Hello budding sprouts, it is Isaac here again, and I'll be responsible for taking this last bit of the VSM. Massive?TRIGGER WARNING on?fakeclaiming. We promise to give a logical reason as to why people in syscourse would do things like this.

Upon scrolling through some extensive research I did, I found this post to be useful in understanding what system discourse and the term "sysmed" comes from. Some of the things written previously had only shown a bit more on the non-disordered systems, so I will put the link below:

https://dissociatingdingo.tumblr.com/post/620579830437707776/what-is-a-sysmed

This is (well, sort of) the reason why I didn't use the word "sysmed", as it is not of a terminology suitable for this model. This model is suppose to better explain different perspectives of people with and without DID/OSDD, not something that is polarized.

Back to the main point. We are now at the very end of the spectrum:

And I will list the points that make a system invalid in a radical perspective of a system discourse.

1. Undiagnosed

   This should be fairly obvious if you have read through all of the other parts of the VSM explanations. No diagnosis, no proof for the system's existence. This also goes into the discussion that non-disordered systems are not professionally recognized, and so some radical syscourse perspective will be to disallow non-disordered systems to call themselves a system. I believe this is where the origin of the term "sysmed" comes from, where critics would gatekeep the use of the term "system" as reserved only for the medically disordered, not for the non-disordered.

2. No Trauma

   This refers/connects to the umbrella term "endogenic", where systems that are not generated from trauma are?sorted under. Those that do not have trauma and have systems have their own experiences, but the current medical model does not support their experiences. This is also tied to the fact that some systems do not need professional help, which is why there isn't a model for non-disordered systems.

3. System is Harmonious and No Problems in Daily Life

   This has been mentioned previously in other parts of the VSM explanation that having a harmonious life makes others upset due to their different experiences feeling invalidated.?This is also what sets non-disordered systems from disordered systems: their basis are?fundamentally different.
   

4. Openly Plural

   This also links to point 3. What sets disordered from non-disordered systems is that one stemmed from fear, distress and trauma while the other isn't. Disordered systems might feel disrespected because of the sturggles they have didn't happen on others, making them feel invalidated.

5. No Dissociative Symptoms

   This is linked to the post that I have inserted into this document. The system there has stated that accepting non-disordered systems mean demedicalizing DID/OSDD. From this perspective, it is true, as being able to "create alters without trauma" and grouping it with DID/OSDD is suggesting that DID/OSDD is related to non-disordered systems, greatly reducing its medical recognition and could create more challenges for those with DID/OSDD to get treatment. As non-disordered systems and disordered systems have different origins and are fundamentally different, it is only fitting for the non-disordered systems to not be grouped with DID/OSDD. To some extent, it makes complete sense. The perspectives of those who support non-disordered systems grouping with the disordered systems is that there is simply not enough influence to demedicalize DID/OSDD, and that there had always been some ambiguity in systems, such as systems of Mixed origins (could be classified as both having disordered and non-disordered origins to their systems). Non-disordered systems don't usually go to clinics as they don't have issues that disordered systems have.

Both of these points are valid and understandable. This is why we attempt to put up this series; it is so that both can understand each other's point of views so that things become less triggering and more reasonable.

Thank you for reading this far into the series. I sincerely hope that this has open your minds to what syscourse means, and the reason behind it all. I also hope that this series has open up system discourse, for all to discuss and talk about this, and for all to get a deeper insight of what is within this discourse.

Next, we will be concluding and closing the syscourse series officially. If there are any questions or anything to add, we can edit these documents or pin these comments on another document included into this series. We will also attempt our best to answer questions.

This is Isaac, signing out.