Foods for thought ... for some
If the privacy/security concerns were genuine at the level those blinds implied, the behavior would be the opposite of what we've seen.
A couple with a real child and a real stalking/security issue would go quiet in a practical way. They would tighten locations, avoid unnecessary public appearances, stop feeding searchable child details into articles, stop giving tabloids hooks, and handle threats through lawyers, security, and law enforcement.
They would not keep letting the child’s name be recycled in lists and timelines while also claiming fans are too dangerous for normal confirmation.
That is the contradiction. You cannot say, “fans are so dangerous that we cannot answer basic questions,” while also repeatedly placing the story back in front of those same fans through laundered listicles, old timeline articles, Father’s Day/Mother’s Day mentions, and appearance-adjacent security blinds. That is not removing yourself from public attention. That is using the public attention while blaming the public for reacting to it.
And if a child were real and being protected, the cleanest route would be one boring confirmation plus privacy. Instead, the pattern keeps provoking the audience: drop a shaky announcement, refuse direct ownership, recycle the name, use old photos, avoid live microphones, insert them into “first parent” lists with no fresh proof, then punish people for asking why none of it is anchored.
In that setup, using a fan event to “confirm” anything would not just be bad strategy, it would feel genuinely ugly.
Because the repeated security/fan crisis framing has already implied that fans were the reason normal confirmation could not happen. Fans were painted as invasive, dangerous, obsessive, document-fabricating, stalking, and somehow responsible for why a basic child confirmation could not be handled through normal press channels.
So to then turn around and send him to a paid fan-facing event and let those same fans become the setting where he finally confirms it? That would be gross. It would basically say: fans are too dangerous to deserve clarity like a normal celeb announcement, but safe enough to buy photo ops, autos, tickets, and provide “welcome home superhero” applause.
And worse, it would still not answer the actual record. It would not explain the rep disclaimers, the lack of a confirmed pregnancy, the unanchored baby announcement, the Oscars avoidance, ET avoiding husband/child language, the old-photo timeline article, the real estate solo framing, the alleged photo-fraud issue, the Marvel firewall, or the June 18 answered other-woman blind, or the March 20th answered blind that puts the child as "reported" not confirmed, or the actress being placed as a new yorker.
That is why a con confirmation would feel manipulative. It would try to convert ten months of corporate-level avoidance into one emotional fan-room moment and then expect everyone to accept it. No serious team should want that for the actor, and no con should want that risk dumped onto its attendees.
If there is anything real to clarify, it belongs in a proper outlet or formal statement before the event. WITH reps. The fan con should not be used as a paywalled courtroom for a narrative fans were blamed for questioning in the first place for ten straight months.
