people, including the plural reflexive “themselves”.

As in “singular they”, if you change individual words within the set or even around the set it is still called regular “they” if it is used to refer to two or more people. This might happen due to regional or cultural variations. So whether you say “they is writers” or “they are writers”, whether you say “themself” or “themselves”, if you’re talking about two or more people, it’s still regular “they” (or plural they).

~

IS PLURAL THEY GETTING SMUSHED INTO ANOTHER PRONOUN/GROUP?

I recently explored the (apparently unintentional) overlap of Spivak (e/em) and Elverson (ey/em). In case you’ve not read it, here’s a brief overview: I found that it might be that Elverson (not on the checkbox list) is many times more popular than Spivak (on the checkbox list), even though it isn’t being written into the pronouns textboxes often enough for it to reach the 1% threshold. Since the two sets are identical except for that one letter in the subject form, it is very likely that many of the people who use Elverson (ey/em) pronouns are choosing the Spivak checkbox option in the annual survey because they don’t realise the spelling is different, or they think that they are minor spelling variants of the same set. I concluded that in order to get a fair count of both sets I will need to list both in the checkbox options next year, even though Elverson hasn’t been typed in by over 1% of participants yet.

It’s possible that the same thing is happening with singular and plural they. I ran a couple of Twitter polls, asking people whose pronouns are they/them which set they prefer, and presented answers like this:

• a) Singular they, referring to only 1 person: they are themSELF
• b) Singular they, referring to only 1 person: they are themSELVES
• c) Plural they, referring to 2+ people: they are themSELVES

Here’s the results, with 927 usable responses:

The results of this poll are really useful, because it allowed people to choose between singular and plural they AND themself and themselves, in combination. We can see that of the people who call their pronouns “singular they” (referring to only one person), the majority prefer “themself” as the reflexive, but a respectable proportion prefer singular they with “themselves”, even when presented with the option of “plural they” (referring to two or more people).

(I have a policy of providing the most popular word choices in checkboxes, so I will continue to provide a they/them checkbox option that says “singular they - they/them/their/theirs/themself”, but since singular they is consistently the most popular pronoun this is something I like to keep checking in on.)

If we apply these proportions to the 2021 Gender Census responses and imagine that everyone whose pronouns are they/them chose “singular they - they/them/their/theirs/themself” regardless of how accurate that is, this would mean that 3.7% of all respondents would check a “plural they” box, which is well above the 1% threshold for adding something to the checkbox list. Why not add it to the list, the way I’ll also be adding Elverson to the list? This graph may help:

I generally consider it unwise to make big decisions based on Twitter polls, because the sample is much smaller and more biased than a standalone survey. Twitter requires membership, Twitter membership is skewed younger, and younger members are more likely to use Twitter often and see polls when they appear.

However, even I can’t deny that there is a very clear mandate here for Elverson to be added to the checkbox list. When given a straight choice between the Spivak, Elverson, both, and neither/something else, participants were over six times more likely to choose Elverson over Spivak. (For context, Spivak got 4.3% in the 2021 Gender Census as a checkbox option.) Even if this poll were somehow put to the entire Gender Census participant group, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the results shift enough that Elverson gets a lower percentage than Spivak.

4.7% of a smaller sample of younger Twitter members just isn’t enough to push me to add something to the checkbox options. I really hope that everyone whose pronouns are “plural they” takes the time to type it into next year’s survey as a pronoun distinct from “singular they”, so that if they do end up being over 1% of participants I can add “plural they” to the checkbox options.

~

IN CONCLUSION

As far as I can tell, the Gender Census doesn’t particularly exclude plural participants. Systems are still able to take part, so it is at least as inclusive as any other survey of a similar nature, maybe even more so thanks to the ability to choose multiple gender identities and pronouns “per body”.

There isn’t sufficient evidence to support adding “plural they” to the list of checkbox pronouns at this time, and systems can be represented in results by typing any plural-inclusive terms and pronouns that are not on checkbox lists into some of the many textboxes provided, as any other participant would be expected to do.

The “once per body” participation policy is uncomfortable for a significant number of plural people. However, due to the intensely varied experiences of plural people, any policy on that issue that I impose would make some plural people uncomfortable - and it turns out that I chose the “side” that plural people are more likely to agree with. The survey isn’t intending to collect or convey the more nuanced information that plural people (and others) have said that they would like to provide.

A separate question that specifically asks participants whether they’re plural makes systems feel seen and acknowledged, but is beyond the scope of the project and doesn’t add value to the data or analysis.

So, I will not be making any changes to the Gender Census at this time, based on the information I’ve gathered so far. However, I welcome further feedback in the plural participants’ feedback form, which will remain open, anonymous and private.

~

Edit:Follow-up.

Looks like We’re back to making posts that We don’t remember. No big deal but then…

WHO THE FUCK?! Dude! Not cool. Let’s not be flirting even mock flirting (because I can’t imagine any of us trying to actually flirt with anyone… Well…) because We don’t need that kind of attention. Please. The only one We can think of that would say that is dormant. So??? No idea.

trustmeimadoctor:

Really showing some self restraint here, I feel. Going back and fourth back and fourth. Should We? Shouldn’t We? We want to try to clear up psychosis and also not make it worse. We are taking the smallest dose of lsd We think We’ve taken since We started Psychedelic Therapy. About 100mcg. Teen wanted to do 200mcg but Brother actually talked him out of it. He said just to do a little for medicine. Basically that’s what he was saying. But yeah, today We walked to the store by ourself (bad idea) everything went relatively fine but when We got home and went to unlock our door We got freaked out. We swore someone had come up the stairs behind us but there was no one. Then it felt like they kept sneaking up behind us. There wasn’t anyone there. We will see if this dose makes a difference.

The shadows stopped moving.

Really showing some self restraint here, I feel. Going back and fourth back and fourth. Should We? Shouldn’t We? We want to try to clear up psychosis and also not make it worse. We are taking the smallest dose of lsd We think We’ve taken since We started Psychedelic Therapy. About 100mcg. Teen wanted to do 200mcg but Brother actually talked him out of it. He said just to do a little for medicine. Basically that’s what he was saying. But yeah, today We walked to the store by ourself (bad idea) everything went relatively fine but when We got home and went to unlock our door We got freaked out. We swore someone had come up the stairs behind us but there was no one. Then it felt like they kept sneaking up behind us. There wasn’t anyone there. We will see if this dose makes a difference.

trustmeimadoctor:

I just made a promise to Dante that I wouldn’t make another suicide attempt until we try the lsd route first. He heard me and acknowledged it. I have to remember. 

It’s been over a year since We started psychedelic therapy. Started with lsd and ketamine. Saved us. It’s time to wake up Dante. I think he would like things much better now with the new level of self awareness. I think he would like to front.

Been losing so much time. Thursday was a continuation of Wednesday. It was Wednesday until it was Friday. There was no Thursday. But it was Wednesday that didn’t start until Thursday. The Thursday that never happened. We probably shouldn’t have Ativan anymore. I forget that We used to black out from Ativan and alcohol. Maybe We are more sensitive in our current condition. We had the outsider hold on to our Ativan for us. Because We knew that We couldn’t trust ourself in the state We’ve been in. Yesterday We asked him for our medicine. He said He gave it to us and that We said that We didn’t need him to hold on to it anymore because We wouldn’t need it anymore…???!!! It wasn’t Teen. It wasn’t Animal. It wasn’t Malice and it sure as fuck wasn’t The Gobos! So who was it? We suffered full amnesia! This isn’t our norm or at least it hasn’t been in a long time. And We’ve been hallucinating. Full, head on hallucinations. That is also not our norm. Not since We were a child. Visual, auditory and tactile hallucinations. We look at our “Trip Check Painting” and the shadows move like We’re on LSD. But We haven’t taken LSD in about a week. We don’t know what this means. But it seems like when We push and stress for an entire semester, by the end of it, something happens to our mental state. We pushed ourself hard, not even this hard but hard enough to cause a state of psychosis in 2019. The last day of class or the very next day, don’t clearly remember, Teen tried to kill the vessel. It was a very serious attempt. And he very nearly succeeded. Was almost rushed to another hospital for a liver transplant but our levels suddenly started coming down. Waking up in the hospital… Never hallucinated that bad in our entire life. A dark shaking figure stood in the corner of our “room”. The walls had weird writing all over them and were moving. Everything had a yellow tint to it.

We are not suicidal. But We are not okay. We do not believe that We are a risk to ourself or anyone else. Other than a possible accidental overdose! That Ativan shit is scary! If We try really hard, We can see someone dropping one of the pills in the trash accidentally then popped the last… 3??? In our mouth. If there were more in there We don’t know if, whoever that was, would have taken all of it.

We did well in Music Theory 101. We did not great at all on our project but ended up getting a 90 on it! Our average was an 89 but when We checked, our overall grade is a 99 point… Something. Can’t really remember but a fucking 99??!! How? Since March We’ve been doing horribly! When We submitted our final project We also wrote a little over 300 words vaguely explaining why We submitted such hot garbage. He wrote back telling me that he thought We were doing well and that he could tell how much work We put in all of our work. After our presentation he clapped…??? We thought he was gonna be like, “Wtf is this?” Even though he did let us know where We fucked up he still seemed to understand that We did know the material We were just having a bad time. None of us saw that coming.

So why are We starting to spiral? Is this just what a burnout feels like for us now? Is there something seriously wrong? We don’t know yet. Hopefully this fades with some rest.

psychoticlokiandposims:

Shout out to systems who have system experiences they are afraid of talking about because they are afraid of harassment or being fake claimed <3

Also, for fear of getting into trouble.

Every time We see a cat face emoji, We think of Rio. It still hurts.

Holy fuck! Memory unlocked, boys! Okay so We acted a little bit in high school and don’t remember… Anyway We were REALLY GOOD! And We were just thinking, “Oh shit! This is probably why!” THEN We remembered being on stage when We were 16 years old. But We remember like We’re watching from THE AUDIENCE! We can see ourself on stage in costume! Who the fuck was Juliet? Oh and We also just remembered a full switch happening when We were 17 years old. Whoever was acting host thought they still had control. They absolutely did not. And they did feel strange but didn’t know why. They thought they were just playing around. But they became something completely different…

OMFG! FORGOT TO MENTION! Something really weird happened during our psychedelic therapy session yesterday! One of us was texting someone then after sending it someone else tapped in. They started to remember texting but in the memory it was REVERSED! The fucking letters were backwards! What the fuck?!

We did a good thing. But it is going to take some getting used to. So many more are active now. We still don’t know who everyone is. ✌️☝️… So sex is more awkward now. Oh… Fuckin… We’ll tag it with “TMI” or some shit. Right… DMT! I, Malice got us over our fear… Well THEIR fear. Not mine. That’s why I could do it when they couldn’t. Someone was pushing us really fucking hard to do DMT. We don’t know who. But We HAD to. We had no choice. The Gobos kept trying to front for whatever reason. Animal, Teen and I had to keep pulling them out. They were so scared But they were being so BRAVE! I, We want The Gobos to know that We, Animal, Teen and Malice are so very proud of you. You never have to do anything like that though. We will always protect you. No matter what happens. Okay? You brave little souls have no need to worry. You are completely protected from harm. Someone else is here with us. They seem to really care about The Gobos as well. So… Umm… See? You guys are safe!

*Listening to Alestorm*

Headspace Chatter:

“Rum! Beer! Sex and Weed! These are the things that a Pirate needs!”

Fuck off! Fuck you! Eat me! Suck my dick! ‍♀️‍♀️

osdd-1bitch:

osdd-1bitch:

The best thing abt doing actual research into the plural community is that its literally never been like the medicalists say it was. I have a book from a 60+ year old diagnosed did system who can and has rejected/expelled alters entirely. another with an interject of a religious figure whos a gatekeeper. Another who can control switches, one who has known since they were kids ect ect ect. Plurality has always been weird and different my guy, to say otherwise is to erase our history and ignore basically all aspects of plurality

Also this goes for nontraumagenic plurals and headmates we have been a part of the community since the start. Stay mad

Headspace Chatter:

“Son of a hot pocket!”

Everyone in front, who is high as fuck btw:

Headspace Chatter:

Watching a recorded stream, “He’s a stick man!”

??? : “He’s SEVERAL stick men!…. Respect his pronouns!”

???

Cornelius

It was his birthday at the end of February. I am drawing and writing about all the guys that live with me on Patreon for their birthdays all year because that’s a magical bond I never tire of pouring energy and love into. Patreon is a really nice place for it because it feels a bit like the friends-locking capability that Livejournal-era internet socialising could offer, with all the associated comfort and security. Tumblr and Instagram feel too open to scrutiny, and don’t really encourage the sort of in-depth engagement that I would prefer to see with my work. I wish there was a non-paywalled option, though, despite the obvious far-reaching benefits of being able to enjoy the support of a paying audience.

Either way, here he is, I love him very much, and I need you to look at the linework here and marvel at how much I am capable of now that I am chock full of anti-adhd “Brain Vitamins”! I just hatched some ringlets over the course of several hours like it was no thing whatsoever!!!!!

SHOP/KO-FI/PATREON/INSTAGRAM

Like especially for sources that aren’t that common or well known. Sometimes even well known ones can be hard to find at times. I’ve been thinking of finding a sourcemates blog or making one for myself to find others from the same source but idk.

Edd wants to find a sourcemate from his source, like Matt, Tom, Tord from Eddsworld etc.

Even our factive Edward wants to see his friends again. Like Tom (tomska), Matt, or Tord, even if it’s not from his world even another version of the counterparts would still be pretty cool.

Edward: Ok since we have another Edd in the system just call me Eddie
Me: Ok
Edd: and I stay Edd?
Me: Ye

-a few days later-

Me: Edd you’re so cute eddie uWU
Edd: I want to be Eddie now
Edward: then what’s my name?
Me: how about I finally call you Edd again and our cute little snowball over here can be Eddie cause he’s adorable!

Edward: Ok

-a few days later-

Edward: This is too confusing let’s go back to how it was before

Me: Wow ok

So, of course me and Edward have our own blog we work on together, but for more personal and discoursey stuff (sometimes discourse) we’ll do all that in this blog. So, is there anything you guys wanna know about me or want me to blog about? 
For example, info on all my headmates, my system name, anything you want me to add to the blog like submission and such? Or if you wanna ask me any asks you can also do that because the ask box is open. Anyway yeah. All that will help me get this blog thing thriving as well. I’m planning to change my background to like a background of all of us together that’d be pretty cool oml but I’m just not in the drawing mood at all which really sucks.

Hey! We’re back with flags for those of y’all who are proud to be you! Edd and Edward helped me because one of fictive and the other is factive!

Before I get into it, I just want to tell a slight story thing on why I made these. So, back when I first joined plurality servers, systems used to bully Edd and Edward for who they were, calling them names for being fictive/factive and that there will be identify issues in the future. When we joined PositivelyPlurality all of that changed. When I realized how okay it was to be fictive/factive we were so happy! Edward has a lot of pride for being factive. Be happy for who you are! That’s why I made these :). There were flags before for this but I heard they were from bad systems.

Fictive Flag

Darker green on top: They are from fiction and it’s okay to be proud of that! 2nd Green: Just because they are from fiction and not an “original” they are still valid so it is a very bright colour to show that.
White: Shows they are from a source!
Gray: Shows that they do not need to be canon and can break free from it!
Dark green: They can be whatever they want and can date whoever even from another source.
Darkest green on bottom: Same meaning as top one.

Factive Flag

Red - Passion! Shows factives are based on the real world and that it is an okay thing!
Grey- Maturity, authority over who they are.
Orange- Creative for being who they are!
Green- Growing as a person, also shows they are based on the real world since it is a life/earthly colour.
 Pink- Valid. They are just as valid as any other headmate.
Purple- They are perfect as they are. Do not change yourself for others.

Fcktive Flag

Fcktive is a mix between Fictive and Factive, so the meanings above can help you with this one. And make it your own! Fcktive is different in every case.

Feel free to use them! You do not have to give credit each time you use it (although it’d be appreciated) but if someone asks or if you’re using it for a server, video, website, etc please give credit to me! Please don’t say you made the designs as that’s plagiarism.

- Written by Host

-Made with love from Edd, Edward, and Host ♥

I named 3 new origins for headmates. If people like it, hopefully we can get it out there and have more people use the terms/know the terms.

These types are made by me! You don’t have to give credit every single time you use it, but if people ask, I still would like my credit for making the terms! (Please don’t claim you made them yourself).

Crepunive- headmate based on a toy/plush/plaything. From the word “Crepundia” meaning toy.

Originem- headmate that is completely original. Not from a source from fiction, not based on a real person (or the mix of fiction and nonfiction), not from an object or toy, but in fact they are their own being. Not to be confused with OCs. OCs are still technically fiction if you made the character before the headmate. If they were not an OC you had before you got the headmate, then Originem might be the right term for you. (If they were never an OC even after the headmate, Originem still fits). You can still call them “original”, just Originem is the term in general. Originem is latin for beginning or birth.

Rogue / no-origin - Rogue being the fancier term for it, the headmate/system does not care about origins of the headmate(s)and does not wish to term themselves OR does not know their origin.

If you don’t understand or have more questions let me know!

Not to be confused with system origin! System origin is HOW the system came to be. Headmate origin is a term for where they come from. From fiction, from an actual person/animal, through a mix of fiction and nonfiction, from a toy, object, being their own thing, etc.

-H

Person: what is your gender?

Me, a plural group with wildly varying gender identities and expressions: *unrolls paper* see the thing is

Let’s talk about full integration / final fusion where the parts are never erased and where being a whole-yet-multifaceted person is the goal of the fusion.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone talk about this. Then again, I don’t think that there are many systems on Tumblr who are at this point in therapy with this particular goal.

Final fusion is usually thought of as the merging of all parts into one self. Before fusion, there are metaphorical walls of dissociation between you and other parts of your mind. Whichever part of the mind is active is perceived as “Me” while the other parts are perceived as “Not Me”. After fusion, those metaphorical walls disappear, allowing all parts of the mind to become “Me”.

In the past, the westernized approach to self often led to therapists pressuring fully fused systems to stop valuing (or even acknowledging) that they had parts. It makes sense to me why those older systems would often compare fusion to death. In the present day, the plurality of self is being valued more. Especially with therapeutic practices like internal family systems, it’s more normalized to acknowledge that everyone has multiple parts to themselves.

When I fused with all of my parts for the first time, we still felt each other. We were one person with full access to each other, but also somehow still parts. We were connected parts and a single person at the same exact time. I thought that maybe I did it wrong, or maybe I wasn’t fully fused yet, but my therapist (who is from a culture where having parts is more normalized) told me that this is just another way that final fusion can be experienced.

So, full integration / final fusion doesn’t mean that parts have to go away. Maybe that’s how some people want to still do it. If someone wants to recover like that, please let them. But this is a type of final fusion that I have never heard talked about before. 

I often felt alone with this experience. I felt like no one would believe me if I brought this to Tumblr, because people can get so aggressive about fusion. Something that can be so beautiful is often shoved aside and attacked. I think it’s important to talk about this, though. Hearing about this can probably really help some people.

I want to share some statements from former DID patients who have fully fused, from this professional study. These statements helped me feel less alone with my experience.

Rebecca:

“Today I feel I am fully aware and present both as the collective of parts and as any individual part. That is, even when a part of me is present, there is a collective awareness of the experience.”

Irene:

“It gradually dawned on me that I could get some relief if I paid enough attention to the voices and their pain. I understood they needed to be heard… . My integration is about being in control, being aware, being able to understand myself. Whenever I’m anxious and I can’t understand why, I turn inside and I ask: What’s going on? I usually get an answer that either helps me deal better with an external problem or guides me as to how to calm myself down… . There is a clear advantage to my situation: I have better access to my subconscious than most people do. I call this ability Creative Disintegration.”

Loraine:

“I think the best way to describe my integration process is as a progressive one. First, there were brief moments of integration; later on I was integrated during some of the time but wasn’t on other occasions. This developed into a period in which I was integrated most of the time and then, into full integration with only momentary periods of disintegration… . It is a process of forward and backward movement on the dissociation continuum, but the general trend is towards a decrease in dissociation… . once you’re integrated, you don’t feel fragmented anymore, but in emergency situations there is a proclivity to utilize the mechanism for brief periods of time to help with coping.”

Some notes from the study:

“It is noteworthy that integration was not always described in terms of a renunciation of dissociative capabilities. Rebecca, Loraine, and even more so, Irene described occasional post-integrational awareness of the old psychological entities that once formed the personality alters… .  Whereas Sara and Tina talked about their lives as ‘one,’ others were clearly continuing to utilize some of the advantages of the dissociative process. It is probable, though, that rather than representing ‘imperfect’ integrations this variance portrays the naturally occurring distribution of dissociative phenomena in the population. It is, perhaps, not only an unreasonable expectation but also an undesirable outcome to have a useful defense mechanism, naturally occurring in society, completely abolished in this particular population.”

I think maybe it’s important to recognize that the boundary between multiplicity and fusion isn’t as clear cut as social media likes to make it out to be.

Even if you believe your memories to have never happened, they’re still real to you. They matter and they’re important, and they’re no “less” important than past-life memories. If you have exomemories you believe happened, those are also important and real. ALL types of memories are completely valid.

If your system can’t switch or switches rarely, that’s perfectly fine. You’re not broken or fake, being semi permanently or even permanently frontstuck is a common experience.

Persecutors in systems deserve to be respected. You’re not evil, your existence isn’t a burden. You’re people too.

If your system functions differently to everyone elses, that doesn’t mean that it’s less real. Plurality is such a varied experience and no two systems function the same way. You’re real, you’re valid, and you’re no lesser for being different.

It’s okay if you can’t figure out if your identity is psychological, spiritual or something else in nature. Your identity is important regardless of why it exists and you don’t need to fit into any boxes to make yourself valid.