Have you ever heard of a plural singlet?

For those who haven't, it's someone who is a singlet that is plural. This may mean that they are fragments of one person, their plurality spikes at certain times or they exist as one person with multiple states of self.

As a plural singlet myself, would the identity be something that bridges the disconnect of experience of plurality and singularity without having to fight over how experiences are.. experienced?

I see and know about the overwhelming hatred and/or off-putting feelings about singlets mainly because of past misunderstandings and the fact that most singlets are not plural. Singlets are usually in a place of "No, you're not welcome" to "you're fine, just don't speak over me" and it's starting to feel odd being stuck in the middle or not experiencing one or the other enough for one side to claim me.

We've never heard of this sort of thing before. I'll be honest and say I'm not sure if you're looking for advice, just commentary, or something else, but it's interesting to hear about this sort of thing.

I think empty systems have spoken up about similar experiences of feeling estranged in the past, and median + midcontinuum systems may be able to relate to some other experiences you've mentioned. I don't know if there's a perfect solution to the problems you've brought up – identity is messy, selfhood even more so, and for as much as people generally like to neatly organize things, with all the complexities of the self, it's far from easy to separate the world into "us" and "them." Which is probably a good thing, to some degree at least, but I don't have many thoughts down that path.

I get what you're saying, though. It reminds me of how "straight" and "cishet" are used in queer spaces. You'd think that these words neatly describe those who aren't queer, but there are straight and cishet people who are queer in ways that might take people a few minutes to understand, if they do at all. For those situations, I've always thought that simple phrases like "non-queer" probably work better, and maybe in plural spaces, "non-plural" would work better than "singlet" when trying to describe those who aren't plural, but I don't really see people using the phrase "non-queer," and I doubt the plural community is gonna pick up the phrase "non-plural" any time soon. After all, if the general definition of singlet seems to mean the same thing as non-plural, why make the change? ... That's what most would probably think. Might take a good while for folk here to understand that people have their own reasons for using seemingly contradictory terms to describe themselves.

But, eh, maybe that's also partly because the queer community is more experienced with complex identities. I've always thought of the plural community as the queer community's younger sibling when it comes to things like this. I can talk about aroallo acespecs on an aroallo blog and get people nodding along or chiming in with their own experiences, but plural peeps ain't really so used to something like that in this ballpark. All the infighting, misinformation, and chasing people into the closet ain't help none, either.

Idk. I'm rambling because it's late and I like theoretical + meta discussions maybe too much for my own good. Hope you have a good day. Feel free to send another ask or just reblog this if you want to talk more about this. I ain't good at reaching out first because I forget people exist, but I'm here to talk as long as it doesn't cross into extreme vent territory.