I was thinking the same thing. My wife and I have two adopted sons and I'm sure they consider us their "real parents."
You could turn this argument around and argue that a biological father who deserts the mother before the child is born is a "real parent." That wouldn't make any sense at all.
That being said, the caption under the picture of Cheney's grandchild could have said "Cheney celebrates, along with his daughter's partner, the birth of Mary's child..."
The term “real” is not used to describe the sperm / egg donor parents any longer. It is “biological” or “birth”, versus “adoptive” or simple “parents”. “Real” is who raised you, who loves you, who sacrificed for you.
I have friends who have “snowflake babies” — children born from a frozen (then thawed) egg/sperm donors, then implanted into my friend. She is the “adoptive” and “birth” parent because she carried the child in her womb, and she and her husband did a legal “embryo adoption” through the courts.
Personally, I don’t at all agree with creating life this way as a believer in Jesus Christ. I don’t judge them for their choice, but I wish they would have quietly and confidentially taken this unconventional route without ever revealing to their children how they were conceived, bought, paid for, and adopted. She’s the birth mom — she (and husband) are “real” parents. It is creating too much identity crisis and confusion for them, IMHO.
I am my four children’s “real” and “adoptive” mother, and they remember well their own “biological” or “birth” parents, as they call them.
There's a sensible suggestion.