Talk:Adoption/'Adoptism' section

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

'Adoptism' section

I think the adoptism term should be removed. Never heard of it, and I think it is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BaliPearl (talk • contribs).

I have been active in the adoption/post-adoption area for many years and have never heard this term used. A google search for it generates very few results - all either repeat a single article which uses the term or are various incarnations of this wikipedia definition. Should it be removed? The following section on adoption language would then need minor editing. Thoughts?

Well, there is probably such as thing as people radically against adoption, but I never heard of the term 'adoptism' either. Plus, many people may oppose adoption for considerably different reasons that were not represented in the succinct list here. I vote remove. Adidas 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
This is not a neologism - it is used in adoption circles, especially by transcultural adoptive families because they are more likely to face it. There are 584 hits in Google for "adoptism." Granted, may of them are mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Let's say 25% of them are mirrors (which is high, I believe) What exactly is your definition of "very few?"
"all either repeat a single article which uses the term or are various incarnations of this wikipedia definition." - All? This is patently and demonstrably false.
Do you think the word is less notable, than say, the short-lived Canadian Children's TV Show, Yes You Can, or any amount of pop-culture ephemera that has been immortalized in the wikipedia? Danlovejoy 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
Good point - but having "The belief that adoptees are defined throughout their lives by the fact of their adoption" does not make one necessarily a propronent of 'adoptism'. What I am getting at is, 'adoptism' sounds like 'racism' and therefore suggests a quite radical point of view, whereas the definition that's given for it is quite mild. Furthermore, 'adoptism' is not a word. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adoptism

Overall, I think the word should stay but the definition updated. Adidas 8 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

A word is a word because people use it, not because trailing indicators like dictionaries have included it. Please see "Normative Development in Transracial Adoptive Families: An Integration of the Literature and Implications for the Construction of a Theoretical Framework" in Families and Society, Volume 84, Number 2. Also, see the index of Transracial Adoption" (You can view the entire index on Amazon)
Please feel free to make it better as you see fit and we will hash it out together. But keep in mind: racism is not always radical and overt. The most damaging racism these days is quite subtle. Adoptism can be quite subtle as well. If you have not experienced it, please tread lightly as you make edits. You have no idea how many adult adoptees have been damaged because the fact of their adoption has been made central to their identity. In other words, they were labeled "the adopted child," in contrast to the parents' "own" children.

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm also adopted, and I have to say I have never come across this term - sounds a bit like something some PC-pusher has thought up. I agree with the previous poster who said that it sounds a bit like 'racism' (which I have experienced) and I don't think it really adds anything to the definition. The behaviours defined as 'adoptism' can be addressed under other entries but I don't think this definition is satisfactory. Does the alleged 'adoptism' originate from the adoptive parents/family or from outside the family? Is there any reason for an unrelated person to act negatively towards somebody on account of them being adopted? I have been an [obvious, transracial] adoptee for most of my life and I have never experienced prejudice due to being adopted - due to being a different race, sure, but I don't think people are prejudiced against adoptees any more than, say, people with ginger hair - are we going to have an entry for 'gingerist'? (IMHO the page makes adoption sound like quite a negative thing, which I don't think it is.) Please do not create an article on 'adoptism' - this is just validating something that doesn't really deserve webspace. - Nao* 14:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nao, it seems like you haven't even read the definition of adoptism in the article, or the references I posted above, because your objections pretend that adoption is somehow related to or similar to racism. The definition says nothing of the sort. Adoptism is a prejudice against the institution of adoptism, not adoptees themselves, and it is almost never overt. Look at the article's history. There are literally DOZENS of anonymous edits by people who seem to hate adoption and adoptive parents. I know, because I have to deal with them. So don't come here as a newbie and say "there is no such thing as adoptism."
I have found references in numerous books, scholarly articles, and hundreds of web sites - I've posted some of those above. Just because you aren't familiar with the term as an adoptee does not mean that it does not exist. Your individual experience, while valuable, is not dispositive here. Danlovejoy 15:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Dan, while you are usually on track and NPOV with your edits, I think you put the smack down a bit too much on Nao with that reply. Personally while I was well aware of the issues surrounding adoption, and in particular people radically opposed to it, I had never heard of the term 'adoptism' before. Its a neologism, which kind of works on that page for lack of better term. Cheers, Adidas 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping me on the right track, Adidas. I agree that I was harsh - I'm sorry Nao. I hope you will stick around Wikipedia and add to the community.
(Now, let's talk more about me. ;-) ) The root of my frustration, which doesn't excuse my demeanor or how I expresssed it, is this - I'm getting it from both sides here, and it seems like I'm the only one that sees the irony. Periodically, someone comes up and says "There's no such thing as adoptism because I don't know the word." In the meantime, I'm reverting anti-adoption edits like crazy. Obviously there are people out there who hate adoption and adoptive parents, and there are people out there who are less vocal who find adoption distasteful. Such an attitude deserves a name and, lo and behold, the adoption community has come up with one that has been in use for years and is now coming into its own. Older adoptees and adoptive families aren't familiar with it, but people who are current with adoption literature recognize it as a real word with a real definition.
Once again, Nao - I'm sorry, and I'm also sorry that I didn't offer a "naked apology" here. I'm not even really frustrated at you - You're just getting it because you had the guts to log in and express your thoughts, unlike the cowards who make hit-and-run anonymous POV edits constantly. So please forgive the harshness Danlovejoy 19:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Danlovejoy, thanks for trying to reconcile with Nao. I'm in the same boat with Adidas in that I recognized that prejudices existed but I had never heard the term previously. I agree with you that the content of many of the anonymous editors to this article is evidence enough for why the term should stay. Edwardian 20:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Globe icon
 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Source: "South Africa Allows Gay Adoption", http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=515&ncid=723&e=1&u=/ap/20020910/ap_on_re_af/south_africa_gay_rights -- April

Are there any articles on step parents? --zandperl 01:29, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the statement "although there is a world of difference outside of the legal world." It is NPOV and an unsupported assertion.

I have removed the following statements from "reasons for adoption," because I think they are inaccurate. If I'm wrong, I would like to see some corroborating evidence. I have also cleaned up that paragraph.

"However this reason is diminishing as fertility clinics provide solutions to couples or individuals whom cannot conceive. As the price for adoption increases and clinics become more affordable, adoption agencies see clinics as competition."

"This [adoption of a child by fertile couples] has become fashionable in recent years with the phenomenon of couples giving birth to a child of one sex then adopting another from the other sex." 68.229.219.84 02:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following seems like axe-grinding against someone's perception of PC language:

"In most cultures, family and family heritage are valued. Honest language, which does not promote unrelated adoptive situations for children over natural parents, is used. Adoption businesses encourage biased "positive adoption language" to build up their businesses. This biased language makes people who are unrelated to a child appear to be more entitled to a child than her own family is."

I'm not sure "honest" or "biased" really apply to examples listed in the chart. And the business angle leaves out individuals or families who may use "positive adoption language" to avoid making a child feel unwanted.

Someone who's more knowledgeable about adoption circles than I am may want to edit this. 61.51.66.233 06:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right - I have reverted the anonymous edits. More viewpoints on adoption are welcome, but Wikipedia is not the place to grind your axe against adoption. That was some ugly stuff. Danlovejoy 13:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

-

Sorry if this has been addressed previously, but is there a reason why "Adoptism" given its large relative size within the article redirects here and doesn't have it's own article? Edwardian 05:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If we think it merits its own article, that's fine with me. Notice that even the term "Adoptism" has been contested. (above) Danlovejoy 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

- I propose removing the third bulletpoint in the Adoptism section, which reads "* The belief that adoptees are defined throughout their lives by the fact of their adoption", on the grounds that holding such a belief does not necessarily make one opposed to adoption. On the contrary, there's a growing body of evidence (Verrier, Lifton, Robinson, et al) that being adopted does have a large bearing on a person's psychology - even if they don't know they've been adopted. Thoughts? Bastun 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Adoptism isn't necessarily opposed to adoption. Sometimes it's just a "tolerance" of adoption. It's hard to chicken/egg this phenomenon: being adopted does have a large bearing on a person's psychology
Is that because people have treated adoptees differently because they were adopted? That can be the only explanation if they didn't even know they were adopted, right? If people are treating them differently because they were adopted, that is a prime example of adoptism. Thoughts? Danlovejoy 14:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
If adoptism isn't necessarily opposed to adoption, then the current definition, namely: "Adoptism is a prejudice against adoption defined by several beliefs" is surely incorrect?

My point is that evidence, both researched (e.g., Verrier, Lifton) and anecdotal strongly suggests that adopted people are, at least in part, defined by the fact of their adoption; and that holding such a view does not necessarily make a person "adoptist", at least according to the currently used definition. Re "Is that because people have treated adoptees differently because they were adopted? That can be the only explanation if they didn't even know they were adopted, right?" Well, on the first question, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some parents have been so anxious to cover up the fact that their child is adopted that they've moved house. In other cases, possibly the child does unconsciously pick up that something isn't right from other adults. On the second question - no, absolutely not. (At this point I was going to quote directly from the 'Primal Wound' section of the main entry, but I see now that it's been deleted, although a much reduced part of it is still covered in the Adoption in the United States article.) The point of Verrier's work is that a child is not a blank slate and that no matter how young a child is, seperating him from his natural mother will result in psychological scars. Hmm, some of this discussion is covering on issue that's not covered at all in the article - that of Late Discovery Adoptees. Possibly also worth including a section on that? I presume you're familiar with the term, but if not a Google on "Ron Morgan" and "late discovery adoptee" or "LDA" will give a background. Bastun 18:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Bastun, I completely disagree with your edit. Verrier's work is very controversial and not at all in the mainstream. I'm afraid I'm losing faith in the Wikipedia, so I'm happy to pass the torch and let this go. Danlovejoy 17:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Verrier except she looms large in the adoption article in wikipedia. Bastun, you're the author (and the only person to have contributed) of the Nancy Verrier article in Wikipedia. Do you have a particular interest/connection to Nancy Verrier? --Giddylake 21:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Dan - I responded to your points the day you made them and waited for a further response for several days before making the change. I'm certainly happy to discuss this further. However, I'd disagree that Verrier's work is seen as controversial - possibly when first published, but certainly not now; and it's certainly regarded as mainstream on this side of the pond, at least. However, even leaving Verrier aside - I don't see how a view that adoption (along with many other aspects) defines a person can be seen as "a prejudice against adoption."
I'm not going to revert your changes. But it's ironic and not a little frustrating that being defined throughout life by one's status as an adoptee is causative of the very problems that Verrier reports. How many times have you heard about an adopted child, "Oh, he gets along with the other kids just great. They play and play" or other statements one would never, every think to say about a birth child. Of course they get along! They've been siblings/cousins since right after their birth!
How many people say, "Their adopted daughter XYZ..."? At least in the states, lots of people say that. We point it out because it's detrimental to adoptees.
Perhaps a useful compromise might be to talk about speaking about and treating adoptees differently than one would speak about or treat birth children. I would propose language here, but it's late in Oklahoma and I'm sleepy. ;-) Sorry for the testiness earlier. My frustration has nothing to do with you, Bastun. Danlovejoy 02:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
No worries, Dan :-) And with your point above, I'm finally starting to get where you're coming from on the Adoptism definition (I can be slow sometimes). Basically the definition is talking about a prejudice from the outside, held through ignorance/lack of knowledge in the area, by people completely unconnected to it? Whereas, from the inside, I was looking at the third bullet point and saying yes, of course adoption (in part) defines me, why would that mean I'm prejudiced against adoption? And confusing (passive or ignorant) adoptism with (active) anti-adoption positions. I agree we can get a good working solution here - looking forward to seeing your proposed language when you have time. Bastun 10:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Giddylake - I'm surprised you have such an interest in the adoption article and yet don't know anything about Verrier. Yes, I authored the current entry on Verrier. Yes, I have an interest in her work. In Ireland and the UK, her books are highly recommended by social workers and agenceis to adopted people, natural parents and adoptive parents who become interested in post-adoption issues, such as tracing, reunion, or finding information on one's background and/or medical history. No, I have no connection to her. Bastun 01:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I try to always have something "on the go" in terms of adoption reading material - not necessarily textbook stuff, could be something like Nicky Campbell's biography, but occasionally more academic - but I haven't read Nancy Verrier. Google search last night gave me lots of info (and controversy in Google Groups). I'll keep reading. Maybe I'll add her to my reading list--Giddylake 11:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Instead of trying to jump in on the various discussions going I will merely state how I ended up reading the current Adoptism section. The actual list given does not accurately reflect the source that is mentioned. The list header seems to imply that one must be all of the following, instead of simply one or more. The section is also ridiculously small and doesn't actually talk about the more common forms of "Adoptism." In my opinion, examples that are given here in the Talk section should be used: everyday, casual references to adopted kids as different or separate. I do not know if such references have good, bad, or neutral effects but in my personal experience I would assume that it matters individually for those who have been adopted.

I would also suggest taking steps to separate "adoptism" from "racism" due to the strong negative connotations involved in racism. I will grant that adoptism can be a very bad thing and could (has) caused serious problems in someone's life, but I am not willing to grant it is 100% avoidable nor will I grant off-hand that adoptees (is that term PC?) should necessarily be treated as if they were not adopted (I wouldn't mind discussing either, but I'd need some convincing on either issue). If adoptism only refers to negative attitudes and consequences of being treated differently then the section should explicitly state exactly that. I personally would state that adoptism is a rough term noting the difference of treatment between those who have been adopted and those who have not. I would also point out common, implicit actions that could fall under the term "adoptism" along with specific types of adoption that highlight differences. The particular example I am thinking of is being adopted into a family with a different skin color.

I am new to Wikipedia and I do not have a large knowledge of adoption or psychology, so I will leave the editing to someone more suited. I do happen to know families who have adopted for various reasons but they all seem pretty well adjusted and I tend to keep my nose out of other people's business. MrHen 19:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)