In the Metta Sutta (Snp 1.8 and Khp 9) there is a line Gil Fronsdal translates “As a mother would risk her own life to protect her child, her only child”.
The Pāli here translated as child is “putta”. John Peacock has said that this more accurately translates to “son” (see 1:11:22). My knowledge of Pāli is insufficiently secure to make a call. Nine of the twenty-one Metta Sutta translations collected on Leigh Brasington’s website use “son”, rather than “child”. In Margaret Cone’s _A Dictionary of Pāli_ “putta” is described as primarily meaning “son” and occasionally meaning “child”. My sense is that “son” might have been used to mean “child” in the same way that “men” used to mean “humans”. That is, a gendered term being used to indicate a mixed-gender classification.
I think most modern translators use the gender neutral “child”, rather than the masculine “son”. I propose that in the same spirit we make what is perhaps a stronger move and begin translating “mātā” as “parent” rather than “mother”, moving from gendered to gender neutral symbolism.
This move does not, to me, reduce the impact of the imagery where it is successful. (Nor does it remove the bias against those for whom paternal protection is not a compelling image.) Though not a 100% solution, I contend it would be a move in a skillful direction.
Dharma PhD 