Is there a difference between "identifying" as or with something and just being aware of simple facts about yourself, like your height or sex, or that you like chocolate more than vanilla ice cream?
Because if not, the concept of "identity" is mundane as hell.
Because if not, the concept of "identity" is mundane as hell.
People are losing their minds in a thread because I rejected the notion that simple facts about myself, innate proclivities, and tentative conclusions I've reached on issues constitute "identities."
It makes no sense to view these things as "identities."
It makes no sense to view these things as "identities."
If identity formation is simply the process of becoming aware of one's natural inclinations, then fine, say that.
But it makes absolutely no sense for me to "identify" as being tall, for instance, when I'd still be tall even if I identified as being short.
But it makes absolutely no sense for me to "identify" as being tall, for instance, when I'd still be tall even if I identified as being short.
And the fact that every person losing their minds at my position appears to have their own unique concept of what an "identity" suggests to me nobody has a clue what the hell they're talking about.
They think they're all in agreement but in reality they just use the same sound to refer to completely different concepts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
