you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Certain physical features cause an infant to in some way mentally bond and begin to form a individualized group identity with the organisms who posses the same features.

Lol wut?

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Infants bond with people of the same sex than them is how I interpreted it. But of course Heim had to insert the sex matrix into the phrase.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It’s also an untrue claim. Infants bond with their primary caregivers regardless of sex. Heims theory would also require the infant be capable of recognising their sex and what their future sexed features before the child is even aware of its own feet.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not really. Sexual Orientation for instance is an instinctive phenomenon that doesn't depend knowledge of one's own sex traits in order to respond to the sex traits of others. Also this isn't about an infant not bonding with their primary care giver, but rather whether there's an instinct that causes them to preferentially incorporate aspects of perceived sex trait groups into their self-concept.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seriously, one day you gotta publish this theory and share with the rest of us plebs where we all got it wrong.