"Brief answers are not something that I am skilled at giving."

Amen! And I'm happy about that!

IMO it's the bfamily.

Nice. And compassionate, too!

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 and shared by Penny

"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."

Penny, just want to thank you for sharing this writing of Sandy Young. excellent.

Penny, I intend to do another post within the next few weeks about adoption language. I will probably refer back to Sandy's article on the subject - interesting take - makes some sense to me. I think one problem with the term "birthmother" is that it IS misused and has become something not intended.

I am totally opposed to the word ever being used before a mother has signed final papers. And I agree that some agencies use it for a purpose. As for adoptive parents, I do not believe ill of most adoptive parents.