Medicalized Multiplicity

[lb_lee]

Also, okay guys, the alphabet soup for Multiple Personality Disorder, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Otherwise Specified Dissociative Disorder, and Unspecified Dissociative Disorder is just way too much of a fucking mouthful. (And that's still not including the trance disorders and crap.) MPD/DID/DDNOS was still somewhat manageable to say, but MPD/DID/DDNOS/OSDD/USDD is absurd.

I vote we just call it all medicalized multiplicity and give up.

--Mori

Comments

[the_network]

Honestly? Sounds good to me

I think at one point we were referring to it as disordered multiplicity but obviously that creates issues because not everyone disordered wants to be pathologized or is able to be diagnosed, etc and not everyone who had the diagnosis is disordered anymore (and MPD didn't include disorder in the criteria I don't think)

[mirrorofsmoke]

I agree. Oh so much agreeing.

[yvannairie]

DDNOS is also used for Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (hi! Me! And other folks like me who don't fit the Asperger's or other autism spectrum disorder criteria despite having clearly divergent mental development!) and while I don't want to tell anyone what to call themselves, we don't really have anything else to call ourselves.

[jadislefeu]

Sounds good to me too.

[ex_not643]

We like 'medicalised multiplicity', 'medical-model multiplicity' or 'trauma-based multiplicity' ourselves.

~K.

[lb_lee]

Yeah, I suspect in no time I'll just cut it down to medimulti or something stupid like that.

I feel like medicalized multi is still a little different than trauma-based multi. One is an origin; the other is a specific framework of perceiving it.

--Mori

[lb_lee]

Good enough for me, for sure! And that might explain why they changed the dissociative disorder from DDNOS to OSDD in the DSM V. At the time, I admit I was just like, "uuuuugh ANOTHER acronym?!" but if it was to differentiate it from YOUR DDNOS, that actually makes way more sense.

--Mori

[lb_lee]

You're correct about the MPD bit. MPD didn't even require memory issues! (Which is why, depending on the DSM edition, you can make decent arguments for whether we're DDNOS/OSDD, but we're still pretty classic MPD.)

--Mori