Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree Nim. It is coarse to say the least. It is my feeling that referring to a mother as "birth woman" is a purposeful attempt to remove the term "mother" from the context. Which says more about the person using the term than it does about the person to which the term refers.
Of course, people can refer to anyone however they like.
I also think that "woman" itself takes on a new, slightly pejorative meaning in its compound form, apart from the attempt to dissociate a birth mother from any sort of motherhood.
The term "mother" has at least two models linguistically--the genetic model and the social model. When I refer to my adoptive parents, I am using the social model (and the meaning that at least for me, is at the forefront of my mind). When I refer to my birth or biological mother, I am using the genetic model, which is further in the distance but nevertheless there. In cognitive linguistics, the sum total of all the shades of meaning a word contains are referred to as its "domain". The most common usage and understood meaning of a word is said to be at the center or forefront of the domain. Less common usages and meanings that are less likely to be understood are considered to be at the periphery.
At the center of the domain for "woman" is the usage we use to refer to someone who is a human, an adult, and female. However, more at the periphery and usually as a compound, there tends to be a meaning of slight disdain or disrespect. Sometimes it can even be conveyed without using a compound, through tone of voice or other grammatical structures, such as "that woman" or "oh, women!"
Add to the fact that "birth woman" also denies the genetic aspect of the domain for "mother". The term "mother" does have a genetic model for its usage and meaning that doesn't need to be left out. Even though I personally don't think my birth mother played nearly as big a role as my adoptive mother did in my life, she does still qualify to be referred to as a mother in the genetic sense. Likewise, my adoptive mother qualifies to be referred to as a mother in the social sense. They are both mothers, in different senses, and the fact that social motherhood is generally at the center of the domain for "mother" and genetic motherhood is generally at the periphery, already accounts for the fact that someone who has raised you but didn't give birth to you plays a much bigger role in your life than someone who gave birth to you but didn't raise you.
On these very boards, I have been corrected for using the term "adoptive parents" to identify that I am referring to my, uh, adoptive parents. Apparently, I was supposed to use "parents" and everyone on the internet would know to which parents I was referring. As a reunited adoptee, all four of my parents are currently active in my life. As such, clarification is sometimes needed.
It intrigues me that "adoptive parents" is considered inappropriate by some parents who adopted children yet terms like "birth woman" used by adoptive parents in a dismissive manner is considered by some to be perfectly acceptable.
I think that I will start referring to the mother who raised me as "adopter woman" as this would be the linguistic correlation to "birth woman."
Most of the time, in most conversations, I refer to my adoptive parents without the adjective--just "my parents"--because it's understood that my adoptive parents...are my parents. However, I think in discussions where we're specifically needing to make the distinction, the added qualifier is called for. When we're talking about adoptive vs. biological parents, it's appropriate. If you're just talking about what you did with you parents last week, then obviously it's unnecessary to refer to them as your adoptive parents. It all depends on the context. I think people need to remember that language is extremely context-dependent. The way you talk about your adoptive parents on an adoption forum is obviously going to be different from the way you talk about them in every day life, just like the way you talk about your boss to your colleagues and the way you talk about your boss to your friends will probably be different. Same person, different context.
If you're just talking about what you did with you parents last week, then obviously it's unnecessary to refer to them as your adoptive parents. It all depends on the context.
It is totally dependent on the context. In my life, there is not an assumption that "parents" means my adoptive parents. If I said to anyone who knows me--past the stranger or acquaintance stage--well "I visited my parents last week," they would ask "which ones?" because all of my parents are currently active in my life. And I have made it clear to those in my life that I consider them all to be my parents.
That's the great thing about being an adult adoptee. I can now determine how everyone fits into my life. :-)
Unfortunately, I think that both adoptive mother and birth mother each live in perpetual fear of the other, feeling inferior for the part they couldn't play in the child's life. Each thinking the other is the "real" mother. I agree that the term "Birth woman" is reflective of the person using the term and is a manifestation of this fear. I wish that both could see that they are both mothers, both play a very important role and celebrate each other for the good of the child. I think in some cases, this is done, but in far too many, they are at odds.
I haven't seen or spoken to my adopters for 10 years. I have been reunited with my biological mother and her family. If I say "my mom", I meant the woman who gave birth to me. I have no one that I call "Dad" but refer to my sire as my father.
Those who dismiss the words of adult adoptees should consider that those they adopt are dealing with many of the same life issues we did (and still sometimes do) and may also decide to discontinue an adult relationship with those who adopted them, largely based upon the level of acceptance for who we are inside. Paste whatever name you want on me, I'm still me and you can't change it. Takes Moses. Adopted by a royal family, all the riches and luxury one could dream of, and he slew the Pharaoh's armies in return. Unless you can accept who your child was before you adopted them, you stand little chance of keeping them.
I wish that adoptive families, no matter what they think/feel about the genetic family would remember that their child is genetically part of that family, because, trust me, at some point the child will.
All the "honest", denigrating, dismissive, minimizing words used or things said or projected about birth parents for whatever reason ["the truth"- to bond- ect.] have the very real chance to effect your child at some point in their lives.
Sure - it's not important how it sounds to me on some internet forum. It's important how it sounds to the child you love when they eventually come to terms with being genetically related to those people. You may not believe genetics have anything to do with who we are or become, but at some point most adoptees consider the possibility.
This can so backfire on you. The child [or adult] may unreasonably turn on you, feeling the need to defend their genetic family. Worse, they may trust your judgement so much they feel as valueless as you have portrayed their "birth woman" or "egg donor".
Disparaging language regarding birth parents is as damaging to children as when one parent calls the absentee parent "no good", "deadbeat", etc. Most children identify on some level with all their parents, even when they are not "good" parents.
My bf once told me that he is a "sum of all of his parts" meaning that he is a unique combination of his birth parents, adoptive parents and himself. And when his mother would disparage his birth mother it disparaged the innate part of him that came from his birth mother.
And for the adoptive parents who are so dismissive of birth parents. You would not have your child without them. If you love that child, you should on some level, have a smidgen of respect or at least a clear lack of contempt for the person who gave birth to your child. .
I wish that adoptive families, no matter what they think/feel about the genetic family would remember that their child is genetically part of that family, because, trust me, at some point the child will.
This is a key point. Whether our adoptive parents like it or not and whether WE like it or not, our genes come from our "birth woman" and "birth man." Adoption doesn't change this. Some adoptees might internalize the marginalization of their original parents as a marginalization of their inherent selves. Because the same blood that flows through our "birth people" flows through us. And if our adoptive parents have contempt for our "birth people," an adoptee's mind could filter that as having contempt for the adoptee as well.
Most of the time, in most conversations, I refer to my adoptive parents without the adjective--just "my parents"--because it's understood that my adoptive parents...are my parents. However, I think in discussions where we're specifically needing to make the distinction, the added qualifier is called for. When we're talking about adoptive vs. biological parents, it's appropriate. If you're just talking about what you did with you parents last week, then obviously it's unnecessary to refer to them as your adoptive parents. It all depends on the context. I think people need to remember that language is extremely context-dependent. The way you talk about your adoptive parents on an adoption forum is obviously going to be different from the way you talk about them in every day life, just like the way you talk about your boss to your colleagues and the way you talk about your boss to your friends will probably be different. Same person, different context.
Because they are your parents! I call my children my children - not "C Section boy" and "adopted girl".
"Son" and "daughter" work just fine. The woman who birthed my daughter has her own children. She is mother to them.
Of all of the options, birth mother/ bio mom works best (IMO.) That is what I am. I can't take credit or blame for good or bad genetics, all I did was stop all substance use while pregnant, seek medical care, love him and choose him safe parents.
'Birth woman' really is more about the issues of the adoptee. The exception would be if you know her history, and she truly never did anything to help protect you, even in utero. In that case, say or do whatever you need to heal.
Sperm donor/egg donor... well, all I can say is that sperm donor may be accurate in many cases. If bio dad bails early in pregnancy, he really isn't much different than an anonymous sample at a sperm bank. But bio mom did carry you around for many months; this could mean anything from very little up to excruciating pain and loss for her at surrendering you. Egg donor really isn't accurate.
First mother... I don't have any particular feelings about it. It is technically accurate, but it feels to me like elevating the brief role she held at the expense of those who put decades of care into you. But then, I'm not involved with large communities of adult adoptees to fully understand their complex feelings. I've only walked in your bio mom's shoes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I call my children my children - not "C Section boy" and "adopted girl". 