Actual Syscourse 101: Yes, anti-endos are exclusionists.
There was recently a syscourse account that popped up calling itself @syscourse101, claiming to be educational and anti-misinformation, aimed at "teaching" new systems and singlets who might be confused by syscourse.
So let's just take a look into that!
Before we start, a quick nitpick on definitions. The first definition was an adjective. If you're talking about people, you want to use the second definition which is the noun:
"a person favoring the exclusion of someone or something from a place, group, or privilege."
This isn't too relevant but this is the definition I'm going to be referring to going forward.
Now, you might have noticed a little word trick Syscourse101 uses to immediately frame the debate, referring to anti-endos keeping people out of "their" spaces. This itself is deceptive, as it suggests ownership over the communities and resources they gatekeep.
In reality, places where endogenic and pro-endogenic systems find themselves excluded from are often not explicitly dedicated to being anti-endo, but are general system spaces.
I also will point out that there is nothing wrong with selective inclusion. If a place markets itself as being for DID and OSDD systems, specifically, then it's reasonable to disallow systems without those disorders. But even at that, disordered systems will often find themselves subject to exclusion based on personal identities or syscourse stances. For example, many diagnosed DID systems who identify as mixed origins or similar genic labels find themselves excluded from DID communities despite being part of the group those communities are for.
Despite what the last sentence implies, endogenic systems, like all plural systems, ARE minority groups.
Plurality, systemhood, and voice hearing are some of the most stigmatized mental conditions in Western society, regardless of whether you have a mental disorder that causes that.
To the question they pose at the end, online exclusionism is still real exclusionism just like cyber bullying is real bullying. Much of our lives in the modern world are digitized.
And as was established in the first paragraph of the above image, there is a shortage of physical system meetups. Which isn't very surprising when you consider the discrimination most systems face (as heavily stigmatized neurodivergent minority groups) when they come out. For a majority of systems, the internet provides our only outlet to connect with other systems without endangering our relationships or livelihoods.
So yes, attempting to push us out of our only safe spaces is extremely harmful.
Excluding hate groups and exclusionists is not the same as excluding people for existing. "TERFs DNI" is not the same as "transgenders DNI." "Homophobes DNI" is not the same as "homosexuals DNI." "Nazis DNI" is not the same as "Jews DNI." "Sanists DNI" is not the same as "systems DNI." "Fatphobics DNI" is not the same as "fat people DNI."
I could go on forever...
Anti endos usually fall into two categories. One that believes in endogenic plurality but tries to gatekeep system terms, and another larger group that falsely claims endogenic plurality as a whole is scientifically impossible.
(Do remember that an exclusionist does not need to be successful in their exclusionism either. They merely need to favor exclusion. Or for the adjective's definition, they need to "act to" do this.)
Group 1, What I will call Term Exclusionists, attacks the privilege of us being able to define our own experiences. Despite words like "system" being broad and applied in numerous circumstances, they claim exclusive ownership over it. They do the same with words like "intoject," "switch," "multiple," "inner world," etc.
Some Term Exclusionists even gatekeep terms made and/or popularized by the endogenic and non-disordered community. I've seen a few say we shouldn't be allowed to use the words "plural," "headmate," "fictive," or "factive." All terms that non-disordered systems coined or popularized.
This is far from the most dangerous exclusionism but it is a form of exclusionism.
Group 2, the Plurality Exclusionists, make up the majority of anti-endos and are far more harmful.
Plurality Exclusionists spread disinformation and lies dedicated to making people disbelieve in the existence of all endogenic plurals. Plurality Exclusionists attempt to exclude us from being able to be considered to experience any form of plurality or multiplicity.
As a headmate who wasn't the original in this body, the "privilege" that Plurality Exclusionists try to rip away from me every day is my very right to be perceived and treated as a person.
Every single disinformation post or TikTok claiming endogenic plurality isn't real and fakeclaiming endogenic systems perpetuates discrimination we face. If a singlet watches an anti-endo video claiming endogenic systems can't exist, and that singlet ends up fakeclaiming the headmates of a friend who came out to them, that's a direct result of the efforts of the Plurality Exclusionist rhetoric.
And if any medical professionals hear Plurality Exclusionist rhetoric and disbelieve the experiences of endogenic systems because of that influence, then the Plurality Exclusionists caused that as well.
The goal of the Plurality Exclusionist is to create a world where nobody believes the experiences of endogenic systems. Where only they can be seen as "real plurals."
In the end, there is absolutely no reason anyone should put stock into an anti-endo propaganda blog that's to dress itself up as education for Halloween.