Tiffany Lee Brown’s story in my January 30 post got me thinking…She described herself as “biologically childfree.” She is a parent, yet considered herself childfree (I use this in the past tense because she is now pregnant). Cambridge dictionary online defines it as “people who choose not to have children.” “Have children” in this definition does tend to imply having them biologically.Wikipedia defines it as a “term used to describe individuals who neither have children nor desire to have children.” In other words, they don’t want kids and don’t want their own.
But are people truly childfree if they say no to having their own, yet are playing the role of parent? Are they really childfree, say, if they are helping to raise children that came with their spouse?
On one hand, it seems that the terms “childless,” “childfree” and “opting out of parenthood” can be used synonymously. If you do not have children, whether they are biologically yours or not, you are “childless” or “childfree.”
On the other, folks like Tiffany make a further distinction: being childfree or childless means not having children of your own; you can be childfree or childless and be a parent.
“CBC” has been an abbreviation for “childless by choice.” Do we need to add another abbreviation: “BCBC” (biologically childless by choice)?
My take—I land on what some might consider hard core childfree. If a person is a parent, I don’t think they are truly childfree. Not having children means saying no to parenthood, whatever form it may take, e.g., step-parenthood.
What about you?
Are you childfree if you do not have kids of your own by choice yet are a parent?
cforms contact form by delicious:days
Whether CBC or BCBC, the language used around this choice continues to frustrate me. Why, if we are not about having kids, do we use words to describe ourselves that focus on the word “child?” “Less” and “free” have problems too…but I will rant more about this soon!
