I take more of an issue the fact that this scholar felt the need to vocalize his opinion the way he does. I actually do agree with some of his points because I see myself coming across the same issues of having to defend my status as a born American when some question my nationality. I won't challenge him by saying he's not Chinese. In fact I will say he is Chinese.
But when you say you're the only one dressed in traditional garbs when no one else is then I question how much you romanticize your culture. Nobody likes a try hard.
I don't have an issue with his struggle for the most part and I sympathise somewhat, but his argument really unwinds when he talks about wearing traditional garb to a conference. That just shows you're completely out of touch with modern Chinese culture since it's no longer
normal to do that. Understanding appropriateness is pretty important.
Anyway, the major difference with the writer and someone identifying as American or Australian is that there are three ways to be
Chinese: culturally (as he self-identifies), as a nationality (which he isn't there yet), and ethnically (which is impossible for him). I know it sucks for him, but a lot of people will take the ethnic component into consideration. Unfortunately, that's a major factor in countries that are mostly ethnically homogenous - people equate ethnicity with nationality.
Conversely, to be American or Australian, there's only a cultural or nationality component because most of the population would fail if the term only applies to Native Americans or Indigenous Australians.
So for me, I call myself Australian - that's my nationality and the majority of my cultural identity, but also Chinese - that's my ethnicity but also a major part of my cultural identity. If anyone disagrees about the Australian part because I'm not white, I tell them to fuck right off, because frankly, it's
Un-Australian to think that way.