Now, let me start by saying that I might just be overly sensitive. And in fact, I'm not even really hot and bothered, just consistently annoyed. But it rubs me the wrong way that every article or column I've seen about the Dylan Farrow/Woody Allen debacle feels the need to refer to them as "adoptive daughter" and "adoptive father."
I can't help but wonder how in the world this is relevant to the story.
Is it not quite so disgusting that he molested her (assuming it is true... an assumption that I am not making, by the way. I'm staying out of that aspect.) because she doesn't have his biological material in her composition?
Or is it that much worse because how in the world can people who adopt a child then have drama in their home especially surrounding said child?
To me, there just isn't a purpose for pointing out that she was adopted by him. Or that he is not the biological father. It's incredibly serious accusations that, if true, are of an utmost disgusting nature no matter what the legal or biological relationship between an adult and a 7-year-old child.
On another front, I've seen a lot of seemingly mean-spirited outcry about some public misspeaking when talking about the trans community. One was directed at Piers Morgan. Another at Rebel Wilson. Both of them, if we stop to hear their story seemed to think they were actually furthering the cause of trans acceptance, but neither of them were aware of the preferred language of the group they were talking about. It's a matter of ignorance, but not hatred. So, for involved parties to then open fire through twitter and the Huffington Post blog seems a little less than generous.
I'm pointing this out to say that this blog post is not written out of anger or an assumption that people are trying to offend, but only because I believe that education is important and is a strong partner with love as being the answer to so many problems. (I hope that wasn't too convoluted of a reference to Blessid Union of Souls, because really any time you can reference them, don't you think you should!)
Without further ado, here are some phrases you can incorporate into your mindset and vernacular, if you so desire to be inclusive of families who have adopted. I am not assuming you care to be inclusive. I'm just saying if you care to be inclusive.
1. "was adopted" not "is adopted"
According to the law, my son is my son with every legal benefit of my biological children. He is a full member of the family and is different in no way than anyone else with only one exception - that the legal bond is actually stronger than the one I have with the kids who have my DNA. That aside, he is completely the same from a legal perspective. My name is on his birth certificate and we got to choose his name.
The thing I'm trying to say here is that his adoption was an event, not a status or an identity. We have a shared family identity and he relates strongly to it. To continually refer to him as my "adopted son" or to tell him, "You are adopted," keeps him on the outside. There are enough other factors that we need to overcome that this language is something we try to avoid because we want him to know that we love him just as much as our daughters (one of whom was also adopted by Billy).
This one could seem a little nitpicky. After all, Billy and I were married at a specific point in time with a particular legal proceeding. But we still talk about ourselves as "being married." So, if this were the only thing that people say about children who were adopted, then I would let it slide, but they also throw in this next gem quite a lot.
2. "birth mother" not "real mom"
I can't tell you the number of people who ask me if I know anything about my son's "real mom." I'm a snarky little daughter-of-a-gun, so of course, I respond with, "I'm his real mom."
Let's go back to the legal information again. Billy was married before. There were legal things that went along with that. They had rights to each other's belongings and shared a cell plan. Then they got divorced, and he married me. Can you imagine if people asked us if we knew anything that's going on with his "real" wife???? WTF? I'm his real wife! Someone else used to be, yes. But she chose to terminate her rights to that title, just as a mother chose to terminate her rights to her child.
Some mothers choose to do so because they love their children and want a better home. Some choose to do so through selfish and negligent actions. But they all chose to birth their children, and for that we are more grateful to these women than we could ever explain. No matter how selfish a woman may have been after the birth of her child; no matter how many unwise choices she made, she at least made the choice to let her child live. She at least gave one gift. So, we want to honor these women. We don't want to call them ex-moms, as if they no longer hold a meaningful place in our hearts and lives. We call them "birth moms" because they chose to birth their children, instead of kill them.
Even still, I am the mom now (honestly, I would never actually call myself the "real mom" over the birth mom except in a sarcastic response). I am the woman who listens to this child talk non-stop day-in, day-out. I'm the woman who makes up chants to help him learn to spell his name. I'm the one who potty trained him. I'm the one who takes him to school. I'm the one that reads to him and bathes him. And I'm the one that gets to hear his "I love you"s. I'm his mom. And it's as real as it gets.
3. "my kids" not "my own kids"
I have many well-intentioned friends say this. They are often people who are thinking about adopting children in the future. So, I know that they are sympathetic to the cause, but it is surprising to me that this distinction is made.
It usually comes in the form of, "Well, we might adopt, but we want to have our own kids first." I get the sentiment behind it, although I will admit I don't really "get" it. I don't understand the fascination with passing along one's biological information in order to create a whole new being. I do know that it's an amazing thing to have a child grow in you, but I rarely think much of it on a daily basis. It's been years since that happened to me, and the only time it comes up is when a child asks where babies come from.
Again, this is a phrase that is used that segregates the family. There are the "biological children" and the "adopted children." The message is that they are not the same in the eyes of the speaker. But this is hurtful (even when it's not intended to be) because families who have adopted will go through great pains to love and acclimate a child into their family. Part of that often means being willing to change their family culture to accommodate the new child. Our family is not the same as it was before our son came to us. He has changed to fit into our family patterns, but our family patterns have changed to fit with him, as well. He is as much my own child and as much as part of this family as anyone.
Rule of thumb: Think about the person as a full person and the family as a whole family.
When you need to speak about the adoption (which, honestly, does probably not need to happen every time a conversation with or about the family is started), please remember that we are people first and a family first. The adoption is secondary.
This also, as a side note, goes for other ideas like disabilities. People first. Disabilities second.
"Children in foster care" not "Foster child"
"Baby with down's syndrome" not "Down's syndrome baby"
You get the idea....
