I don't get it. Everyone says "I identify as genderfluid", "I identify as queer", etc, etc, but why can't you just say "I am"? For example, I've seen an entire post on Tumblr about Amber Rose and how she "identifies" as multiracial and not black. I don't get it. You sound so indecisive. Especially with race and stuff. Like, she is multiracial, it's not like she thinks she's multiracial but she could be wrong. She knows she's multiracial. She looks multiracial and she just is multiracial. And with gender and other things, even with those who seem certain they're this thing, they still say identify. Why is that?
Not really indecisive. I am assigned female at birth, but I identify as male. I can't say "I am male" because even to me that doesn't feel 100% the truth. I AM assigned female at birth, I just happen to identify as male.
I never say "I identify" as anything. I just say "I am" because I am. If I say I "identify" as a Half-French Half-Italian Genderfluid person it wouldn't make sense. I AM a Half-French Half-Italian Genderfluid person.
I have never really thought about that but now that it's mentioned, it's pretty interesting. I've always said "I am" myself, but it doesn't matter what others say really to me.
If someone is multiracial I'd assume it's definitely easier to say 'identify'. If you're white passing then you could say "I identify as white" (same with 'black' or any other race), doesn't make the person any less multiracial. With gender there is identity and expression. Your gender identity is how you personally identify so trans people tend to use the word identify to put this across. This is a crude example but if a transman who looks nothing like a guy comes up to you and says "I am a man", you might get a bit confused, eh? If he says "I identify as male" then it makes more sense. I'd say they're interchangeable really. It's just preference with wording.
I can understand why trans people choose to say identify instead, but it's used so much instead of "I am" that it frustrates me sometimes. I'm more annoyed with stuff like with people like multiracial people saying "I identify", because with transgender people your body says one thing and your mind says the other, so things get a little complicated and of course there are people that won't believe you, but with race all you have to do is see what you look like and the race of your parents and grandparents, and you know. ---------- Post added 22nd Aug 2016 at 09:56 AM ---------- I wouldn't mind it if a trans man didn't look like a man to say "identify". It would probably be easier to him. With multiracial I still don't really understand, like you've questioned if you are multiracial. But whatever. It's just a choice of wording like you've said, so it doesn't really matter what someone chooses to say. ---------- Post added 22nd Aug 2016 at 09:56 AM ---------- I wouldn't mind it if a trans man didn't look like a man to say "identify". It would probably be easier to him. With multiracial I still don't really understand, like you've questioned if you are multiracial. But whatever. It's just a choice of wording like you've said, so it doesn't really matter what someone chooses to say.
In some cases, I would say that some people would use the word "identify as" because such an identity is usually bestowed upon someone by society. It is not acquired rather it is something that one is usually born with, and carries with it the dynamics and power struggle found in society. For example, if you identify as "multiracial," many times people in society will appoint you the status of the "lowest racial denomination." Obama is half white but his "blackness" overwrites half of his identity to many people and he is just "black" even though he would perhaps be appropriately labeled as "multiracial." The same for gender/sex. You don't choose your sex, but you can choose your presentation. You also don't choose your gender, but is always subservient to your sex.
Personally, I really prefer to say "I'm a guy" for myself, it makes me uncomfortable when people say I "identify" as something, it makes it sound less real to me. I guess other people might like it because they want to emphasize another point, like to make a point of being trans or, in the case of biracial people, to clear up possible ambiguity. For identifying as a sexuality, I don't generally see the point unless that person is asexual and romantically interested in the same gender and identifies as gay when they could ID as something else.
Yeah, that was what I was thinking. I don't know why it feels less real, it just does. It's like those transphobic jokes "I sexually identify as an attack helicopter"
A misunderstanding of the purpose of language or a pragmatic application of it would be my best guesses. Language is already an identifier. For example, "he" is a male pronoun, not a "male-identifying" pronoun, because the "identifying" is implicit in the entire process of using language. We can apply the concept of masculinity in grammatical, social and physiological contexts. When talking about the pronoun itself, the grammatical is more important than the physiological and social, so it's entirely accurate to state that the pronoun is merely masculine, rather than male-identifying. It does become a fair bit iffier when we talk about a "male" body, because the physiological intuitively trumps the social context of the word - hence the desire to state that someone is "male-identifying" to avoid the question of whether or not we recognise that person's body as male. And it is undoubtedly a difficult question - even with the idea of a social and a physical masculinity, we run into definitional trouble when physical transition starts to occur, because we have to question what is essentially male physiologically, as well as applying a social definition of masculinity. It also becomes a values-laden judgement, because at some point we have to recognise that most LGBT people tend to value one definition over the other - whereas those who refuse to acknowledge transgender people value the physiological far above the social and psychological. A lot of queer people tend to assume that the use of "male" implies something innately biological, with the belief that language is more set in stone than it truly is. Language inherently entails a level of uncertainty and fluidity because it is a series of conventions that depict the world with no guarantee of perfect accuracy, so to add the extra step of saying "identifying" can bring it to an absurd level of circumspection, unless it has a specific purpose to acknowledge ambiguity, as in the next paragraph. Less puristically, where it probably is useful is where behaviour and/or appearances seem to contradict identify. For example, a transgender person who has not gone through any physical transition might prefer to say "I identify" to acknowledge the reservation others have with ascertaining their gender. That's certainly an easier approach than saying "I'm psychologically and socially female but physiologically I'm male", even if the latter has more specificity. Or, as someone else mentioned, if your behaviour is not entirely within the definition of something (the example being an asexual who experiences romantic attraction to the same gender), you might use "identify" as a qualifier to saying you're gay. But that raises the question of how useful that is due to a) the minuscule number of people that applies to and b) a tendency for misidentification (eg. a gay man with an exceptionally low sexual drive versus a genuine asexual).