Public and Private Adoption Language
Merrill Perlman’s analysis of adoption language in The Correct Language to Adopt, Columbia Journalism Review, July 22, 2019, discusses “traditional,” “positive,” “respectful,” and “honest” adoption language. However, it omits and mis-characterized some very important facts for journalists and others writing about adoption.
Paul Sunderland, in “Adoption and Relinquishment” reminds us of the Chinese proverb that states that the beginning of wisdom is to call something by its proper name. Adoption makes “proper” far more complicated.
“Proper” to Whom?
First, one must investigate who determines what is “positive” and to whom? Perlman correctly notes that it is the mega-billion-dollar adoption industrial complex that sets the narrative parameters, not — as it should be — the people whose lives have been irrevocable changed by adoption.
As Perlman also states, the term “birthparent” (aka birth parent) was first coined by adoptive mother Pearl S. Buck. Concerned United Birthparents (CUB) conceded to the prefix “birth” as a lesser of evils when they were denied the use of “natural” or “real” which offended the only cash customer in the adoption transaction: adopters.
This consolation by CUB was accepted in the same manner that the NAACP agreed to use the word “colored” as a better option than the “n” word. Yet Black people have historically — and some still do — struggled with being identified as Black or African-American, or People of Color. So too do mothers of children subsequently adopted have individual preferences including “first mother” and “original mother” and should be allowed to self-identify.
Quoting Origins, Canada, for this article, it seems extremely insensitive and disrespectful that Perlman presents as examples of “positive adoption language”: “The woman or man who created the child was not a “natural” mother or father but a “birthparent,” “biological parent,” or “genetic parent.”
“Biological” or “genetic” is in no way “positive.” These terms are in fact limiting, demeaning and diminishing to many such mothers. Such negative, terminology is encourages by the adoption industry to keep mothers who lose children to adoption marginalized as “others.”
Those who sell their genetic material (gametes; egg and sperm) — euphemistically referred to as “donors” — are “biological” or “genetic” parents. They provide their genetic material and nothing else. A mother who carries her child to term and gives birth to a live offspring is a mother. Nothing less. There is a huge difference between the two in terms of time, emotionality and more. We are learning daily the effects of the womb environment on later life and we are also just beginning to learn about epigenetics. The parent/child bond is eternal and unending. Our ancestors and genealogical forbearers are our heritage and we are their legacy, even if we never meet.
I am a Mother
I am the mother of four children. I raised three of the four. I am still the mother of all four. One is deceased. All four are my children and always will be my children no matter who raised them and no matter their state of health or being. I am still the mother of all four just as one’s mother and father remain your parents after they are passed. I am the mother of the four children I gave life to. Plain and simple. No hyphen, no prefix, and no qualifiers: Mother. Such identifiers belong to those who were added to my child’s life after-the-fact.
Mothers and fathers remain mothers and fathers of their children when step-parents are added. And it is the secondary parental figure who gets the hyphenated name because he or she is the “add on” — the one connected by law but not by nature or blood. Step-parenthood does not obliterate the real parent. This model has long existed and confused no one. Just as the term grand-parent confuses no one. Adoption is (or should be) the same!
After WWII adoptions soared in the US — both domestic and international. Adopters were encouraged not to tell children they were adopted but to pretend they were born into their families. Thus, developed the foundation of secrets, lies, and sealed records that adoption has been built on that is today crumbling.
Today it is well known that secrets and lies are toxic and openness and honesty are far healthier. And today, thanks to social media, and DNA, lies are more difficult to maintain and it is foolish and unhealthy — emotionally and physically — to even try. Lies are almost always found out leading to feelings of betrayal no matter how well-meaning the subterfuge was. Lack of truth of one’s genetic heritage and thus lack of familial medical history — the first thing doctors ask us for — is risky and can be dangerous to one’s health, even fatal. Denial of the truth of ones’ origins also puts adopted people at risk for unknowingly committing incest.
The truth is that every human being has a mother (though ART has now created babies being born with as three “mothers.”) In the case of adoption, adoptees have one mother and one father. They also have an adoptive mother (or two) and/or an adoptive father (or two). These are legal add-ons. Honesty requires the recognition of the true parentage, lineage and genealogy.
Another area of confusion is the wording regarding how children become adopted. Precious few are orphans as that word is defined as surviving the death of both parents. Globally, nearly 90% of children in orphanages have at least one living parent and/or extended family who care about them and have placed their children in care temporarily, not to be adopted.
There is a fallacy that “placed for adoption” is kinder and thus preferable to “put up” or “given” for adoption. The problem is that “placed” is blatantly untrue for many cases in which “taken” is far more apt— such as for children adopted from state care — or even “stolen” for children who’s mothers were coerced, unduly pressured and manipulated and/or deceived.
Personal vs Public Language
Journalists are strongly encouraged to adhere to honest language rather than that which is slanted to placate the adoption industry — all who profit from the redistribution of children — and the paying clients they serve. The grammatically and factually correct language is: mother and adoptive mother, just as the press would use mother and step-mother.
There is also, however personal adoption language. Here again, I use the step-parent analogy. People have step-parents added into their lives at any time from infancy to adulthood. The timing and other factors such as commonality of beliefs and interests, as well as personality as well as memories — good or bad — of their actual, real parent all combine to make some love a step-parent more, less or the same as their parent. This is normal and natural. Some adults — for a myriad of reasons — choose to exclude one or more of their parents from their lives. Some use loving terms of endearment to describe them and others use less affectionate terms such as “step-monster” or “sperm donor.” Some of us, adopted or not, have loving parents and some of us don’t. And so individual or private adoption language cannot, and should never be, “required” in any manner.
Just as children who grow up with same sex parents figure it out, often calling one Mama and one Mommy; one Daddy and the other Dad . . . so too adoptees left to their own devices will figure out a way to distinguish the mother who birthed them from the mother who raised them and it will depend on many factors. The more formal term “mother” might be used to describe the one who birthed them and gave them life, while a more affectionate Mom or Mommy would feel more natural for the one who has been in their day-to-day life.
These terms might be painful for a reunited mother to hear, but must be respected. While one party in a reunion may have always thought of the other in the most intimate way, the other might feel a total strangeness, detachment, threat or indifference. For most mothers the loss of a child to adoption is quite painful and traumatic — a secret wrapped in societal shame and guilt. Many dealt with it by going into denial and are very fearful of being exposed.
Many adoptees, no matter how loved, live with feelings of abandonment or rejection. Additionally, many adoptees are told to be wary of “what they might find.” Add to that, the concern/fear of hurting their adoptive parents. Other adoptees harbor fantasies of their kin that can range from crack whore to movie star. All of this baggage enters into an adoption reunion along with the people themselves. The best thing for an adoptee in a new reunion to do is to ask what their newly found mother would prefer to be called and be as respectful as one can be, at least in their presence.
Far less controversial or difficult is how to identify the person who has been adopted yet Perlman fails miserably here. The term “adopted child” should only be used to describe minors — children. It is offensive to adults who were adopted as children to be eternally infantilized by being referred to as children, just as it offensive to call a man “boy.” Adults who were adopted are adoptees, adopted adults or adopted persons or individuals. They are not perpetual children (except to their parents).
Other language the media ned to stop using are phrases such as: “gave up for adoption” and “tracked down” instead of conducted a search for, or found through DNA testing.
The only language we can and must control is public language, media language. It’s tricky and ever-changing but journalist need to keep up with the changing times in many social and political arenas. Simultaneously, we must respect and honor personal descriptors of one’s self and their parents.
