Thursday, September 24, 2015

6 Reasons why #ShoutYourAdoption as Push-Back to #ShoutYourAbortion is Problematic (at Best).

About 5 days ago, the hashtag #ShoutYourAbortion made its debut on writer Lindy West's Twitter feed to her 60,000 followers, inspired by her friend Amelia Bonow's initiative to speak publically about her abortion experience. Bonow told Vice that she did this as a personal exercise to address the shame she internalized as the result of having an abortion, and as a response to the movement to defund Planned Parenthood. Shortly thereafter, #ShoutYourAdoption burst onto the scene as a push-back to online abortion speak-outs offering adoption as a replacement to abortion. Organizations such as quickly jumped on board directing (whom I assume to be) original parents, "Let's ‪#‎ShoutYourAdoption‬ instead of ‪#‎ShoutYourAbortion‬! Let us know why you chose adoption over abortion." But not everyone, including myself, is thrilled about this social media movement. And one need not be Pro-Life or Pro-Choice to understand why.

Its Intention is to Silence, not Empower
Hashtags are powerful tools that can draw attention to marginalized voices by creating a collective of thoughts and narratives. Last year, Lost Daughters launched #flipthescript, a movement that reached 30 million households in 30 days, to draw attention to voices of adopted and fostered adults who are consistently drowned out in the promotional activity of National Adoption Month. #ShoutYourAbortion too was created as a platform for individuals who have experienced abortion whose voices are drowned out in the noise of election season. Although some re-frame #ShoutYourAdoption as a movement de-stigmatize adoption, the original intention of the hashtag was not to empower the adoption community.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

"Mommy, Which Mom is Your Real Mom?" When my Biological Children Ask my Adoptee Childhood Questions

Recently, my elementary schooler caught me off-guard. "Mommy, which mom is your real mom? Nanny or Grammie?" He was referring to my original mother and my adoptive mother. My thoughts collided and jumbled at once. I had no idea where he had heard the iconic (to me) "real mom" phrase. I fervently try to teach my children that my mothers, and all the ways in which women mother, are valid and important. Maybe I just wasn't doing a good job. Slow down, bring it back Amanda. This is not about you. "Buddy, can you tell me what you mean?" I finally managed.

My children have never known what it is like to not have three sets of grandparents. "How did we get so lucky?" my son has said.

I too have never known what life is like without three sets of grandparents: my mom's parents (who were happily married for a bazillion years) my dad's father and step-mother, and my dad's mother and step-father.

I was in elementary school when my peers were old enough to reason that I wasn't endowed with extra grandparents through magic. It was their questions that would later trigger the quickening of my heartbeat when my son uttered the phrase "real mom."

"How do you have three sets of grandparents?" They'd ask.

"My dad's parents are divorced and re-married."

"Then you don't have three sets of grandparents. Your dad's mom and dad are his real parents."

You couldn't tell me my grandpa in Arizona and my grandma in Pennsylvania weren't "real." I could see them and touch them; they felt real. My love for them was real. It finally hit me that "real" meant "biologically related."

My next realization hit me in the stomach like a well-placed punch. I'm not real. I was not biologically related to anyone I consciously knew and recognized as family. People also told me that my biological parents weren't real because they didn't raise me. As SooJung Jo wrote in her memoir, "I was just as related to everyone as I was to no one."

To me, conflicting messages about "real parents" ring reminiscent of old legal terms for children of extra-marital birth--nullius filius (child of no one) and nullius populi (child of everyone). An "illegitimate child" is "not accepted by the law as rightful."

We may think we have moved past the stigma of illegitimacy, but it seems we've only re-packaged it. Because, although the "real parent" concept in adoption intends to support the emotional need of adults to feel successful as parents, we continue to lose sight of whether our adult reasoning leaves room for the adopted child to feel real.

Flash forward a few decades. The responsibility now rests on my shoulders to explain adoption to my children. As Nicole Chung expressed in her beautiful Motherlode piece, I too worry that answering my little boys' questions about adoption gives them fears too big to hold. "Before I told her about my adoption, she never had reason to even consider what it would be like to be given up, or given to others," Chung wrote of her biological daughter. "Now she does."

At too young an age my son knows that every child's absolute worst fear--losing a parent, living without the care of a parent--isn't something simply safely explored in displacement through his favorite fairytales. You would think that being a children's therapist or having 30 years of a lived adoption experience would make it easier to explain adoption to my children. Yet the weight of my "unrealness" in our political and social environment sometimes suffocates me.

Working against me is a purity culture that condemns extra-marital sex and childbearing; a rape-culture that blames my mother for my conception and let my father off the hook; a culture of classism that questions the competence of impoverished parents; a racist and hetero-cis-normative culture that teaches my children to "other" families that do not look like theirs; an adoption culture that undervalues my connection to my roots; the fetishization of adoption in popular media; and a Christian Evangelical culture that hails one set of their grandparents as their mother's saviors and their other grandparent as someone their mother was "saved from."

I am tasked with offering developmentally appropriate reasoning as to why my sons will not lose me while taking care not to indict their Grammie for surrendering me or their grandparents for adopting me. I must emphatically embrace my own realness. I must give my children a voice in their hearts that pushes back messages of "unrealness" and leaves space for anyone they love to be real.

Above all, I must give them the confidence to always know that they too are real.

"I don't know." This was my son's answer to my haphazard response to his question. "You call them both 'mom,' but Nanny grew you and took care of you. That's just like you grew me and take care of me."

"Well, Nanny didn't grow me, remember?" I replied. "Grammie grew me and Nanny took care of me when I was growing up. Now Grammie and Nanny and Daddy's mom all look out for me and they all help take care of you."

"Oh," he donned a satisfied look. "I guess they're all real moms then."

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

An Open Letter: Why Co-opting “Transracial” in the Case of Rachel Dolezal is Problematic

Amanda's Note: I was proud to participate in the drafting and endorsement of this much-needed letter as an ally to the transracial adoptee community. Please share this letter widely and follow/support #definetransracial on Twitter.

Rachel Dolezal. Photo credit: artist unknown.

June 16, 2015

Please direct all media inquiries to Kimberly McKee, PhD at

This past weekend the world took to social media to dissect the events surrounding Rachel Dolezal, the former president of Spokane’s NAACP chapter who came under heavy scrutiny for falsely representing herself as black. As part of this real-time discussion, the term transracial is being co-opted to describe Dolezal identifying as black despite being born white.

As members of the adoption community — particularly those of us who identify as transracial adoptees — we are deeply alarmed by the gross mischaracterization of this term. We find the misuse of “transracial,” describing the phenomenon of a white woman assuming perceived markers of “blackness” in order to pass as “black,” to be erroneous, ahistorical, and dangerous.

Transracial is a term that has long since been defined as the adoption of a child that is of a different race than the adoptive parents. The term most often refers to children of color adopted by white families in the Global North, and has been extensively examined and documented for more than 50 years by academics and members of the adoption triad: adoptees, birthparents, and adoptive parents.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Born. Adopted. Sealed. Deported: the Fight for Equality for Adopted People

"Born. Adopted. Sealed. Denied!" was the hallmark chant of the Adoptee Rights Demonstration during my years attending and co-planning the demonstration as the now-former Vice President of the Adoptee Rights Coalition. The demonstration and its simple four-word message aimed to educate  legislators attending the annual National Conference of State Legislatures regarding a near 90-year-old legal practice that seals the original birth certificates of adopted people in all but 2 states and treats adopted people unfairly when attempting to access this certificate in all but 6 states. When we are born, we receive the same birth record as all other people. Following our adoption, this birth record becomes sealed and an amended birth certificate takes its place. A large portion of us are denied fair access to the original birth certificate as an adult--or denied access altogether. Born. Adopted. Sealed. Denied. But, what if I told you that the amended birth certificate--the record that claims your U.S. citizen parents gave birth to you in your state or country of origin at a date and time they were unlikely to so much as know you existed--is not enough to keep you from being deported?

For adult adoptees who turned age 18 prior to the passing of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), whose adoptive parents and agencies did not obtain U.S. citizenship for them, the threat of deportation is real. And ironically, that amended birth certificate that is otherwise imposed on adoptees as the "real birth certificate" and official confirmation that we are to move forward and forget about our countries, families, and cultures of origin, is not enough to save you from being sent to a country you haven't seen since childhood to be surrounded by people you do not know who speak a language you do not understand.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Fifty Shades of Gross: a Feminist Confrontation of the Story's Adoption and Foster Care Themes

I read the Fifty Shades of Grey books at the suggestion of my sister-in-law who has dual degrees in communications and English and is a popular books maven of sorts. She has the uncanny ability to predict whenever any bit of media will become relevant in pop culture. If you want to look like a pop culture genius at your book club, you ask her for a title to recommend to the group. If you want to know what basically unknown lit is going to explode into everyday conversations tomorrow, she can tell you that too. Her suggestion regarding Fifty Shades fell into the latter category.

"I'll apologize in advance," she said. It's the worst thing I think I've read in a long time."

Indeed, it was so bad that I hesitated to write about it at all.

I originally wrote this piece years ago to address the book trilogy. With the release of the movie grossing over $81 million dollars in its first three days, it's time to update the piece and release it anew. Although some herald the franchise as a victory for women in media, my piece joins a chorus of others across the web calling out the Fifty Shades franchise for marketing child sexual abuse, rape, stalking, coercion and other forms of violence as "romance." To add, I ask the chorus, "Why isn't the use of adoption and foster care in the trilogy-turned-franchise included in these critiques?"