In recent years, arguments have emerged in many countries to replace the terms "mother" and "father" with "Parent 1" and "Parent 2," or "Guardian 1 and 2," on school documents and official forms.

A notable example is the French parliament passing a bill in 2019 to change the terminology used in school paperwork. This shift, which followed the legalization of same-sex marriage, is not merely a matter of convenience. It serves as a symbol of the clash between different perspectives on the nature of the family and social order.

From a traditional viewpoint, "mother" and "father" are seen as natural facts and titles used throughout long-standing cultural history. A human being is born from the union of a man and a woman, and these two individuals raise the child by supporting each other. The word "mother" naturally carries specific experiences of pregnancy, childbirth, and nurturing, while the word "father" embodies the image of protection and responsibility.

Such titles strengthen the identity of family members and their emotional bonds. Replacing them with neutral, functional terms appears to be an attempt to transform the family from a "natural and cultural reality" into a "social construct."

This line of thinking is deeply connected to a leftist social outlook because progressive and modern thought tends to view the family as a flexible relationship that individuals can choose freely. Innate sex is interpreted as social gender, and traditional family structures are criticized as products of "patriarchy" or "binary oppression."

Consequently, the logic follows that language which removes gendered and natural distinctions is necessary to equally validate all family forms (such as same-sex couples, single parents, or surrogate families). "Guardian 1 and 2" serves as a tool for this kind of "inclusivity."

This approach aligns well with several aspects of leftist values.

First, it prioritizes radical individualism and freedom. It places the individual's right to freely define their gender roles and family forms above all else, viewing traditional norms as restrictive.

Second, it expands the role of the state and the collective. When traditional family units are strong, individuals rely on their families; however, when the functions of the family are weakened, welfare, educational, and administrative institutions gain greater power. Some radical perspectives even view the family itself as a tool for maintaining capitalism and propose communal child-rearing or increased state intervention as alternatives.

Third, it emphasizes formal equality. Leftist perspectives have a strong tendency to view natural and cultural differences as "discrimination." They problematize the distinction between mother and father on the grounds that it may alienate minority families, but this creates a paradox by sacrificing the reality that most people are accustomed to.

A recent attempt in New York State to replace "mother" with "gestational parent" and "father" with "non-gestational parent" follows the same context.

Of course, proponents argue that we should "ensure children from non-traditional families do not feel alienated by paperwork." It is true that family structures have indeed become more diverse. However, the direction and extent of these changes are what matter.

Most children are still born to and raised by their biological mothers and fathers. It is necessary to seriously discuss whether changing these titles to bureaucratic and neutral terms is genuine inclusion, or an act of linguistic manipulation that erases the natural feelings of the majority.

Critics point out that this change weakens family ties and renders relationships cold and impersonal. Replacing the warm, specific emotions conveyed by traditional titles with abstract, functional language can dilute the bond between parents and children.

Furthermore, this could lead down a "slippery slope" toward the dissolution of gender distinctions, gender education from a young age, and the reduction of parental authority. In fact, some progressive factions even view parental involvement in education as an "obstruction."

Ultimately, this debate is a clash between different worldviews regarding "what is human" and "what is family." One side views the family as a flexible social construct that should be reconfigured by the state and individual freedom. The other believes the family is built upon natural order and long-standing cultural foundations and should not be dismantled recklessly.

Language is never neutral. Changing "mother and father" to "Guardian 1 and 2" alters how we perceive the world itself. Too easily erasing the natural reality shared by the majority, while claiming to respect diversity, may undermine the stability of society as a whole.

True inclusion lies not in denying reality, but in living together harmoniously within it. I hope this discussion serves as an opportunity to reflect once more on the essence of the family.

◆ Songsan (松山) Jung Kwang-je 

A poet and researcher of history and philosophy. Former board member of the Syngman Rhee Institute. Currently serves as a research advisor for the Korea Modern and Contemporary History Research Association and representative of the philosophy forum Lyceum. He has published four volumes of poetry, co-translated "The Heroes of Pork Chop Hill," and authored humanities books including "Joseon Turned into Myth," "Humanities on the Tatami," and "A Liberal’s Reading of Gramsci."