Adoption Search Blog

04/18/06

Respectful Adoption Language

Posted by : Karen Sterner in Adoption Search Blog at 02:13 pm , 774 words, 157 views  
Categories: General Issues, Adoption Language & Terms


“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.” – Benjamin Lee Whorf

I think all of us know who powerful words are. We have a friend who was comforting her child with the old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me”. The truth is that there are words used by folks to describe adoption ranging from dishonest and inaccurate to hurtful and discriminatory. In many who have lived adoption feel that these terms may be degrading and removed from our collective vocabulary. Often times, these words disguise reality or perpetuate the myths that the adoption industry would like everyone to believe.

Birth or biological are common prefixes that apply to parents, grandparents and extended family members of adopted children. Agencies and perspective adoptive parents refer to “birth” mothers and fathers whose children have yet to be born. Are these labels an attempt to degrade the importance of a child’s true family? Are the users of this language aiming to convince parents that they are dispensable even before their children have come into the world?

SPONSOR
   123

Does using these prefixes degrade the notion that a child can be switched at birth or later in the case of older children adoptions? I don’t really think it is necessary to separate parents who have lost children to adoption from the parents in society. Mother, father, grandparents, aunt, uncle, and cousin are all descriptive words on their own. A child has only one true family which makes it unnecessary to use works to mark the difference between relatives and adopters. When one needs to convey the fact that a parent has lost a child to adoption why not use the term “natural” mother/father, or parent? They are just as accurate in relaying the experience of losing a child to adoption but they don’t reduce a parents role.

About 7 years ago, we were at my cousin’s family wedding in OH and my grandma was able to attend. My dad, grandma, and Aunt were in the back of the church speaking with three others who attended the wedding. These women were strangers to me but when I joined the group, my grandma explained to me whom they were and she introduced me to them. For as much as I loved my Grandma and the special bond we shared I was infuriated by her introduction. She introduced me as “this is Karen, my adopted grand daughter”

What about the words “adoptive mother/father/family? These families are not created on paper, upon payment of the necessary fees. Families are created by nature and through the bond that ties together pas and future generations. I have been separated from all of my family over the past several years due to several hundred miles between us. We still manage to share with each other and it is natural for us to do so. Strangers just can’t step in to replace someone’s true family in any situation.
Sometimes I feel as if children are passed around and sold to the highest bidder. The average adoption today seems to start at $25,000. As an adoptee, this would make me feel as a commodity if I knew how much my parents had to pay to adopt me. The families that chose adoption are the parents of the natural parent’s child. It is important to acknowledge the child’s heritage and the natural family that he or she has by nature therefore, wouldn’t it be better to describe the people who adopt children as “adopters”. Adoptees are no longer expected to play make believe when it comes to something as serious as their families. Those of us in the adoption community don’t want to perpetuate the lies that have been created by adoption. Do these lies provide the industry a means of peddling children to wealthy infertile couples?

The child is always the most important thing. Growing up I was taught that honesty is the best policy and that needs to be carried over to the adoption community of today. I didn’t learn of being adopted until I was an older child? That conflicted with the message that I was taught. It took my a long time to work though that and come to a healthy place within myself. However, when I found my natural family, I promised myself that I would not be a party to any further secrets. It was the truth and openness. That has not always been easy but it is better than not knowing or wondering for the rest of my life.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Michelle Vandepas [Member] Email · http://fost-adopt.adoptionblogs.com/
Karen, As an adoptive parent I found this to be a good, thought provoking post. Thanks
PermalinkPermalink 04/18/06 @ 16:16
Comment from: wnedee [Member] Email
Families that chose adoption are the parents of the natural parent’s child. It is important to acknowledge the child’s heritage and the natural family that he or she has by nature therefore, wouldn’t it be better to describe the people who adopt children as “adopters”.

I’m sorry, but are you trying to say that your aparents you address as adopters? If so, why, my I ask? Did you have an unhappy childhood that made you think of them this way? I’m an adoptee and I would NEVER call my aparents adopters-they ARE MY PARENTS! I just don’t get it, families are made in many ways, and my bparents (who I’ve met) were related strangers to me. I don’t feel that “magic” bond or anything because I don’t have a history with them. So, to me, they are my “parents” by birth but not my “mom” and “dad”. I would be EXTREMELY UPSET if anyone would address them as “adopters” it sounds like “kidnappers” or “babysitters” which they are not.
They are my parents-the only parents that I’ve know and love.
PermalinkPermalink 04/18/06 @ 17:31
Comment from: Karen Sterner [Member] Email · http://birthfamily-search.adoptionblogs.com/
Thank you both for commenting and I appreciate your feedback.

This post that I wrote has nothing to do with my childhood, which by the way, I grew up in a loving, caring, and stable environmnet, or any one elses child hood. The post is respectful adoption language and my take on how triad members feel about certain language used in the adoption community.

The language used in the adoption community is a controversial and there are some triad members who don't mind being called birth parents or biological parents. However, in my experience many prefer the term natural mother or natural parent.

As for the my parents, they are my parents. In fact, the only parents that I have had and I wouldn't change a thing. They have took me in and have loved me as their own when my natural mother made the choice of adoption. They adopted me and and that makes them my parents. I really don't care for the phrases "adoptive mother" or "adoptive parents" and the worst one of all is "perspective adoptive parents".

I hope that I have I been able to shed some light on the subject and appreciate your comments. If you would like to see a specific topic discussed, please let me know.

Karen
PermalinkPermalink 04/19/06 @ 08:02
Comment from: DanaC [Member] Email
As both an adult adoptee and an adoption worker I see your point on several things! A couple of things I have to say is that when you are dealing with parents on both sides, it's a need to distinguish birth, or natural parents from Adoptive parents. So maybe crack that one up to necessity and advocate when you can for the use of "natural". I think that some adoptive parents may have a harder time with that since that may make them "unnatural parents" :) Just kidding, but try to see that not everyone is going to like any "term" that comes along... Also, in referring to adoption language... I noticed you used the term "lost", in that a birth parent "lost" their child to adoption. The professional community uses "placed" in that a natural mom "placed" her child for adoption. The old days were "gave up" her child for adoption etc. I don't know ONE birth.. or natural mother that "gave up" anything...they were thinking of their child and what is best for him or her.... and for that I know YOU and I :) thank them!!
By the way... I have done some research on age of disclosure (how old adoptees were when their parents (adoptive) told them they were adopted. Mine told me so gradually I couldn't even tell you when I found out... just was part of my develpment. Would love to talk more about this!!!
I've talked enough!
PermalinkPermalink 08/08/06 @ 10:57
Comment from: pennylane [Member] Email
Person-first Language, as espoused by the mental health community, is the practice of identifying the person before their disability so that a person is no longer "defined" by their condition. Now, instead of calling someone an amputee, that person would be referred to as a man who suffered an amputation, always recognizing their personhood, their humanity, in their description. It is no longer "politically correct" to define someone by an event or a circumstance in their lives. The belief is that this will impact a person's image of themselves and allow them to no longer be defined or constrained by the limitations of their condition.

Could not the exact same argument be made for the woman who loses a child to adoption? Isn't calling that woman a "Birthmother" defining her by the event of the birth of her child and the subsequent loss to adoption, and eliminating her personhood, her motherhood, her humanity, utterly.

When one person insists that it is their right to define someone else by a single event, they are using language to dismiss and diminish the rights of the other. It is no coincidence, I don’t believe, that the people who are most insistent on the use of the term “Birthmother” (even before a woman has given birth) are the ones who have the most to gain by that woman’s loss. The agencies, the prospective adopters love that term because it limits the motherhood of the other woman to the single event of birth.

Anyone who thinks that language is not important, or doesn’t evolve over time should take a minute and watch the reaction of a teenage boy when they are acting silly and someone tells them that they are acting “So Gay” today. It is intended to be an attack aimed at a teenage boy’s weakness and is absolutely not recognition of their high spirits.

I don’t believe that the use of the term “Birthmother” is any more benignly used by professionals or potential adopters. I believe that it is clearly meant to limit the function of the natural mother to the birthing process, where her motherhood is to end. An insidious twist of language, to be sure, but then, the separation of mother and child is the intended outcome of this choice of language.

written by Sandy Young
submitted by Penny
PermalinkPermalink 09/28/06 @ 06:34
Leave a Comment: You need to login to leave comments.:

Login | Register

Login To AdoptionBlogs.com

Search

Sponsors

http://www.omnitrace.com

Misc

Subscribe to Adoption Search Blog

 Enter your email address:
 

 

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 156