“label.” I agree it’s important to change the negativity that comes with being “under” the term directly as to feeling you’re not capable of more than is being prescribed by SOME bad therapists, or that there will be a transformation IF THEY fix you and/or intervene. I do like being open to change, just because I think every human being could learn to be better at being themselves. I agree to working toward a group ideal of positive messaging and that it should be consistent. Mental illness does need to be redefined, and problems with perception and behavior need to be less judged as “illness, sickness.” Mental Illness in general has a very bad stereotype. People are insecure with it. I do believe humans at all levels sometimes act out “bad behavior choices.” But, in general, people aren’t bad or lesser for doing it – they are just presenting in a less than optimal manner and sometimes against behavioral norms. It happens with multiples and singletons. By anyone though … murder is the ultimate “bad behavior” … there’s a lot of press with multiples and murder and the insanity defense. I know it’s sticking my head out there, but I believe that even multiples have to be responsible for that behavior. I believe guilt when guilt is proved, but that most would do better in a psychiatry unit for life, than general mainstreamed prison. But, this is a big topic … will wait to hear eventually down the line where you all stand there – independently or as a group. It is just something else out there in the in the “multiple community conversation.” I do apologize there too. I think of myself being a strong positive member in a “multiple community,” more than in a plural activism role. Most likely because it is a new concept to us – I would like to hear more on the usage of “plural” over “multiple,” but I think I test out for being an activist. I’ve talked back and forth with Nancy Preston as well … through emails and appreciation of each other’s work. I don’t think she knows as much about general multiplicity as maybe one of us, but she’s strong in her belief of a very famous multiple and as that multiples advocate … we support her message. She portrays Shirley Mason as being a normal person, and even gifted. We think after reading the book, that Nancy over her lifetime with Shirley Mason worked very hard “NOT TO” objectify her as an “anomaly.” She seems to have been a good friend. It would be good to see something in writing (can be a “go-to” set of statements) very clearly stating plural activism goals. Right now … it is a very big help to me specifically, but also really needs to be out there for anyone to find, look for, or be shown. It makes sense that multiplicity is realism, and that multiples can live healthy lives (with or without therapy) and be socially accepted in having families and jobs, and so on. And, I’d also say that integration is a point of view, not a valid reality for those disinterested in it. As to the normal case of spouting the extreme abuse as “the message” in books, it could be a choice for the multiple to write about, but certainly not optimal as the “only possible” message. Andy, I agree with you multiples can and should be able to speak for themselves. Most books (psychiatry) are written about us as objects. I believe strongly in the group of people we’ve found online who are multiples and write openly in blogs. Most the work is written about the daily ins and outs of life. I think there is a strong message about that. Again, if you’re interested now and/or later, there are connections to these blogs on our blogs. At this time, some of the multiples are relating to others, but from what I know, no one is relating to “all of us” as a