Box Turtle Bulletin

Defenders of marriage be warned: you may be killing it

Evidence from Europe suggests that those who so ardently oppose same-sex marriage need to ask themselves a question: do you want to save marriage, or do you want to be anti-gay? It appears that doing both may not be a long term option.

It is a foregone conclusion that some form of recognition of same-sex relationships is coming to every state in the union. And soon. With two thirds of the citizens supporting marriage, domestic partnerships, civil unions, or some other model – a number which is trending favorably – it is inevitable.

So the only question is whether it will be incremental, signing a register, a few rights doled out, no responsibilities, easy termination and no formality; or if it will be full marriage (or civil unions equal to marriage)? Will it be grudging and as little as they can get away with so as to keep gays in their place, or will it be all at once?

Supporters of “traditional marriage” may have to fight their instincts and opt for equality (or near equality). Because quasi-marriage, glorified “going together”, may prove to be a tempting alternative for heterosexuals. It may actually detract from marriage. It certainly seems to in France. (BBC)

A heterosexual Austrian couple have embarked on a court battle to have their relationship legally recognised as a “registered partnership” – a new form of civil union for same-sex couples.

Helga Ratzenboeck and Martin Seydl say they don’t want a traditional marriage and insist that the law should be blind to gender and sexuality.

Meanwhile, the kind of pared-down marriage they want is proving a huge hit with straight couples in France, where 95% of couples taking up the pacte civil de solidarite (Pacs) in 2009 were heterosexual.

As the number of straight French couples opting for Pacs has grown, the number of marriages has shrunk, to the point that there are now two couples entering into a Pacs for every three getting married.

Some might look at the overall picture of a cumulative increase in those who make some form of commitment (see chart), but “traditional marriage supporters” tend not to think like that.

I, of course, think it smartest just to make marriage available to all and be done with the drama. Then we can get on with the important task of bitching about who is going where for Thanksgiving.

Malawi Government Pleased With Homosexuality Conviction

The Malawian Minister of Information, Leckford Mwanza Thotho reacts to yesterday’s conviction of Steven Monjeza, 26, and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, for gross indecency and “unnatural acts.” Thus saith Thotho:

“What we are saying is that the ruling or the court proceeding as of today, reflects our tradition in Malawi. It just shows that the gay issue is against our culture in Malawi,” he said.

…”What I’m trying to say is if polygamy is not allowed in America and we have not forced you to do that for the sake of human rights…so, if other countries allowed polygamy, and we say you have to allow polygamy for the sake of human rights, we are not doing fair to your situation in America. So, it’s the same thing with our country. Homosexuality is a taboo in Malawi,” Thotho said.

News Report: Uganda Parliament Proposes Death Penalty in New HIV/AIDS Bill

Update 5/20: Warren Throckmorton was able to obtain a copy of the proposed legislation. It appears that the news report below is in error. There is no death penalty provision. There are, however several other problems with the bill, which I will investigate further when I get a chance to do so. One of the first things I noticed however is that this provision criminalizing intentional transmission of HIV is remarkably different from the similar provision in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Whether you agree with the intent to of the HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Bill or not, it is instructive that there is at least an attempt to define intentional transmission, an attempt that is entirely missing from the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Please feel free to look over the bill and add your own observations in the comments.

///

This looks uncomfortably familiar to those of us who have been following the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Details are sketchy:

The long awaited HIV/AIDS control bill has been tabled in Parliament for the first reading today morning.

The bill seeks to penalize deliberate spread of HIV/AIDS, with death as the maximum punishment.

This bill however has been widely criticized by the International community as it is likely to increase stigma against people living with HIV/AIDS.

The chairperson of the comiittee (sic), Beatrice Rwakimari tabled the bill including the certificate of financial implications.

The Speaker of Uganda Parliament, Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi referred the bill to the Social Services committee for scrutiny.

This provision appears similar to one of the death-penalty clauses in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. That portion of the bill reads as follows:

3. Aggravated homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offense of aggravated homosexuality where the

(a) person against whom the offence is committed is below the age of 18 years;

(b) offender is a person living with HIV;

(c) offender is a parent or guardian of the person against whom the offence is committed;

(d) offender is a person in authority over the person against whom the offence is committed;

(e) victim of the offence is a person with disability;

(f) offender is a serial offender, or

(g) offender applies, administers or causes to be used by any man or woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy overpower him or her so as to there by  enable any person to have unlawful carnal connection with any person of the same sex,

(2) A person who commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality shall be liable on conviction to suffer death.

(3) Where a person is charged with the offence under this section, that person shall undergo a medical examination to ascertain his or her HIV status.

Clause 3. (1) (b) was often cited to support the claim that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill would impose the death penalty for the “deliberate” spread of HIV, but it is important to note that the bill contains no requirement that the intent be deliberate at all. In fact, the third subclause would suggest that the death penalty would apply upon receiving a positive serostatus result from an HIV test, which might very well be the first time the charged individual would know he or she was HIV-positive. Alternately, if the accused already knew he was HIV-positive, the proposed bill provides no acknowledgment that the accused’s partner may have known about it and entered into a consensual relationship.

Health care professionals worry that the effect of the entire provision would be to discourage people from learning their HIV status.

A few weeks ago, the Monitor, Uganda’s largest independent newspaper, reported that a Cabinet subcommittee tasked to examine the Anti-Homosexuality Bill recommended that portions of the bill be passed as amendments to other pieces of legislation. Until now, speculation mainly centered around Clause 13 of the bill which would criminalize the “promotion” of homosexuality, which the subcommittee decided should be passed. It is unclear what recommendations the subcommittee offered with regard to the death penalty for people with HIV.

We currently don’t have the text of the new proposed legislation but are seeking it from anyone who may have access to it.

Update: Human Rights Watch reacts:

“The bill contains measures that have been proven ineffective against the AIDS epidemic and that violate the rights of people living with HIV,” said Joe Amon, Health and Human Rights director at Human Rights Watch. “The HIV epidemic in Uganda is getting worse, and this bill is another example of misguided, ideological approaches and lack of leadership.”

The bill as currently written codifies discredited approaches to the AIDS epidemic and contains dangerously vague criminal provisions. Contrary to international best practices, the bill would criminalize HIV transmission and behavior that might result in transmission by those who know their HIV status.

The bill would discourage voluntary HIV testing, while making testing mandatory for pregnant women, their partners, suspected perpetrators and victims of sexual offenses, drug users, and prostitutes, in violation of fundamental principles of consent. The bill also allows medical practitioners to disclose a patient’s HIV status to others, breaching confidentiality standards. These provisions could potentially endanger those who are infected by exposing them to stigma, discrimination, and physical violence.

HRW’s statement doesn’t mention any death penalty provision in the earlier drafts of the bill.

Argentina’s Senate begins consideration of marriage equality bill

The General Law Committee of Argentina’s Senate began debate on the marriage equality bill passed by the House earlier this month. The committee room was too small for the crowd. Mostly, today’s agenda included administrative and planning issues. (Parlamentario.com google translation).

Shortly before 17 on Tuesday began the session of the General Law Committee chaired by the San Luis Liliana Negre de Alonso, remembering login to set a timetable for discussion of the project.

In this context, the holder of the official bank, Miguel Angel Pichetto, found that one month and ten days of debate “right.” This was marked the first half of July as the date for the treatment of the topic in the campus. That is, as is anticipated Parlamentario.com, it would be trying to last the World Cup in South Africa.

The meeting of the commission had perfect attendance of all members, as well as senators who are members and not the general public, whereupon it was decided that the next meetings are conducted not in the Hall Eva Peron, but in places wider.

Heterosexual Menace: Hot for Students

I just happened to come across this story during my lunchtime reading of the dead-tree version of the Arizona Daily Star:

Christie Elliot, 25, who coached the cheer squad and taught English at Empire High School, 10701 E. Mary Ann Cleveland Way, for about a year, turned herself in to Tucson police as a result of a three-week investigation into her relationship with a 15-year-old boy.

…Police began investigating April 19 at the behest of the Vail School District after a parent told the Empire High principal that Elliot had been exchanging inappropriate text messages with his son via his iPod Touch. Some of the messages referred to kissing and the “need to be more careful,” according to court documents filed by police.

During the district’s initial investigation, laptop computers issued by the school to staffers and students were confiscated from Elliot and the student, court documents state. Elliot’s computer was found to contain topless pictures of the teacher. It is undetermined whether she sent those photos to students, according to court documents.

Now imagine a different but very similar story, with almost all of the details being identical — a hot 25-year-old teacher sending inappropriate text messages to a 15-year-old male student, the teacher’s school-issued laptop containing topless photos, yadda, yadda, yadda, — except the teacher were a strapping male baseball coach and science teacher.

Do you suppose, as I do, that such a story would more likely appear on the paper’s front page above the fold, instead of being buried deep inside the inner recesses of the local news section like this one was?

This can only mean one thing: Our local newspapers are in collusion with the heterosexual conspiracy. You can learn more about this vast conspiracy in our report, “The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths.”

A troubling expansion of federal powers

It is not often that I complain about a Supreme Court decision in which Justices Scalia and Thomas are the sole objectors. These men are not ones whom I consider to be the greatest defenders of civil liberties.

But one such decision was announced this week (NY Times)

In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.
…
The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

These individuals are not being “punished” but rather incarcerated for the greater good. And I tend to view “greater good” decisions from the perspective of a member of a minority community who has been seen to be so threatening that persecution, incarceration, aversion therapy, and even lobotomies were justified by the greater good.

The hardened criminal in this case, U.S. v. Comstock, is Graydon Comstock, a threat to society who is so frightening that the Federal Government is certain that he will commit his crime again if he is not held against his will. He will repeat his heinous actions, if not stopped!

Graydon Comstock was convicted of ‘receiving child pornography’ for which he was sentenced to 37 months. And to make certain that Comstock never ever ‘receives child pornography’ again, that sentencing has been extended to indefinite at the whim of the federal government.

Civil incarceration is not without precedent. States have long held that they have the right, even the obligation, to protect their citizens from those who cannot control their own behaviors. The federal role has traditionally been to ensure that states did not exceed their constitutional bounds, a role that now seems to be unfilled.

But frankly, I am troubled by the idea of incarcerating individuals for the crime of “being”, whether it is by state or federal government. I am somewhat solaced by the limitation of the law to those who are mentally incapacitated but I still remain discontented by this decision. It seems to me to have less to do with protecting society and more to do with the justification for the expansion of powers.

And I can’t help but wonder, if Comstock had not been convicted of receiving illegal images, would his danger to society be any different? Would he be any more or any less of a public threat?

Because if he was equally a threat, why then cannot the federal government just incarcerate for any length of time any person who it deems threatening for any reason? Oh, provided of course that a judge signs off.

And if this illegal action is what makes his such a threat, why then was can the judgment of the judge and jury be so easily dismissed? They decided on 3 years, while the feds want him incarcerated for life. But why is the determination of a warden of more importance than that of a jury of one’s peers?

I want my community protected. I don’t want predators roaming the streets. And I’m not some bleeding heart who feels pity for the ‘sad circumstances’ of the beasts who prey on the weak.

I’m not even much inclined to fret about slippery slopes.

But I’m made uneasy by the idea that incarceration for a sentence of time to receive punishment for a crime committed cannot be doled out without a right to a trial, evidence, and the decision of peers, while indefinite incarceration for the vague accusation of being a “danger” can be done with nothing more than a bureaucrat’s decision and a compliant judge.

Schadenfreude Watch

This is getting to be a weekly occurrence. Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), who is resigning for having sex with a woman who is not his wife, posted this about the vital importance of marriage to his web site:

I believe that Congress must fight to uphold the traditional values that undergird the strength of our nation. The family plays a fundamental role in our society. Studies consistently demonstrate that it is best for a child to have a mother and father, and I am committed to preserving traditional marriage, the union of one man and one woman.

…In October 2006, my subcommittee staff authored an important report called “Abstinence and Its Critics” that, among other things, countered the Waxman Report touted by liberals. You can download an Adobe Acrobat (PDF) copy of my report here.

TPM reports that Souder believed in abstinence so much that he appeared in a video along with his mistress, Tracy Jackson, who acted as his interviewer:

In the November 2009 abstinence video, Jackson introduces Souder this way: “You’ve been a longtime advocate for abstinence education and in 2006 you had your staff conduct a report entitled ‘Abstinence and its Critics’ which discredits many claims purveyed by those who oppose abstinence education.”

Here’s the video:

Update: Souder or his people removed the original video from their YouTube account. Fortunately, the Internet age means that nothing ever really goes away. We’ve linked to an alternative copy of the video.

Exodus Co-Founder: I Regret Teaching That Gayness Is The Result Of Bad Parenting

Yesterday we looked at Michael’s regret for teaching the idea that if you worked hard enough in an ex-gay program you would be changed.

Today Michael shares his other regret, teaching that bad parenting causes a person to be gay.  Michael talks about the division in families that can cause and his own process of later reclaiming the belief his father was actually loving, giving, encouraging and self-sacrificial.

(transcript below the jump)

Read the rest of this entry »

Anti-Gay Congressman Resigns Over Affair

Another sanctity-of-marriage and abstinence promoter has admitted to having sex with someone who was not his wife. Indiana Rep. Mark Souder (R) announced that he is resigning due to an affair he had with a staffer. Well, he’s not resigning because of the affair exactly; he’s resigning because people will be mean to him by questioning his integrity:

“In the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain,” he said. “I am resigning rather than to put my family through that painful, drawn-out process.”

Souder helped to create that “poisonous environment.” He signed an amicus brief in an attempt to overturn Washington, D.C.’s new marriage law. And according to Joe Sudbay, Souder posted some podcasts on his official congressional web site on “Homosexual Marriage” in which he compared marriage equality to polygamy, which is ironic given Souder’s own disdain for monogamy.

Malawi Couple Found Guilty of Homosexuality

Steven Monjeza (left) and Tiwonge Chimbalanga (right)

Steven Monjeza, 26, and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, were found guilty today of gross indecency and “unnatural acts” in a verdict delivered at Blantyre Magistrate’s Court. Said Magistrate Nyakwawa Usiwa Usiwa, “The state has proven beyond reasonable doubt that these gentlemen had sex despite them being male, which is against the law of Malawi.” The couple will be sentenced on Thursday, May 20. They face up to fourteen years imprisonment with hard labor. Lawyers hope to reverse the decision at High Court.

The verdict has earned condemnation from around the world:

“We have a reached a point in Malawi where we need to decide whether we regard minority groups as equal to others in terms of their human rights,” said Gift Trapence, executive director of the human rights group Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP), who was in the courtroom Tuesday.

“Malawi is using laws brought in by the British,” he said. “They need to be updated.”

UK LGBT Advoate Peter Tatchell, who has been in close contact with Steven and Tiwonge, also denounced the verdict via press release:

“The law under which they were convicted is a discriminatory law that only applies to same-sex relations. It is unconstitutional. Article 20 of Malawi’s constitution guarantees equality and non-discrimination. The law in Malawi is not supposed to discriminate,” added Mr Tatchell.

“Malawi’s anti-gay laws were not devised by Malawians. They were devised in London in the nineteenth century and imposed on the people of Malawi by the British colonisers and their army of occupation. Before the British came and conquered Malawi, there were no laws against homosexuality. These laws are a foreign imposition. They are not African laws.

“I expect both men will now appeal against the verdict and against any sentence that is handed down. Steven and Tiwonge’s best hope is that a higher court will overturn this unjust, cruel verdict.”

Tatchell noted that the Magistrate appeared biased throughout the trial. The Magistrate had denied bail to the couple, which is an extreme rarity for a non-violent crime. The Magistrate also permitted witnesses from the gallery and court personnel to abuse the couple during official court proceedings.

Tatchell also reports that you can write to Steven and Tiwonge to offer them your support. You can address your letters and post cards to  Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, Prisoners, Chichiri Prison, P.O.Box 30117, Blantyre 3, Malawi.

Update: Despite international condemnation, the Malawian government is quite pleased with the conviction.

Stories From the Frontlines: A Mother In the Closet

Today’s letter to President Barack Obama urging repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is from a mother of a gay servicemember who is will soon become a pilot. She has addressed her letter to both the President and the First Lady, Michelle Obama, mother to mother. The servicemember’s mother is unable to identify herself publicly without risk to her son’s career, which effectively forces her into the closet as well. She writes:

Mom’s have lots of dreams when they have babies.  All of you moms know what I am talking about.  What if your child had to live a lie; had to remain alone through their best and brightest years?  My dream for my son is that the United States of America would wake up and realize that times have changed, that people who happen to be gay or lesbian are really just like the rest of us, with the same aspirations, the same needs, and the same goals.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” throws more than just service people into the closet; it throws moms, dads, siblings, grandparents, godparents, friends and loved ones in there as well.

As a mom, my heart breaks for all the gay and lesbian “kids” in the military, and for all the special people in their lives who live with us in the closet.

I dream of actually being able to write to the President, my senators and representatives in the Congress, and actually signing my name, something I can’t do now due to the risk of outing my son.

I dream of the day when my son won’t have to live in fear, even as he works to keep the rest of us from living in fear.

And yes, as a mom, I dream of my son getting married to the man of his dreams.  I dream they will have all the rights that my husband and I do.  I dream that my son won’t have to wait through his entire military career to find love.  We all yearn for love.

Today, even in the closet, I dare to dream.

You can read her entire letter here. All of the letters from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s campaign are available here. The SLDN explains why they are publishing this series of letters from active and former servicemembers:

“Stories from the Frontlines: Letters to President Barack Obama” is a new media campaign launched to underscore the urgent need for congressional action and presidential leadership at this critical point in the fight to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). Every weekday morning as we approach the markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, SLDN and a coalition of voices supporting repeal, will share an open letter to the President from a person impacted by this discriminatory law. We are urging the President to include repeal in the Administration’s defense budget recommendations, but also to voice his support as we work to muster the 15 critical votes needed on the Senate Armed Services Committee to include repeal. The Defense Authorization bill represents the best legislative vehicle to bring repeal to the president’s desk. It also was the same vehicle used to pass DADT in 1993. By working together, we can help build momentum to get the votes! We ask that you forward and post these personal stories.

Judgment Day for Steven and Tiwonge

Steven Monjeza (left) and Tiwonge Chimbalanga (right)

A Malawi Court will render its verdict today in the case involving Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza, who were charged with buggery and gross indecency following a traditional engagement ceremony last December. The two will appear today before a Magistrate Nyakwawa Usiwa Usiwa at Blantyre Magistrates Court, where they face up to fourteen years at hard labor. The Guardian (UK) reports that the Tiwonge and Steven have remained loyal to each other despite the hardships they’ve already faced:

Peter Tatchell, the veteran British gay rights campaigner, has maintained contact with the pair at the maximum security Chichiri prison in Blantyre as they prepare to stand trial next week.

Tatchell told the Guardian he received a defiant message from Chimbalanga that said: “I love Steven so much. If people or the world cannot give me the chance and freedom to continue living with him as my lover, then I am better off to die here in prison. Freedom without him is useless and meaningless.”

Tatchell, of the rights group Outrage!, also quoted Monjeza – who is described as thin and weak with jaundiced eyes – as saying: “We have come a long way and even if our family relatives are not happy, I will never stop loving Tiwonge.”

The Guardian also reports that Tiwonge and Steven have been abandoned by their relatives:

Angry residents and relatives from Machinjiri township, on the outskirts of Blantyre, say they will not allow them to return home if they are set free.

“They have given this township a bad name,” said Maikolo Phiri, a local vendor.

Zione Monjeza, an aunt of Monjeza, said: “We as a family have been terribly embarrassed to be associated with this gay thing. It’s a curse and a big shame. We will chase them away if they are freed.”

Nchiteni Monjeza, Monjeza’s uncle, said: “I won’t drop a tear if they are jailed – they deserve it.”

And Portugal makes eight!!

Anibal Cavaco Silva, the conservative President of Portugal, has announced that he is ratifying the nation’s marriage equality bill. (AP)

Vetoing the bill would only send it back to Parliament where lawmakers would overturn his decision, he said, adding that the country needed to focus on overcoming an economic crisis that has increased unemployment and deepened poverty.

The Socialist government’s bill was backed by all of Portugal’s left-of-center parties, who together have a majority in Parliament. Right-of-center parties opposed the measure and demanded a national referendum.

“Given that fact, I feel I should not contribute to a pointless extension of this debate, which would only serve to deepen the divisions between the Portuguese and divert the attention of politicians away from the grave problems affecting us,” Cavaco Silva said.

Portugal now becomes the eigth nation (the sixth in Europe) to recognize same-sex marriage.

Green = marriage; Red = civil unions or other recognition

Minnesota Governor Vetoes Equality For The Dead

It’s bad enough when people refuse to recognize your dignity while you’re still alive, but Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R) has ensured that the insults will continue even after you die:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a bill Saturday that would have given same-sex partners the right to decide what to do with the body of their loved ones, should they die.

Rekers’ Legacy Includes Attempted Suicide

Before discredited anti-gay activist George Rekers was found to have hired a rentboy to “lift his luggage,” Rekers had been one of the major so-called “researchers” into the ostensible causes and cures of homosexuality. Rekers research, however was anything but impartial, taking as it does an a priori assumption that all homosexuality is disordered, and that, according to Rekers, it is always caused by improper parenting despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Those theories have led to Rekers’ adoption of abusive “therapies” and at least one attempted suicide.

A couple of weeks ago, Jeremy Hooper at GoodAsYou discovered a 1976 newspaper article describing UCLA’s “Gender Identity Clinic” which was jointly run by Drs. Ivar Lovaas and Rekers while Rekers was at the Fuller Theological Seminary. The article describes a series of aversion therapy experiments which were conducted on pre-pubertal elementary school-aged boys who showed signs of effeminate behavior and mannerisms. One four-year-old who entered the program in 1974, was identified as “Kraig.” That “treatment” had this effect after only “ten months of behavior modification which included spankings for wrong choices”:

He was, at the start, passive, non-assertive, allowed others to tease him. Now, he “regularly returns aggressiveness in his male-peer interactions.” In fact, the researchers write, Kraig’s mommy was alarmed at her son’s transformation into “a roughneck” — so reckless in play that he was hurting imself and damaging the furniture. The psychiatrists reassured the mother that her son’s “mild delinquent” behavior would be far easier to overcome in later years than effeminacy.

A competent therapist would have seen “Kraig’s” aggressive behavior as a classic warning sign. Abused children often become aggressive to the point of “delinquency.” But Rekers was no competent therapist, and instead held “Kraig” up as a poster-boy for his abusive treatments. The Miami New Times today reports that in 2001, there was a follow-up of “Kraig,” which showed the results of the abuse that he suffered.

At age 18, shamed by his childhood diagnosis and treatment, Rekers’s poster boy attempted suicide, according to Gender Shock, a book by journalist Phyllis Burke.

Rekers recently resigned from the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), where he was also a member of NARTH’s “Scientific Advisory Committee.” Another former member of NARTH’s advisory committee, Joseph Berger, in 2006 endorsed bullying and teasing of transgender children as a legitimate form of treatment. In a message posted to NARTH’s now-defunct blog, Berger wrote:

I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex – but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.

On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world.

Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.

Birds of a feather…