Diagnosis doesn't replace self-determination.

[quandary_lions]

So someone was suspecting their system had OSDD, but said that they didn't want to "assume things" out of fear of being wrong and thus disrespecting DID/OSDD systems. This is a line of thinking that we're very unhappy about, so I'm gonna mirror my reply here just in case we need to refer to it again.

--

I'll leave you the message that Arch typed up before:

Regarding the possibility of OSDD, I will say two things.

First, that you know yourselves better than any psychologist, psychiatrist, or stranger on the Internet ever will. Don't let anyone force a label on you that feels fundamentally wrong, or rip away a label that is useful for you. Diagnoses are not handed down from a mountain, carved in stone tablets--they are fluid, broad, and malleable. They are ultimately meant to be made according to what is helpful to the client.

The categories were made for man, not man for the categories.

Second. Continuing from that, please feel free to do your own research on the matter and draw your own conclusions about who and what you are. Yes, I'm saying that I see nothing wrong with self-diagnosis, as long as you're doing it considerately and intelligently, as a way of increasing your understanding of yourselves and improving things instead of simply as a status marker. There is a difference between slapping a label on yourself because you think it's cool or gives you some special authority, and choosing a label because it genuinely helps you understand your own experiences. If you would like to see the diagnostic criteria for OSDD or DID, let us know. We do own a copy of the DSM-V and can procure samples from it for you. You may also find Cedars' blog interesting--they are a system with a diagnosis between DID and OSDD, who identify more with OSDD but question the emphasis upon clinical labels. And there's Sarah K. Reece's blog as well--her focus is DID moreso, but there may be useful insights regardless. If you're looking for resources on trauma (particularly parental abuse) and therapy methods such as DBT, we have a few of those as well.

A good psych is an invaluable resource. But not everyone has the money or freedom to see one, and sometimes all of the ones in the area are simply mediocre at best. It's far from easy doing your own stabilization and recovery work, but it beats feeling lost and doing nothing. And don't let anyone tell you that such work makes you less valid or "real" than anyone else.

I apologize for the spiel. I'm speaking as a member of a system formally diagnosed with DID, who's very bitter about the attitude that a formal diagnosis is required to begin putting your life in order; who staunchly disagrees with the notion that outsider opinion is more important than introspection, selves-awareness, and health. We spent hundreds of dollars and many hours driving to find a dissociative specialist, and in the end we didn't get anything out of it beyond a stamp on the head. We realized that we didn't have to wait to find someone who was both affordable and reliable in order to begin doing the work necessary for us to recover--we didn't need a psych in order to begin setting up healthy boundaries, house rules, and making changes to our life. So we began doing our own work.

I hope I'm not discouraging. It's perfectly fine to seek a second opinion. But don't feel that doing so requires you to hand your selves-determination over to someone else, or that you must have their opinion before you can begin understanding yourselves.

I think his message speaks for the rest of us, but just to be clear--the whole idea that exploring one's identity and mental health is "offensive" is utter hogwash. You're NOT harming anyone by striving for better selves-understanding. It's NOT offensive to observe and describe one's own experiences using language that makes sense for them.

Even if you do happen to be wrong, so what? Professionals misdiagnose people ALL the time. The average time it takes to get a correct DID diagnosis? Seven years. Lo and behold, the world hasn't stopped. It's really not different from thinking you were gay, only to find that you're bi. Identity is complicated, and having room to be "wrong" is the only way you can find what's "right". Being wrong is not offensive or hurtful to people with those labels, except to the wankers who make themselves feel better by beating down others--and even those people aren't unhappy about you being "wrong" so much as they're unhappy that you're not submitting to them and meekly tucking yourself into their boxes for them to step on.

The idea that only a doctor can tell people how to identify and that your own personal experiences don't matter, is just a sneaky way of stripping neurodivergent people of their rights to self-determination. It's fundamentally against the principles of many disability and neurodiversity movements. I really do recommend reading Cedars' and Reece's blogs. They're both diagnosed, and both leery of the idea that psychiatric opinion is everything.

Look, I'm not saying doctors are bad and you shouldn't see one. And I'm not saying you should dive blindly into every label that seems vaguely familiar--please do your research! But, if the only reason you want to see a doc is because you feel like you HAVE to see one or you're a bad fakin' faker... please rethink that. We were there. And man, it sucked. So many better things we could have spent that time and money on, y'know?

Hope I wasn't coarse or anything. I'm pissed that this way of thinking's become so widespread, but I'm not pissed at you.

-- Shrike

--
system addendums: [1]

Comments

system addendum 1

[quandary_lions]

yeah, like, there's reasons to be cautious around self-diagnosis, but it somehow being "ableist" or "offensive"? Unless you're like... grabbing the label to flaunt it around and rub in people's faces, that's not one of them?

I think there DO exist a few folks who do that, but tbh if you're worried about flaunting it or otherwise hurting people with it, chances are you're not one of them. Honestly, the majority of folks who I see flaunting their labels and using them as a beating stick are gatekeepers, so BIG SHRUG

-- Cassius

Re: system addendum 1

[quandary_lions]

Well, there does exist a culture, especially on Tumblr, that encourages people to publicly slap as many labels on themselves as possible in order to justify their existence and opinions. So I doubt the majority of these self-diagnoses are made free of bias*, and I personally have my doubts about how sincerely many of the self-diagnosed are pursuing self-treatment.

But simply because it's used in ways I don't approve of doesn't mean I think the concept of self-diagnosis itself is worthless.

-- Architect

*I'm aware it's impossible to avoid bias, even in professional settings, and I don't believe having a bias automatically invalidates your experiences or identifications. But I do think that this aforementioned "label culture", which also obsesses over being "real" and rooting out the "fake", absolutely has a negative effect on the practice of self-diagnosis. It places a pressure on people to put a label on themselves to fit in and to have the "right" label, which isn't a healthy environment for introspection and questioning. There's more I could say, but I'm tired and there's better things to do.

Re: system addendum 1

[quandary_lions]

Well, even then I feel like... there's a difference between adopting a label because of social pressure, and adopting a label because you think it's cool to have and will get you special permissions or whatever. Neither's a desirable result, but there's a big difference in circumstance and intent--and frankly speaking, if gatekeepers are unhappy about the former, then they should stop fucking fixating on the idea that labels are Important and Required.

And tbh our diagnosis wasn't free of bias either.

-- Cassius

Re: system addendum 1

[quandary_lions]

Yes, I know. I'm simply adding notes.

-- Architect

[starfallhaven]

categories were made for man, not man for the categories.

Honestly, you could boil down a lot of syscourse to this argument alone. The categories were made by people and can be flawed and incomplete, and no one should have to follow psychiatry like religious dogma just to be valid and real in their experiences.

[quandary_lions]

Heckin' yeah. I've outright called plural gatekeepers DSM-thumpers before.

Not that many of them have even read their "holy book", but y'know, that's not uncommon with Bible-thumpers either.

-- Cassius

[mercuryfrosting]

this is so reassuring

[lb_lee]

I'm still boggled over the intense ragefights over the various forms of OSDD, which didn't even EXIST until the most recent DSM. It's like, you guys realize these definitions were only recently created, right? And that DDNOS before that was different, and the recategorizations move shit around every few years, right?

--Rogan

[quandary_lions]

Hahaha, yeaaah. We actually saw that there was talk in the psych community of shuffling the DID diagnosis itself around, making it a subtype of PTSD instead. And of course, there were arguments against this from psychs as well. The psych community is FAR from the unified pantheon that people seem to think it is.

And it certainly isn't the first time there's been arguing inside the psych community about the nature of these diagnoses. What are we supposed to do, pick a favorite psych and crawl after them licking their boots?

Fuck that.

-- Cassius