And so, to an introduction, such things I have always felt are better off left to reputations and word of mouth, unfortunately the likelihood of you having met or heard of me is slim to none, and as such I shall introduce myself fully.
My name is Deej and I am a member of the Jones household, I am not a member of the gender binary, nor do I consider myself gender confused in any way. I consider myself genderless and free from any constraints that they might bind me to.
This said I am not an expert on the psychological models for transgender nor do I intend to talk in depth about the reasons behind transgenderism, I do not intend to speak particularly of the consequences for both singlets and plural systems. What I would discuss is an observation of mine and others and that is the increased prevalence of transgender behaviours within plural systems in comparison to singlets.
Simply put, transgender behaviour is observed more frequently from a plural system than a singlet. This is firstly a direct experience of my own validated by others who agree to this trend. If you disagree then the essay contains little merit for you, unless you've printed it out, and are an expert at origami. Then perhaps sculptures of chickens and ships might avail you more.
Secondly this is not a piece intending to rest any judgment, on any matter, be it transgenderism or plurality. It is true that plenty of controversy exists within both concepts but I have no intention to address them. Therefore for the sake of this essay we will assume the following:
The question I seek to answer, at least in part is why do we see more plural systems with transgender elements than singlets? What is it about plural systems that is different to singlets that causes, or perhaps contributes to transgenderism? My answer? Mathematics.
Firstly let's examine the bare bones of the numbers. I would point out these numbers are pure fiction, meant to illustrate a point and are not indicative of actual ratios. A survey is performed that states that 1 in 100 people exhibit some form of transgender behaviour. Therefore, any singlet has a 1 in 100 chance of exhibiting any level of transgender behaviour.
Now, multiple systems by definition have 2 or more people co-existing. Here is the first crux of the increased prevalence, that the body is only counted once in any statistic and as such it is a natural inclination to count a system as a static unit of one.
However it is clear from anyone who is multiple or has experienced it either directly or vicariously that a multiple system should not be considered a static unit of one.
So in applying this to the statistics we see that a multiple system does not have a 1 in a 100 chance of exhibiting transgender behaviours but a (N) in 100 chance, where (N) stands for the number of members within the system.
Initially one might see a significant variance between singlets and multiple systems. For a system with 2 members, it is twice as likely, for 3 members three times as likely. However, this assumes the following things.
Firstly it assumes that all members of a system are as complete in themselves as singlets. A fragment cannot necessarily be counted as a full individual within the context of this math. Furthermore it ignores much more involved psychological analysis of the origins of both multiplicity and transgenderism and so we move to another supporting fact.
What we are questioning here is not strictly the presence of transgender behaviour exhibited by plural systems in comparison to singlets, but the observation of that behaviour. As such it is important to consider relative communities and their levels of openness and trust. Any community of plural systems require an element of trust to its members independent of whether that trust has been earnt as one might expect the trust between singlets. Multiplicity cannot be directly proven. Furthermore it is much more likely that a community of plural systems will interact within an online format that has a twofold effect.
Firstly, in an online format there is no way to know, without reservations that the person/s with whom you are communicating are in fact who they say they are. This affects everyone, of course. However, in a plural community there needs to be an atmosphere of initial trust due to the fact that in order to communicate to any level of meaningful conversation one must trust the validity of the others' plurality.
Secondly it is inherently easier to communicate online than face to face and so we come to another crux of the matter. That due to the nature of plural systems, and the communities they attend, and the nature of the majority of these interactions, a plural system/s are more likely to be open minded about situations, no matter what they are in comparison to singlets. This is of course a gross simplification and generalisation and many singlets are more than capable of being as open minded as any system. On the reverse some systems can be utterly close minded. However statistics are gross generalisations, although I’ve a friend who might crucify me were she to ever find out that I said that. Damn statistics lecturers.
Suffice it to say this leads to the conclusion of this point, that in an atmosphere of open mindedness it is more likely that you will be able to talk about, discover and understand any transgender feelings and behaviours that arise, and as such the observed increase in transgender behaviour is due to an increased atmosphere of open mindedness, not necessarily an increase in actual percentages of transgender behaviour.
Thirdly I think it is important to address a controversial issue. That growing up with gender dysmorphia can be a traumatic thing, especially being forced into gender roles that do not fit yourself simply because of social expectations placed on you due to the sex of the body. And some plural systems are caused by trauma. Is there a defined link here? I do not know, however I do believe it is not far fetched to suggest a scenario where a system is formed in order to cope with the schism between the gender dysmorphic self and the expectations of their environment. Many might disagree with this but when considered on a purely logical level the following facts cannot be refuted:
Flaws of this answer lie in the diversity of plural origins, of natural systems and soul-bonding. However since the point of this essay is to answer the question of increased observation of transgender behavioural prevalence, it is my belief that this may be a contributing factor, if not minute.
The fourth answer to this question is also somewhat controversial and based primarily on my experiences and observations of plural systems and also of common sense, and -- dare i say it -- logic.
A plural system often operates like a household. Within this household are any number of members whom live closer to their house/headmates than most singlets could imagine and these households often contain diametric opposites of personality, with people deliberately acting in polar opposites.
There are two models that are appropriate to use to describe this behaviour although one is much more tasteful to plural communities than the other.
Firstly there is the idea that all members of a system are in fact alters or fragments of a greater whole and this explains there accentuated diversity.
Secondly is the following and alternative theory for this accentuated diversity. That is, plural systems share a trait most often found in twins, especially identical twins, in that they live much of the same life, engaging in similar and the same activities. This trait is as following: take two similar people and place them in the same conditions and two things will happen, either they will grow to mirror each others actions or they will deliberately move away to strike out their own distinct identity. With twins there is less of a need to create a sense of distinct and recognisable identity on the basis that they have their own body, their own corporeal and tangible existence.
However within a plural group there is only a shared body and as such it is more likely that the group will strike towards distinct and different behavioural patterns than their headmates and that any behaviours will be accentuated in themselves resulting in not only a greater diversity of behaviours but a greater density.
In conclusion I have outlined four answers to the question above. What is important to consider is that none of these answers are conclusive, but neither are they mutually exclusive. That I believe the increased observation of transgender behavioural prevalence is not just one, but a culmination of these factors, of a raw increased statistical likelihood present within a more open minded community added to an accentuated diversity of behaviours with a link between the two variables.
In conclusion: This is an essay on my observations, and observations are not proof, nor are they scientifically valid without validating data and studies. My observations have been corroborated by others but this does not make it fact, and what I and those that agree with me could simply be a statistical anomaly.
This essay would not have been possible without firstly, two members of my system, Dani and heather, whom helped me both consider and comprehend these issues; To Jenny of the system Twr, whom happily discussed these ideas in their protozoic form and helped construct a reasoned argument and to the Pagmies Collective for providing a critical eye.