The more I read and the more I write for www.adoptionblogs.com the better informed I become about the bazillion issues related to adoption.

I have visited and revisited a number of adoption topics over the past several months and each time I come away with an a-ha moment, or a different way of looking at the very same issue. Today...this morning actually, very early in the morning...that topic is respectful adoption language (RAL). I have always been a language sensitive kind of person. Using affirming, positive language about people and their experiences seems to come naturally to me and my professional training supports this inclination.

In graduate school, I was one of those students who immediately adopted what was called back then, person-first language. For example: infant exposed to drugs in utero instead of drug baby, crack baby, etc; mother who is substance addicted instead of drug addict; he has a diagnosis of mental retardation instead of a term that is so offensive I won't even write it here.

I know that sometimes person-first language (I don't know if it is even called that anymore) sounds too sanitized and politically correct and all of that. I know there are those who fall in the camp of, "Oh, hell, just call it what it is, you're not fooling anyone with your fancy psychobabble language." I actually had someone say something like that to me once in far more crass terms. I think it was related to a crack baby comment. Ummm, I think I referred to him as a jerk instead of a person who was intolerant or insensitive. (Note: The term "jerk" is not an example of person-first language and, in fact, my use of it probably only confirmed his "call it what it is" position. As usual, I digress. Back to the point.

How we talk about adoption is a topic that never loses its steam or its relevance. Sometimes, it seems like our language, any language is amazingly limited when it comes to representing the broad spectrum of thoughts and feelings and experiences related to adoption. Birth mother, birthmom, natural mother, first mom...who is, The Real Mom? Adopted child, family formed/expanded by adoption, adoptive dad, just plain old dad, adopted siblings, biological brother, twins, artificial twinning...who is related to whom? Relinquished, given up, placed, surrendered, coerced into...how did the adoption take place?

Here is a link to an article about RAL with a viewpoint that, I believe, is only recently beginning to be heard. Here is a quote from the article:

RAL should not be used as a smokescreen for marginalization.

...and here are a couple more:

Like it or not, adoption is not the same as having natural families. Adoption...was a solution of last resort for a sizeable percentage of adoptive and natural parents, a far cry from being "just another valid way to form a family.

I have taken these particular quotes out of context, deliberately, so that they will appear more provocative and will hopefully entice you to read the entire article. Before I started blogging on adoption, it never occurred to me that any aspect of RAL could be, or would be, "used as a smokescren for marginalization." I don't agree that marginalization was, or has ever been, the driving force behind the push for respectful adoption language. However, I do understand, now, how what was intended to be a positive thing could possibly be co-opted and used in a negative way.

As for the adoption being "just another valid way to form a family" comment. Even after reading the entire article referenced, I still feel this way. I do think that adoption can be just another valid way to form a family. The heartbreaking reality of some adoption experiences does not negate that possibility. In time, I may see things differently. I'm not there yet and on that one point...I'm not sure that I ever will be.