What's the difference between 'is' and 'identifies as'?

I read 'identifies as' as pretends to be these days.

You cannot identify as something you are, only as something you are not. If its something you are..you just are..

Bernard has shown in that anecdote the existence of people who presumably don't identify as idiots yet demonstrate that they are idiots.

She is a lesbian isn’t she? I thought she was?

I had an argument on this board with someone who was adamant that Julie Burchill had no business speaking about lesbians because she doesn't identify as one - despite that whole leaving her husband for a woman thing

being versus seeming

The difference is verifiability (is that even a word?) if something IS it can be proven.

It only makes sense if you like to pretend that we all live in the Matrix.

Is = genuine
Identifies as = fake

I don't think that works in that context. 'Identify with' connotes empathy, I think. 'I can identify with that'.

You're probably right. To me, it means that you have a picture of something in your head, and the "identify" bit is a way to state how this resonates with you. I feel like maybe saying identify "with" allows you to comment without co-opting something that isn't yours, or conversely explain your feelings around why you dislike a descriptor that could be applied to you. Or something?

I just wondered if binning the phrase "identify as" and re-framing the discussion, perhaps to one with more empathy, could be one way of avoiding confusion.

So applied to gender, instead of saying "I identify as a woman/man", you could just say "I identify with feminity" or "I don't identify with masculinity."

In expressing how you feel about certain labels (i.e. one may have a chronic health condition which is classified as a disability, but not see oneself as disabled), why can't you use identify with instead of identify as?

I don't think that works in that context. 'Identify with' connotes empathy, I think. 'I can identify with that'.

'Identify' is fine if used to specify a characteristic you actually have which is important to how you think about yourself. Or at least, was fine until people started to use it for characteristics you don't objectively have, and for this to be supposed to make a difference outside of your own self-perception.

I agree that 'identify as' seems like claiming you are something you're not.

In expressing how you feel about certain labels (i.e. one may have a chronic health condition which is classified as a disability, but not see oneself as disabled), why can't you use identify with instead of identify as?

No it's not like using cis exactly but it's making everyone view identity feeling as the most important thing.

The cognitive dissonance is busting my sentence ability.

It's basically saying saying that identity is reality even if your identity = your physical reality.

If you read 'identifies as,' you know their physical reality is different. If everyone has to 'identify as,' then it hides those whose physical reality is not the same as their identity.

It's like using cis, but not actually using cis.

BJs (Butlerism Jihadis) grin

Sorry, that should be Butlerian Jihadis. Autocorrect fail.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butlerian_Jihad

Mrs Jamin

I agree. I think the whole purpose of this “identify as” bullshit is to bring it into our language so that we all end up going along with it without really noticing the change.

I filled in an online form for a Young Carer referral last week. The child is 10 and the form asked for “gender”. As it was able to be edited I changed it to “sex”.

Every little helps

I stumbled across a questionnaire by a degree student with one question only around sex / gender:
Q: What gender do you identify as?
A: Male / female / other / rather not say.
I contacted the author to say I wouldn't answer that as I don't identify as anything, I am a woman. She didn't have a clue what I meant and just apologized for any offence as if I "identified" as some kind of new gender spaghetti term that couldn't be chosen out of the list of answers. Why has this language seeped into our lexicon? It's just madness.

BJs (Butlerism Jihadis)

I would assume this person was born male, because otherwise it would be “is”.

I think this gets to the point of the phrase's use in this case. It's to replace the word is with identifes as in common usage. If you control the language then you control how people are able to express ideas. You end up being able to say something 'is' what it clearly is not.

Of course, as Terryleather says, doing this highlights your adherence to Butlerism so it doubles as a kind of virtue signalling and a way for BJs (Butlerism Jihadis) to delineate who is in and out of the group.

Is = actually is.
Identifies as = isn't, but wants everyone to pretend they are.

It doesn’t sound quite convinced though, almost as if there is a ‘but’ coming ‘i identify as a caterpillar but since I am a human...’

I just dont know how fucking privileged you have to e to think the world not bending to suit your imaginary picture of yourself is oppression

Well, I suppose it's easy when you've got the government and major institutions bullying everyone into it.

Interesting. I have no problem with people who say they 'don't identify as' and find it a meaningful expression (as discussed by a PP with regard to disability). Taking that approach I could say that I don't identify as a Catholic because I am both christened and confirmed so I guess I might appear on a register of Catholics (if such a thing exists) but as an atheist I reject that part of my background.

It also makes some sense when thinking about nationality, as there will be those who were born in one country but live in another and over time no longer feel aligned with the culture and values of their birth country, some may only identify with their new country, some with both and some with neither. I've thought about this a bit as an immigrant myself with children who can't remember much about England and who on their last visit felt quite alienated. We still say that we are English/British but not that we identify as, maybe at some future point that will change to the more negative don't identify as.

Mainly as others have said I think 'identify as' = woke wanker, liar, delusional or wish to be but not.

You know how the woke kids love the term "first world problems? Hard to think of a better example really.

Angryattackkittens I just dont know how fucking privileged you have to e to think the world not bending to suit your imaginary picture of yourself is oppression. To think that oppression is about you just imagining something and that giving you control over the world.

I'm with Lisa. "Is" means is. "Identifies as" means is not.