I was the person who raised this question and I would like to propose a different solution. Economics is sometime, correctly in my view, accused of 0f having a rather clueless androcentric viewpoint. At the time of my post, it seemed to me that the list of available topics would lend support to someone of that view, and this seemed to me to be less than ideal.
I endorse the idea of multiple quasi-synonyms. Whatever term is chosen, this is a radial category and a person seeking information on one of the peripheral extensions out from whatever center is chosen may not see what holds the categories together or anticipate the identity of conceptual hub. Certainly I would never have guessed that anyone would have categorized my question in demographics, as I was asking about the welfare consequences of smaller households, not about fertility decisions. But I don't really care for any of the alternatives above, including the one I originally suggested.
If it were just up to me, I would call the category I was requesting "Feminist Economics," though "anti-Feminist economics" would link all the same topics together. I suspect this group would prefer something a bit more ideologically neutral. I believe that if we as economists don't want to be clueless about women's interests and child wellbeing and how they might be different from men's and adults', if we don't want to sweep gender concerns under the rug, or assume that husband and wife are one and that one is the husband, then it makes sense to chose a central category that recognizes that such issues are real and makes it easier to find information about them.
Seriously, look at the list of topics under "Demographic Economics." How many of them would be of any interest to a demographer? Certainly 314, 315, 316 and 317 have nothing at all to do with demography, and even in 312 and 313 -- domestic abuse? Child care? Youth? What were they thinking? This grouping of topics under that heading makes sense only if you regard child bearing and rearing as an economically valuable service that women render to men.
My suggestion is to call the topic Gender & Family Economics. That is a much more sensible name for everything currently listed under demographic economics except 311 (and perhaps fertility under 313), and in my view would also naturally subsume the heading D13: Household Production and Intrahousehold Allocation under Household Behavior and Family Economics.
Note that D13 is the only topic listed under Household Behavior and Family Economics that does not fit more naturally under the heading Consumer Economics and Intertemporal Choice. I believe the "Family Economics" in the name of this subject arises as a historical remnant from the time when there was a substantial subfield, and even many departments, in Home Economics, teaching women to make good decisions as consumers. My undergraduate Alma Mater Cornell U. had such a department, though it, like most such departments, had been renamed as a department of Consumer Economics (and Housing) by the time I got there, and appears to have since been abolished.