Insofar as she can keep up with her job as Mom, Madonna is a parent to three minors. At least last I checked with a “source close to the family.”

We can engage in the important debate over the ethics of international adoption and of "misunderstandings" in parts of Africa in particular, or we can stay out of it. But once Madonna gained custody of her youngest child, David, she became a third-time mom just like any other mother. Or at least like any other mother who “does” celebrity Kabbalah, grabs her crotch in front of half the world and calls her gay/minority dancers "emotional cripples." But just because some of us go a little wild in being judgmental of Madonna, this doesn't mean we have to trample on the dignity of her son David, too.

You see, in families that were formed through adoption or any other way, a kid is a kid and a parent is a parent. I'll skip the obvious bad pun on "apparent." But I ask all the offending "reporters," bloggers, journalists, commentators and celebrity-elevators the following: what did those kids ever do to you? Why do you need to single them out from biological children at all costs?

How would you like it if you had been adopted by Madonna, Brangelina Jolie, two pantyhose models or, you know, just the parents you happen to have, and every godforsaken mention of you went something like the following? “Apparently, [Madonna’s] kids (Lourdes, 11, Rocco, 7, and adopted David Banda, 2) have been pining for a ‘normal mom.’” (METRO newspapers, May 2008) I’m pining for a normal reporter.

Would you be jumping for joy if everything anyone ever publicly said about you had your name appended to the word “adopted,” “genetically related” (to your Aunt Bertha), or “made in a sparkly test tube” or “conceived while the father wore the mother’s lace panties on his head”? There’s nothing wrong with having been adopted (or with being conceived in a kinky cross-dressing scene, for that matter). Adoption shouldn’t be a taboo subject, and yes, it should be mentioned – when there’s at least a halfway decent reason to do so. With reference to families, however, 99% of usage of the word “adopted” in the media is unwarranted and just plain dumb. The ultimate impact of this goes far beyond the feelings of any celebrity tyke.

For Christ’s sake – and I mean literally, ‘cause HE was adopted – let each of these kids just be someone’s child. Adopted children everywhere have to grapple with their identities and with society’s perceptions in ways that ignorant reporters can’t wrap their heads around. They could really do with an allowance of good manners from everyone who’s capable of thinking for more than three seconds. Madonna’s and Angelina’s kids probably have even bigger things to worry about…but for all people who joined their permanent families in slightly untypical ways, it would just be common courtesy to wait and let them speak for themselves.

They’re not any less of “someone’s child.” They have real parents, even if these parents aren’t biologically related to them (or to each other! – God forbid two people in a lifelong, socially normative relationship should be genetically unrelated!). And they don’t usually have a different position in the family just because they were adopted (this can also include adopted stepsons, stepdaughters and kids in long-term foster care such as the Czech variety). I doubt that most of these people would say, “I am the adopted child of…” whenever they mention their Mom or Dad.

A final note to reporters and gossip columnists: if you’re still worried about being interesting enough in your writing, here’s a news flash: everyone already knows that Madonna’s third child was adopted. So skip it and impress us with something else, please.