Submitted by Victor on
Promoting the use of clear language among children’s rights advocates
Legal systems in many countries continue to define children’s status from birth according to the marital status of their parent/s. This policy has its roots in more patriarchal times, and historically has served the purpose of determining a child’s entitlement to inherit, to use the family surname, and more recently, to receive child support.
If we look at the language used to categorise children, we find that the term “illegitimate” is sometimes employed to describe a child born of unmarried parents. Nowadays the term readily brings to mind negative notions such as inferiority or invalidity. But what’s particularly unpleasant is that by defining a child as “illegitimate”, it’s the child who is being assigned with these notions, as if it were she or he who has somehow done something wrong.
Even though similarly outdated and demeaning terms like “unfathered” and “bastard” - which at one point or another were also used in legislation - have been phased out, "illegitimate" on the other hand continues to be used by society, the media, and in some cases, even in legislation.
However, in the same way that it would be deplorable nowadays to describe a human being as invalid, or as a bastard - least of all because of what her or his parents have or haven’t done - no human being should be described as “illegitimate” for the simple reason that no human being is illegitimate.