After being told she’d be officially diagnosed as autistic, Autisticook wrote a post titled I’m Not Broken. I commented on this post, but wanted to expand on and generalize this a bit more.
I remember when in DID meetings, there were people who didn’t want to have DID, and people who felt the DID diagnosis somehow validated them. I fell into the latter category and was often told I wanted DID too badly. The people who felt their diagnosis was validating, often said it made them not be crazy. “I’m not broken, I was traumatized,” one person said, incidentally in the meeting in which I was kicked out for allegedly having imaginary DID.
In my journeys as an autistic, I learned a lot of what Autisticook describes: autistic isn’t broken. In my brief travels through the natural multiplicity community, I learned the same of multiplicity. Then I heard dissociators say they aren’t broken but traumatized, almost as if their perps are responsible for every single thing in the dissocitors’ lives that is remotely “broken”, and I cringe.
I don’t care who or what made you the way you are. People aren’t intrinsically broken, and using neurology or abuse history or whatever as a reason for not being broken, only makes other people, who don’t share this same attribute, look broken. Like, are people broken if their behavior can’t be directly linked to trauma or neurology? I’d say they arent’. Their behavior may be unacceptable, but so may the behavior exhibited by autistics or trauma survivors.
I am not saying you can’t use your neurology or experience as part of your identity. I do this all the time. What I am saying is that a diagnosis is at once no excuse for unacceptable behavior, and unacceptable behavior doesn’t make you broken regarldless of your diagnosis or lack thereof.