about my goals and site purpose

what do you believe?

i feel very strongly about the humanisation of those considered mentally ill and our rights to respect, understanding, and effective medical treatment.

i believe psychiatric diagnosis (and other systems and cultures that lead to the introjection or coercive application of psychopathological labels) should be engaged with critically, and that in particular there should be a greater recognition that psychiatric diagnoses are socially constructed and deeply flawed as a method of conveying patterns in the human experience.

almost all of my commentary is concerned with the depiction of DID. as such, i have personal strong opinions on what DID, specifically, 'is'.

i believe, first and foremost, that us who have been studied under this label are human beings that deserve respect, autonomy, and access to care.

while those of us whose experiences qualify us for DID diagnosis are, fundamentally (by merit of its criteria), suffering and/or disabled by its characteristic symptoms and our traumatic experiences in an incredibly isolating way, i also believe that the symptoms we experience are not uncommon in isolation, and are also completely understandable, rational, and inextricably human responses to our histories, like any other. i believe that, because of this, almost anybody can 'relate' to and empathise with elements and principles of our experience, and that they should, as a way to combat the 'othering' of mentally ill people that leads to stigma, invisibility, and abuse.

beyond DID although related to its social perception, i also believe in the de-pathologisation of Multiplicity, including raising awareness that expressing, experiencing, or seeing yourself as a system of multiple selves or sub-selves is not inherently disordered nor an experience isolated to a certain 'type' of person.

i believe Multiplicity (and all manners of understanding oneself that may resemble it) is a valid vehicle for self-expression and understanding regardless of one's history or categorisation; that all individuals that engage with Multiplicity and/or consider themselves to experience the world as Multiple should have their accounts of reality and of themselves respected and validated; and that it should be understood, at large, that all personal sense-making, experiences of social role and identity-labels, and perspectives on the Self are subjective, socioculturally- and linguistically-embedded, and ultimately, an area in which we should encourage and accept agency and worldwide diversity.

why do you do what you do on your site?

i'm more than aware that a certain mysticism and pervasive 'otherness' surrounds the idea of DID and those who live under the label.

the consequence of this reputation is:

  • a widespread reification of DID's diagnostic category wherein it is considered a discrete way of being that defines a class of individuals, making us vulnerable to stereotyping and epistemological disempowerment,
  • an en-masse misunderstanding of what experiences the DID diagnosis may actually signify, and of what the experiences of people diagnosed with DID may really be,
  • pervasive public ignorance of the legitimacy of complex dissociative and 'multiple' experiences as understandable, grounded, acceptable, and human,
  • a lack of respectful, accessible and effective care for people whose struggles and experiences resemble this psychopathological presentation,
  • and a certain abusive fetish in some for sensationalised ideas around the multiple personality subject that dehumanises and exploits us.

i think demystifying DID — making the topic less exclusive, making the topic less jargon-esque, and deconstructing and humanising the experiences of individuals under the label (including promoting identification with any and all of our experiences) — is vital for lowering the bar for discussing and evaluating what we are shown and told about the people labelled with the diagnosis, for as long as it continues to exist; i believe this kind of open dialogue is a crucial yet still unprioritised step for shifting our culture away from that which allowed us (under the label of DID, under adjacent labels, with adjacent experiences) to be so severely socially and medically neglected, for so long.

through my work — my advocacy, essays, and literary guidance — i hope to deconstruct and challenge how DID is understood and signified, to illuminate the tropes and meanings that muddy its depiction, to analyse how its wider social understandings have developed and where they are stunted, and consider what elements and perspectives on this human experience rarely sees light. i hope to help others approach DID and its depictions with a greater understanding of the social and medical contexts of the diagnosis, and, most importantly, the human experiences of the real human beings who exist under this label.

i want to help us under the DID label be seen, humanised, respected, and understood. and while i'm no psychiatric expert, no influential public figure, i hope i can do some good.

-- Last Updated (30/07/2026).