Birth-parent, first-parent, biological parent, natural parent, real parent etc?

Question

What term do you need use to describe and adopted child's first family?

What terms do you like? Why?

What terms do you dislike Why?

Please note that I am an adoptive parent who is simply trying to educate myself for the sake of my daughter and our family. Please be kind.

Answer 1

I keep alternating between first family and natural family.  I'm not sure if I have a preference between them, though I wouldn't want the implication of "natural" that I have unnatural parents.  "First" seems safely descriptive to me.  It's just what the situation is.

I used to use either "biological" or "birth" but those have odd implications to me.  (Sunny summarized nicely the problem with "biological" for me.)  "Birth" suggests that my first mom simply gave birth to me and then has nothing more to do with it, as though I didn't carry her genes, and that I don't have some connection with her even now.  (There are other issues, too.)

"Real" has always bothered me.  Who are my "real" parents?  I have, at least, four real parents.  I'm not going to decide only some of them are real.

I don't know if this is helpful, but for me, either "first" or "natural" seem to be the best choices, in my opinion.

Answer 2

When referring to my son or in public, we refer to his bio grandparents as Grandma & Grandpa.  If more of an explanation is needed, we refer to them as bio-grandparents, as that is what they refer to themselves if someone asks them.  We unfortunately do not have a relationship with the bio parents, but if we did, I would refer to them as bio simply because that is what the grandparents have done.  

People tend to forget in this forum that a lot of times "labels" are placed on people because of the need to explain answers/questions.  In the real world, I NEVER refer to myself as my son's adoptive mother.  I am his mom - plain and simple.  No need to say adoptive or bio, etc, unless we are at a medical appointment and the need for medical history becomes important.  But to the average person, I am his mom.  I simply use Adoptive Parent here as a way to identify which part of the triad my opinion is coming from.  

That being said, I do also like "First Mom/Dad" as a way to explain things too.  I do not like "Natural Mom/Dad" or "Real Mom/Dad" as it implies that one family is unnatural or unreal.  To me, family is created by love not birth.  Adoptive families are just as natural or real as birth families, so to imply that one is "unnatural" or "unreal" just does not sit well with me or our family (or our son's bio family for that matter).

Keep in mind that you will receive tons of advice from all angles of the adoption triad, but the most important thing to remember is to use the terminology that works best for your child and what your family is most comfortable with.  People will criticize you no matter what you use, but in the long run, it is what works best for your daughter and your family.  

Good luck.

Answer 3

I gave birth in 1972 and have always referred to my self as her birthmom, since I gave birth to her, I am not up on the new terminology, Biological sounds like test tube baby, real parent sounds like a term for the adoptive mom, since she really is parenting. I was not the first to parent her. Natural, I don't know about that one.

Just my opinion

Answer 4

As an adoptive mom, I try to use several different terms at least a little bit with my daughter (she's 3 1/2), because she will hear all of them and I want her to hear them first from me, when I am available to explain and help her to understand. And I want her to feel comfortable talking about having been adopted. I have sometimes used "other mother" (not too much, seems kind of dry at this age) and China mommy (that term is confusing in our family, though, because she had a foster mommy in China for more than a year, so there are 2 China mommies).

My favorite term is first mother, or in our case "first mommy," because it is both neutral and descriptive (we use the term "second mother" for her foster mom as well). I try to use it in a warm way, because I think having warm feelings about her mother will help my daughter to have warm feelings about herself. But I try to mostly be neutral about it, because my daughter is the one who gets to (and has to) come to terms with her feelings about her mother and being adopted. It is her experience and her "relationship" with her first mother, and I expect that she will have different feelings and mixed feelings as she grows up. First Mother seems by far the most neutral term to me, because it doesn't come with any value judgements. I don't reallly understand what people mean when they say that this term isn't accurate because the woman has not performed the duties of a mother -- because for one thing, carrying a the child in your womb for 9 months and giving birth certainly are important motherly roles, and for another the other terms use "mother" as well, so I don't get the difference.

My personal least favorite term is birth mother, because it reduces the mother just to the fact of the birth, and but for hard circumstances she would have simply been the mother/mommy. I do use it sometimes, though, among other adoptive parents or just the general public, because if I say first mother I sometimes have to explain and sometimes I just don't feel like it. Mostly I still use first mother with other adoptive parents, and do it very consciously to educate them. But some people do not seem to be educable. Sigh.

Oh, and um, "Birth Father"? Say what?

No, wait, my least favorite term is "biological mother." It just seems so clinical and somehow disrespectful. It feels to me as if it is really reducing the connection to just genetics and dismissing everything else. Although now that I'm mentioning it, I could see limited situations (medical) where I might use "genetic mother."

(Okay, "biological stranger" is even worse, but that one is just so completely bizarre to me that I just want to dismiss it. That woman was just whacked, and I can't believe the NCFA published it--no respect for them whatsoever. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, see the first 2 links below.)

My basic view about all sorts of terminology is that people should get to decide what name they want to be called for themselves. So if someone decides to go by a nickname or change their name, then I try to call them what they want to be called. It only seems respectful to me. And that applies to groups, also; group members get to decide what they want to be called. Though that gets to be more complicated because no group of people is monolithic and so there is often more than one term that members of a group prefer (for example Black and African American). But I certainly don't want to call members of a group by a name that is offensive to a large number of them (so I of course never use the N word, even though some African Americans do). And if I have a choice, I don't usually want to offend other people either, because it shuts off discussion. Though for me the feelings of members of the group always take precedence.

So in this case I have heard from a number of women who have lost children to adoption that they prefer the terms "natural mother" or "first mother" or just "mother." And since "natural mother" seems to be quite inflammatory to some others (especially some adoptive parents), and just plain mother is potentially confusing, I try to use First mother.

I have no idea, btw, what First Fathers wish to be called. I don't remember ever running into one discussing this, so I just use the parallel term, First Father. I know that in some cases the father really only contributed sperm in a one night stand, but in our case (adoption from China), we just have no idea what really happened, and in many cases the child actually has 2 married parents and older sibling(s) as well, so I just find it simpler and more respectful to use the same term.

I also sometimes use the term "natural mother," though so far I've only used in in writing (my thinking and feeling about these things is evolving). I have mostly used "natural mother" when I am writing about a women who has not yet decided whether or not to relinquish. Calling a woman in that situation at "birth mother" is making a huge assumption and is extremely coercive -- in a dangerous and subtle way it is making her think of herself as already having relinquished her child.

Also, some people (especially adoptive parents) find the term "natural mother" to be offensive. And to be honest it used to kind of bug me also. So I came up withthis theory. I think maybe it is because some people feel that saying natural mother implies that the adoptive mother is "unnatural," although I want to stress that I have never seen those who use "natural mother" use "unnatural mother," and have frequently seen them deny that they intend any such juxtaposition of terms. So my theory is, that for some (NOT all) adoptive mothers who have come to adoption because of infertility, the term natural mother strikes a little too close to home, because they themselves sometimes feel a little unnatural sometimes. And you know, maybe that is the problem for me also. My experiences with "natural" motherhood were distinctly "unnatural" (multiple ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages as well as failed ivf and ivf miscarriage), so maybe I'm defensive about that. It doesn't feel like it consciously, but there is still pain there for me, so it could be. Or it might just be that it also seems like a kind of "dry" term, and maybe ambiguous, so I just prefer first mother. Plus I don't want to offend other adoptive parents, either.

I don't get upset about the term "real mother" -- I just don't find it to be that useful or descriptive.  I know for sure I'm not imaginary. To my mind, all 6 of my daughter's parents are real. Her first parents in China will probably only be real to her in her heart and her fantasies, and that is sad, but I try to make them seem as real as possible.

A lot of us come to adoption with feelings of loss and pain, so feelings run high and we can get defensive. I think we should try to be gentle and understanding of each other, and that includes using terms as respectfully as we can.

Answer 5

'Birth' anything is offensive to me.  Your child was more than a passenger in this woman's womb for 9 mos.  She carries half her DNA, and is the key to her history.

I like natural and adoptive.

Biological is a bit test-tubey for me.

Answer 6

Birth parent and real parent. In Islam we don't allow surrogacy at all and we consider the woman who gives birth to the child it's mother. Children are also to keep their last names as part of their identity and their names aren't changed in Islam. We also are required to tell the child it is adopted at the age of 7 years old so it doesn't grow up living a lie.

Answer 7

mother. father.

Answer 8

Great question!  And very loving of you to consider how your daughter might feel about this (sometimes) touchy topic.  

As you can see from the many different answers, it's a difficult choice!  Back when I did my search (1983), it was politically incorrect to use the terms "natural" or "real" because either one implied that the OTHER parents where "unnatural" or "unreal".  

However, PC has changed in the last 25 years, and as you can see, some people don't like the terms "birth" or "biological" in reference to first families. Believe it or not, this aspect is all new to ME, too! And I feel as if I'm learning all over again.

I have, for the past 25 years, referred to my "birth" mother or "birth" dad, or "bio-dad" and/or "bio-sibs".  I certainly don't want to offend my fellow adoptees in this forum, whom I admire & respect.  I'm learning to use the terms "natural" and "adoptive" when I need to clarify relationships.  I do like the term "first" family.  

Interestingly enough, in another question on Y!A, almost all adoptees responded that their adoptive parents are their "real" parents, since they were the ones who raised us.  I had always held that sentiment, and was amazed to find so many others shared my feelings on that topic.  

However, that's more an answer for the adoptee to offer. Adoptive parents can unintentionally sound a bit defensive when they claim they are the child's "real" parents.  

When talking to your child, you can refer to her first mom simply as "your other mom".  Just a thought.  Between the two of you, she'll know who you mean.

Good luck to you and your family!

Answer 9

I like the term birth-parent.. thats what I did, give birth.  The adoptive agency I went through used that term and it works for me. I chose an open adoption and it is still open.  They use my first name if I come to visit. The child I gave up will always be a part of me no matter who raises him or whos genes he has.

I dont like first, natural or real because it sounds like youre under-minding the adoptive parents.  First maybe if the child/ren got taken away from them.

I would only use biological if you didnt know the birth parents.

I think it is very sweet what you are doing.. you are open minded and it will in the benefit your daughter. I think fate made you and your spouse your daughers real parents, in my mind.

Answer 10

I'm adopted, and I use "biological".  I HATE when people use the term "real" to describe birth family.  My "real" parents helped me with homework and taught me to drive (etc.)

Answer 11

I usually use "bio-mom" and "bio-dad"; their informal and sort of like slang so they don't sound so official.

I guess the term that I like the least is "real parent", I have several bio-siblings and several adopted siblings and I don't consider the former "real" and the latter "fake" they're all my siblings, just in different ways.

Answer 12

I have no problem with the word birthparents, biological parents, that’s what I general use.  I have even started using eggdonor/spermdonor.

Terms I dislike is real parent, IMO a persons real parents  are the ones that takes care of them, teaches them right from wrong etc.  Probably natural as well which I didn’t use to mind but now that I think about it, that’s kind of calling my parents un natural which they aren’t.

First parent/family – I can understand it if the child  ever lived with their biological mother[outside the womb] / father , other relatives. Say someone adopts a 5 year old, whose bio mother for whatever reason placed them for adoption. For someone who  is adopted straight at birth. IMO the biological family was never really the child's family or parents. Yes some will say they lived in  the womb, but to me 9months  in utero is nothing compared to the rest of someone’s life. I lived in my biomother for 8 1/2 months, but its my parents who have always been there for me since I was 3 weeks old, even at 24 ½ they are still there for me and supportive. Nearly 25 years means more then 8 small months, to me at least.

When it comes down to it I think it’s what the adoptee is comfortable with.

Answer 13

In the forum I frequent, they tend to prefer birth mother, as long as you don't abbreviate it to BM (for the obvious...bowel movement).

The reason is because she IS the one who gave birth to the child, and unlike the poster who feels this invalidates anything but a 9 month stay in the womb...which is a valid argument...but I can't imagine calling my child's first mother their natural mom...because any mother taking on that role is being a mom, naturally.

Each definition has the unfortunate role of invalidating either the birth mother or the adoptive mother.

As you can see, I tend to like first mother...because of all the definitions, this is the most correct and the least "jabbing" to both sides, in my opinion.

Answer 14

Biological parents....if they physically ahve their genes and came from their egg and sperm...its scientific thats why i like it and in msot cases have nothing to do with the child so they dont deserve any other name.  If i was talking to ur child i wouldnt say ur real mom because you are her real mom if u take care of her.  Id just explain to her what biological or natural parent means.

Answer 15

Ok ! the Biological Mum is ok or you could refer to her as her blood kin !  If you love this child and she love,s you then you are her mum and your husbend is her dad ! You did not say how old he or she is if young than you have plenty of time but if thay are older wate untill thay aproch you dont jump the gun !

Answer 16

I like natural.  Biological sounds a bit cold and distant to me.  Birth sounds like their only contribution to me was strictly utilitarian.  But, since my natural parents contributed to who I am as a person, I'd like it to be something that sounds not only scientifically correct (via nature,) but something that personal.  First parent is fine, too.  Real doesn't work because in different ways, they are all my real parents.

My husband, not an adoptee and not familiar with adoption until he married me, has a very hard time wrapping his head around calling anyone not actually someone's blood mother and father their "real parents."  So, he always calls natural parents real parents and adoptive parents either adoptive parents or step parents.  For him, it has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship, work and contributions either set gave/gives to the child, it is strictly about what makes natural sense to him.  He certainly does not mean it in any negative sort of way.

Answer 17

I don't like real or first parents, I feel it would diminish the relationship we will have.  I suppose my situation is different as the children are already abandoned and in foster care.   I suppose we will give it more and decide closer to the date.

Good for you to think about it before hand.

Answer 18

It depends on who I am talking to.

When I'm speaking to family, I use her first name, unless it's my son, in which case she's "Mamma".

When I'm speaking to others knowledgeable about adoption, she's "my son's mom"

When I'm describing our relationship to outsiders, I will use "birthmother", because it is the most common term these days.

I hate the term "real" parent/ child, and always have... none of us are imaginary.

When I was growing up, my birth parents were simply not discussed. ever, and my parents never referred to me as their "adopted" daughter.

Answer 19

I'm a birthmom.  I'm completely comfortable with that name.  I'm also comfortable with 'Sarah' as we have an open adoption, but I can see how that doesn't work in all situations.  

As you can see, there are many different opinions and options of what to use.  Just use whatever you're comfortable with.  Since you're thoughtful enough to be asking this question, I'm sure whatever feels comfortable for you and your situation will work just fine.

Answer 20

We use, and prefer, birth and/or biological.  These are accurate and non-judgmental monikers.

I don't like "natural" because it implies that somehow the adoptive parents are "unnatural".  Note, adoption is not unnatural, it occurs in other animals and  is not something uniquely human.  The same is true for "real".

I don't object to "first parent", but feel it comes across as a political statement.  It feels like people who use this term have an agenda and are trying to imply that birth parents are 'superior' to adoptive parents (and this it not always true, I have known too many kids neglected, abused, and abandoned by their birth parents to believe that).

Answer 21

i think this is splitting hairs. but i usually use birth or bio. i have taken alot of heat for this at times but i dont think it is all that importent in the big picture. as long as you are open and honest about everything you will be fine. its great that you are taking so much consideration about this. it really shows your character

Answer 22

biological or birth mom. WHY- because that is what she is- she is biologically the mother, and gave birth to the the child that you adopted.  Real parent is not right- even the birth mom of my son told us that we are his real parents.

Answer 23

Since you are the first parent, natural parent and real parent to your daughter, I would go with "biological parent".  Certainly she will always think of you as her first, natural and real parent.

Answer 24

for me, i like first...

...because it gives seriation to the mothers in the child's life.  now, "seriation" doesn't mean "ranking."--calm down folks :-)... yet, it clearly delineates that there was a mother first...and then the adoptive mother. i have frequently, however, used all terms such as is "b/f/n-mom" as to be inclusive to all preferences.

re: birthmother...

personally, the birth term is a bit demeaning to me.  especially when one looks at the origin of the term.. it was used to depersonalize young women who gave birth; yet were not married.  in addition, it was usually juxtaposed with terms such as "b*****d/illegitimate, et al."  

as a woman who's been called a "birthmother" (note, i never placed my son), the term calls into question for me, its connotation . first, it's often used quite inappropriately as in, "we are looking for a birthmother who wants to place her baby" , "will the birthmother allow me in the room for the delivery??? to state that any woman is a "birthmother" prior to relinquishment, denotes that she is nothing more than the biological process for this child's existance.  also, it discounts the f-moms' feelings, emotions and attachment to the child that any other "mother" might have.

also, i think it's meant to diminsh the woman's role in the child's lfe... and (i'll tread lightly here...) to reduce her as "property" to the adoptive parents.  "our birthmother delivered our son...."  

just don't like it....  it reminds me too much of animal breeding. sorry.