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.
There isn't such a thing.
If you lie about it, all anyone needs to do...is to look in your genes.
Who wants to be called “Shiloh” anyway.
I think that the real inner me is a lost Star-Child from the Pleiades with raging heterosexual appetites that can only be sated by the finest Earth Women, who I have been sent here to sample, test and recruit for the rejuvenation of our dying race.
(Think that’s good enough for a movie deal? Book deal? Paperback? Chick Tract?)
That’s what the Sony execs say as well, not exactly Pitt but her......
It would work well as an admittance form, for sure.
My understanding of that is that “trans” to female adopt stereotypical female clothing, jewelry, hairstyles, mannerisms.
For feminists who say there is no difference between men and women, a man becoming a woman by adopting a set of social constructs furthers the argument that women are supposed to follow a set of “female” behaviors.
An “it” at work that decided to become female sold his truck and bought a sedan, for fear of looking and sound like a guy working on a truck, now taking the sedan to the shop when “it” was fully capable of all repairs. Or wearing makeup and dresses because that’s what women are supposed to do.
The irony was that it challenged me on wearing pants, skipping makeup and fancy items, demanding to know what made me a woman and not IT. I replied, “Giving birth twice.” It didn’t want to work with me after that.
Or if the girl is manifesting as a boy in order to get Daddy’s approval.
Well for a long time Will Smith’s daughter was like that and I saw a recent pic of her the other day that shows she is dressing more like a girl now. I notice that Will and Jada didn’t feel a need to give her a new name along the way. They probably figured if they ignored it she would grow out of it. Too bad the Pitts are not that smart.
Well, there’s at least one good thing to be said for her
“Jolie is also reputed to be a libertarian who strongly dislikes President Obama”
ugh
You have pointed out the fallacy. On the one hand, feminists say that real girls can play with guns but “transgender” kids must play with makeup. They are stupid and they are destroying our society.
I don’t care what these people do. They’re insignificant. I do like Jolls dad, Jon Voight. I understand his epiphany when changed his political view. Too bad his daughter is a hollywood spoiled brat.
Gosh, it looks like it could be a still from The Interview.
Angelina ain’t been right since Billy Bob Thornton dumped her. Brad went insane trying to fill Billy Bob’s shoes.
What a couple of sick tickets, Pitt and Jolie. The poor girl!
Sadly, this child has been dressing like a boy for years. I think the problem lies with the parents, not the little girl.
Because, by God, being a female just isn’t good enough.
I think I’ll throw up.
Extreme child abuse.
Sick.
And meanwhile, normal Americans are threatened with having their children stolen by CPS for letting them go outside to play.
It seems that Pitt not only lost his brains over Jolie.
It looks like she has surgically removed his spine and his doo-dads as well.
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.