[flagged]
Adopted, so kind of forced to be aware of things like that.
I'm curious as to why the change of what I've heard (biological parents) and in the recent year (birth parents).
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Biological+par...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Biologic...
Also, I'd assume the child would later look for those people with their genetic material, their biological parents, those who provided the sperm & eggs. Not the birth parent, who birthed them. There's much less of a connection there as it's the person who simply carried them for a money transaction and is not part of the child genetically.
You made a statement on this being a new term, I gave references showing it was factually incorrect. The proper response is "thank you, I was wrong", not whatever this thing you responded with is.
Biological has always had a notable edge, but it seems subjectively to have eroded slowly over time over the last 40+ years that I’ve been exposed to it (thinking mostly of print, its been near parity in what I’ve heard, but “birth” is what I favor and what my [adoptive] parents favored so…)
The birth parents would be the mother who actually gave birth (and if existing, the spouse who is in the relationship with the birth mother).
This is would be much more prevalent of a distinction due to surrogacy.
Also, I'd assume the child would later look for those people with their genetic material, their biological parents, those who provided the sperm & eggs. Not the birth parent, who birthed them. There's much less of a connection there as it's the person who simply carried them for a money transaction and is not part of the child genetically.
"who has been adopted"
> It's not a new term
I see, it's somewhat new to me, when did the term come to popular usage? When was it "invented"?
Its always been somewhat less popular than “biological parents”, but its been in wide use since somewhere about the late 1970s, and it (or at least, the narrower form “birth mother”) was in use by the early 1950s at the latest.
People who are adopted have two sets of parents so it’s used to distinguish who they are referring to.
My cousin is a parent by adoption to two and is a very good mother to a family. The children also have birth parents and while they have never been in contact, the children are in contact with their siblings who were adopted by other families and meet up regularly. They also know their birth-grandparents.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth%20parent
This seems to be a problem with these new "woke" words or however you'd like to describe them.
They seem unnatural and sudden which is why everyone is confused.
How does that disagree with me?
Or is it being used wrong?
Perhaps they’re widening it to include people giving birth. Some people giving birth may then give up their child for adoption, so they wouldn’t want to be called mothers. Either that or they’re trans in some way but able to give birth.
I think the point being is that there are many ways a family is constructed, and many situations people find themselves in.
Because I first heard it used about a year ago.
Most commonly used by people who are adopted to refer to their biological parents (especially I would say if they have a relationship with them). I definitely wouldn’t view it as a woke term (I wouldn’t see how it would serve that demographic) unless it’s being used in a different way to the definition I posted earlier.
Reading the article it might have a new meaning which potentially refers to the parent who actually performs the birth? I still don’t think I’d consider that woke but I’ve never heard it in that context and would find it a confusing term since I’m used to the other definition.
I don’t think its a real new meaning in any kind of general use, it is just bad writing trying to condense the terminology used in the earlier article. The early article it references on the leave policy uses “parents who give birth”. Aside from gender identity issues, this also addresses the fact that the Google policy (as I understand it) applies to adoptive parents as well, so even leaving aside gender identity “mothers” and “parents who give birth” would not be identical groups. “Birth parents” is a writer making a misguided and overzealous attempt at making that more terse.
I see, another user commented about it possibly including "surrogacy", so that may be the explanation there.
Biological would more refer to those who provided the sperm & eggs, birth would refer to those who actually did the... birthing. The birth father would be the one in the relationship with the birth mother?