My response was to explain what terf ideology and to encourage him to trust that his kids know what they are talking about. That they clearly have internet and social media savvy. I also politely suggested that skepticism about whether terfs are a real problem harms trans people.

I’ve seen this skepticism across institutions. It’s especially common when people like gender studies faculty and queer studies faculty or students make statements or take actions that are transphobic. The idea that certain people or places can’t be transphobic makes it harder for us to be believed, to be seen as real.

Many trans authors have written about experiences of having their identities or words treated with suspicion, especially Indigenous, Two-Spirit (2S), Black, and queer and trans of color experiences of disability, neurodivergence, class, diaspora, and genocide survival. These are suspicions about realness. The best response to this suspicion is the carefully intersectional community writing by multiracial queer, trans, and disabled groups. Inspired by intersectional trans writing, I am intentionally using the word “terf” in lowercase and without the periods that indicate the acronym and definition (“Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists”).

I use lowercase to indicate that I mean both terfs who know they are and claim they are terfs, and terfs who might not know they are terfs. The use and meaning of the term has changed, both with the onset of self-identifying terfs and the reactionary accusations against trans people by terfs who don’t know they’re terfs.

In this essay I won’t link to or cite terfs. Instead I link to trans and queer authors and use my own experiential knowledge. I invite readers to look for terf ideologies where they might not expect to find them. Likewise, I don’t define every term that trans communities use to name ourselves and our experiences. I believe readers will find that they understand where they might not expect to.

II. Terfs Who Know and Terfs Who Don’t

Sometimes I identify as neurocrip. Sometimes neuroqueer, sometimes neurotrans. As a transmasculine nonbinary queer, my neurodivergence isn’t separable from my transness, and vice versa. As a white settler faculty member in a Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program, it’s always my responsibility to understand racism and anti-Indigeneity as best I can.

As a neurocrip and transmasc person working in an institution, it’s not always my responsibility to point out transphobia, neuronormativity, and sanism. But I believe it is my responsibility to educate about transmisogyny, and about ableism that doesn’t directly affect my own bodymind. To fully understand the transmisogyny of terfs, it’s necessary to confront their racism, anti-Indigeneity, and ableism.

Terfs are transphobes who claim to be feminists. “Terf” is not a slur (neither is “cis” (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-cisgender-means-transgender_n_63e13ee0e4b01e9288730415)). And not all terfs know they’re terfs.

When I write: “not all terfs know they’re terfs,” I mean that terfs by definition don’t know themselves or their own biases. This is true of any groups or people who have what Edén Torres calls “internalized dominance,” and who don’t self-reflect on their power. The lack of self-reflection by terfs nullifies their perspective. Their arrogation of “radical” “feminism” should disqualify them from the conversation.

Terfism and transmisogyny are deep-seated and embedded ideologies that we have to root out in dominant culture and in ourselves. Terfs who don’t know they’re terfs identify as feminists. They might think or say it’s cool that trans people exist. Terfs who don’t know they’re terfs don’t understand that they need to do the self-reflection to root out their internalized cis feminist dominance. Self-identifying terfs don’t want us to exist. Terf who don’t know they’re terfs don’t want us to take up too much space.

Self-identifying terfs appropriate trans activism and the power of naming oppression, taking on the term that trans people created to name terf ideology. Self-identifying terfs also appropriate the practice of reclaiming words. Many communities have reclaimed actual slurs like the word “queer,” or the word “crip” as a shortening of the common ableist term. Terfs who name themselves terfs operate as if they are the targets of a slur and have reclaimed it.

Terfs who don’t know they’re terfs antagonize trans people with reproductive rights frames that double down on “women,” and mean cis women only.

Cis women’s bodies are not the only bodies who need access to abortions. Cis women aren’t the only people, nor even the only women, who need the freedom and resources to adopt or conceive, carry, and birth children when they want to and when the medical technology is available, or when it becomes available to transfemmes.

Terf ideology is a suspicious and dismissive interpretation of the gender freedom and creation that trans people make together. It belies a belief that gender is only ever oppressive, defining feminism as resistance to oppression of cis women only. This usually means white or settler or cis or abled women.

The colonial racist imposition and enforcement of gender on enslaved bodies is best understood as processes of “ungendering.” Ungendering reduced bodies to flesh and labor, as Black feminist thinkers like Hortense Spillers have argued. This ungendering includes enslaved childbearing after rape by white cis men slavers. But this oppressive ungendering is not a topic for self-identified terfs.

Terfs ignore or minimize any gender oppression that doesn’t give them what Audre Lorde termed “the moral authority of suffering” in her essay/speech “The Uses of Anger.” Lorde exposed the projection of this moral authority in the accusations white “feminists” leveled at her. When she insisted on conversations about racism, white cis women accused her of the “moral authority of suffering.” This deflection by white cis women showed their zero sum racism that can only see its own suffering. Terf transphobias in actuality wield a “moral authority” of suffering cis women. This suffering of cis women is more real to them than the suffering they support and inflict on trans people, especially trans women.

Suffering is not the criterion of who “counts.” It will lead to competition for the most moral authority if it is how we define feminism. Trans feminists aren’t trying to win that moral authority, just as Audre Lorde wasn’t wielding it as a Black feminist.

Suffering matters, but it’s not what makes us feminists. It matters because excluding the intersectionally-marginalized within a group is an immediate threat to their existence. Those of us who are hated by the loudest voices on both the political Right and the political Left are the most institutionally vulnerable. The most institutionally vulnerable are closest to being unhoused or unsheltered, to losing, or never having, employment, to being abused and attacked.

This isn’t about suffering, it’s about justice. It’s about who has the megaphone and the platforms to declare they are suffering the most, need reproductive healthcare the most, or are the only real women. And that to say otherwise is “political correctness.”

III. Whose Business is Trans Business?

At the root of this moral authority of suffering cis women is the hatred or disdain for the “choice” to be a woman. It goes like this: ‘Who would “want to” be a woman in this world if they didn’t “have to”?’ On this logic, transmasculine people betray our suffering and inescapable womanhood to pretend to be men, and trans women and femmes “pathologically” choose womanhood. These are all cis and terf frames of gender and of the decisions trans people make. When terfs who don’t know they’re terfs don’t do the work to root out these frames, they do more harm by making our business theirs.

The questions around choice for trans people are our question to grapple with, usually with entirely different terms.

It is for each of us to process and articulate in community with each other, according to our own experiences of transness. The binary of choice vs. birth destiny is a cis binary that degrades our needs – whether we see them as choices, non-negotiables, life-or-death, something else, or some combination of these.

Within this logic of terf norms is often some room for nonbinary identities, as long as we’re not also transsexuals or want to change our bodies at all. “Transsexual” refers specifically to accessing or wanting medicalized transition, and has been a pathologizing term. Authors and activists like Kai Cheng Thom are reclaiming the term to highlight the tolerance of certain ways of being trans while others are further marginalized. (https://www.genderpodcast.com/s/GR_Ep81_Kai-Cheng_CLEANED2.) There’s no right or wrong way to be trans, and how we each identify (or don’t) is ours to decide.

I’ve felt all of this very personally. In my grad program a cis feminist professor openly rejected trans body modification while teaching us Judith Butler’s social construction of gender. I’ve also experienced shunning for refusing to be the “safe” trans person who the group could feel good about themselves for liking. Having solidarity with other trans people, particularly trans femmes, has made me a target that I hadn’t been before.

As a nonbinary queer who was masculine-presenting long before medicalized transition, I was expected and encouraged to be suspicious of trans women and femmes. And in exactly the ways I’ve outlined here – to double down on suffering cis womanhood or suffering nonbinariness as the definition of womanhood or nonbinariness. Female-assigned-at-birth nonbinariness – exclusively, within this logic. I was encouraged to assume that trans women and femmes had been socialized male in ways that gave them unequivocal privilege. So that any critique they offered was easily dismissed as aggressive covert privilege.

Whether trans women and femmes ever experience assigned-male privilege when they are young is for trans women and femmes to each sort through, in their own way. Whether I experienced masculine privilege as a little female-assigned bruiser is for me to sort through. And, yes, I think I did, simultaneous to other privileges like whiteness, as well as the pain and marginalization of gender nonconformity.

Cis and terf so-called feminisms make our business theirs, without engaging our voices or the realities of our pain, our needs, and our joy. Our childhoods, our gender assignments, and our relationships to them are our business.

There are plenty of cis feminists who can and do engage our stories and our analyses of gender, and a marker of terfs is that they don’t engage. They may virtue signal. They may cherry-pick our quotes. They may arrogate our critiques of gender for their own purposes, like when they talk about drag as transgressive while questioning the realness of trans women. But they do not engage.

There is nothing real about the “feminism” of terfs. Terfs act as if trans people threaten their realness, when that’s in fact what they do to themselves. As Janet Mock showed in Redefining Realness, dominant cis culture needs a radically different understanding of who and what is real, and how. When the Right complains that we don’t even know what a woman or a man is anymore, it wields the white supremacist colonial binary frame of man and woman imposed on Indigenous peoples.

Terfs righteously agree and reinforce these binaries, undermining trans feminisms, as well as 2S ways of living Indigenous “genders,” in the terminology of colonizer languages. When the binary is the only thing that makes gender real, when skin tone or first language or where someone grew up is the only thing that makes their mix-race experience real, when abled bodyminds are consistently represented as the only real bodyminds, the “most” real becomes, maybe, the most fake. What I mean is, what’s more narrow in scope, more inaccurate, more disingenuous, than the idea that there’s only one way to be real?

And doesn’t it lead to a politics of fake feminism, fake anti-racism, fake access? Questioning the realness of anyone’s marginalized identities that we fight every day to claim and reclaim and live in, and exist as, puts all “suspicious” identities further at risk.

Ableism thrives in pop culture and culture war panics about people faking disability. Or not being disabled enough to be deserving of care and access. Suspicion of Indigenous and mixed race identities is trending, with the full support of the altright’s most nasty trolls. Trans women and femmes are not counted as women or the genders they identify as, especially if they don’t “pass” or try to for cis people. It is ableist and transmisogynistic to question mixed race identities. It’s racist and ableist to question trans women’s and femmes’ identities. It’s racist and transmisogynistic to question disabled identities.

To put it another way, it’s not my place to question someone’s marginalized identities. If a person has a disability that is not apparent to me, it’s not my business if they don’t disclose or name it. It’s not my place to question or minimize it, because if I’m wrong, I’m reinforcing and acting out ableism, adding to every ableist thing that person has experienced, and causing more harm and pain. The stakes are too high.

Given everything I’ve written here, everything I believe about the history and present of oppression, how could I question this realness of experience? How could I question the Indigenous identities of mixed race 2S people whose genocide and gendercide survivance is only through escaping and resisting complete annihilation? The term “gendercide” was coined by Deborah Miranda to name the difference between homophobia and the extermination of Chumash targets through what in Eurowestern English we call transmisogyny and transphobia.

Who would question the identities of those whose ancestors survived however they could, including passing as white, including navigating the projection of whiteness every time their Indigeneity was erased by a census taker or marriage license? If we question someone’s Indigeneity and we’re wrong, it’s not a stretch to say we are participating in genocide and gendercide. The stakes are too high.

IV.
Transnational Terfism

Terfs appropriate transnational feminist frames to claim that cis women from non-Eurowestern countries are being bullied here on Turtle Island by trans people, accusing us of gender ideology or transgender imperialism. In doing so, they expose their own Eurowestern commitments to a colonial, violently imposed, cisgender essentialism, and they show their transmisogyny.

Do terfs know how many trans and queer refugees are in the U.S. because they have to flee transphobiic violence?

There are women and femmes all over the world who identify outside of binaries, or in other ways that don’t fit into any colonial terminology, even of “trans.” Some 2S and transnational/Global South folks do identify as trans and/or nonbinary and/or intersex, often also along with the terms in their Indigenous languages or survivance inventions of language. There are 2S folks who aren’t counted as transnational, as colonized and gendercided survivors. Somehow, instead, 2S people are perceived as…US American? Eurowestern? Especially if they also identify as queer or trans? Colonizers of transnational “cis” women?

Not only is transness and its intersectionality erased when 2S folks are accused of trans imperialism; the ancestral practices and sacred roles of colonized ←→ sex assigned Indigenous people are further dismissed in this ongoing gendercide. Their survivance of genocide and gendercide, their reclamation, their gender creation and proliferation, their existence is under attack.

Do terfs who appropriate transnational feminisms know, when they invoke genital cutting, rape, and murder of cis women, that intersex infants are mutilated all over the world, including in the US? Do they know that folks with similar bodymind experiences may have sacred roles in their cultures?

Do terfs know that trans adults all over the world are accused of mutilating our bodies if we choose to change them? And that in some countries there are more rights on paper and more resources than there are in Global North countries for those who want medical transition or inhabit genders counter to assignment at birth?

Do they know the “life expectancy’ and necropolitical death expectancy of trans women in the US, especially Black and Indigenous / trans women of color? Do they know how ableism and the medical industrial complex impact and distort so many BIPOC trans women’s and femmes’ lives?

Do they know that rape is both a tool of war and colonization and an ongoing tool of queerphobic and transphobic gender “correction” and punishment that is also traced through histories of colonialism?

Do they know that rape is historically intertwined with mixed-race and Indigenous passing?

Do they know that trans adults are being called “groomers” for existing in the presence of children and young adults, for making art or performances that celebrate our existence, and if we educate about our identities?

Transphobes can call themselves feminists, but that doesn’t mean they are.

There are many different forms of abuse. Most commonly we encounter abuse that is physical, psychological, or emotional (De Bem Machado et al., 2017). However, other types of abuse exist such as economic abuse, financial abuse, and secondary abuse (Younger, 2011)  – the last of these we will address later on in this paper. The most common form of abuse is psychological abuse. This type of abuse is defined as ‘exposing a person to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or PTSD.’ (Drijber et al., 2012). Psychological abuse consists of bullying, ignoring, threatening or blackmailing ones partner (Drijber et al., 2012). Furthermore, there are two established forms of couples violence that is considered abusive. One is of the occasional outburst of violence, with the other being classified only as ‘patriarchal terrorism’ (Muelleman, n.d.). These differing acts of abuse both constitute forms of domestic violence and are impactful on the victim in a number of ways. 

It can be noted, that to be a survivor of DV is to go through a terrible ordeal. It can be assumed that the survivor will have multiple disparaging outcomes regarding their trauma. Broadly, experiencing DV has been shown to negatively impact ones mental health and overall well-being (Eichhorn, n.d.; Umberson et al., 1998). More specifically, research has shown a correlation between being a victim of abuse and having PTSD, depression, suicidal ideation, psychosomatic symptoms and general psychological distress (De Bem Machado et al., 2017). Beyond this, victims of IPV are shown to have higher rates of alcohol and substance abuse than their non-victim peers (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000 ; Umberson et al., 1998) . Externally, being involved in an IPV relationship has shown to have a negative impact on future relationships (romantic and otherwise) (Higgins et al., 2010). Overall, it can be decidedly shown that being the victim in an IPV relationship has a hugely impactful influence on ones life. 

CURRENT RESOURCES

If there is a silver lining to this stormy cloud, it is that there is an extensive amount of help and resources for women experiencing DV. In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women’s Act. This movement would go on to donate over 1.6 billion dollars towards women suffering from DV (Hines & Douglas, 2009). There are also laws protecting women survivors in all 50 states (Younger, 2011) . Most recent estimates show there to be over 2,000 domestic violence programs and shelters in place to aid women who are fleeing domestic violence situations (Clevenger & Roe-Sepowitz, 2009). In a recent study, 95% of women who took part in these programs reported that they were mostly or very satisfied with the services they received. Reasons for satisfaction included feeling validated and seen, they were able to hear other women’s experiences, and they received referrals for additional resources (Umberson et al., 1998). It can be well noted here that not only did these women receive care, but that that care was also adequate and impactful on the woman’s life. 

The issue at hand, however, boils down to the idea that all of these services are, at best, geared towards woman victims. At worst, these programs can create alienation with men victims – a community that is already sorely marginalized and forgotten. When discussing intimate partner violence, it is common that the average person will envision a battered house wife. While this is our go to idea regarding IPV, in actuality men are the victims in 25% to 50% of IPV situations (De Bem Machado et al., 2017; Hines & Douglas, 2016; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The National Family Violence Survey, in their most recent iteration, found perpetration rates by women to be 12.4 per 100, and by men to be 12.2 per 100 (Muller et al., 2009). The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimated that 835,000 men are abused by their partners every year and a male is abused by his partner every 14.6 seconds (Younger, 2011) . Finally, studies show that approximately 1 in 5 men have experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship. This equates to about 19.3% of the population (De Bem Machado et al., 2017). These statistics, while shocking, help draw a picture for us that, not only are males sometimes victims of domestic violence, but the case could be made that they are just as often times the victims as women are. 

LASTING EFFECTS

There are some distinct characteristics that separate abuse perpetrated by men and abuse perpetrated by women. Like women, psychological abuse is the most common form of abuse suffered by men. However, there are additional coercive and controlling behaviors not found in male perpetrated violence (Hines & Douglas, 2009). Secondary abuse, sometimes also known as legal-administrative abuse, occurs far more with women perpetrators than with male perpetrators. This form of abuse occurs when one partner uses the legal and judicial systems in order to hurt their victim (Hines & Douglas, 2009 ; Higgins et al., 2010). What transpires here is that female perpetrators manipulate the legal and judicial systems in an attempt to gain child custody, and enact restraining orders against their victims – often times using false allegations (Hines & Douglas, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The occurrence of secondary abuse can have long lasting, negative impacts on male victims lives. They may lose their children, have restraining orders placed against them – impacting their careers, or even be arrested on false allegations. All of these situations create an egregiously harmful and disparaging situation for male victims. 

Mental health wise, male victims are just as susceptible as female victims. Men who experience IPV are shown to have greater levels of depression, stress, psychological distress and PTSD than their non-abused peers (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Younger, 2011) . Emotionally, men report feeling angry, hurt, shameful, and fearful as a result of the abuse they suffered (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Ultimately, male victims of IPV are more likely to commit suicide than their female counterparts (Younger, 2011). This could be due to a number of factors, including lack of resources, stigma surrounding their abuse, feelings of shame and a loss of their masculinity, or increased negative mental health outcomes. 

OUTCOMES FOR MALE SURVIVORS

It has easily been established that men experience similar, if not increased, distress as a result of suffering from IPV as women victims. However, they do not have the same benefits as the female survivors as listed above. Of the previous resources explained, not a single one of them catered to male survivors. This, in turn, creates a situation where an already isolated individual is further forced into isolation, shame and guilt for attempting to reach out (Higgins et al., 2010). Men face both external and internal barriers when it comes to reaching out for help (Umberson et al., 1998). Externally, men face issues such as a scarcity of appropriate resources, biases within the legal and judicial systems, stigmatization within the survivor community (De Bem Machado et al., 2017; Hines & Douglas, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Internally, they must overcome feelings of denial, shame, fear of not being believed, and internalized gender stereotypes (De Bem Machado et al., 2017). These factors, and their accompanying repercussions, lay out a detailed and somber framework that makes up the typical male survivor experience. Together, they show that not only have we not taken men seriously, we have gone a step further by, at best ignoring them, and at worst ridiculing them for being victims. 

A hugely impactful external factor that most domestic violence victims encounter is law enforcement. While law enforcement is already well known for not taking any domestic violence calls seriously (Umberson et al., 1998), they take it a step further when it comes to male IPV victims. Many male victims report that police are unwilling to take their report against the female perpetrator ( Drijber et al., 2012; Hines & Douglas, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Umberson et al., 1998). Furthermore, some male victims describe situations where they are ridiculed by the police officers (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Umberson et al., 1998). In an egregious turn of events, some male victims are actually arrested as the perpetrator after having called the police out (Higgins et al., 2010; Umberson et al., 1998). This heinous behavior is a contributing factor to the stigmatization and demoralization of male IPV survivors. When they turn for help and they are instead just met with anguish reinforces to these male victims that their pain means nothing and they have no one they can rely on.  

The situation is no better in the judicial system. On their very best day, our justice system shows a limited capacity of being able to understand or even recognize patterns of male victimization. This lack of empathy can at times exacerbate problems for male victims (Higgins et al., 2010). In addition, male survivors of IPV report experiencing a gender-stereotyped approach with their situations. Even in cases where the male victims had corroborating evidence of a violent female partner, they were subjected to harsh mistreatment, including lost of custody of their children and false allegations of abuse (Umberson et al., 1998). The instance in which the courts obvious bias is perhaps most evident is through the procurement of restraining orders. Studies have shown that, not only is there a sex-differentiation of court responses, but these protective orders are given in preferential treatment to women (Muller et al., 2009). This harsh mistreatment of male IPV survivors is just one piece in the puzzle that represents the barriers men IPV survivors must overcome in an effort to obtain justice. 

A reasonable next move for male victims is to seek more informal support. Often times this manifests through the man attempting to contact a survivors hotline. However, this outcome is not one that proves to be beneficial for male victims. When pressed about contacting victims hotlines, 67% of men reported that agencies were not helpful, often times being turned away for services (Umberson et al., 1998). Only 25% of male victims reported being connected to helpful resources (Umberson et al., 1998). In the most extreme cases, male victims were made out to be the perpetrators of abuse and were referred to batterers programs (Umberson et al., 1998). The accumulation of these experiences give us a substantial view into the lives of male victims and their inability to seek care in almost any situation. 

In cases where the legal system is of no use, and helplines have turned them away, male survivors will often times turn to their social support network for guidance and reassurance. In fact, 62% of men share their experiences with a trusted loved one (Drijber et al., 2012). Unfortunately, their reactions are not always ones of positivity. According to male survivors, their loved ones reactions range from support, to surprise, and even to victim blaming (Hines & Douglas, 2009). Often times, loved ones hold a bias towards a gender-stereotyped reaction towards male victims that becomes evident with the male survivors admittance (De Bem Machado et al., 2020). These biases are linked with assumptions regarding the likelihood and plausibility of male IPV survivors. As addressed in the next section, their perceptions of masculinity conflict with the information being provided to them, creating a bias that they then react on (Hines & Douglas, 2009). This requirement for gender norms and the insistence upon masculinity create a scenario for the male survivor where they are forced to choose between the assumed masculinity, and their actual identity as a victim. This creates a turmoil within the survivor where they must eschew either their masculine identity or their identity as a victim. 

INTERNALIZED STIGMA 

Internally, male victims also face a difficult battle encompassing stark internalized stigma and resulting gender-stereotypes. Men often face a variety of emotional factors when they consider reaching out for help. When addressing their emotions surrounding seeking help, men report feeling embarrassed (Drijber et al., 2012), shameful (Younger, 2011), or they feel that they will not be believed by the police or their loved ones (Hines & Douglas, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Younger, 2011). In most normative spheres, it is expected that men will act and react in ways that will reinforce the masculine stereotypes that have been thrust upon us. This will include acting stoic, strong, and overall unemotionally. This ideation spills over into all aspects of our lives – including, as is evident here, male victims ability and confidence in seeking help for their domestic violence situations. This is shown in our research through the realization that men are often told to solve their own problems (Umberson et al., 1998) and that actually seeking care will not conclude in a way that will solve their problems (Younger, 2011). This designation can be so severe that, when asked, many men are not even able to even articulate what has happened to them. Instead of addressing their emotional response to those events (Hines & Douglas, 2009), they will just describe the events that have happen (Higgins et al., 2010). The occurrence of gender-stereotypes and gender norms place these men in such a poor situation that they feel unable to report  their abuse or risk becoming further victimized by the same people being tasked with supporting them. 

The Gender Paradigm

Much of this stigmatization is a result of the presence of the gender paradigm. The gender paradigm, sometimes called the patriarchal paradigm, is a set of beliefs that reside with the ideal that domestic violence occurs due to the presence of the patriarchy and male dominance. This paradigm has impacted all aspects of IPV responses, as it deepens the importance of female victims suffering, while minimizing the victimization felt by male survivors (Drijber et al., 2012). They posit that domestic violence is an example of power and control, with the perpetrator always exercising their control over their victims. To this end, the gender paradigm notes that men are unable to be victims of domestic violence, and women unable to be the perpetrators, due to the overall power imbalance that exists between men and women (Hines et al., 2007; Hines & Douglas, 2009; Younger, 2011, 2). As is evident above, these views can create a situation where it is almost impossible for a male victim to receive any sort of meaningful care and support.

This paradigm, and its resulting societal outcomes, have had a drastic impact on both the external and internal barriers that a male victim will encounter when seeking out resources (De Bem Machado et al., 2017). Externally, we can see the situations listed above where men either do not report their abuse, or they are ridiculed and shamed for doing so. It is exceedingly evident that these services highly support the victimization of women, while ignoring men’s victimization (Drijber et al., 2012). In addition to law enforcement, the judicial system, and DV resources, there is also evidence that this gender stereotype paradigm also exists within the mental health professionals field – further barring male survivors for seeking life saving care (Muller et al., 2009). Research has also shown us that the gender paradigm impacts how family and loved ones view male survivors (Higgins et al., 2010). When approaching loved ones for support, the loved one may in fact react negatively due to internalized biases they hold regarding men and domestic violence. The fact that one that knows us so well can be impacted to the point of disbelieving is just due to out gender truly highlights the power and influence this gender paradigm has. 

Internally, male survivors also face serious stigmatization. Many of these male survivors struggle with the idea that they may be a victim (De Bem Machado et al., 2017; Higgins et al., 2010; Hines & Douglas, 2009) due to the fact that men are commonly associated with being physically dominant (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). This lack of recognition comes from an internalized stigma that men are unable to be the victims of domestic violence purely due to their gender. They are taught that they must be tough and strong, and that when they are faced with violence from their female partner, they are just expected to take it. Even after expressing their situation, 76% of men reported not seeking help because they did not identify with the label of ‘victim’ (Hines & Douglas, 2009). Furthermore, this paradigm presupposes men to take on the role of being a loyal, loving partner (Hines & Douglas, 2009), not allowing room for any deviance that might result in the female partner being harmed in any way. This gender paradigm, and the gender-stereotyped norms that result from it, create a situation where men are unable to seek resources or support regarding their victimization. The gender paradigm heavily influences our social perceptions as IPV as something that only happens to women and that can only be perpetuated on by men. The end result, as evident above, is a society where men are unwilling or unable to receive care after experiencing domestic violence. 

Toxic Masculinity

As may seem evident, a major concept contained within the gender paradigm is that of masculinity. The idea of gender normed masculinity is at the forefront of what can be considered a major barrier stopping men from reporting their abuse. In some men’s mind, reporting IPV would have an impact on their masculinity, and would remove their power, control and dominance. In fact, when pressed for reasons they didn’t support, many men reported their abuse in ways that are consistent with ‘hegemonic masculinity’, directing their reports on their own power and resistance instead of the victimization they experiences (Hines & Douglas, 2009). To some, the very act of labeling their perpetrators actions may be considered to be emasculating (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The desire to not be seen as weak, and to not be labeled as a victim, has a monumental impact on a male victims likelihood to report their abuse. To do so, they must over come years of programming and societal pressure to hold in their feelings and act in a masculine way. 

The occurrence of this gender paradigm exists well outside our psycho social world. It has also reached the world of research and academia. To date, there is little research into the concept of male victim IPV (Hines & Douglas, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) mostly due to the gender paradigm that exists excluding its very exsistance. Furthermore, even when researching male IPV, researchers are put into a position where the instruments they have to gather data are either inappropriate or completely inadequate. More broadly, the typology used when surveying subjects may result in differing results, depending on the gender of the victim and perpetrator in question (Hines & Douglas, 2009). The most common surveys used by readers to establish domestic violence situations are The Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory, The Measure of Psychologically Abusive Behaviors, Coercive Control Scales, and the Power and Control Wheel (Hines & Douglas, 2009). It is incredibly important to note that all of these surveys were created using only accounts from women survivors.  Taking this into consideration, we can see from the get-go that men’s domestic violence situations are seen as significantly less important than those of women survivors. 

IMPACTFUL PRACTICES

With the inclusion of all this data, it is fairly straightforward that men are not given the same resource and help seeking opportunities as their female counterparts. Presenting this in qualitative research, we are shown that men are often times less likely that women to seek help after experiencing domestic violence (Higgins et al., 2010; Muller et al., 2009; Umberson et al., 1998; Younger, 2011). This lack of researching out stems from a number of societal problems – both internal and external. There are many intertwining parts of this issue, each one being just small aspect and opportunity for impact. As is witnessed here, there are many different ways in which we can revamp and improve the system in an effort to overcome these issues regarding resource allocation.

External Opportunities

First and foremost, we need to identify what the exact issue entails. To take on the entirety of the gender paradigm is a substantial endeavor. However, we will never even make a dent if we don’t recognize where the main issues lie. To do this, it is evident that we need to pursue further research in all aspects of this concept. To begin with, we need to eliminate the usage and existantance of the blatantly sexist survey methods that currently exist, and continue to fund researchers who use a gender neutral approach. From there, we will gain a better understanding of what exactly we can do to help foster a better experience for them when reporting DV. To do so will be to not only recognize their experiences, but to validate them as well. 

From there, we must take a look at our judicial system. Between law enforcement being unresponsive, and the courts obviously gendered stance regarding sentencing, most men never have a stance at having a positive experience when interacting with them. We must make it our duty to strictly enforce gender neutral law enforcement responses to domestic violence. Whether this entails trainings, disciplinary actions, or new policies to be created is beyond the scope of this paper. However it should be strictly noted that nothing within the domestic violence field will change until police and the courts come to respond in a gender neutral way. Slightly broader than this, it is critical that we examine, refine, and reinforce laws protecting domestic violence victims. As stated above, there are 13 states where only women can be considered as a victim of domestic violence (Younger, 2011). By 2023, it is inexusible for such laws to exist for only half of the population. If, at this point, we are still only concerned with half of the populations suffering, well then we have failed as a society. 

Tangibly, it is also of great importance that we allocate some funding to be usable by men’s resource organizations as well. There has, it should be noted, been an attempt at the creation of these types of organizations. There have been a number of grassroots organizations making an attempt at these sorts of resources (Hines et al., 2007). In addition to this, in 2000 the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men was created (Hines et al., 2007). To date, this is the only DV helpline for men in existence. Barring this, and a few programs that will cater to both men and women, male victims have very little opportunity to receive support. It can clearly be seen that one of the main ways that we can increase support for men would be through the creation of resources specifically geared towards them. To do so would be to allow them the opportunity to seek care in their own way in their own time. 

Now, the creation of these resources and trainings, and the formation of these organizations does not happen within a vacuum. There is, of course, the need for funding. Luckily, the solution for this is a simple one. Federal funding for IPV victims is done through the Violence Against Women’s Act – a notable organization that does substantial good for the population. Their allowance from federal funding comes in at 225 million a year (Muller et al., 2009). By far, this is the greatest funding amount towards DV. However, this organization only helps women, and will turn away an male victim they encounter. If we were to take ever 25% of that grant, and reallocate it towards male domestic violence, we would be able to care for so many more male victims. So, the creation of organizations and resources is paramount towards male success here. To do so, we must begin to federally fund specifically male domestic violence. To do so would be of great benefit to all those survivors. 

Reducing Stigma 

Our mission, to ease the suffering of male victims, is two fold. While it is imperative that we create palpable solutions to this problem, it is also essential that we address the psycho social aspect impacting these men’s experiences. Resources, and trainings are vital, but they will never be of use if gender norms and patriarchal views are what are hindering these men from seeking help. This is, absolutely, a considerable undertaking – and not one to be taken lightly. However, it is drastically influential in the creation of a world without a gender paradigm. Not being an easy task, one might not even know where to start when trying to tackle the gender paradigm. Education, for both yourself and others, is the most accessible path one can think of. Engage in discourse surrounding male DV, the patriarchy, and toxic masculinity. Do not shy away from the hard topics. Instead push forward. If a male friend comes to you seeking advice, to not turn your back on them. Work with them to find the help they need. Doing so will be of their benefit just as much as it is to society. 

Conclusion

Male domestic violence is a very rarely talked about, and even less often acknowledged, topic that, unfortunately, is far too prevalent in our society. External factors such as lack of police backing, poor judicial system treatment, and lack of resources exist. As well as internal factors such as feelings of shame, loss of masculinity, and embarrassment. Considering these together, we can see that male victims are given little opportunity to receive, or even seek out, resources and care for their IPV situations. This is a monumental endeavor that we must all have a hand in if we hope to see it change. We must work together to first off, create a legal and resource system that caters to all genders, not just women. But we also must make an effort to rid ourselves of the gender biases and norms that society has taught us to hold. Working together, we can make this world a safer and more comfortable one for men experiencing domestic violence. 

References

Clevenger, B. J. M., & Roe-Sepowitz, D. (2009). Shelter Service Utilization of Domestic Violence Victims. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911350902787429

De Bem Machado, A., Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2020). Male victims of female-perpetrated partner violence: A qualitative analysis of men’s experiences, the impact of violence, and perceptions of their worth. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 21(4), 612–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000285

De Bem Machado, A., Santos, A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Matos, M. (2017). Exploring Help Seeking Experiences of Male Victims of Female Perpetrators of IPV. Journal of Family Violence, 32(5), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9853-8

Dear, M. (1992). Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(3), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975808

Drijber, B. C., Reijnders, U. J. L., & Ceelen, M. (2012). Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9482-9

Eichhorn, K. (n.d.). Psychological Consequences on Male-Gendered Victims of Domestic Violence. UC Riverside.

Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of Callers to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-006-9052-0

Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2009). Women’s Use of Intimate Partner Violence against Men: Prevalence, Implications, and Consequences. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(6), 572–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770903103099

Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2016). Sexual Aggression Experiences Among Male Victims of Physical Partner Violence: Prevalence, Severity, and Health Correlates for Male Victims and Their Children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1133–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0393-0

Muelleman, R. (n.d.). Male Victims of Domestic Violence and Their History of Perpetrating Violence. Male Victims of Domestic Violence.

Muller, H. R., Desmarais, S. L., & Hamel, J. (2009). Do Judicial Responses to Restraining Order Requests Discriminate Against Male Victims of Domestic Violence? Journal of Family Violence, 24(8), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9261-4

Pournaghash-Tehrani, S., & Feizabadi, Z. (2007). Comparing Demographic Characteristics of Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(14), 1930–1935. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2007.1930.1935

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and Consequences of Male-to-female and Female-to-male Intimate Partner Violence as Measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778010022181769

Umberson, D., Anderson, K. E., Glick, J. E., & Shapiro, A. H. (1998). Domestic Violence, Personal Control, and Gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2), 442. https://doi.org/10.2307/353860

Younger. (2011). The Effects of Domestic Violence: The Male Victims Perspective [Thesis]. East Tennessee State University.

Hello readers.  This writing is basically a paper lifted from my Master of Social Work graduate school professional seminar in child trauma.  I hope to disseminate this information widely in various ways, especially due to the recent overturning of to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and the rising argument that the simple answer to children born to those who did not intend on having them is adoption.  This paper is personal; my positionality is that of a female, an adopted person, adopted in infancy, and a clinical social worker working with the adopted population.  Side note regarding language: I am aware of the ever-changing and evolving use of adoption language.  In this article I chose to use language for clarity, and mean no offense.  If the language is outdated or harmful, please do reach out and let me know.  Thank you for reading.

DISCUSSION

Permanent physical separation between birthing mothers from their babies is commonly referred to as “relinquishment” in the context of adoption. This discussion article will explore developmental effects of relinquishment occurring at birth and in the early days of an infant’s life.  Examination of neurological, attachment, and developmentally positive outcomes attained through maintaining physical interactions between mothers and their infants during the first hours and days of infant life sheds light on what is missed if a separation occurs.  Contrary to conventional beliefs and attitudes that a baby will not remember or be affected by early life experiences, the neurological impacts of stress in very early life such as relinquishment should be re-framed, acknowledged, and understood as a form of developmental trauma.

The Issue

In general, there is a misconception in conventional attitudes that young children cannot and will not remember traumas experienced in their first few years of life. It is commonly believed that children “removed at birth may be spared the impact of ACES” (Anthony, Paine & Shelton, 2019) and although adoptions that take place at an earlier age are often associated with better outcomes (Perry, Hambrick & Perry, 2014), adoptees who experience relinquishment at all ages are vastly overrepresented in mental health and substance abuse clinics, are at higher risk for mood disorders, mental health issues, and are four times more likely to commit suicide than non-adoptees (Sunderland, 2019).  Adoptees are an unrecognized marginalized group deserving of specialized services that are currently lacking.  This article strives to debunk the myth that even when placed into the best of circumstances, adoptees separated from their birth mothers in early life face challenges with long lasting developmental, emotional, and behavioral consequences.

A Little History – From 1937 to 1965, the number of adoptions in America grew from 8,000 to over 70,000 due to the fact that newborns, as opposed to older children, became available (Fessler, 2006).  Prior to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), now overturned, doctors often issued orders for birthing mothers surrendering their babies not to see their children (Fessler, 2006).  In some instances, birthing mothers were allowed to hold their babies for moments, and the majority were advised that it was against policy (Fessler, 2006).  In extreme cases birthing mothers were drugged at the time of delivery, awoke post-delivery, and were forbidden to make any contact with their baby out of fear that a bond would be initiated (Fessler, 2006).  Protocol sometimes allowed for brief moments of visitation, followed by the baby being taken by a social worker to a foster care family or facility until they were adopted (Fessler, 2006). Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, this article is of utmost prevalence.

In present day there is often no waiting period at all between the actual birth and placing a newborn into the arms of an adoptive family (Finn, Silverstein & Bodie, 2019).  Birthing processes are unique and varied depending on the pre-arrangements and wishes of the birthing mother and adoptive family.  In open adoptions some birth mothers are given the opportunity to pump breast milk for their babies, while in closed adoptions birth mothers have little to no contact with the child or family after giving birth (Finn, Silverstein & Bodie, 2019).  Noteworthy to mention is the overwhelming body of evidence that both birth mothers and adopted children/adults involved in open adoptions fair better in the areas of mental health, well-being, and productivity than those in closed adoptions (Grotevant, McRoy, Wrobel, & Ayers-Lopez, 2013).

Science and Brain Development

Research in animal studies conducted over the past 40 years finds that early life stressors “can alter key neural networks in, and functioning of, the developing brain” (Hambrick, Brawner & Perry, 2019: 2; Bath et al., 2013; Bedrosian et al., 2018).  Because “brain organization occurs most rapidly in the first days to first week of life” (Hambrick et al., 2019: 1), denying a newborn the familiar, regulating milieu associated with smells, tastes, movement, and sounds of its birth mother affects the foundational organization of core regulatory networks that form the backbone of the stress response.

The limbic system, which monitors danger, is developing immediately after birth at a rapid rate in all mammals (Van der Kolk, 2015).  In a healthy environment where a baby feels safety and love, neurons will fire in a manner that creates a brain wired for exploration, play, and cooperation; whereas an environment of neglect inducing fear and feelings of abandonment or being unwanted produces a brain wired to manage abandonment and fear (Van der Kolk, 2015; Perry, 2003).  The use dependent manner and neuroplasticity in early brain development affects the ability to form emotional relationships, which are critical to the outcome and ability to form healthy relationships later in life, and become mentally healthy (Perry, 2001).

The most rapid ex-utero brain growth occurs during the first two months of human life (Hambrick et al., 2019).  Severe early life stressors occurring during the 0-2 month period of life prove to be risk factors for self-regulatory functions such as “sleep, arousal, attention/tracking, primary sensory integration, affect mood/regulation,” (Hambrick et al., 2019) and chronic health and behavioral issues.  Because the brain is rapidly organizing in the first days and week of life, particular attention must be paid to the fact that the neurodevelopmental systems organize at unique rates and times; the timing of an early life stressor may provide disproportionately different outcomes (Hambrick et al., 2019).  Impaired bonding between infant and mother such as relinquishment should be viewed as an early life stressor.  The timing, length, and severity of impaired bonding will influence the degree to which the amygdala, limbic system, and long-term programming of hormonal systems affect a developing human’s emotions and functioning (Perry, 2001).

Oxytocin

Oxytocin is a nine amino acid peptide paracrine hormone and neurotransmitter system activator that brings about feelings of well-being, anti-stress, lowers pain sensitivity, decreases inflammation, and is a stimulus for both growth and healing (Moberg & Prime, 2013).  Oxytocin has a short half-life, but because it neuromodulates other hormonal systems within the brain, its effects can last long after its release (Buckley, 2015).

Oxytocin is instrumental in the development of use and state dependent functioning (Perry, 2001) as it has the power to wire the brain for both positive and negative associations in the brain (Northwestern University, 2013).  Experiments on mice found that “after a negative social experience the oxytocin triggers anxiety and fear in a new stressful situation” (Northwestern University, 2013: 2) indicating that oxytocin is involved in both the pleasure and stress responses.

In Utero

One can argue that attachment begins in utero.  Utero sets the stage for familiarity, comfort, soothing, and a sense of safety.  In utero the fetus becomes accustomed to ingesting the foods that its mother eats, the movements and rhythms of the mother’s gait and life, and the sounds of the mother, other people close to the expecting mother, and all environmental sounds in the mother’s life.  At 16 weeks of life, a fetus begins to hear sounds both from the outside world such as music and voices (Gordon, 2013) and the heartbeat of their mother.

One area that is understudied is how the stress of an expectant mother hormonally affects the development of a fetus and newborn.  Exposure to the mother’s hormonal stress and other teratogens directly relate to emotional, attachment, cognitive, behavioral, social and physiological issues (Perry et al., 2014).

Birth

Allowing for physiologic and salutogenic childbearing facilitates positive hormonal system outcomes for both women and babies (Buckley, 2015).  In utero babies are swimming, weightless, and impervious to gravity.  As Van der Kolk points out, being mobile, and “able to protect oneself is a critical factor in determining whether or not a horrible experience will leave long-lasting scars” (Van der Kolk, 2015, p.55).  At and during birth infants shift from a floating body in amniotic fluid to immobile, weighted by gravity beings.  Interestingly, higher levels of oxytocin are found in infants who experience vaginal births than cesarean births (Moberg & Prime, 2013) suggesting that a vaginal birth may more “stressful” to the newborn, and possibly better prepare it for the sudden drastic change of environment and immobility of gravity.  Any state of hyperarousal and prolonged trauma fuels the necessity for soothing (Van der Kolk, 2015).

Infant oxytocin production is triggered by the sight, smell, touch, and sounds of the birthmother (Moberg & Prime, 2013).  Research shows that infants have preferences for their own mother’s voice and breast milk over other voices and other breast milk when offered a choice (LifeWorksCommunity, 2015), suggesting that infants can sense the difference between caregivers and their biological mothers.  One could assume that the infant feels soothed by the voice of its biological mother. Physical separation at birth can cause disruptions to attachment, reward, and regulation and even infant survival (Buckley, 2015) due to the lack of familiar sounds, smells, and movements of the mother.  Changes to brain development regarding language heard in utero versus post birth placement (relevant in intercountry adoption) have not been studied.

Skin-to-Skin

Benefits of skin-to-skin contact in the first hour or so after birth include peak oxytocin activity, increased contractions reducing postpartum risk of hemorrhage, and vasodilation of the birthing mother’s chest which creates natural warming for the baby (Buckley, 2015).  Skin-to-skin contact activates hormones that increase biological bonding, and lower maternal and newborn stress (Buckley, 2015).  “The hour or so after physiologic birth is a sensitive period, when skin-to-skin maternal-newborn interactions foster peak oxytocin activity” (Buckley, 2015: 5).

In animal studies, even brief repetitious separations of mother and offspring detrimentally impact the “stress hormone systems …with enduring effects including depression-like behaviors in adult offspring and also in separated new mothers” (Buckley, 2015: 9).

Breastfeeding and Breast Milk

The birthmother’s breast milk is the best food for her baby as it is uniquely developed specifically for that infant human (Newnham & Milgrom, 2019).  “There is growing evidence that breastfeeding improves the brain development of infants… and can increase a baby’s brain growth by 20 to 30 percent” (Bergland, 2013: 1).  Although breast-feeding and the lack thereof is not just an adoption or relinquishment issue, this article will examine the act of breastfeeding and the benefits of breast milk in order to highlight positive developmental results that the child does not receive if a separation occurs.

Oxytocin, both a hormone and neurotransmitter, stimulates breast milk production (Moberg & Prime, 2013).  Maternal and newborn stress decreased by hormonal facilitation of initiation of breastfeeding (Buckley, 2015).  During breastfeeding prolactin levels correlate with protective “maternal adaptations including: reduced anxiety, aggression, and muscular tension; and increased social desirability (conformity), which may help mothers to prioritize infant care” (Buckley, 2015:9).

An infant’s Ventral Vagal Complex (VVC) is stimulated by interactions and controls sucking and swallowing, two actions involved in breastfeeding (Van der Kolk, 2015).  When the VVC’s functions are “stimulated in an infant, they are accompanied by a sense of pleasure and safety, which helps create the foundation for all future social behavior” (Van der Kolk, 2015: 86) and associates these actions and interactions with reward and pleasure.  Even minutes long routine separation of a birthmother and their newborn during the minutes and hours after birth such as evaluation and bathing “disrupts the babies ability to find the breast and attach” (Lothian, 2005: 44; Righard & Alade, 1990).

Development/Attachment/Bonding

Brazelton and Winnicott studied parent-infant pairs and found them to be interdependent; the newborn and mother were thought of as a unit (Brazelton & Cramer, 2018).  “Scientists believe the most important factor in creating attachment is positive physical contact… optimally (with) the mother” (Perry, 2001).  A baby knows its mothers voice and smell (Newnham & Milgrom, 2019).  This information is acknowledged as important in that it factors in a good base for bonding, attachment, and provides comfort and feelings of safety and security to the newborn (Newnham & Milgrom, 2019).  Some argue that a newborn has no “normal” or known “desirable” state, but as Brazelton demonstrated, babies will recognize and turn to their mother of origin’s voice and show preference for their mother’s breast milk.  This familiarity, currently uncategorized by modern psychoanalysis, is in itself, a regulating and safe base for the baby, and serves as a protective factor.

A number of these familiars are absent in multiple circumstances outside of the adoption context.  They can be observed briefly in cesarean section birthing practices, premature infants sent to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), surrogate circumstances, and in scenarios due to medical, cultural, unforeseen choices, procedures, or conditions.

Movement towards recognizing the importance of mother and infant bonding is evidenced by Minnesota’s new “Healthy Start Act” (HF1403/SF1315, 2021), where pregnant inmates have the ability to bond with their babies “during what is recognized as a crucial period when nurturing is particularly important for the development of children” (Gains, 2021).  Further recognition of protective factors such as familiarity between mother of origin and baby could initiate major changes in best practices across the birthing, adoption, and human rights fields.

Adoption Law

The law surrounding the revocation period given to birthing mothers considering relinquishment varies state to state from one week to 30 days (adoption.org, n.d.) although antithetical procedures still exist.  Allowing formation of a bond between mother and baby still invokes fear due to the possibility of a disrupted adoption.  A disrupted adoption is not only a tremendous loss for an adoptive family, it is also a risk to the adoption industry.

Research indicates that open adoptions serve as protective factors to both birth mothers and adoptees, where closed adoptions often prove to be risk factors for both adoptees and the birth mothers (childwelfare.gov, n.d.).  Further studies on open adoption would be instrumental in providing recommendations for best practices in adoption including adopting parental and birthing mother and father wishes surrounding the birth of the baby.

GAPS

Society often does not realize that babies are complex beings with feelings and reactions that activate systems with lifelong human repercussions. Due to this gap in understanding, it is vital that we use current information and give voice to the newborn.

 “High quality research is lacking” in the study of maternity care practices impacting oxytocin effects (Buckley, 2015).  There is a general lack of funding for studies in women’s health, birthing practices, breast milk, and long-term studies of relinquishment in adoption outcomes.  Studies currently in existence regarding adoption rely heavily on the adoptive parents second-hand information that could be missing large portions of a child’s story, or simply be inaccurate (Anthony, Paine & Shelton, 2019).

Additional studies should be conducted on breast milk, wet-nurses, surrogates, NICU infants, and birth-partner effects on the infant in order to identify promotive versus risk factors. Findings recommend that professionals involved in natal care incorporate and advocate for best practices promoting physiologic birth, immediate skin-to-skin contact between infant and biological mother, and breast-feeding.

Specific long-term studies on adoptees are needed in order to discover and support changes towards best practices.  Additional research on oxytocin’s power to wire both for positive and negative responses, and the developmental impacts of those measures could prove to be a link in understanding the overrepresentation of adopted people in substance use treatment centers.

Additional recommendations include that the “potential impact of complex trauma be considered in the deferential diagnosis of other mental health” (Murray & Sullivan, 2017: 221; Lee et. al 2015) as currently “a single disorder does not exist in the DSM-5 to adequately capture trauma’s impact on development” (Murray & Sullivan, 2017: 221; Van der Kolk, 2005). Great care must be taken to avoid pathologizing individuals who have experienced relinquishment and separation.  “Adoption-specific adjustment should be included in a comprehensive mental health assessment, even for children adopted from birth or infancy” (Murray & Sullivan, 2017: 219).  In addition, clinicians and providers should be trained in adoption-specific issues, especially if they are working with the adoptee population.

Additional Findings

Although this article originally sought to highlight benefits for the infant when allowed time and physical contact with its birth mother, findings point to undeniable long-lasting benefits  mentally and physically for both infant and mother.  Furthermore, denial of skin-to-skin and prolonged physical contact between mothers and their newborns prove to be risk factors for both parties.

Other areas where mother and child separation occur outside of the adoption context are surrogacy, cesarean section protocol, and the NICU.  Surrogacy is considered a high-risk emotional experience (Tehran, Tashi, Mehran, Eskandari, & Tehrani, 2014).  In surrogacy, after legal parenthood is set forth, the surrogate has no legal rights in relation to the child (conceivabilities.com, 2019).  As of 2019 it was illegal to contract for gestational surrogacy in four states (circlesurrogacy.com, n.d.) and in France (sciencedirect.com, n.d.).  Cesarean sections often call for early separation of newborns and their mothers “depriving (mothers) the opportunity to reduce epinephrine-norepinephrine for herself and her baby through oxytocin elevations with skin-to-skin contact and mutual interactions” (Buckley, 2015: 8).  “Separation of mothers and their healthy newborns, which typically follows cesarean section, may also impact postpartum maternal prolactin levels” (Buckley, 2015: 9).  There is a growing body of understanding regarding the importance of bonding and attachment while an infant is in the NICU (Newnham & Milgrom, 2019).  An important aspect of NICU bonding includes acknowledgement of infant recognition of parental voice and smell (Newnham & Milgrom, 2019) leading to soothing and regulation in all parties.  This knowledge could be further expanded upon in exploring the beneficial aspects of familiarity and comfort provided by birth mothers and fathers.

Social Contract

Are people living up to the social contract created by the intervention of human adoption? It is common knowledge that prior to the adoption of puppies, they must spend 8-10 weeks with their mother.  Removing a puppy prior to this 8-10 week period creates canines that are prone to nervousness and a “tendency to bark and bite.  They are also less likely to accept discipline and may be aggressive to other dogs” (Faricelli, 2019).  Is the widely accepted practice of human infants separation from their mothers a fair social contract for the baby and all parties involved?  It is ethically expected that all beings enter the world with equal opportunities, but if one enters the world with no opportunity to interact with his/her/their familiar secure base from which to explore and learn and grow, the removed child has unfair expectations placed upon them; their “normal” is in fact atypical.

Recommendations

Formal education on childbirth is still a relatively new concept (Hutchinson, 2015).  The information presented in this article should be shared with professionals who work with natal facilities, adoption services, and social workers.  The information should also be shared with pregnant women as a form of protective psychoeducation, so they are more informed of the benefits of prolonged contact with their infants for both themselves and their babies.  This empowering information allows room for educated decisions about post birth procedures.

It is recommended that mothers hold their “babies in skin-to-skin immediately after birth and remain with them in the first hours and days after birth” (Lothian, 2005: 45).  The absence of birthing mother and infant interactions that induce chemical network-forming pathways affecting brain development, attachment, regulation, and sensory integration should be viewed as an early life stressor and developmental trauma exposure that are currently not taken into consideration by mental health and medical fields.

As discussed above, impairment and interference with fetal neuroprotective systems affects the long-term programming of babies hormonal systems.  Disruptions to attachment, reward, and regulation and even infant survival can be related to brain functioning in early life. One hope in these findings is the fact that ongoing neurobiological maturation creates continuing opportunities for recovery (Perry, 2001), and it is recommended that the mental health profession take into account developmental trauma by including relinquishment, adoption, and foster care in the ACES, and by including developmental trauma in the DSM-5.

Policy & Practice Implications

Large-scale implications from changed global perception and recognition of early relinquishment as a form of trauma include the potential to affect multiple areas of policy and practice.  Changes may include updates to adoption reform, pre and post adoption practices, adoption laws, women’s health, birthing procedures, funding for research, original birth certificate access, assessment measures, practitioner training, and diagnosis.  Recognition and wider awareness will benefit adoptees, families, practitioners, professionals, and the global community at large.  Understanding the benefits of open adoption may lead to greater access to original birth certificates and a variety of unique family dynamics.  The training and creation of an adoption-informed provider workforce will offer better-informed and attuned mental health services for this marginalized population.  It is recommended that voices from the adoptee population are included in creating these methods.

Acknowledging separation consequences will inform pre and post adoption treatment, pre-adoptive considerations, clinicians, and professionals working with the adoption populations, and allow for critically needed policy changes.  Economical and emotional support for multiple adoptee challenges currently unaddressed by medical health insurance companies, workplaces, and other systemic structures may occur in our country and abroad.

Conclusion

Contrary to conventional beliefs and attitudes that an infant will not remember or be affected by early life experiences, this article finds that keeping a birthing mother and her newborn baby together with physical contact serves as a protective factor against developmental and behavioral issues (Lothian, 2005).  Early relinquishment should be acknowledged as a developmental trauma exposure that may lead to multiple behavioral and social issues that are currently not associated with early life mother and infant separation.  Consequence of this finding could have wide ranging effects on public and professional perception, treatment, and policy.

By giving voice to the infant, we become cognizant that “the first year of life is a time of significant risk for victimization” (Hambrick et al., 2019: 9; Turner et al., 2006) with long lasting consequences.  Through investigation of best circumstances surrounding birthing practices and relinquishment, the benefits of biological mother and child contact are explicitly underappreciated, understudied, and prove vastly beneficial for both the mother and her infant. Recognizing early relinquishment as developmental trauma is radical and immense, yet this knowledge gives us the power and opportunity to facilitate the creation of neurologically more-typical, and ultimately happier humans.

References

Anthony, R.E., Paine, A.L., & Shelton, K.H., (2019). Adverse childhood experiences of children adopted from care: The importance of adoptive parental warmth for future child adjustment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2212).

Bergland, C. (June 8, 2013). Breastfeeding Boosts the Brain Development of a Baby. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-athletes-way/201306/breastfeeding-boosts-the-brain-development-baby

Blackmun, H. A. & Supreme Court Of The United States. (1972-3). U.S. Reports: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/.

Brazelton, B. & Cramer, B.G. (2018).  The earliest relationship: parents, infants, and the drama of early attachment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Buckley, S. J. (2015).  Executive summary of hormonal physiology of childbearing: Evidence and implications for women, babies, and maternity care. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 24(3), 145-153.

Fessler, A. (2006). The girls who went away: the hidden history of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v. Wade. London, England: Penguin Press.

Faricelli, A. (July 18, 2019). Risk of removing puppies too early from mother and litter mates. PetHelpful.com. Retrieved from https://pethelpful.com/dogs/Risks-of-Removing-Puppies-too-Early-from-Mother-and-Litter-Mates.

Finn, K., Silverstein K., & Bodie, H. (2019). Placing Home (Piven Lab Series). Chicago: Piven Theater.

Gains, P. (2021, Aug. 4).  One state is trying to make pregnancy in prison slightly more bearable.  NBC. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/one-state-trying-make-pregnancy-prison-slightly-bearable-rcna1578

Gordon, K. (2013). Eight ways dad-to-be can bond with baby now. Parents.com & Meredith Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.parents.com/parenting/dads/101/ways-dad-to-be-can-bond-with-baby-now/ .

Grotevant, H. D., McRoy, R. G., Wrobel, G. M., & Ayers-Lopez, S. (2013). Contact Between Adoptive and Birth Families: Perspectives from the Minnesota Texas Adoption Research Project. Child development perspectives, 7(3), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12039

Hambrick, E.P., Brawner, T.W., & Perry, B. D. (2019). Timing of early-life stress and the development of brain-related capacities.  Ed: Hunter, R. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 13:183. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00183.

Hutchison, E. (2015).  Dimensions of human behavior – the changing life course (5^th ed.). Los Angeles, NY: SAGE Publications, Inc.

LifeWorksCommunity. (2015, Feb. 24). Adoption and addiction: remembered not recalled – a lecture by Paul Sunderland [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e0-SsmOUJI

Lothian, J. (2005).  The Birth of a Breastfeeding Baby and Mother. Journal of Perinatal Education, 14(1): 42-45.

Murray, K.J., & Sullivan, K.M. (2017). Using clinical assessment to enhance adoption success. The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 98(3), 217-224.

Moberg, K. U., & Prime, D. K. (2013).  Oxytocin effects in mothers and infants during breastfeeding. Infant, 9(6), 201-206.

Newnham, C. & Milgrom, J. (July 31, 2019). Bonding with your premature baby in the NICU. University of Melbourne and Parent-Infant Research Institute. Retrieved from https://raisingchildren.net.au/newborns/premature-babies/connecting-communicating/bonding-in-the-nicu.

Northwestern University. (July 22, 2013). ‘Love hormone’ is two-faced: Oxytocin strengthens bad memories and can increase fear and anxiety. ScienceDaily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130722123206.htm.

Perry, B. D. (2001).  Bonding and attachment in maltreated children: consequences of emotional neglect in childhood. ChildTrauma Academy. Retrieved from www.ChildTrauma.org.

Perry, B.D., Hambrick, E.P., & Perry, R.D.  (2014).  Clinical challenges following intercountry and transracial adoptions: a neurological perspective – Pre-Final Draft. Fong, R., McCoy, R. (Eds.) New York NY: Columbia University Press.

Sunderland, P. (Aug. 1, 2019).  Relinquishment and Adoption: Understanding the Impact of an Early Psychological Wound.  iCADD. Retrieved from https://www.icaad.com/blog/relinquishment-and-adoption-understanding-the-impact-of-an-early-psychological-wound.

Tehran, H. A., Tashi, S., Mehran, N., Eskandari, N., & Tehrani, T. D.  (July, 2014).  Emotional experiences in surrogate mothers: A qualitative study. Iran Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 12(7), 471-480.

Van der Kolk, B. (2015). The body keeps the score: brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Penguin Books: NY, NY.

Support the author
Venmo: @Meg-Holtz
Paypal: foundinkorea@gmail.com