linguistic quandary

was adopted vs. is adopted.

"Hi, I'm adopted."

"The woman was adopted."

Some literature talks about the "as if" thing, how birth parents are supposed to be symbolically dead (Lifton 1979). It's like "I am adopted" is an irreversible, "untreatable" condition. Whereas "was adopted" is just like a casual phase, an event, something that does not define the person. The adopted can be a person, but the person may be adopted. The label controls the core of the person; the adopted have no authority to challenge the label they were given.

Specifically, there was a woman who suddenly discovered that she actually was adopted. I'm sure the article (can't for the love of god find it anywhere) phrased it like this - she was adopted...but not anymore? - however, she is a person.

The opposite is true with adoptees. We are adopted. The present indicative tense is used to display facts, things that are true, things that are; it does not necessarily refute the fact that adoption was a temporal, liminal event, nor does it refute that adopted-ness is an eternal, non-temporal (duration is irrelevant!) condition. These are merely implications that have as much validity as they do inauthenticity. But it is not the adoptee who has jurisdiction over such arbitrary measures.