Other sources beyond Vessiere’s study include: Multiplying models: Personal identity, dissociation and the possibility of healthy multiplicity by Gale, Lindsey and Alterity: Learning polyvalent selves, resisting disabling notions of the self by Walker, Wayland. We can gather from these that healthy multiplicity is indeed A Thing that happens. What we -cannot- gather is what causes it. To label all non-DID or DDNOS systems as imitation systems or BPD is a huge oversight and logically unsound.

how is telling you the literal definition of something applying the standards of a disorder? i’m telling you what a term specific to a disorder means. you’re clearly not listening. being multiple means that there’s dissociative barriers between personality states. if that’s not your experience, why are you using that label for yourself? actually answer the question, you keep avoiding it.

I am using the label for myself because the label applies to me. The label multiple applies to me, because I am a member of…

I wonder if multianon has any sources that can prove that being a singlet is inherently healthy. Probably not, since healthiness in singlets is something implied. I don’t know why it’s suddenly so unbelievable in the context of multiple systems that they wouldn’t have clinically significant distress as a result of being multiple (which according to the DSM 5 is the key defining factor of what makes someone disordered in the first place).

Good point!