@vultureculture

Thank you! I've heard DID get described many ways. One T described it as "multiplicity" because they didn't believe in DID. Another T described it as "ego states," since that was their institution's orientation. Another T described it as "parts" of the self that were "fragmented." Another T described it as "dissociation." Another T described it as a "lack of integration of the self during certain times of development." Other T's assert that DID doesn't exist and/or is extremely rare if it does exist. Still, other T's assert that it is an iatrogenic effect of poor treatment, which involves highly suggestible clients, false memory syndrome, somatoform disorder, a personality disorder, a combination of multiple personality disorders, a factitious disorder, and the list goes on.

When the psychiatric community fails to have consensus on what DID is, and what treatments are required, and how it should be assessed, etc., the clients with DID will doubt, will learn from the arguments within the psychiatric community, and will feel disbelieved and perpetually hidden, never having received proper care for a diagnosis that truly exists.

This push on being a "singleton" post "integration" was also an issue with some. I tried my hardest, and I still do. I cannot seem to identify as anything other than "multiple." "Singleton" and "multiplicity" are terms that undermine my struggles and my DID, it seems. So, yes, you're right. THANK YOU!