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.
Maybe she idolizes Olivia Newton John.
Um. That looks like it was all set up.
Pitt was not reacting, he was acting.
What a horrible thing for her to say. I have no respect for her if that is true.
As long as my preferred food source is safe, it’s all good.
;D
You’re right. Just watched the video now. The way he spit and the camera panned to the gum sticking on the other guy’s eye - as if the camera cut away for a moment while the gum was placed right there. Obviously the whole thing was a comedy routine.
I understand your argument but what would you do? Your three year old boy wants to play with dolls, ponies, and fairies. You...?? Force him to only play with trucks?? Kids are innocent. I believe it’s abuse to deny a small child his own actual feelings.
Yes, hormones affect actual structures in the brain, most especially while such structures are being formed. Yes, this is an actual disability like lack of fingers or an extra chromosome; we just don’t know enough about it. And the gay lobby keeps us from knowing all the ways gender and sex differences are caused by disabilities in the brain.
We don’t make a choice to fall in love with the opposite sex. We didn’t make a conscious choice to play with certain toys; they match our desires. There is a ton of crossover with boys’ and girls’ activities, but we are not talking about tomboys. We are talking about kids who feel they are much more like their friends of the opposite sex, very early.
What exactly is “doing right by their children”?
That could be...
Bingo!
Didn’t her mother die from breast cancer?
She is a very beautiful little girl...I can’t imagine how often she’s heard or would hear how beautiful she is. WOW! Cute, cute, cute kid! Maybe she’s just hiding from that for now, and if that makes her happy, then it’s fine with mom and dad?
God help that little girl. It doesn’t seem like her idiot parents are.
It’s true that I read it, but whether it’s true that she said it ... *shrug*.
It might have been “People,” which is somewhat truthier than other celebrity gossip mags, or it might have been “US Weekly.” I read them in the line at Walmart.
I had to look it up; but, yes. I guess that’s where she got her genetic predisposition for breast cancer. No wonder Angelina was so concerned about cancer.
Let him play with dolls, ponies, and fairies, among the other things he certainly also likes. Sign him up for swimming lessons. Take him to the library.
However, you don't say that his liking these toys makes him a girl. It doesn't. It makes him a boy who presently likes to play with those things. Even if, for the rest of his life, his tastes tend to the more delicate things, that doesn't make him female. It makes him a man who has "these" tastes, rather than "those."
Yaelle, you’re discussing different issues at once and making them seem that they are all the same.
A boy who likes traditionally feminine things, is not a female and that does not mean he is a homosexual. Oscar de la Renta, Ralph Lauren, Max Factor, Vidal Sassoon were all heterosexual men who designed clothes, dressed hair and created cosmetic empires. A man can be interested in clothes, good grooming, enjoy gentle activities, but he is still a man.
Personally, I wouldn’t be happy if I had a son played who solely played with baby dolls and barbies, but if that’s what he liked, I would also introduce him to artistic toys, puzzles, scientific games, just as I would my daughter. Then again, I wouldn’t be surprised to find him blowing up the dolls with firecrackers or something when he’s older. That’s what my husband did with his sister’s dolls. :)
My little brother (one boy among four girls) played with his older sisters’ dolls and he’s not a tranny or a homosexual (although he is a bit metro; then again most men under 30 are).
What people do and what they wear has no bearing on their sexual biology.
Homosexuality is different matter than those who have truly intersexed bodies, which is a totally different matter than boys who like “feminine” arts and clothes or girls who enjoy “masculine” activities and cut their hair short.
Doing the right thing as a parent is treating your children with love, not abusing them and not catering to their fantasies. Physiological issues that can be medically treated are another matter entirely.
Again, I know you speak out of concern for the well-being of children, but that sort of kindness leads to cruelty. Not just for them, but for all of us.
Win, place, and show. Help yourself to a Guinness and a kitten!
I have patience with the idea that being male or being female requires a person to conform to a set of requirements for interests, tastes, and behavior, other than that covered by the Ten Commandments.
None of us is morally obligated to conform to anyone else's idea of "masculinity" or "femininity."
“NO patience.”
Yup! Recall that not 300 years ago men wore more lace and maquillage than women and they were still men! Fashions, and trends change, but biological man and biological woman never do.
Thanks for the prizes, but a Guinness is a bit too strong for me. Since it's almost 5:00 pm, I'll have a glass of Cabernet instead. :)
As for a kitten, I'll have to sadly decline. I have 5 living indoors with me that I was suckered into taking (Really, how could I say no? They're awesome.) There's a clowder of ferals on our dead end street that the town trapped, neutered and returned. Guess which sucker takes care of them all, too? Eh, I complain, but I love the furballs.
The Guinness and the kitten are a literary trope; you aren’t actually required to accept them. I don’t like beer, myself, but I’m very fond of cats ... we have two, and our oldest daughter (whose haircut is NOT “gender-conforming”) visiting with the “grand-dog.”
Your point about men’s long hair, lace, and makeup illustrates why I don’t think it makes sense to blame “hormonal disruption” for boys’ or girls’ “gender-inappropriate” interests. “Masculine” and “feminine” appearance and behaviors are culturally determined, not biological. We’ve all seen the National Geographic shows about the different African tribes and their standards of “beauty” and “desirability” for men and women ... weird makeup, bizarre piercings, peculiar dances, showing your clean, white teeth ...
People just like different things, that’s all. I’m a heterosexual woman (ten children ...), even with my radical feminist college professor spiky gray hairdo. So is my daughter, even though she has a tattoo of a Viking ship and just did something weird with her hair that reminds me of the Dwarves in the Hobbit movies.
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.