genetic parent (n) – a. A parent who has conceived or sired rather than adopted a child and whose genes are therefore transmitted to the child. b. The father and mother whose DNA a child carries.
It’s been a few days since we explored the concept of what is “real” when it comes to familial relations and why that word verges on nonsensical in these contexts. Last time I posted about why non-genetic parents are “real” parents, despite others’ efforts to downplay their role or others’ ignorance as to why lack of shared genetics makes people no less family. But today let’s explore why the word “real” is inappropriate when referencing genetic parents.
✔️ Do they occur in fact or actuality?
✔️ Do they have a verifiable existence?
✔️ Are they truly and actually a person who shares 50% of a child’s DNA?
✔️ Are they not imaginary, alleged, or ideal?
Seems to check all the boxes of what is real. 🤷🏻♀️
As I shared in my first post on this topic, I have been told before that I was not a “real” cousin because I did not share genetics, and my grandmother used the word “real” as a defense mechanism to downplay my adoptive father’s role in my life. But guess what? Sometimes people do the same thing to genetic parents.
There is a trend in the donor-conception community for others to downplay the importance of our genetic parents by focusing only on the fact that they do not, when the word is used as a verb, “parent” us. Sometimes a parent and a genetic parent are one in the same, but sometimes they are not. That does not, however, make a genetic parent any less “real.” Why is it threatening to admit that the other person who contributes the genetic material to a child is a genetic parent in the sense that the medical community considers the term?
Again, the use of “real” is both a weapon, a defense mechanism, and sometimes a sign of ignorance. Before you use the word, ask yourself what you are *really* trying to express.
A Donor Conceived Adult 