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.

The difference is reality. It's irritating that journalists are being trained to describe people this way even if the people themselves don't.

I identify as means I refuse to accept definitions for objective concepts because it prevents me from exploiting some contrived advantage.

It means "I make stuff up and you can't stop me"

Also "and if you rudely insist on reminding me of the existence of objective reality I will scream and scream like a toddler who's just been told they can't have ice cream before dinner".

It's common parlance regards disability as far as I'm aware

Yes - that's true, and it's a pity that the way 'identify' is bandied around is now sometimes causing confusion to the understanding of this.

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.

That should be the case.,, but proponents of 'gender identity' demand that their subjective 'identity' is given precedence over other people's objective assessment of sex. Therein lies the rub.

I am a 39 year old with a mummy tummy.

I identify as a 19 year old super model.

is = is

identifies as = is pretending to be

So, I have a friend who is autistic. He has a diagnosis and is quite clearly 'on the spectrum'. He just is autistic.

I have another friend who identifies as autistic. He is very tiresome. He won't go for a diagnosis because, frankly, he knows he won't get one. For some reason, he quite likes the idea of being autistic. He has a couple of personality traits that loosely resemble autistic traits and he uses the language of autism to talk about these. Endlessly. He has also 'constructed' a couple of autistic traits and goes to great lengths to maintain these - he draws attention to them all the time because, if he doesn't, then people might not notice his 'autistic traits'. In fact, he uses the language of autism to describe pretty much everthing about himself because what is more important than anything is that people 'read' him as autistic. Furthermore, he has told me privately that he knows he is not autistic.

Fashion. I think in the 70s similar people would have said things like 'nonconfrontational EST adherent' or whatever. It's a signal that she's in the in-crowd.

Am with the poster above. When people say they identify as something I hear 'I want to be that'. Identity when its real is attached to something real. When your identity is just something you want other people to see in you you will go to extreme lengths to protect any illusion you have created, clearly. Identity and attachment are linked, formed through actual relationships, actual life and development of actual attachments.
The rest is just desire presented as reality. We have an entire academia, media, and policy making culture who have been wrapping this shit round delusions and its shaping policy and everything.

Actually I dont hear 'i want to be', I hear 'I am not' and I prepare for resentment.

Is = reality
Identifies as = make believe

We had "diversity and equality" training at work. At one point they asked us to split into two groups "those who identify as women" and "those who identify as men". Of course this was the women and the men in old money. The said it was more "inclusive" to describe it that way. I was the o lt one who complained

autumncrow that’s how I see it too

Or Is = a fact
Identifies as = is not a fact but rather a belief

MamaD. You said what I meant much better

candid. I would have been very tempted to stand in the middle alone and say I don’t identify as I AM

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...’

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

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.

BJs (Butlerism Jihadis)

It's like saying "I identify as a human being", that's how it feels to me 😳 Using too many words to describe something that doesn't require saying unless - as a pp mentioned - there's a 'but' coming right after... "I believe that dogs are animals but some people treat them like children". "I identify as a heterosexual woman but others see me as an orangutan".

It's as if there is no confirmable reality, a thing exists only if it's 'believed in'.

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.