More DCF Enslavement of Children, and “Transgender” Confusion

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

Thanks to Rad Geek for discussing the Connecticut “transgender” 16-year-old who has been thrown into an adult male prison, without charges, because the youth “assaulted” workers at a Massachusetts juvenile center to which the youth was transferred by Connecticut DCF. The issue at hand seems to be the “transgender” confusion, whether to put “her” (who is really a “him” in my view) into an adult corrections facility for males or the one for females. The issue does not seem to be, “Should we be putting someone in a prison who hasn’t even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted?” Rad Geek links to this Hartford Courant article, which notes that before DCF took custody, “the youth was the sole occupant of a unit at the training school in Middletown, with no incidents of verbal or physical aggression…” And then because of one incident in which the youth allegedly assaulted a public safety officer, the youth was then committed to DCF and was then transferred to the Massachusetts juvenile facility. The Courant notes,

However, the incident report prepared by staff at Meadowridge Academy in Needham, describes a violent outburst by the youth, who was upset, insubordinate and attempting to walk off campus when confronted by two staff members.

The assault occurred after one of the two staff members attempted to restrain the youth by bear-hugging the youth around the chest.

“Insubordinate”? As Rad Geek points out, the youth tried to break free from the guards’ “bear hug” in order to leave. What authority did DCF have to seize custody of the child in the first place? Because of “assaulting a public safety officer”? Was the youth convicted or even charged with assault? No, of course not. But the State owns the kids, as Melissa Harris-Perry was sure to remind us.

But another issue here for me is this “transgender” issue, which has been made to deliberately confuse all other issues, in my view. I’m sure I’m going to get in trouble here with the gender-obsessed politically correct crowd, but the youth in question is a male, not a female. “Transgender” means he wants to identify as a female, as a choice, especially since he does not appear to have had “hormone treatments” (although he may have but I doubt it) and obviously has not had a “gender-changing” surgical procedure.¬†Until the past decade or so, we didn’t have this “transgender” issue to deal with. But I’d like to know just what have today’s parents been doing to the kids that seems to affect their gender identity so severely? Did Sue and Dave have a little boy when they really wanted a girl? Is Mommy a feminist and doesn’t believe her little boy should have “boy”- related toys, just dolls and other feminine things? We also have helicopter parents, parents who praise the kids even when they are bad, parents who won’t let the kids play outside because a male stranger might approach them to ask for directions, and so on.

Finally, regarding the situation above, I wonder whether Glenn Beck and Jeff Kuhner will come to the defense of this more recent victim of DCF child-snatching and false imprisonment, as much as they have defended Justina Pelletier. Or will they see the “transgender” aspect and decide to “not go there.” My own perception of them as authoritarians is, once they see that the youth “assaulted” security guards, that’s the end of that. You don’t “assault” authority or its enforcers. I think that conservative authoritarians tend to take the side of State authorities over those who “assault” them (regardless of their having kidnapped and falsely imprisoned the alleged assaulters).

(Cross-posted on my blog.)

11:48 am on April 14, 2014