Today I was having lunch with two of my girlfriends. We got into a discussion about Chast.ity "Ch.az" Bo.no and her sex change. I commented that the press is taking great care in addressing her as a "him" now. First of all, let me tell you that I have no problem whatsoever with someone choosing to have a sex change. Totally up to him or her.
But here's my problem with the whole situation. The way the media treats it.
"Huh?" you ask. If you notice, almost every news/media outlet will address her as a "him" now. Almost every single one. However, how do they address the children of Angel.ina Jol.ie, Nic.ole Kid.man, or any other adoptive mother? They differentiate the children. They will say so-and-so gave birth to _____ and she has x-number of adopted children. The adopted children are always listed as such.
Are adopted children so taboo with the press that they have to distinguish them from their siblings?
*** As a side note, Production, Not Reproduction had one of her blog posts published in this months Adopt.ive Fam.ilies. Also, there was a letter to the editor by another adoptive parent who was just as peeved with Hugg.ies as I was!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm kind of surprised so many people have noticed it. I haven't actually seen a copy of the magazine yet, but isn't it really far in the back? You guys are very observant!
Coincidentally, I know (in an online way) the woman who wrote that letter. She about blew a gasket when that commercial first ran. Definitely a kindred spirit of yours. :)
i've definitely noticed that.. also lately with the discussions about michael jackson there's always a big deal made about whether or not his kids are biologically his or not. WHO CARES they are HIS kids!!! argh!
I didn't read your original post about the hu.ggies commercial, but I saw it once and was perturbed about it. I will not be buying Hu.ggies when the time comes...the ignorant jerks.
Post a Comment