Gender-neutral childmaking

Written by

June 5, 2026

A New York bill that replaces several traditional family-law terms with gender-neutral language is drawing backlash after passing both chambers of the state Legislature. The Assembly measure, sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, lists its purpose as replacing terms such as father, mother and filiation in state law.

But…but…but you need terms such as mother and father in state (and national and local and international) law. Of course you do. The words name a reality, and the reality the words name is an important one, to put it mildly. Also, by the way, the words are not obscene or pejorative or abusive of others so why in hell would you want to replace them with something less informative?

The bill text changes language in parts of the Family Court Act and related statutes, using terms such as parentage, gestating parent and non-gestating parent in places where older law used paternity, mother and father. The Senate page for the bill shows it passed the Assembly in March and the Senate on June 2.

Ahhhh I see – gestating parent. It’s just another installment of this fun project to stop talking about women – this project to erase women from public awareness altogether. Listen, have you guys thought of forcing us all to wear burqas?

Comments

12 responses to “Gender-neutral childmaking”

twiliter

Jun 5, 2026 10:11 AM

Well, Newspeak was predicted, it just took a while, and required misogyny.
The Whimster Gap

Jun 6, 2026 1:51 AM

Yes, but maybe also no. Sorry: I’m going to play devil’s advocate again.

Some of the drive towards gender-neutral newspeak might very well be based in a contempt for women qua women. Some might be based in a concern for the person, as separate from the body, or bare prudery about the body. This could be based in contempt for one sex or the other, but it doesn’t have to be.

There is another possibility, though, which is less sinister: it gives the law a way to deal more easily with lesbian couples. Obviously, only one of those will be the genetic parent (at least for the time being, though who knows what gene-splicing tech will be available soon). The genetic parent will likely be the gestatrix.

But the other woman will also be a parent in an entirely meaningful sense. She’d not be the father, though. Now, one might want to say that she’d be a kind of mother. But one might perfectly plausibly say that that’s not so – at least if one thinks that motherhood does have something to do with gestation. (Again, there may be disputes about that, but there is a use of the word “mother” in standard English that works that way; and one can’t easily try to proscribe that sense, or to prescribe a new one, without playing the same game as the genderloons.)

And there might be a further reason not just to call them both mothers which doesn’t depend on that kind of position. Suppose our lesbian couple splits up, and it’s acrimonious. There’s a dispute about child custody. Here, the law might want to take into account which partner gestated the child: that might be one of its considerations, even if only as a tie-breaker.

But why not talk about the gestational and the non-gestational mother in such cases? Well, because that doubles the work of the law. After all, straight couples sometimes split up, too; and in such cases, who is the mother and who is the father might matter when deciding what is best for the child, again, if only as a tie-breaker. So we could have one law that talks about gestating and non-gestating mothers, and another that talks about mothers and fathers. But these laws would be functionally identical. It’s therefore more efficient to cut the faff and talk about the non-gestating parent, because – bluntly – there’s really no significant difference between the non-gestating mother and the non-gestating father.

(Well, OK: there is the genetic contribution. But it’s not clear why that carries much weight, and as I’ve noted, it might not be a watertight distinction in the near future. Or the father might be adoptive, and so be in essentially the same position as the non-gestating mother. Or whatever. There’s going to be some conceptual bleed-through whichever way we cut it.)

So there is – arguably – a reason to distinguish in law between gestating and non-gestating parents that doesn’t rely on lunacy or misogyny. I’m not saying that that’s driving things here, but it’s still available.
Deep Thinking

Jun 6, 2026 4:46 AM

Suppose our lesbian couple splits up, and it’s acrimonious. There’s a dispute about child custody. Here, the law might want to take into account which partner gestated the child: that might be one of its considerations, even if only as a tie-breaker.

But why not talk about the gestational and the non-gestational mother in such cases? Well, because that doubles the work of the law. After all, straight couples sometimes split up, too; and in such cases, who is the mother and who is the father might matter when deciding what is best for the child, again, if only as a tie-breaker. So we could have one law that talks about gestating and non-gestating mothers, and another that talks about mothers and fathers. But these laws would be functionally identical. It’s therefore more efficient to cut the faff and talk about the non-gestating parent, because – bluntly – there’s really no significant difference between the non-gestating mother and the non-gestating father.

But why not talk about “the gestating mother and the non-gestating parent”?
Ophelia Benson

Jun 6, 2026 6:35 AM

I think Darwin would beg to differ about the lack of importance of the genetic contribution. It of course doesn’t have to be a deal-breaker, but that doesn’t mean it’s trivial. One might call it the Jane Eyre problem – orphan living with uncle and aunt, uncle dies, orphan is left to the mercy of the aunt, who is not the genetic relative of the pair.
The Whimster Gap

Jun 6, 2026 7:03 AM

@Deep Thinking –

You could, I guess; but it’s neater to use the same terminology.
twiliter

Jun 6, 2026 7:10 AM

If it’s clarification that’s being sought, I’m not sure gender neutral language qualifies. Aren’t both mother and father perfectly servicable words? Do lesbian couples refer to either one as father? I would find that irregular outside of a “transman” being one of the parents. Here again is the demand to be able to self identify and command others to comply. A small minority dictating law and language with the (ignorant) totalitarian overlords’ consent.
Arcadia

Jun 6, 2026 7:40 PM

Wouldn’t it be simpler, and more clarifying, to establish in all cases the role being referred to? The trouble comes from the fact that, in the past, mother meant three things, not one. It meant the genetic mother (contributed the egg), the gestating mother (gestated the baby), and the mother who raises the baby. This still represents the vast majority of all mothers and children.

For some time, we’ve also had adoptive mothers, or female guardians of children who are not their own offspring. (Ever since bad things happened to mothers – so, forever, really). We’ve also had the same with fathers. Now, uniquely in history, we can separate the roles of genetic contributions and gestation also. I think this can be done while retaining mother and father as terms.

I would propose genetic mother for the woman who contributed the egg, gestational mother for the woman who gestated the baby and mother (or intended mother) for the woman who raises the baby. Matching terms for fathers, with the obvious exception that there is no such thing as a gestational father, regardless of Freddy McConnell’s interventions and pleas to the contrary.
Ophelia Benson

Jun 6, 2026 7:46 PM

Wait what? In the past the genetic mother and the gestating mother were the same person. The separation of the two is a very recent thing. For more, see the Baby M case.
iknklast

Jun 6, 2026 8:11 PM

It seems to me that in most cases, those terms only complicate something, and aren’t needed. There are a few times when a distinction needs to be made between the biological mother and the adoptive mother, and when that is the case, the terms ‘biological’ and ‘adoptive’ do just fine. When you bring in the not frequent cases where the egg is provided by someone who does not gestate the baby, that is the only time where any other terms are needed, because at that point, ‘biological’ mother has two meanings. But for the most part, mother is the only term needed.
twiliter

Jun 7, 2026 4:01 AM

Re: mother vs. gestational mother — I think if it’s necessary for clarity to make the distinction, then why not. But why introduce it in every case? Legally demand in fact. I’d call this the ‘cis problem’ where the language has been altered for the majority on behalf of a few. Cis is a useless parasite on the language, serving only to remind us that there are people who don’t agree with biological reality. I’d also argue that TERF is a bloated and inaccurate acronym. Feminists don’t have to be radical in order to understand quite simply that feminism’s function was never, by definition or ideals, founded to include males under it’s umbrella.

Does this not resemble newspeak? I’d say so, only a few decades late, or more than a few considering when the term was published. In newspeak’s case, instead of saying censored and compelled speech, we had this handy new (and functional) word. Some neologisms are better than others.
Ophelia Benson

Jun 7, 2026 5:00 AM

“Cis” is more than just a useless parasite; it’s a sly way of making it seem that trans ideology is universal and true. It’s a ridiculous and insulting word that should be ostracized by everyone.
Deep Thinking

Jun 8, 2026 12:58 AM

I’d also argue that TERF is a bloated and inaccurate acronym. Feminists don’t have to be radical in order to understand quite simply that feminism’s function was never, by definition or ideals, founded to include males under it’s umbrella.

Indeed – the exclusion is based on sex, not trans identity; transmen aren’t excluded.