A Critique of "Respectful Adoption Language"

"Respectful adoption language" is heavily promoted by the adoption industry. This so-called "respectful" language respects the true customers of adoption "services" - the people who adopt. But this misleading "respectful adoption language" dehumanizes and disrespects natural families, leading to unnecessary family separation.

One thing that survivors of adoption-separation don't often find elsewhere is respect. Respect for mothers who grieve their lost children. Respect for adopted persons who lost their natural families. Acknowledgement of the loss, and respect for them and for their experiences.

In anthropology we learn about the cause-and-effect relationship between language and culture, the Sapir-Whorf theory. A people's lexicon (the words they use) has a direct influence on the way they think, and vice versa. The Adoption Industry has deliberately constructed and marketed a lexicon that is meant to marginalize natural mothers and dehumanize them, giving legitimacy to a form of inhumane exploitation that would otherwise be seen as cruel and unnatural. It's important to keep on top of the language and manage it wherever possible, verbally and in writing.

The language thing is much more than a gimmick or novelty. It is a tool of oppression. Groups that control the lexicon can control a society's thinking subversively.

Lack of respect has been reinforced by social workers and others in the adoption industry, who have found that it's easier to promote public acceptance of adoption if one can dehumanize the mothers who have lost children to adoption.

One way that mothers have been dehumanized and demeaned is by the introduction of the term "birthmother" about thirty years ago to replace the original term "natural mother."

Many women who have lost children to adoption feel their loss as a rape. These mother feel the trauma of this reproductive exploitation every time they hear the term "birthmother," as it denigrates them and other exiled mothers into being merely incubators for their children, used and discarded after their babies were harvested from them by brokers.

In our Origins Canada email list, members have agreed by consensus to use language that does not traumatize or denigrate other members, and thus not use language that was coined by the adoption industry in order to demean natural mothers or the mother/child relationship. This means any "birth-" terms to refer to exiled natural mothers or their child(ren).

The term "birthmother" [birthfather, birthparent, etc.] was coined by social workers to mean "breeder" or "incubator," as adoptive parents felt threatened by the original term "natural mother." It was also was coined specifically to imply that we *were* mothers at the time of our children's birth but not afterwards, and that our role in our children's lives is solely reproductive - as living production units, producing a child for adoption. However, our relationships with our children did not end with their birth. We are still the parents of our children, even if they were taken by the industry and given to others to raise.

Ask any adoption agency, and they'll tell you that the corellary to "birthparent" is "parent," not "adoptive parent." That hence, in industry eyes, adopters are the ONLY parents once the child is adopted, hence the natural mother is seen as only being relevant for having served a genital purpose.

As for the term "birthfather" - men cannot give birth. The male equivalent of "birthmother" would be "ejaculation father." (similarly, the male equivalent of "tummy mommy" would be "dick daddy). Even MacLeans Magazine recently confirmed this in their headline article "Who Is My Birthfather?", using the term to refer to an anonymous sperm-donor in an artificially-inseminated conception.

The term birthchild [birthson, birthdaughter, etc.] was coined to imply that adoptees are no longer the sons and daughters of their natural parents, but were produced by "breeders" who aren't their parents, and that their ONLY "true" parents are adopters. This term denies that any loving parent/offspring relationship can form between the reunited parties.

In reunion, exiled natural mothers and their lost children find that the deep spiritual and emotional bonds between them have never been severed, despite years of separation. Thus, the b-words are wishful thinking on the part of the industry (adoption lawyers, social workers and agencies), in order to make the "as if born to" promise to their paying customers.

See Diane Turski's article "Why Birthmothers Means Breeder," at
http://www.originscanada.org/why_birthmother_means_breeder.html and "Honest Adoption Language: A Short Summary".

Copyright 2003 Origins Canada