@tindall If you want to consider another domain, there are the identities asserted, by say, the "alt-righty", or those who say "I'm not a racist, but, or who insist that ANTIFA are the true fascists, or that some specific religious or ethnic group are inherently of some characteristic (disposed to crime, uneducable, dirty / unclean, ...), etc. Both self-identity and imposed identity can be quite problematic.

Identity ... turns out to be complicated. It relates to everything. Metaphorically and literally.

#identity #relations #assertion #bestowal

3/end/

@tindall

By contrast, "do you identify as X" explicitly puts X in the domain of attributes in which your own assertion is sufficient.

I've known people who felt that they could simply assert themselves to be doctors or have the educational titles they coveted. It gets to be a scary place rather quickly.

This is also the reason why, despite my nymsake's honorific of "Dr." I've chosen "Doc" here and elsewhere. Enough people don't get the joke that false authority is often presumed. It's not warranted and I don't wish to deceive.

#bestowal #assertion #relations #identity

2/

@tindall So let's try that experiment and consider the counterpoint: "Do you identify with" explicitly grants the subject agency.

"What X are you" may be interpreted as "how are you classified by some external agency?"

E.g. in the cases of both veteran status and disability, these are classifications determined by some other authority --- a military establishment or medical practitioner.

Note that in both those cases, the authority itself is also conveyed rather then self-asserted.

Regardless of whether or not I self-identify as a General in the Australian Army or a medical doctor, unless I've been recognised as such by the corresponding authorities themselves, what I assert or believe has no relevance in the matter.

#identity #relations #assertion #bestowal

1/