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

[Juells]

Googled Michelle Visage because of something I saw elsewhere (about her being vegan) and came across this link
www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/11/who-is-michelle-visage-is-she-gay-rupauls-drag-race-judge-lgbt-ally/

"Visage identifies as a straight woman, and has had two children with screenwriter husband David Case." Why would the writer of the article say that? Is she a straight woman, or does she only identify as one?

If I'm being really really stupid and missing something obvious please tell me.

I have no idea who she is, but based on that description I’d assume she was a person who was born male but was choosing to live as a straight female for the time being. And might or might not have transitioned.
But it’s all brain spaghetti really, isn’t it?

I think for people who use that expression it’s because they believe it’s up to the person themselves to decide what they are, so there’s no gate keeping.
So the identifier is thing that decides what the identity is and the identity can change depending on who is looking at it.

Rather than how the rest of the world uses language which is that we try to come up with definitions of words that we all agree on and then things either fall into that definition or don’t.

I think that’s how it is but I would just say something is or isn’t something.

I have no idea who she is, but based on that description I’d assume she was a person who was born male but was choosing to live as a straight female for the time being. And might or might not have transitioned.

No she’s just a fully female straight woman who hangs out with gay men and drag queens a lot.

I'm tending to find that is = is, and identifies as = isn't.

But looking at her Wikipedia entry I’d be completely wrong!

Ditto AutumnCrow

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

I’d assume she was a person who was born male but was choosing to live as a straight female for the time being.

She's an adult human female. That's what puzzled me. Why would someone not just say "Visage is heterosexual, married with two children".

Theism and non-theism.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=MFS59Tn0auY

Whenever I hear the term ‘identifies as’ I replace it with ‘pretends to be’ or ‘really really really wants to be, please god’.

Isn’t it because what was she was born as is almost incidental to how she identifies 🤷🏻‍♀️

I'd imagine it's being used to signify an allegiance to the Church Of Gender Identity and its tenets so all can see that this a good and right-thinking person.

Trying to sound more interesting than other married mums?

FFS, I'm sure you can be a gay ally without using the 'identifies' word. Using 'identifies' in relation to sexuality sounds a bit off to me, tbh.

I think she is just signifying that she is a believer in the genderist religion.

I'd say she's just trying to sound more interesting than she actually is. Not many woke cookies in being a boring old het woman and mother.

This person is either
A- male, or
B- painfully woke.

Why would someone not just say "Visage is heterosexual, married with two children".
Attention-seeking?

Autumn Crow nails it.

I tend to use 'identifies as' in front of the word transgender for the same reason.

As in the Spanish
Soy - I am and is fixed, ie. born in Spain

Estoy - changeable - I am happy, next minute note

I suppose you can identify as (claim you are) something you are not.

You can’t be something you are not.

Yep. It's for woke points. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm tending to find that is = is, and identifies as = isn't.

This. Who would you be more confident to perform root canal treatment, someone who is a dentist, or someone who identifies as a dentist?

It's common parlance regards disability as far as I'm aware. So "I identify as autistic" is often in place of a formal diagnosis - as they take so bloody long to come by-- not "I am autistic", or "I have M.E. but I don't identify as disabled" are other examples of the same language. As someone said uptgread it's to do with either a lack of categoric assessment as being that thing or a reflection that assessment is subjective; and that when an assessment of an individual is entirely or largely subjective, it's a statement of that individual's assessment of themselves. It doesn't speak for how other people would assess them.

A friend of mine has a condition that others might consider a disability. She doesn't identify as disabled. That statement means she isn't speaking for other people's assessment of her, but for how she assesses herself. And how we see ourselves is important. At least as important as how other people see us, either objectively or subjectively. I'm interested to know how people identify versus how I might identify them.

It's inclusive to people pretending to be that characteristic. It blurs the distinctions, "queers the boundaries".