This is a quite misleading thread. First of all, the OA has to see the double standards they apply to scientific methods of exploration. Yes, science allows hypothesis but the hypothesis is not even close smooth to be a theory. The ToSD is a theory the same quantum >> https://twitter.com/thecheesycats/status/1301321778191462400

mechanics is a theory. Yes, it will stay a theory because it cannot be proved by an experiment (traumatization of children) in a controlled environment.
This theory can and will change as more research as being done.
We don't know everything about the brain yet but implying >>

both that as a scientist you have to be open to different hypotheses and that scientific method is restricting when applied to plurality is double standards and thus a manipulation intentional or not.
Secondly, about the brain damage. A person with it has no power over >>

their brain structure. Their brain, their neurons is what creates neuron paths (nets sorry for my terminology, language barrier) around the damaged area and thus metaphorically speaking takes the place of the damaged area. The person has no power over it. By doing specific >>

mental and physical exercises we can help neurons to do their job, but we are not the ones in charge.
The same goes for the child's mind. They are not the one who decides if their consciousness is going to be split or not, as no one can choose neurodiversity.
>>

Also, if we apply the scientific method, religion/spirituality here can only be a psychological stimulus (it caused the child positive or negative stress). We have to understand thag science does not work with r/s and thus you invalidate r/s systems already saying that no r/s >>

could cause their plurality.
Thirdly, at the beginning of the text, OA separated DID/OSDD from other experiences of plurality and in the middle, OA said they agree that it is caused by trauma (ToSD). But in the end, OA say that other experiences of plurality can be included >>

under the term of DID/OSDD because we don't know all of the facts yet. Again, what is the initial point here. And also, as Axolotls and others were saying, there is no point in taking Indigenous spiritual plurality and pushing it under the white medical term of DID/OSDD >>

(If I got it right, of course).
Another thing I don't like is when systems who want to advocate for PG start their message with "I'm traumagenic" because a) it goes against the fact that origin should matter to one; b) it sounds manipulative because it feels like they try to >>

buy your trust (speaking on my sad experiences).
The same goes for "we found a safe loving community". Who are they trying to convince here? I didn't find and I think people who don't participate in PG (like me or other systems that are the "target" of that thread) won't >>

change their mind because of one subjective experience.

This is all I remember I wanted to say about this, and also my hands are too shaky to type more.