i don't really believe it's a matter of "forgetting" - if you identify with those terms you are welcome to write them in, but gender descriptors are based on adding the most common write-ins for the year before.

it is not based on just requests but requires a certain subset of the people answering the survey to indicate it as their gender or else they would be having to list hundreds of self identifiers.
last year, the top identifers included:
butch: 2.5%
bigender: 2.5%
creature: 2.3%

so they were included this year.

if you had other feedback i would recommend providing it here https://www.gendercensus.com/ on the website, but since there's already a reason provided for this i felt it would be worth answering

the "less dramatic version" you're describing is just... what DID is like for the overwhelming majority of people who have it. you're not having a different version of DID, you're having regular ass DID. it's a covert disorder - the parts don't just hide from you, they work together to stay hidden from other people too. as Howell puts it (describing the dissociative psyche), the parts "operate in concert to keep themselves hidden from other people. All of the emotional action takes place internally." the disorder primarily affects the perspective through which you understand the world, and that's what shapes how you interact with the world, other people, and even yourself. it's an inside job, not a stage show.

it's also worth knowing that fragmentation exists on a spectrum even within DID. Fisher describes how in any given person it can be "more subtle and permeable or more dramatic and rigid" all within the same person. and DID systems specifically tend to have a well-developed "going on with normal life" self, often with parts for work, parenting, socializing. this means the disorder is structured around maintaining an appearance of normal functioning. looking functional isn't evidence against DID. it's part of how it's architected. (is that a word?)

something incredibly important to remember: the thing people with DID that you see online have in common isn't just DID. it's posting about personal things online, which is its own personality trait that filters what makes it to the outside world. nobody's posting "dear online people. today i did not know what was going on. i might have been an alter but might not have been. nothing really happened and i didn't act all that different" (or if they are, those posts aren't the ones that are very popular.) you're comparing your possibly dimly lit interior to other people's highlight reels.

the TLDR is that you might be less consistently florid than what you see on apps onlines but most people with DID aren't consistently florid either. Kluft found most only have small "windows of diagnosability," brief periods where the disorder is overtly observable at all. the rest of the time it looks like... a person, having a day. that's not a lesser version. that's just how the disorder is.

tldr tldr: what you're describing is normal. it makes complete sense and its not "being different people" disorder. it's a disorder where your ability to interact with the world as one consistent self is diminished. there's nothing in the criteria requiring for you to be dramatic.

i mean this with genuine patience and respect, but "neurodivergent" is an umbrella term covering ADHD, schizophrenia, PTSD, autism, parkinson's, and more. neurodivergent people aren't just divergent from the "typical person" and then all the same as each other...someone with ADHD and someone with schizophrenia may have nothing in common in how they relate to people.

maybe you'd expect them to be kind or reciprocal because you're both neurodivergent, but for most ND people that shared status doesn't even register. there's no built-in solidarity or common language. we can't even get people to stop using the term "neurodivergent" when they just mean "autistic."

honestly, dropping off the face of the earth with zero communication could be a very neurodivergent thing about them. autism is categorized in large part by the social deficits and communication struggles it causes, including having trouble picking up on indications something is wrong, that they've committed a social faux pax, or even that you're trying to be nice and comfortable to them.

"neurodivergent" doesn't mean anything except "not neurotypical." it doesn't mean "you're nice" or "you care about others in any particular way." it was never a promise of good behavior, so someone hurting you isn't evidence they're faking it.

to begin with, anyone claiming psych knowledge who uses the phrase "make it up for attention" doesn't have even a remedial grasp of general psychology, much less abnormal psych. if you think DID means "10 people in one body disorder," then sure. that doesn't exist. but that's not what DID is. not to mention that most people with DID conceal their symptoms, often for years, and get misdiagnosed multiple times before anyone catches it. a condition whose hallmark is hiddenness is a weird thing to fake "for attention." but you know, people arguing this point wouldn't actually know what DID really is.

DID is a disorder wherein someone experiences multiple incongruent subjective perspectives/self states that affect their relationship to themselves, others, and the world around them. that's the framework the actual research uses.

anyone who talks about DID without that understanding isn't educated enough on the topic to be making claims. they've gotten lost in their OWN definition of what they think DID is instead of engaging with what it actually is and decades of well-documented research. that's the framework the actual research uses, and it's in the DSM-5 and ICD-11.

"does the scientific consensus say it exists?" it's literally in both major diagnostic manuals. that IS the consensus.

they're shadow boxing. inventing an opponent, beating it, and declaring the real thing doesn't exist. don't listen to people who fight shadows and tell you the other boxer isn't "all that." they don't know what they're talking about. it's not hard to actually get a grasp on what these disorders are and mean. they just think they already know. that's equal parts pathetic and dangerous.

so no, that's not the clinical consensus, and clinicians don't treat patients based on podcast strawmen.