I don’t think I’ve said “from that country”, and I’d agree with that. What I’m disagreeing with you over is whether the adjectival/demonymic forms are appropriate for naturalized citizens, and I think they are.
Whether something is currently a classified disease or not seems quite an arbitrary thing to bring into the question. I’m not seeing why this should be a crucial consideration.
Also, that looks to have only been the case since the late 1980s or 2013 depending on definitions. So prior to this supposed condition being recognized, was it not possible to people to change genders?
Neither the DSM-I (1952) nor the DSM-II (1968) contained a diagnosis analogous to gender dysphoria. Gender identity disorder first appeared as a diagnosis in the DSM-III (1980), where it appeared under “psychosexual disorders” but was used only for the childhood diagnosis. Adolescents and adults received a diagnosis of transsexualism (homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual type). The DSM-III-R (1987) added “Gender Identity Disorder of Adolescence and Adulthood, Non-Transsexual Type” (GIDAANT).[99][100][101]DSM-V (2013) replaced gender identity disorder (GID) with gender dysphoria (GD) to avoid the stigma of the term disorder .
You can have the demonym/adjective, but they are still not really from there. You can say you are Taiwanese, people would just nod politely and think you are crazy.
It’s always been a disease. Whether it’s classified is irrelevant. The point is it’s a disease.
At what point do you think any nationality would be called a disease?
Again, I’m not saying they’re “from there”, and I wouldn’t see that description as accurate. But that’s not what we’re talking about and not the words of yours I responded to (“non-Japanese Japanese citizens” etc.).
You regard it as a disease. I’m not sure either way and don’t much care — I’m basically fine taking the word of the people who think they’re suffering from it because it affects them not me so whatever — but it’s not incontrovertible.
Either way, I’m still not seeing why something being a disease is really relevant here.
I don’t think it would, but I also think people can adopt new nationalities, and that that’s more plausible and with a better established history than people adopting new genders. Again though, I don’t think that whether something is a disease or not is all that relevant here.
That’s your opinion which is fine by me. It’s not the experience I get living here. I’m not treated as anything other than a “real” Taiwanese in my daily life. Thing is people here accept us new Taiwanese as being real Taiwanese as we have become citizens. We are no longer “foreigners”
Lol no restriction except that you need to renounce your old one when you naturalise. Very sound logic.
No. It is because you are not making sense.
I mean most people HERE as in people who are on this site.
Nationalities can be changed, people’s perception can’t.
This has nothing to do with being Taiwanese or American. I would not be really French or Indian even if I suddenly have a passport issued by their respective government. Nationality is a piece of paper, who you really are is not.
Ok lol. I don’t believe that at all. They might say that to you and still refer to you as a foreigner in private.
LOLZ most people in Taiwan are Americans? OR on this forum? There are very few active forum members and in Taiwan Americans make up a very low percentage of foreigners living in Taiwan.