I actually got into a discussion about the word psychology vs. psychologist. When you say psychologist, you’re not just talking about anyone who practices psychology. Psychiatry is a branch of psychology, and yet you wouldn’t call a psychiatrist a psychologist. A psychologist has a specific job that could be called a general psychologist. So the meaning of psychology is getting twisted a little in this context.

So why can’t biological mother mean genetic mother or birth mother in this context? You don’t have to tell people they’re confusing biology with genetics because we’re not necessarily talking about biology or genetics as a whole. We’re just using a specific term to mean a specific thing. I for one have never even heard the term genetic mother until now. I understand that you think saying someone isn’t a biological mother sort of cheapens the job, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Everyone I know understands that the adoptive mom is the “real” mom and the important one. Saying biological mom is just a matter of clarity and distinction.

When I first saw this phrase, I assumed it was just an oddity. But then I saw you saying that the only way to understand your post, and to avoid being called a misogynist, is to read a book. This is obviously some sort of twisted advert campaign for Hrdy.

If I wanted to be told to read a book before I can express my opinion, I’d still be going for weekly prayers at the Synagogue.

And I think Greg and Hrdy’s points are both true and important.

That said, I think there’s a case against attempting to overturn a popular language that has returned a reasonably satisfactory solution to complex problems – “Dad” and “Biological Dad” may not be as perfectly accurate as “Dad” and “Genetic Dad” but they serve their purpose fairly well, applying the modifier to the person who needs it the most – a shift away from the old scenarios in which the modifier (step, adoptive, etc…) was applied to the person who did the primary parenting. Moreover, biological is useful for those many complicated grey areas in which the only thing you want to establish is *not* a genetic relationship.

For example, my niece, adopted from Vietnam, was raised for the first three years of her life, before she was handed to the orphanage, by her genetic mother. The raising was probably pretty awful – thankfully she doesn’t remember, and we know drugs and alcohol were pretty seriously involved, but her contribution was not simply genetic. And a terrible upbringing does not erase her mother’s attempts to tend her. In most cases other than a pure sperm donor or “we gave up the baby 10 minutes after birth” the parents shared in some biological care at some point – maybe badly, maybe well. “Biological” seems like a better word to describe this complexity, to me at least, than “Genetic” in cases where there are blurry lines.

BTW, thanks for the kind link re: goats – no room to thank you there. Let me know how many to put you down for ;-).

Sharon

Meanwhile….I appreciate your distinction between confusing and challenging. I guess I was looking at it from the POV of the average person who has little scientific knowledge. In some cases, people will admit to fear of the unknown with regard to science. Some are even proud of the fact that they are ignorant of scientific “beliefs.” Could you really get such people to wrap their heads around the idea that biology isn’t just genes? Or is this concept meant solely for more educated laypeople?

Not confusing. Challenging.

Throughout all of this discussion, “mother” is being used for more than one thing. It isn’t the only word that could have subtle or complex meanings.

It is interesting that while “birth mother” is considered in at least part of the adoption industry to be the inappropriate word to use, it is in fact the word that is almost always used. Why has the industry been so ineffective in getting this changed?

Originally, I was responding to the point made several times in the comments above that people believed the use of the term “birth” mother obviated the need to use “biological” mother at all, because your theoretical point about *both* being biological mothers would be confusing to put into practice in real life.

The term “birth” mother is considered offensive and discriminatory by many in the adoption triad, so I just wanted to point that out.

First Mother is an old term that goes way back before being replaced with “birth mother.” Later, people decided they didn’t like that term and switched back. This post, however, is about the term “biological mother.”

So, what is this secret intrigue regarding Karla and vhm?

It’s only obscure to people who haven’t done research into the subject. Among adoptees, first parents, and adoptive and prospective adoptive parents who have ventured beyond what the adoption agencies say in their FAQs, it’s actually quite well known.

Come to think of it, that spelling variant on your name seems familiar. If you are who I think you are, you’re playing a little game here, and you know it.

Elf Eye, your post was wonderful to read. Unfortunately (as you probably know), your insightful perception is still the minority opinion.

I nearly died of a genetically inherited disorder, because there are so many general symptoms that none of my doctors could figure out what exactly was wrong for several years. Turns out, almost every one of my genetic relatives on one side of the family suffer from the same disorder. Now THAT’s biology.