3 ms·

No, I don’t. Is that really the entirety of “identifying as” something - not disagreeing with other people identifying you as that?

Pfhreak 6y ago
That's one means to understand your identity. Generally, if you'd say, "I am a ..." then you identify as that. You might say, for instance, I am a Catholic. Or I am a Muslim. I am a man. I am a woman. I am a chef. I am a zookeeper. I am a gun owner. I am a pacifist. I am a vegetarian. etc. etc. Whatever your "I am a ..." statements are, they are how you identify. You will find some of them you feel strongly about and others you don't really care about but you might say them anyways. "I am a man" might not be a statement that carries a lot of feelings with it for you, whereas something like, "I am an atheist" might. Some folks are proud Republicans or Democrats, others aren't. Others might disagree with how you identify. They might say, "Well, you might think you are a Christian, but...", and that's where we all have to collectively decide where we should be policing identities of others.
- tomp 6y ago
  This is a bit simplistic, isn’t it? Muslim, Christian, pacifist are pretty much opinions, so it doesn’t make sense to call them “identities” as they can change any time (you wouldn’t call “dressed in a suit” or “hungry” identities, would you?) Chef, gun owner, vegetarian - those are facts. You can say you’re a chef without ever having cooked a thing, or gun owner without owning a gun, or a vegetarian while eating steak, but that doesn’t make it your identity, it just makes you wrong.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Identity is about how you visualize yourself, and how strongly you feel those visualizations define that concept of you. And yes, I know people for whom hungry is a part of their identity -- it's certainly common in media as well. Sleepy is another one I've seen. Clothing choices are sometimes part of someone's identity. There are people who wouldn't be caught dead in a suit, and people who wouldn't leave home without one. Identity isn't some measure of objective reality, it's about who you believe you are and what you value about that. When your identity doesn't match reality, it can cause something called dysphoria -- the opposite of euphoria. Take someone who identifies strongly as a chef but hasn't ever cooked. They might be miserable all the time, frustrated by their current job, day dreaming about the meals they hope to prepare. It might be really distracting and impactful to their lives. They might quit their job and go to culinary school. Or they might have to take a look at their identity and see how to adapt to the dysphoria.
joshuamorton 6y ago
To add to what Pfhreak says: no, identity can be more nuanced than that (identities can change, and identity only as a negative may not even make sense in non-binary contexts), but the easiest way I find to address the issue to (presumably) cis people is to address particular identities in terms of being perceieved as the opposite, because that can highlight the discomfort of self- and other-identity mismatching.

Pfhreak 6y ago

That's one means to understand your identity. Generally, if you'd say, "I am a ..." then you identify as that. You might say, for instance, I am a Catholic. Or I am a Muslim. I am a man. I am a woman. I am a chef. I am a zookeeper. I am a gun owner. I am a pacifist. I am a vegetarian. etc. etc. Whatever your "I am a ..." statements are, they are how you identify. You will find some of them you feel strongly about and others you don't really care about but you might say them anyways. "I am a man" might not be a statement that carries a lot of feelings with it for you, whereas something like, "I am an atheist" might. Some folks are proud Republicans or Democrats, others aren't. Others might disagree with how you identify. They might say, "Well, you might think you are a Christian, but...", and that's where we all have to collectively decide where we should be policing identities of others.

tomp 6y ago
This is a bit simplistic, isn’t it? Muslim, Christian, pacifist are pretty much opinions, so it doesn’t make sense to call them “identities” as they can change any time (you wouldn’t call “dressed in a suit” or “hungry” identities, would you?) Chef, gun owner, vegetarian - those are facts. You can say you’re a chef without ever having cooked a thing, or gun owner without owning a gun, or a vegetarian while eating steak, but that doesn’t make it your identity, it just makes you wrong.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Identity is about how you visualize yourself, and how strongly you feel those visualizations define that concept of you. And yes, I know people for whom hungry is a part of their identity -- it's certainly common in media as well. Sleepy is another one I've seen. Clothing choices are sometimes part of someone's identity. There are people who wouldn't be caught dead in a suit, and people who wouldn't leave home without one. Identity isn't some measure of objective reality, it's about who you believe you are and what you value about that. When your identity doesn't match reality, it can cause something called dysphoria -- the opposite of euphoria. Take someone who identifies strongly as a chef but hasn't ever cooked. They might be miserable all the time, frustrated by their current job, day dreaming about the meals they hope to prepare. It might be really distracting and impactful to their lives. They might quit their job and go to culinary school. Or they might have to take a look at their identity and see how to adapt to the dysphoria.

joshuamorton 6y ago

To add to what Pfhreak says: no, identity can be more nuanced than that (identities can change, and identity only as a negative may not even make sense in non-binary contexts), but the easiest way I find to address the issue to (presumably) cis people is to address particular identities in terms of being perceieved as the opposite, because that can highlight the discomfort of self- and other-identity mismatching.