@3timeslucky
The arguments about the "need" to remove the word mother make no sense at all (no surprises there). Any lesbian couple I know uses two different words (mummy/mama) and are clear about who is the birth mother. In adoption we didn't/don't see a need to remove the word mother. We just add an adjective, so birth mother, biological mother, adoptive mother. There is no circumstance where we can't qualify a noun for clarity. You can't have a baby without a father and a mother being involved. Wishing it was different doesn't make it so.
Useful to join up the dots here for the many situations which this same political lobby has appropriated in the name of inclusion, diversity, progress:
Lobby: We must do this because this issue we don't ourselves have affects these people with this characteristic- (homosexuality, DSD, disability, lesbian parents)
People with that characteristic: hang on, no it doesn't, you're misrepresenting us, this isn't an issue really and we have many much more serious ones we'd like you to help with if you wanted to help, and it feels a bit like being used -
Lobby: silence, you're being homophobic/heteronormative/cisheteronormative/xyzphobic and should not be allowed to speak.
Hence the situation where trans people have been taken to court by a non trans person for transphobia, and homosexual people are being called homophobic by straight people. It has been a very common strategy to borrow a useful appearance and narrative of inclusion while actively silencing, talking over and misrepresenting others, and at times being really quite unpleasant to those who will not co operate in the way requested and who insist on speaking for themselves.
Which if you were very cynical, you might wonder was more to do with furthering the aims and marketing appearance of the political lobby than any genuine care for inclusion and 'lived experience' and a lot of the other words so frequently scattered around.