Jan, I was shocked to see that Karen deleted my posts responding to her erroneous accusations against an entire adoption organization for so called "censorship". All I did was give facts and links proving that the story was wrong and that she should correct it. Even Ms. Greiner was taken to task for misrepresenting what had taken place. I just really believe in editorial integrity.

but for some reason karen feels it's ok to censor posters who question her facts and she deleted my post and her responses to me.
I'm a bit shocked that she would character assassinate someone for doing what she does herself -censor posts that disagree with her ideas.

So I thought that since you seem interested in an open honest exhange of ideas that you might want to read this essay about Person-First language that was written by Sandy Young, first mother and friend about use of the term "birthmother". Whether you agree or not, it's certainly worthy of consideration regarding this controversial topic. Thank you in advance.

Penny

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