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.
I wonder which one of their Hollywood colleagues molested this precious child.
Looks like a young Macauley Caulkin.......Will likely turn out just as screw up or more.
Good point.
The child in the picture looks like a girl. No way it can be mistaken for a boy. I’d say that 99.7% of the “transgender issues” can be blamed on the parents.
“She is a tomboy who should be allowed to grow and change as nature devised. “
YES! My Mom was an out and out crazy tomboy. Played sports with the neighborhood boys. Blossomed into a babe redhead that all the boys chased after! Local Cleveland ladies Golf Campion a few times.
Are Tomboys verboten now?
Hollywood is an evil place.
Te destruction of the human race continues unabated!
That makes it even more disturbing. She’s clearly a beautiful girl. Too bad she’s not being supported and encouraged to be what she is.
I identify as an amphibian.
Eventually, the state will collect sperm and eggs from the physical and cultural elites and generate life in state run facilities...Children will be assigned to the state and their future roles in society will be determined by the state...Those children who do not measure up will be terminated...Your sex and future role in society will be determined by the state...
Liberal thinking is always hypocritical.
On the one hand, women should be allowed to play sports and do anything a man can do. They should not be defined by what they like to do.
On the other hand, if they like sports and things boys like, they are gender reassigned as a boy.
Apparently so! No more tomboys!
To this day, I would rather watch a western or war movie than a sickly romance. But that does NOT make me a man.
Thanks, Veto. I think we’re BOTH onto something.
Anybody read Shirley MacLaine’s daughter’s memoir? Old Shirley did everything to destroy her own child rather than stand aside and let her shine for 10 minutes.
I see a little obesity in the first photo. (Could be wrong.) Molestation, anyone?
The next freakshow child out of HomoWierd.
Pray America is waking
Mastectomy does not reduce breast cancer risk to zero. Breast tissue extends down the rib cage and under the arm pits towards the back. There is pretty much no way, unless extremely radical surgery is done, to remove 100% of breast tissue. If one cell is still inside the body, one can still get breast cancer. Carrying the gene does not mean that one will get breast cancer; conversely, not carrying the gene does not guarantee a breast cancer free life. In fact, I opted not to get tested for the gene. Would having it cause me unnessissary worry (stress causes many negative health issues), or not having it give me permission to skip a check here or there?
“I’m a girl I’m a girl but my ma won’t admit it...”
Bingo!-
But will Shiloh- wear a vial of blood?
and proclaim everlasting love-?
Reallll hollywierd people want to know!
sarc
After John Voight?
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.