Self-destruct?

[Andy Hunt]

Was chatting with my OH the other day, around the subject of children (other people's), and out of the blue she came up with this idea that just made all the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end.

For some months there has been a conversation going on amongst people I know, that almost everyone we know who is having children over the past few years have had boys.

We counted them all up, and the ratio of girls to boys was approximately one in four.

Anyway, one of my OH's friends who is having fertility treatment was told that when sperm is 'introduced' into the uterus, if there is already an egg present then the fertilisation is more likely to produce a boy. However, sperm can live for about a week, and if an egg only appears after a few days and is fertilised, then the fertilisation is more likely to produce a girl.

Someone else told me that the faster swimming sperm tend to produce boys, and the slower ones tend to produce girls.

Either way, argued my OH, if sperm are becoming generally weaker due to poisoning by the toxins in our environment, then they may not survive as long. Which means that if an egg is going to be fertilised, it has to be fertilised immediately or soon after its release. Which means that it is more likely to be a boy.

Has anyone else noticed a preponderance of little boys rather than girls?

Is our species heading for self-destruct?

[PS_RalphW]

Don't worry. I adopted two girls three years ago. Everyone of our friends and family who have had children in the last ten years seem to have had girls in a ratio of at least two to one over boys.

If we are to self-destruct as a species (as opposed to overshoot and starvation die off) it will be from excess estrogen mimic chemicals in our water supply destroying male fertility.

However, given the cultural preference for male heirs in India AND China, we are likely to see major cultural problems in those countries due to the large over-population of males now entering breeding/fighting age in those countries.

[Adam1]

I am not too worried about this as, according to this article, IVF only accounts for 1.2% of UK births. Globally, I doubt if it's that much different. Even if other less high-tech forms of fertility treatment were included, it would only be a minority of births (I would have thought).

Plus, as the economy and health budgets shrink, high-tech fertility treatments will probably only be available to the very rich.

So, although a society with more young men than women is the last thing we need now (if ever), shouldn't it be a self-limiting problem.

A quick search suggests that fertility treatment doesn't seem directly to affect the sex ratio - Wikipedia entry.

[Andy Hunt]

I think you have taken the wrong end of the stick, Adam . . . although the advice was given to this woman having fertility treatment, the advice was general, not just for those having fertility treatment.

Reassuring to know there are still couples having little girls though!

[Adam1]

Andy I was picking up on what your OH's friend was saying: where sperm are artificially introduced it was more likely to result in boys. I thought that was a reference to fertility treatment.

Otherwise, anecdotally, my friends seem to have a pretty even balance. The vast majority seem to have one of each.

[clv101]

For some months there has been a conversation going on amongst people I know, that almost everyone we know who is having children over the past few years have had boys.

Interesting - I know 6 babies born in the last 18 months. 5 boys! Can anyone dig up the 2007 ratio?

CIA World Factbook says: 1.05 male(s)/female

Which means nothing - there's always been a slightly more boys. We need very accurate NHS annual statistics over the last 25 years or so.

[Andy Hunt]

Andy I was picking up on what your OH's friend was saying: where sperm are artificially introduced it was more likely to result in boys. I thought that was a reference to fertility treatment.

No, the explanation she was given was just as a background to the treatment. I used the word 'introduced' as a euphemism for something much more fun than artificial insemination!

Sorry if I wasn't very clear . . .

[Norm]

I have 6 grandchildren 5 of them are boys.

[Adam1]

...I used the word 'introduced' as a euphemism for something much more fun than artificial insemination!

[RenewableCandy]

I've heard the thing about faster (male) and more-durable(female) sperm too. Some people try and use it for planning the result.

But quite apart from that there's a tendency for people who are under stress/underfed to have more girls: the theory being that genes 'know' that poor/unhealthy lads don't get to reproduce, but poor/unhealthy women do.

Chances are no-one you know is homeless or starving, so, more boys!

[Miss Madam]

Hmm of six babies born in my friendship circle in the last year - half and half. Until I've jotted that down, I'd actually thought it seemed like everyone was having girls.... Plus if people are trying for a baby its more likely to be a boy - as they'll do the deed on the peak fertile days where the egg is in the most likely spot to be fertilised by a y chromosome sperm. All of the folk I know who had boys were the ones who were trying for babies, the girls were all accidents.

[Shira]

I'm painfully aware of all the (many!) pregnancies and new babies in my social groups, and in the past year I've seen birth announcements for eight girls and six boys. There's another one due in about a week, it'll be interesting to see what flavour it is. I know a woman in New Zealand who has twelve children; six of each. Someone mentioned the oestrogens in everything now as a result of chemical pollution, and its effect on male fertility - I'd like to add that it's negatively impacting female endocrine systems as well and causing all manner of disorders which have infertility as a major feature. Oestrogen dominance is a huge problem and often a feature pf polycystic ovarian syndrome, which affects around one in six women and is often a cause of infertility among many other things. Something which isn't helping is the preponderance of soy in everything. Soy is phytoestrogenic in nature and it's so difficult to find food that doesn't contain it in some way.

[kenneal - lagger]

But quite apart from that there's a tendency for people who are under stress/underfed to have more girls: the theory being that genes 'know' that poor/unhealthy lads don't get to reproduce, but poor/unhealthy women do.

I've heard that in time of war more boys are born due to stress and poor diet!

[syberberg]

But quite apart from that there's a tendency for people who are under stress/underfed to have more girls: the theory being that genes 'know' that poor/unhealthy lads don't get to reproduce, but poor/unhealthy women do.

I've heard that in time of war more boys are born due to stress and poor diet!

Could be, or it could be a subconcious imperative. The men are going off to war, where they stand a good chance of not returning, so they will need to be replaced. If that makes sense.

[Eternal Sunshine]

More people I know have girls. A member of my family has twin girls by IVF, and my best friend has 4 girls, etc, etc. I have 2 girls & 1 boy.

Even if there were proportionally more boys being born, though, I'm sure there's enough of our species around to create enough females to keep us going.