Identity now as how you feel and present yourself, not what you do

[nestoftables]

Just musing on the concept of gender identity and how internal it is as an 'identity'. It's all about internal feelings and sometimes about how you express or present yourself.

But I would consider my identity to be based on the roles I play in life and the things I do. So someone's identity might be made up of things like being a mother, a teacher, a climber, a fan of jazz music etc. ??

I would say not just what you do but what that you do makes you feel good about yourself , that is important to you

So you may be a woman and not identify as such

You might be English but your identity only as British or European

Ok fair enough on the nationality thing, I suppose the things that seem most important to me in terms of my identity are the things I have control over and do as roles in my life.

But that's the thing with the concept of identity, we all see it differently.

On the whole, I tend not to 'identify'. Why do we need to?

Some of it's choice, can be changed, eg religion/agnosticism/atheism. Some of it's cultural, difficult to change, eg nationality (especially as a naturalised or 1st gen immigrant). Some of it's biological, out of the individual’s control or choice, eg neurodiversity.

And some is a combination of the three: choosing to become a mother and actively parenting my children.

But for me only some of the unchangeable biology is part of my identity. My womanhood is not part of my identity any more than my shortsightedness is. I don't identify as a woman - I just am one. I don't identify as shortsighted - I just am shortsighted.

Would I identify as neurodiverse had I grown up aware of it rather than just struggling? I'm not sure I would. I'm not sure it would have been any different to being a shortsighted woman. I think the reason being neurodiverse has become part of my identity and my sense of self is that I've had to think about it and come to terms with it as an adult.

I agree that what you do makes up your identity more than what you are. Perhaps the choices you make in search of community also influence your sense of self and therefore your identity.

Yes, there has been a shift from having an identity that makes you you, and talking about identifying as something which is a different concept. But with gender identity there is talk of having a gender identity as well as identifying as...

I think the social aspect of identity is very underplayed by identitarians. I can "identify" as an extrovert all I want but if everyone else experiences me as an introvert, what is the significance of my personal feelings about my identity? Identity is socially negotiated and is defined in large part by whether others see me as friendly or unfriendly, Asian or Welsh or both, a solicitor or a teaching assistant or an electrician, a woman or a man, attractive or unattractive, etc. — internal identity is part of it, but not the whole of it. I can't identify as an attractive, friendly, Welsh, female electrician and expect other people to go along with it if they experience me as an ugly, misanthropic French man who works in advertising.

There's a huge difference between identifying AS and identifying WITH. And also a huge difference in what you do with that sense of identity, whether you expect others to validate it, or simply let it shape your personal life.

There's an internal aspect to it all as well, of course — I might live in England, have an English accent, be assumed to be English by all I meet, but be born to Spanish parents and feel strong cultural and familial links to my Spanish heritage. That's fine, and lots of people in that situation integrate the aspects of their identity and are accepted by others as having that identity, but you can't force Spanish people (or anyone else) to accept you as Spanish if they perceive you as English.

There's a huge difference between identifying AS and identifying WITH.
Love this. Succinctly put.

There's a lot of conflating of these two going on across the whole 'identity' board. Lots of people who identify with x can't fathom why it doesn't necessarily mean they can identify as x or even if they do, those who're x don't have to accept it if they perceive you differently.

Just as Clumping also posted.

I think there's a difference regarding what you are identifying as too (since that phrasing is so popular). If it is a social construct like being working class, which can be defined in many different ways, then maybe you can identify as? Whereas something much clearer, maybe not.

Yes I see what you mean.

What is the difference between "I identify as" and simply "I am?"

It seems to me that "I am" is more honest. If someone says "I identify as", I would take everything they said after that with a pinch of salt.

"My identity" is not necessarily the same as "I identify as".

My identity is made up of various facets that together make me who I am. "I identify as" is the expression of a wish to be something or someone.

For a person struggling with social communication it might be identifying as autistic ahead of any diagnosis. The question is, do they use strategies that help autistic people cope with life, or do they demand access to services designated for autistic people?

Identity politics focuses on who people are rather than what they do. At the expense of what they do.

What people do is generally objective,

Identity politics focuses on who people are

I'm not sure it does. I think it focuses on who people claim they are.

Anyone remember the good old days when nobody identified as anything and we just got on with our lives?

sorry, feeling a bit over it all today can you tell?

This is another sleight of hand that has been done. Another appropriation and subversion of language.

Two different concepts with the same word have been mixed in together and for a reason.

In the good old days:

Identify as was used in limited circs and fit good reason related to sensitivity. Do you ID as having a disability. Useful. I can explain why if anyone wishes.
What ethnic group do you consider yourself to belong to/ identify as being a member of.

OTOH you had Identity to mean the main things that were very important to you, that made you, you. What things make up your identity? Things like OP said. Love driving rally cars. My work. Gaming. I'm a pub person. Cooking. Reading. Etc. The things that were very important to you and essentially how you saw yourself in terms what made you tick.

Mish mash bingo. Identify as and identity smooshed together.

So now people feel that when asked if they identify as disabled etc tick how they feel rather than what is factual. Online quiz said I had X. Bloke at work thought I was a bit Y. So yes I identify as having a disability.

At the same time, a person's identity (serious, love old films) was expanded to include things that were biological, physical, factual, unchangeable. Only for certain things though. Recent famous woman identified as Spanish or something even though she totally wasn't.

For some obviously their personal identity as being very masculine/ feminine/ not much of either/ both. Will form a part maybe a big part of their personal sense of who they are. Their own identity.

However that is in the category of what makes me me, and is not related to your sex (apart from the discomfort some have, or even the desperate wish to be a different sex).

But the Mish mash means I identify as a keen cook and as a female/ woman (if it's a male person) is using this sleight of hand and mixing of concepts.

Not them on purpose obv it's certain people and orgs that did the sleight of hand and it's got into common use).

All of the appropriation of words, arguments, and the subversion of them is incredibly bold and really interesting.

More interesting is the ease of acceptance of it by so many esp those who run the country etc.

If it wasn't such a disaster for so many people then it would be a topic in itself. But, the changes are fundamental to pretty much everything the human race has always known and accepted. So that's a problem.

Oh and also. Yes some people obviously have feminine masculine etc as a big part of their internal Identity.

The assertion that gender identity is fundamental to almost everyone's sense of self is untested, not studied, unproven. A massive assumption. And I would put money on it being totally wrong.

So often someone makes a really good point opening up the issue in ways I hadn't thought about and when I look for the username I see it's NiceGerbil.

Thanks Gerbs.

It's a phrase that I don't remember hearing till around 8 years ago.

Identify with xyz, yes.

Yes great points Nice!

Was thinking its appropriation from disability / culture / race.

I remember reading about being encouraged to identify as disabled a few years ago in my union magazine (I'm not but apparently would be under law due to hypothyroidism so Oc health told me)

I don't at all. But I do empathise (identify?) with people who have disabilities as I've experienced similar difficulties when I've been v unwell, hence Oc health.

'Identify with' seems to have been changed to 'identify as' because it's no longer enough to just identify with x,y,z.

@JellySlice

Identity politics focuses on who people are

I'm not sure it does. I think it focuses on who people claim they are.

Well, the claims are part of 'who they are' - and yes, it's indicative of the extent to which some feel the need to work up an identity and use it politically as well as socially.

Seeing people in terms of what they do lends itself to class politics - and to acting in common interests rather than in the name of our individuality.

I do think identity politics is reactionary because it actively undermines class politics. And it's striking the extent to which it's espoused by the economically privileged (Tamsin Omond identifying as non-binary comes to mind here, but there are many more) as a misdirection (part deliberate, part unconscious) misdirection from their personal economic privilege.