- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Adoption
greenteabee
member
The term "birthmother"
greenteabee
member
in Adoption
Hi,
I really hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but I, as an expecting mother choosing adoption, think that using the term "birthmother" before the papers have been signed is a little out of place. Before the mother signs the papers, she is just that, the baby's mother or the expecting mother. It doesn't bother me after the papers are signed in the slightest, before just seems off to me. I hope I'm not offending anybody by saying this, it's just something I feel the need to address.
This discussion has been closed.
Re: The term "birthmother"
TTC September 2010 thru October 2011
SA February 2011: Normal
RE App. October 2011 - Recc. Clomid and IUI
Taking a break from TTC to pursue adoption
Met our 2 year old son in Russia July 2012!
Court trip October 2012
Home November 24 2012!
Back to RE Summer 2013. TTC journey continues:
Dx DOR, endometriosis, low sperm count
Clomid + IUI#1, #2 = BFN / IUI #3 = ???
Laparoscopy scheduled December 2013
She's Forever Ours! Finaliaztion-12.26.12
Thanks a lot for bringing it up :
I am glad you feel comfortable giving your perspective...
I agree w/Dr L. Birth mom has long been used and is used often w/o much thought.
I agree with Dr. L. I try not to use birthmother/birthfather/birth family when referring to individuals/families that have not placed their children yet, but I admit, sometimes it just slips out. I will continue to make an effort to use the more correct terms in the future.
Good thoughts, GreenTea. Thanks so much for being part of this community!
Question for you?how do you feel about the term "bio mom" / "biological family"? I've been using that instead of "birth mom" / "birth family" when talking about our future.
Our Adoption Blog & Fundraising Efforts
Heading to China in November 2014 to bring our son home!
I think that bio is more respectful than birth before TPR and equally afterwards, but it's still a bit out of place because that still slightly infers that it's a 'done deal' already. However, referring to just your future baby's birthmother before you meet as a bio/birthmother like in the future tense, it's different because it's not tying a face and name to the baby or mother. However I also think that the term mother by itself is probably the most respectful beforehand, as in saying "I hope our baby's mother finds us soon!" Of course, you are your baby's mom. You're the mom that kisses owies and makes mac n cheese for lunch, but there also needs respect for the mother that gave birth to baby and found baby's mom and dad.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I've tried to be careful to not use birthmom when referring to our match, but then realized I had it in my ticker.
I've changed it and will be more cognizant with the terminology.
I really value your perspective on this board and apologize if you were offended!
TTC since March 2010, BFP #1 11.09.10, ectopic, m/c 12.14.10 (10w)
Clomid + TI=BFN, IUIs 1-6= BFN
Application for domestic adoption submitted 4/18/12, matched 8/12/12, DD born 10/31/12
Question: What is the correct term to use for birth/biological parents of children in foster care?
In our experience they are referred to as birth parents, which I would think could be even more upsetting to them since most of the time they have no intention of their child(ren) being adopted. So would biological parent be correct? Or am I overlooking another option?
Maybe I'm snarky tonigh, and this is an unpopular opinion- but pick your battles, and don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
In the scheme of adoption education, and terms I'd like changed in the adoption "dictionary", the use of birth mom before TPR is signed ranks about 356 out of 12984.
I appreciate your perspective, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just think that in this whole spectrum, again, pick your battles.
Really? Would you be willing to share why you feel like this?
Of course. It's really not specifically about adoption specifically, but more society as a whole. We get so angry with "labels" and yet we create them.
To me, the phrases "gave a child up for", "real child", "your own (in reference to, will you be having any of your own children)", "real mom (in reference to the biological mother, post adoption), to name a few are on my list of battles to pick and wars to rage first.
I strongly believe that while there are many term's, proceedures, etc within the adoption world that need to be changed, the ones directly impacting the child are the ones that my focus is on first. I doubt I would feel the need to correct someone who used the term birth mother prior to TPR, over someone who used the term "real mom".
Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful, and if the OP feels that way, I immensely apologize, as that was not my intent. I simply feel that as a community there is SO much education we need to do about adoption and the relationships within the adoption triad, that this simply isn't the mountain I want to die on.
You're stating your opinion in a respectful fashion. I have no reason to be offended. I may not necessarily agree with you, but I'm not offended.
I've wondered this too. Technically, both descriptions are accurate once TPR and adoption occurs. Right?
July - Nov 2011: Testing with OB... OB said everything looks good
March - Sept 2012: Moved to RE.. 4 treatment cycles - responses of one or no follicles
09.03.12: Diagnosed Poor Ovarian Response.. DE IVF only option
Feb - Nov 2012: Pursued Adoption. That door slammed shut.
12.23.12: Surprise BFP (first ever)... 12.25 - 12.31: Natural M/C
That is correct. But right now our plan is reunification, so is "mother/father/parents" the proper term? The issue with that is when we use it, most people think we are talking about ourselves. And especially since we aren't supposed to disclose that the child is in foster care, it get more complicated to explain who we are if we are not in fact the parents.
We are definitely in agreement that there are more egregious issues, and a lot of change that has to happen. I still think this is a pretty important issue though.
The way I see it is that the way adoption is approached from the get-go, including how we talk about expecting parents considering placement, is TOTALLY about the child. I mean, what about adoption impacts a child more than *whether or not they are placed*, you know?
I believe that language is important and subtle. And I think that the general acceptance of referring to expecting women considering adoption as "birthmothers" is indicative of what I consider to be some of the darker ethical complications in the adoption industry. I believe it's coercive and it does set up the expectation that the adoption of an unborn child is a done deal. Even if an expecting woman is 100% sure of her decision to place before the birth, it's a decision that has to be made again and again, every day until TPR. I think it's unethical to place expectations of any sort on women in that phase. I mean, it's a vulnerable place and while no I dont' believe that this one issue will always FORCE a woman to place when she otherwise wouldn't have, I think it's part of a larger problem that's VERY real and that I do believe DOES result is placements that might not have happened otherwise.
In general, I believe that there's a certain amount of entitlement on the part of agencies and adoptive parents. I don't mean that these people are bad, greedy, coercive, etc, just that there is a subtle sense of entitlement that is often generally tolerated (I see it on this and other adoption forums, even from people who I think have done their research and have NO intention of being like that).
Hope that made some sort of sense, baby is crying and I've gotta hit the post button!
Baby is now asleep and I had one more thought about why I feel this is important. When it comes to prioroties in adoption reform, I personally put the most weight on the opinions of adult adoptees, then birth parents. If an adult adoptee or a birth parent tells me something that comes from their own experience, I listen and take it to heart. And greenteabee isn't the first person that has expressed this concern; LOTS of adult adoptees and first parents share this feeling (like pp above!), so as an adoptive parent I feel like it's INCREDIBLY important to listen. Esp since this is such a small thing that's REALLY easy to change.
I love this thread! But I also kind of hate it. Now I don't know what terminology to use! I guess I will wait and see what terminology our next LO's mother is comfortable using.
Our Adoption Blog & Fundraising Efforts
Heading to China in November 2014 to bring our son home!
As I said earlier, this isn't a mountain I want to die on. I stand by my belief, and while it's something I'll try to take into consideration, I have a hard enough time convincing people/educating them- whichever you want to call it- to not refer to my daughters Bio Mother as her "real mom", when they say Birth Mom (or reference any parent placing or who has placed a child for adoption) I'll take that as a relief honestly, because it's much easier for someone to call my daughters bio mom (or any adopted childs bio mom) their birth parent infront of them then their "real parent".
However- this statement above, that IS a mountain I will die on because I STRONGLY disagree with your statement that agencies and adoptive parents have a sense of entitlement.
I am curious what side of the adoption triad you are on- I've become a less frequent poster, so I apologize for not remembering your biography/introduction, but I certainly would like to know what experiences you've had that have lead you to this conclusion, because every adoption professional I've had interaction with directly, as well as adoptive parents (which have been many) have no sense of "entitlement" as you say.
I'm an adoptive parent.
Just want to clarify that I think using the term "birth mother" for your kids' birth mother is fine and isn't anything that needs to be clarified or fixed.
What I am talking about is very subtle and of course it's not everyone in the adoption industry or even most people. I also think that most agencies and adoption professionals do make a serious effort to avoid these types of situations. Perhaps "entitlement" isn't the right word - pressure? expectation?
Then again maybe it is - an example that I consider innappropriate (yet subtle and probably well-intentioned) entitlement would be the issue that greenteabee had with the original PAPs she was considering; how she felt the adoptive mom was pressing her for information that she felt entitled to. Once she told the agency they agreed that it wasn't appropriate and that they would address it with them (I'm paraphrasing from what I remember OP, hope I got close!) I see situations like that a lot.
And, I stand by MY belief that referring to expectant women considering adoption as birthmothers DOES carry with it a level of innapropriate expectation. Once TPR is signed I have no problem with the term at all. But until then? I don't think it's the best term and I side with the people who want to see it replaced with other terms.
Pretty much what I said but in a easier to understand way... I spit out gibberish.
We can agree to disagree here. I do not believe entitlement is the right term, whatsoever. As AP's we put our hearts completely out and exposed. There's a difference between disappointment and entitlement.
In the example you gave, I gave my opinion on that in the post she listed earlier and I'm not going to rehash it. However, I don't view that as entitlement, I view that as responsible parenting. I do not agree with pushing the issue, but I do feel, as I stated, that it's important to completely understand the situation, and here's why- and this is not me saying this is what the OP's situation is:
- Expectant Mother get's pregnant out of abuse/incest/rape (maybe all three). She places child in an open adoption, but says she will tell the child why she placed when she's ready. Said child asks her at an older age (teenager/adult). Said child's whole life nothing of this nature is mentioned by AP's, because they have no idea. Said child decides to develop relationship with Birth mother at that time. Birth mother informs child that's why she placed.
That's a big bomb to get as a teenager/adult. That's a big bomb for a parent, who has parented a child for 18 years to get as a parent.
Again, I'm not saying this is OP's situation, however, I am saying that as an adoptive parent, when you take a situation at surface level, you DON'T know what it is, and it could be anything. As an AP you take on any trauma/drama that comes and if you're not even the slightest bit prepared so you can intern prepare your child, it can have sever consequences for said child later in life.
So, I don't call that entitlement. I call that responsible parenting (as long as it's done in an appropriate way- however if an expectant mother is not forth coming that information, I think that in itself can be a situation that needs further discussion with the appropriate guidance professional).
Okay yes, in that situation I would agree that the adoptive parents should probably know that. But that is a bomb. I don't have any huge bombs for my children to learn, and I told the PAM that. Every situation is different, as I'm sure you know.
But, that's how Jenn feels... and she's entitled to feel that way... and, if she desires, to say it - even if it doesn't follow your suggested responses. I agree with her. Just as you're entitled to agree or disagree with her - and say it how you wish.
July - Nov 2011: Testing with OB... OB said everything looks good
March - Sept 2012: Moved to RE.. 4 treatment cycles - responses of one or no follicles
09.03.12: Diagnosed Poor Ovarian Response.. DE IVF only option
Feb - Nov 2012: Pursued Adoption. That door slammed shut.
12.23.12: Surprise BFP (first ever)... 12.25 - 12.31: Natural M/C
But here's my point as an AP, when an expectant parent decides not to share that information, we have NO idea what to prepare a child for. Additionally- what you decide is a "bomb" and what I decide as a "bomb" and more importantly what said child decides is a "bomb" are ALL different.
Believe it or not, an Expectant Parent in this situation- may not think it's a bomb either.
Open adoption in it's core is meant for the betterment of the child. An AP does have a basic need to know information that is beneficial for the child and their development, should be shared. I don't feel that basic need is entitlement.
We can agree to disagree. I told you, the original "debate" is not an argument I'm willing to die on.
We didn't have the same mama, by that I mean, what you define as "caring" and what I define as "caring", are different. To me, passing it off with a generic response is not caring. To me, having a respectful discussion, is caring. I never labeled how the OP felt or should have felt, I simply said that the continuous battles I fight, it's a bit more advanced then where I'm at in the discussions I'm constantly having and battles I'm fighting over adoption language.
Oh honey- don't make this personal, okay, cause then you'll see mama bear come out? If you read back through my posts, you'll see that I did make the change in referring to a bio-mom as an Expectant Parent.
I never said that I personally wouldn't take it into consideration, you read into that yourself. But if I made a change in my vocabulary, rather if we all did, for everyone who was offended by a term or a label none of us could speak about anyone. Every term, every label, ever descriptive that we have for a person taking an action is offensive to somebody somewhere. The Birth Parent vs. Expectant Parent argument does not register anywhere close to the radar as other derogatory labels used through out the history of our society.
Again, don't tell me what I am and am not blowing off in my own life. You don't know me, my situation, or anything that's going on in my life- and having an internet discussion with me for a matter of hours, does not make you an expert on my stance on caring or not caring about adoption, or the intricacies within this convoluted adoption world we all function within.
The point is that you responsed to tell her how she responded was wrong - and provided your suggested, approved responses... And that rubbed me wrong. If you hadn't provided your suggested, approved responses, I probably wouldn't have even looked twice. Also, the point was to backup Jenn...
No need to be snippy. I haven't been snippy with you yet.
July - Nov 2011: Testing with OB... OB said everything looks good
March - Sept 2012: Moved to RE.. 4 treatment cycles - responses of one or no follicles
09.03.12: Diagnosed Poor Ovarian Response.. DE IVF only option
Feb - Nov 2012: Pursued Adoption. That door slammed shut.
12.23.12: Surprise BFP (first ever)... 12.25 - 12.31: Natural M/C
I guess that's my point - she ISN'T PARENTING YET. There are obviously really good reasons for wanting that information, and I think it would be appropriate to ask for it in a respectful way and in a way that made it clear it was the E-mom's information to share, and NOT the PAPs to have automatically (ie to be entitled to). I asked a very similar question to our son's birthmom when we were a few weeks into our match. If the PAP in that situation needed that information to feel comfortable with the match, then accepting the match should have been conditional on receiving that answer, instead of accepting the match and then pressing for information she felt that she needed to have.
I'm sorry if you are feeling defensive, as that's totally not my intention at all. I'm also confused as to why you are fighting so hard on this when you have also switched the term you are using - that's all anyone is talking about!
If I understood correctly, I think Spooko was trying to say that there are more respectful ways to say what Jenn was trying to say. I will articulate from my own perspective since if she WAS saying what I think, I agree with her.
Jenn, in your first post, you told greenteabee not to make a mountain out of a molehill. That's how you phrased your opinion. She didn't make a mountain out of anything. She started a thread that respectfully asked people to reconsider their use of terms, and she did that (I presume) based on her own experience. Your response was really dismissive. Maybe it was your mood that night as you did preface it with something like that, and as has been pointed out, you HAVE changed your use of terms, which to me implies that you think what she said has merit. It's totally valid to say that you feel other issues are more salient FOR YOU when it comes to adoption reform, but the way you phrased your response seemed to direct other people into what they should or shouldn't prioritize.
No, what I stated was that it wasn't a mountain I was willing to die on- because OP and subsequent posters made it seem like it as the responsibility of our community to educate the rest of the population on the term switch.
All of my posts have been from the standpoint of my priorities and my feelings- I've never stated that others should follow suit in my crusades. I said how important this issue was to me (in terms of educating the world), how if I tried to change every label in my vocabulary to something not offensive to anyone I couldn't, and what issues I felt were more of a priority in my community. If you opted to read into that as me directing anyone, then that's clearly the direction you opted to interpret it as.
In terms of being more "respectful" to the OP- I explicitly expressed that I meant no offense and if it was offensive then my deepest apologies to her. She responded stating that she did not feel disrespected.
Additionally I did say that the mountain I was willing to die on, was when a poster stated that AP's and Agencies/Adoption Professionals have a sense of entitlement. Because I personally feel that is as far from the truth as you can get (minus the few bad apples on all sides of the triad).
And I will continue to die on that mountain, because it's one of the largest misconceptions in society today.