What kind of parents would allow their 9 year old child to be used like this? What kind of magazine would use a 9 year old child like this? Regardless of your opinion on “transgender” rights, this is just wrong to use a child like this.
Thank you for the heads up! I almost bought a few subscriptions as Christmas gifts. (Whew!)
Natl Geographic is yet another example of the liberal media run amuck
Parents who have been deluded into thinking they are doing good by being “progressive”.
Yes. I’d let our subscription go for a while, but renewed recently. My sense is that almost every article and photo essay is pushing some point of view now, agenda-driven photography. And what transgenderism has to do with the traditional mission of The National Geographic Society, I’m at a loss. I suspect this issue will cost them some readership.
Based on other interviews made with the parents and the child don’t by other entities I don’t think the parents would see it as their child being used. Rather they seam to see themselves as supportive.
National Geographic has always written about cultural practices. How a society approaches gender falls within this domain. According to the article they look at views of gender across cultures in this issue.
This is abuse plain and simple. By the parents and the magazine. A 9 year old…:shrug:
The magazine is free to write about issues as it sees fit. A thinking person is also free to point out the absurdity and deception of gender theory/warfare, and the damage this does to this child and others.
Shame on them.
Parents for whom the propagation of their beliefs is worth deflecting the course of their child’s life.
Don’t blame the magazine per se; it is only doing its job of depicting and describing current events, albeit, this time, with an innocent and confused child front and center.
I am glad I don’t subscribe.
In the case of Avery it may be difficult to show that the treatment received is cruel. Based on previous interviews it sounds like Avery’s teachers and peers don’t have an issue or mistreat because of Avery’s identification choices. Given the shifting landscape it may be possible for Avery to get through life being openly transgender without encountering any
I read the National Geographic articles and watched their video. They may not be what you think that they are. NatGeo interviewed 80 children across four continents to express their views on gender and what it is like being a boy/girl , the good things and bad things about it, and what they thought it would be like to be of the other gender. Most of the concerns that the children expressed were limitations imposed by society based on their gender. There was one other article in the issue that had to do with gender and children. It was about toys, how they are marketed differently. It said that the toys that children play with is a part of their learning (ex: boys toys tend to exercise spatial learning more than girls toys do). There are two cover’s for the issue. The one with Avery is one of them.
Yes, they are. They also seem open to hearing criticisms of it. They even included one of them in the response from the editor.
National Geographic is trying to brainwash young people into thinking this kind of degeneracy is normal. #GenderRevolution
4:44 PM - 15 Dec 2016
[quote=National Geographic Editor (abridged)]Since we shared photos of the cover of our special issue on gender on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, tens of thousands of people have weighed in with opinions, from expressions of pride and gratitude to utter fury. More than a few have vowed to cancel their subscriptions.
Today that and other beliefs about gender are shifting rapidly and radically. That’s why we’re exploring the subject this month, looking at it through the lens of science, social systems, and civilizations throughout history.
In a story from our issue, Robin Marantz Henig writes that we are surrounded by “evolving notions about what it means to be a woman or a man and the meanings of transgender, cisgender, gender nonconforming, genderqueer, agender, or any of the more than 50 terms Facebook offers users for their profiles. At the same time, scientists are uncovering new complexities in the biological understanding of sex. Many of us learned in high school biology that sex chromosomes determine a baby’s sex, full stop: XX means it’s a girl; XY means it’s a boy. But on occasion, XX and XY don’t tell the whole story.”
I don’t think their expectation is that their readers will agree with the various facets explored within this issue. But whether one agrees or disagrees with the views expressed and explored it does provide a view into the lives that are probably not understood by many of their readers.
I think NG figures this topic is right up their alley, as part of its historic orientation towards exploring cultures and customs.
When enough research into human physiology is done, there may be an explanation for human sexuality in its various forms. I think that we as Catholics should encourage genuinely scientific study aimed at finding a “cure” for gender identity problems, for those individuals who are seeking it.
Such individuals are “out there” and it doesn’t do any good for us or our cause to just jump up and down to condemn it.
Maybe there’s more to be done in battleground areas like public schools, but at the very least we should encourage the availability of private toilet and sports facilities for our children, and teach them to respect their own sexuality and dignity.
Labels. It’s all about labels and stereotypes and ideas, and I simply detest it. And here, national geographic seems to glorify the stereotypes.
Male or female is a physical characteristic, and that is all. Can we just leave it at that, please? What is wrong with that?
Oh finally. Someone who agrees with me. :dts:
And if this little Avery wants to experience a PERIOD EVERY MONTH THEN AVERY IS OUT OF AVERY’s MIND!!! :mad:
Bunch of wackos. :dts:
I’m sorry. I suppose that was unchristian.
I just miss the curmudgeon thread. I gave it up for Advent. :bighanky:
I unfollowed NatGeo on Instagram after learning about their cover.
In that case I look forward to their in-depth coverage of Catholic teaching on the matter in a sooner-than-later upcoming issue.
The sad thing is that many parents do not view this as “being used”.
In fact one of the central problems with these issues is that parents go along with it for the usual Rolodex of selfish excuses.
Where again, we will most likely further explore a “scientific analysis” of, well um, more stereotypes. :whistle: