gillman

crosspost from tumblr . in answer to arguments that somehow still go around , which assert that people with this disability or that trait not actually more aggressive than peers ... and that anyone who is , is actually just fake . destroy stereotypes and stigma , yes , but do not throw real people under bus to do so ! 

unfortunate answer : sometimes , yes , this is necessary .

some people refuse as is to listen to spoken word boundaries , believe boundary is something to push past and ignore . this is even more true if boundaries not given through spoken word , but instead things like door hangers , gestures or local sign language , and yes , even AAC devices that read written words out loud .

top that off with fact that nonverbal people may also have traits like sensory sensitivity , differences in executive function and ability to switch tasks , differences in emotional regulation , and other traits which society misunderstand or otherwise do not recognise in wider world , and these boundaries can seem almost frivolous to others .

this means not only refuse to listen because non-spoken , but refuse to listen because believe unimportant . this often means that upon disrespect , there is no other way to defend these boundaries without aggression - whether through noise like growl and scream , or physical action like slam doors and shove .

unfortunately , authority figures very quick to characterise this as nonsensical behavioural issue , something that just need to beat away . but have to face truth here : if someone already decide to disrespect boundaries , no amount of polite AAC usage will get that person to stop - but kick and scream might .

yes , sometimes people with particular disabilities and traits will be more aggressive than those without - not because that is necessarily inherent , but because that is only way to protect self . can not discuss aggression as only media stereotype , assert that every actual person is sweet angel cake at all times , and then cast out anyone who do happen to be aggressive as some kind of fake . that attitude honestly speak to lack of awareness and insight that other people might have different problems .

notice there is now some discussion of whether or not plurality is or should be inherently alterhuman , with argument that this dehumanise . but think there is some really important context that need to consider , especially if make these arguments as singlet ( literally stop that ) or strictly dissociative plural .

alterhumanity do not mean experience is literally and inherently nonhuman - this is misconception that lead to exclusion of certain experiences and discussions , for one thing . but beyond that , alterhumanity is also about relationship to societal standards of typical ( earthly , mundane ) humanity . 

think about how many people and cultures over time have stories about things like demonic possession , spirit channelers , even mimics and body double replacements . whether or not regard these stories to be true , and some of these might even be positive , these people still break norm . one human body should have one inhabitant - to have more is either to be exceptional , or meet with terrible circumstance . in any case , out of ordinary , noteworthy .

and truthfully , these stories and standards did not end centuries ago . how often do these things come up in media , where characters live plural lives through these circumstances , yet never really call plurality ? how often do these things need some sort of fix , trick , exorcism , banishment ?

this is egregious enough that even when real life people explicitly have diagnosis of DID or OSDD and fit near perfectly into psychiatric framework , some people consider that to be literal demonic or spirit possession in modern times , speak as if uncontrollable monster , believe correct kind of faith will " fix " . even in recent history , some psychiatrists treat plural patients in ways not very far off from exorcists .

hard to argue that singlet identity is not current societal standard of humanity , and that many people - both historically and currently - consider deviation to be inherently inhuman . people just do not always say in those exact words . 

beyond that , some plural experiences actually do follow explanations of spirituality , religion , and non-earthly worlds . this is main perspective that terms like gateway come from : there is earthly world here , other non-earthly worlds out there , and this body act as vehicle for inhabitants of such worlds to explore earth . even human inhabitants may have perspectives and experiences that do not line up with societal standards of humanity here , in at least some part because plurality inherently break those standards . 

would love to see world in future where there is no standard of which humans really human after all , but in meantime , standards do still exist . so , alterhuman is open to all who feel experiences do not line up with societal standards of what typical human can or can not be - and by design , this can include plurals , especially of gateway and spiritual experiences . 

to round off , would suggest to read this post by x-rds ( coiners of alterhuman ) about this very same discussion . everyone have right to choose whether consider personal plurality as alterhuman , however , important to understand why some might want to in first place .

hehehe , did hope someone would ask to elaborate on clothes thing - this sound like great reason ! ;D

somewhat long under cut , with thoughts on various kinds of objects - and some non-objects .