[bjt2n3904]

I agree. Fathers should be included in language. I think it's extremely important that father's are recognized as critical to a child's upbringing, and truly commend you for being present for your little one!

But here lies the problem with "inclusive language": many schools argue that the terms mother, father, and parent are not inclusive.

Instead, terms like "caregiver" or "responsible adult" should be used, to include children who are raised by grandparents or adoped. The desire was to make sure father's were recognized. In a backwards way, suddenly no one was recognized.

If it's bad for society to not recognize the value of fatherhood, is this not a complete rejection of parenthood, and exclusion of children who have a nuclear family? But when you dig into the inclusivity crowd, you keep finding ridiculous things, like the idea that the nuclear family is white supremacy, and needs to be dismantled by erasing the language that supports systemic racism. Children with two biological parents are privileged, so they can yield their privilege and not have their family acknowledged with the terminology used.

Just keep pulling on the thread, and now we're referring to "birthing people" instead of women.

[8organicbits]

> terms like "caregiver" or "responsible adult" should be used

When I was in school (90s, 00s) it was "parent or guardian", which I think is a reasonable balance. I'm pretty sure that's still the phrasing my kid's school uses.

In any case, I dont think the Google guide goes to the extreme you mention.