Posted on 12/28/2014 12:18:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Hollywood recently unveiled yet another of many feature films for the holiday season, this one the ambitious World War II era character study, Unbroken. It was directed by Angelina Jolie, and while I haven’t seen it yet, the topic looks fascinating. When it came time for the red carpet activities, though, Jolie’s family had to step in for her and do a quick turn for the cameras. Here’s one photo from the event, featuring husband Brad Pitt and several of their children.
That’s a handsome group of fellows, isn’t it? But if you look a bit closer there’s a bit of a mystery here. The blond haired child in the center isn’t actually a boy at all. It’s Jolie’s eight year old daughter by birth, Shiloh. Susan Goldberg at PJ Media caught this story recently, in which we discover that Shiloh “identifies as a male” and chooses to go by the name John. This tale was oh so politically correctly highlighted by Refinery 29.
Angelina Jolie’s entire family recently stepped out on the red carpet to support their mother’s new movie, Unbroken. The couple’s oldest biological child, who was assigned female at birth, joined brothers Maddox and Pax wearing sharp suits and short haircuts.
Pitt and Jolie have been fairly open over the years about Shiloh’s interest in all things considered masculine. In an interview with Oprah in 2008, Brad Pitt discussed how Shiloh wanted to be called John.
The eight-year-old’s family fully supports their decision to self-identify — from an affinity for suits and ties to shorter hair to the name change.
While you pick your jaws up off the floor, I’ll offer up this example of the great lengths the reporter went to in order to ensure that nobody’s gender sensibilities were offended.
Editor’s Note: We have followed the Advocate’s lead, and referred to John Jolie-Pitt as “they” as a gender-neutral pronoun to respect John’s decision, whatever gender they may end up being.
While I generally try to avoid all things Hollywood in my own writing, this story has to make one wonder precisely how things went so far off track as to come to this turn of events. Goldberg has a theory:
Probably about as dumb as the Advocate grasping at straws via the stale tale of Shiloh Pitt, who apparently has been dressed in boyswear and given boyishly short haircuts by her parents since she was a toddler. Four years later, why wouldn’t an 8-year-old girl think she ought to be called “John”? If anything she’s aiming for a more defined gender identity than her parents have yet to give her, either through her name, her hair, or her clothing, let alone the gender-neutral pronouns being used to identify her in the media.
What is to become of this little girl in the future? And given the massive media attention paid to her parents and all things related to them, how can a new generation of children – most of whom have smart phones and tablets by the age of 8 these days – avoid thinking that there is something normal about this?
Young girls who grow up in a household with brothers can frequently take on tomboy characteristics. I observed that myself while growing up, visiting two male cousins at my Uncle’s farm. Their younger sister would traipse along with us (generally to our annoyance) and was frequently dressed in jeans and tee shirts since we were out playing on the farm. But she kept her birth name, and after puberty struck she was quickly wearing dresses and “girly” clothes, obsessing over boys and doing all the things that teenage girls do. There’s really nothing unusual about that at all.
But when media exposure changes the child’s perspective from wanting to go search for turtles and snakes with her brother to a reevaluation of her gender and switching to a masculine name, the car of that family is heading for the ditch. An eight year old knows nothing of sexuality and “gender identification” and, frankly, doesn’t need to know anything about it. She needs to have time to be a kid and do all the silly, fun things that kids do without worrying about such adult notions.
Shiloh may still turn around in a few years and become “Shiloh” again. But in the meantime, children around the world are looking at her and thinking, “I wonder if that’s who I am too?” This is not a solution. It’s a problem.
Indeed, surgery carries risk, too. We each make decisions that are right for us. Like you, I would’ve never opted for preventive surgery before diagnosis. Now I understand why women make that choice. That doesn’t mean it’s the right choice for everyone, though.
I’m fine now, by the way. Just jumping in to defend this one choice that many women make. I had stage 2 BC at age 46 - four years ago. God bless to you, too.
“”Nancy has had quite a successful career since then, and is married with two children. It appears she’s currently performing in some Disney Channel thing.””
I feel foolish asking but who is that? She looks very familiar but I sure can’t put a name to her.
That's an 80s picture, not a current one. She was born in 1966, like me; we will be 49 in 2015.
The proper term is “he-she”.
Wow, does she look like a young Jodie Foster or what.
I think some people are eager to believe the worst.
Thank you for sharing your experience with us. I wish you strength to deal with this and hope your sister finds acceptance with her biological sex and peace overall.
Still a looker!
No, not really. She’s a light-skinned blonde with a short haircut, but her face is utterly unlike Jodie Foster’s.
Yes, she looks very good, and happy and sane, too. Good for her!
Who didn’t see this coming for at least a couple years now?
This crazy dame has had a number of screws loose since forever. Poor Shiloh, good chance her wacko mother singled her out for special psyops “treatment”. That the father is going along with it says he’s just as nuts and/or engaged in the abuse, or at minimum so henpecked that he dare not challenge his weirdo wifey.
Maybe Shiloh only received affection if she acted like a boy, or she was punished for wanting to wear dresses or whatever. Can you imagine crossing that woman? She’s always had a certain daggers and ice picks look about her.
AJ has collected kids kind of like Mia Farrow, another Hollyweird pillar of virtue and sanity.
Her brother played the son on the TV series “Alice,” IIRC.
or like we used to say, She cleans up real nice... 8^)
Shiloh was born (same birthday as my Frank, different year) a few months after and a few months before international adoptions. It must have been very awkward for her from birth, and I can easily see her identifying with the adopted older brothers, while differentiating herself from the more-loved adopted sister.
Until I looked up the family while participating in this thread, I didn’t realize that Angelina had changed all the adopted children’s names. “Maddox Chivan” was originally Rath Vibol. “Zahara Marley” was originally Yemsrach. “Pax Thien” was originally Pham Quang Sang.
......the little girl will die of intentional drug overdose at an early age.....................
I really didn’t know all this stuff about Angelina Jolie.
Sickening!
So long as you keep yer greedy beak off my annelids....
:-P
I’m from the 60s - in the old days, the interviewee would have pulled off the mike and walked off. From what I understand, though, this guy sets up people for “fun” interviews like Martin Short did with his character of Jiminy Glick. I am only going by my innate feelings as a performer: to spit like that is hateful, unfunny, and untalented.
Yes, I saw that when I looked her up. However, they were both in television before that. The article said she started making commercials at age 2.
Jolie did not have cancer - as O’Donnell did not have cancer. What makes you think I don’t know anyone in my family or among my friends who hasn’t had this loathe disease? To mutilate oneself in the hope one can avoid cancer is strange to me. I’m not backing down so don’t post to me if you want me to change my mind. I’m also against any kind of mutilation of the body of people who think they “are born in the wrong body.”
She may very well have had a normal interset in being a tomboy, but of course a normal parent would never have allowed (or rather, programmed in) “gender” confusion/reality reassignment.
Gotta be a real corrupted soul to think a child’s natural human (IOW, *God*-given) nature is somehow optional or disposable. Reality deniers have become more and more extreme, as every new abomination they think up goes unchallenged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.