Insidious Loss if Language: Examples.

[Backintheclosit123]

I'll start. I was helping a mate apply online for a NZ Birth Certificate. The word Mother has gone now.

I think parent 1 and parent 2 is a good system.

It fits more families than using specific terms, and is no more irritating that organisations (including eg NHS) which insist on asking for partner, and have airbrushed out spouse so that the unmarried are not stigmatised.

I don't see this as creeping erosion - it is normal use of language, with the inclusive versions being preferred by officialdom (not something that drives language evolution in widely used languages).

I welcome this. It helps minorities and makes no difference to the majority. Indeed I think it looks curmudgeonly to object. Though I can see why it would be supported by eg religious fundamentalists who want to keep and label rigid roles

AuntieStella the words mother and father have clear legal definitions. It's nothing to do with wanting to maintain rigid roles. The mother is (adoptive ones aside) the person from whose body the child emerges. This is necessary information for many medical and social reasons. It is nor comparable with the use of partner instead of spouse/wife/husband. Those 3 still also have legal meanings in a way partner does not. If I talk about my partner, is it the one who shares my bed, my business, my game of tennis? Any or all is the answer. Meaningless, context-dependent word.

Rigid labels? Who is it again who talks of 'pansexual' 'demisexual', the 1000 bloody gender colour palette? Not us.

I am not aware of the legal system in NZ

My background is linguistics (including language change)

There isn't really a legal definition in UK (all home nations, I think) as it's common parlance on a common law system. When the term 'mother' is used, of course it has meaning (as does everything) but it is not a required term.

I have ovextrapolated that to a different English-speaking jurisdiction, where perhaps it had been, to date, a required term