By Kathleen Guthrie Woods
I play a lot of roles in life: friend, sister, writer, daughter, gym rat, wife, aunt, citizen of the world. They are all important to me, but I would argue that not one, on its own, defines me. I think maybe that’s why I get irked when I hear people trying to pigeonhole others by saying things like, “She’s your gay friend, right?” Um, no. She would be my friend, period. The fact that she happens to be gay is only part of who she is. (And, by the way, from an editor’s point of view, I have many friends who happen to be gay, not just one.) It’s like saying someone is an Irish cop or that fat actress or a Catholic conservative. It smacks of bigotry and it feels demeaning, whether the comment is spoken consciously or not.
That’s why I think it stung when someone recently referred to me as “circumstantially infertile.” Have you heard this term? It means a woman who has not had children due to life circumstances: hasn’t met the right guy, opted not to be a single parent, ran out of time on her biological clock. This in part describes my life path, although I’ve become more comfortable with the term we use around these parts, “childfree,” which I’ve now been informed means someone who has “chosen” not to have children.
Po-tay-toes, po-tah-toes?
I suppose labels help people better understand me, possibly be better able to relate to me, but it feels like they are used more often to separate and isolate us. I am a human being who happens to be circumstantially infertile. Emphasis on “human being.” There’s so much more to me than that one little label, and I hope people will take time to look beyond that and get acquainted with all the other parts that make me, well, me. I promise to do the same.
Meanwhile, I’d like to hear what you think about the whole label issue. What, if any, label do you use to describe your status and how do you feel when you hear others use it to define you?
Kathleen Guthrie Woods is a Northern California–based freelance writer. She is mostly at peace with her childfree status.
Labels help us make sense of the world, but making more labels doesn’t make more sense. My infertility is not circumstantial – it is the result of two diseases. I am childless by circumstance or childless NBC. I cannot label myself childfree — I think that is rightfully for those who chose not to have children in the first place (without ‘trying’ or experiencing IF). I don’t know how others define me; so few know the reality. Perhaps people are making assumptions…
I’m struggling with the labels. I don’t want to say I am childless NBC because many people don’t understand what it means. It is too personal to share plus the looks of pity feel “icky”. I HATE it when I say I don’t have children but fur-kids and people with children tell me what a “smart” choice I made. I am still trying to make peace with this part of the journey.
I wrote about this exact thing here – http://nokiddinginnz.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/childless-childfree-or-what.html
and here – http://nokiddinginnz.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/defining-infertility.html – which touched on the “circumstantially infertile.”
I try to avoid labels – and talk about those of us living the no kidding lifestyle, or just simply “women without children” if it is necessary to categorise us. Like you, I don’t like labels – a label can only usually touch on one part of our lives. And we’re all so much more than that.
I think labelling anyone is an immature way of starting a conversation to gossip about them. When you say, my infertile friend Maria, the response is, oh that so sad, and the person that started the conversation will say, yes, the poor thing tried for years, miscarried, never had children, won’t consider adoption, always feels sorry for herself, etc., etc. That’s what makes me mad. People shouldn’t talk about what they know nothing about. They don’t live in my heart or my head.
I don’t mind the label, “circumstantially infertile.” I think having multiple labels for those who do not have children validates their choices. Validate is the wrong word but I can’t think of a better one. But my circumstances are different from the women who cannot physically have children and also from the women who never have and never will want children. Isn’t it unfair to group everyone together?
I see labels as different from stereotypes. A person is made up of their different labels. By picking one to describe a person, you’re saying how they fit into the conversation at hand. It’s not your ultimate description – that would be a stereotype.
I think labels help us to feel like we “belong” somewhere. It makes more sense to me after reading this post: http://nokiddinginnz.blogspot.fi/2013/02/infertility-and-shame.html
I call myself childless-not-by-choice or CNBC or sometimes just as an infertile, but I guess I only use it when it’s appropriate (I don’t go around talking about it with people who’re not ready to hear it). And I haven’t heard of circumstantially infertile.
Thank you for posting the link to Mali’s blog article. I read it and was really moved. Beautifully said.
I think the childless labels are ok. It lets others know our circumstance in a way they may grasp our situation better. I used the term yesterday “unplanned childlessness” recently in therapy. It just helped get the situation across and if it helps others awareness of our rare or difficult situation than go for it I say if your comfortable with it.
I think the childless labels are ok. It lets others know our circumstance in a way they may grasp our situation better. I used the term yesterday “unplanned childlessness” recently in therapy. It just helped get the situation across and if it helps others awareness of our rare or difficult situation than go for it I say if your comfortable with it.