Mums of boys different to mums of girls

[ttcgeordie]

and iam 5ft 1 lol

 

[reedsgirl1138]

Well I would day from the replies for the most part this theory has been disproven....guess that is what the sciencetist get for comparing humans to cows....God did make us all unique.

 

[Sophist]

Well I would day from the replies for the most part this theory has been disproven....guess that is what the sciencetist get for comparing humans to cows....God did make us all unique.

Chemotaxis has been shown to be true in humans as well as many other mammals (see the other links I posted), which is why I found it odd that the OP's article only mentioned the research done in cows....and all the replies on this thread are anecdotal, whether they go with or against the researchers findings. If you took a real, unbiased sample and compared it, maybe it would support or not support the article--but according to the article, its been repeatedly shown to be a trend and published in scientific journals. (It's like saying, "I smoked all my life and never got lung cancer, therefore all the studies saying smoking causes lung cancer are bunk." Obviously its been well studied and the lucky person saying this is an outlier on the normal bell curve distribution.) The fact that Western medicine is a highly patriarchal system has a significant bias into why these types of findings aren't common knowledge and taught in high school health classes.

Deciding for yourself whether you have an "athletic" build or an affinity for glitter is different than scientifically and objectively measuring lifestyle factors and hormone levels. For example someone mentioned PCOS--this was the first thing I thought of because its caused by high testosterone. Several of my SIL's have it as a matter of fact, and while none of them are particularly "athletic" by my own definition, and most are short in stature they all high testosterone levels (as measured by testing, not by "I like glitter!) and have boys. I have 24 nephews and 4 nieces. So should I anecdotally say the study is proven? No--it's still not a complete or reliable study sample.

Re: "God making us all unique" IMO the fact that a particular egg has an affinity for a particular "perfect" sperm is a better indicator of intelligent design, rather than the idea that a child is a boy or girl by "chance" or has blue eyes by "luck of the draw." God created us unique, and in the bible says he knew us before we were formed in the womb.

What I do find a bit iffy about the article is that the scientist extrapolates hormones & biology of conception to parenting styles, which is a bit of a stretch and would be very hard to prove. It's a big jump, without studying whether women with higher testosterone are better parents to boys, to say that women with high testosterone are predisposed to be better mothers to boys and vice versa.

 

[mazee71]

Well I'm 5'4" and usually a size 10, I have 2 boys and a girl - I do however find that boy pg's agree with me better - no sickness, moodswings, acne, less weight gain etc my mum is same build and height as me and has 2 girls and 1 boy.

 

[BlessedTwice]

A scientist says that mums of boys are more likely to be bigger, taller, more dominant, more 'athletic' and have higher testosterone. She noted that more female athletes have boys. Whereas more 'feminine' women with low testosterone have more girls. Do you think this is true Y/N?

I think yes, but that is just my observation on the people I know having kids. I also think that occasionally more feminine women do have boys, and vice versa, so you can never be 100% sure.
If I see a more androgynous woman having a baby I automatically pick she will be having a boy, and this has almost always turned out to be the case in my own predictions.

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article3598093.ece

I have to say Not True..I am short/skinny & not athletic lol and have 2 boys!

 

[reedsgirl1138]

Well I would day from the replies for the most part this theory has been disproven....guess that is what the sciencetist get for comparing humans to cows....God did make us all unique.

Chemotaxis has been shown to be true in humans as well as many other mammals (see the other links I posted), which is why I found it odd that the OP's article only mentioned the research done in cows....and all the replies on this thread are anecdotal, whether they go with or against the researchers findings. If you took a real, unbiased sample and compared it, maybe it would support or not support the article--but according to the article, its been repeatedly shown to be a trend and published in scientific journals. (It's like saying, "I smoked all my life and never got lung cancer, therefore all the studies saying smoking causes lung cancer are bunk." Obviously its been well studied and the lucky person saying this is an outlier on the normal bell curve distribution.) The fact that Western medicine is a highly patriarchal system has a significant bias into why these types of findings aren't common knowledge and taught in high school health classes.

Deciding for yourself whether you have an "athletic" build or an affinity for glitter is different than scientifically and objectively measuring lifestyle factors and hormone levels. For example someone mentioned PCOS--this was the first thing I thought of because its caused by high testosterone. Several of my SIL's have it as a matter of fact, and while none of them are particularly "athletic" by my own definition, and most are short in stature they all high testosterone levels (as measured by testing, not by "I like glitter!) and have boys. I have 24 nephews and 4 nieces. So should I anecdotally say the study is proven? No--it's still not a complete or reliable study sample.

Re: "God making us all unique" IMO the fact that a particular egg has an affinity for a particular "perfect" sperm is a better indicator of intelligent design, rather than the idea that a child is a boy or girl by "chance" or has blue eyes by "luck of the draw." God created us unique, and in the bible says he knew us before we were formed in the womb.

What I do find a bit iffy about the article is that the scientist extrapolates hormones & biology of conception to parenting styles, which is a bit of a stretch and would be very hard to prove. It's a big jump, without studying whether women with higher testosterone are better parents to boys, to say that women with high testosterone are predisposed to be better mothers to boys and vice versa.

The only part of this I totally agree with is..."the bible says he knew us before we formed in the womb...that right there tells you all you to know...high testorone or low..it doesn't really matter God has already picked the child you are bearing for you. Plain and Simple.

 

[bump+me]

Some athletes probs do take performance enhancing drugs therefore they would be more more likely to produce boys?!!

 

[PeanutBean]

I'm very dubious about this article.
1) It's not new research, the newspaper article is from 2008 and it said she's been working on it all her life.
2) She is a psychologist.
3) It you plot a normal distribution curve of anything the vast majority sit in the middle with smaller numbers at the sides. It's the definition of a normal distribution curve. The sentence makes no sense.
4) The article talks about temporal fluctuations in birth ratios, more boys during the way, which by definition is entirely unrelated to the theory that a female's testosterone is responsible.
5) The wikipedia reference does not seem to imply anything about sex selection. Indeed it all seems to refer to guidance of the sperm to the egg, which is the reason for chemotaxis in aquatic organisms (as also referenced there: as a marine biologist I'm pretty au fait with the marine stuff). There is a throwaway comment that it could potentially be a method of selection of sperm which was that only capacitated sperm respond to it. Sperm are capacitated merely by exposure to the mix of substances in the vaginal tract.
6) All the second link to the abstract shows is that only capacitated sperm can respond to the chemotaxis. This makes total sense. Only capacitated sperm are capable of the acrosome reaction which is where this front bit of the head opens out allowing it to fuse with the egg and ultimately empty the contents in it and fertilise it. This again says nothing about sex selection.

So we have some excellent research elucidating the process by which sperm are made capable of fertilisation of the egg and by which the egg helps point the sperm in the right direction. There's no evidence that this has anything to so with the sex of the sperm.

The psychologist compared a bunch of traits selected by herself as being indicative of some untested underlying physiology. Then, as a psychologist, she has apparently done some amazing biological research that shows that testosterone level in cows can predict the sex. I doubt very much she has the expertise to do this, as a psychologist, and one has to wonder what the difficulty would be of testing some mums ttc for their testoterone levels and correlating to the genders born.

Apparently she is rubbishing the role of sexual stereotyping too. Blimey I'd like to see a control for that theory. And imagine women behaving differently to offspring of different sexes given that we behave differently to all ages of different sexes, as do men.

All that said, I do think that women might have some role to play in sperm selection but I see no evidence of it being my chemotaxis. There has been research in wild mammals that shows in hard times more females are born and in easy times more males. In reproductive theory females are a better bet for offpsring because they can usually find a male, however males are more risky as usually only the top ones will be able to win their right to procreate. Good times and bad times boils down to how much food is available. There is then evidence that women on low calorie intake (I can't remember what levels were tested) are more likely to have girls, though I don't think the difference is probably that great. How could this happen? The theory I've heard is that male and female sperm differ slightly as to their efficacy in different pH, something which definitely women can control to a certain extent. I've no references to offer though, I don't have access to the journals from home.

 

[amy_2]

by 'athletic' the researcher also means an athletic/android body shape. If you are this shape you're more likely to have boys apparently.
If you're more of an hourglass shape, e.g. marilyn monroe, then you are more likely to have girls.

As you can see below, marilyn monroe has the more feminine shape with higher estrogen to testosterone ratio, whereas swimmer stephanie rice has a more android body shape, much more leaning toward the typical 'male' phsyique.

It is much more likely women such as stephanie rice will tend to have more boys than girls.

Some people have been really disparaging toward the theory, but I beleive it's true, I only have to look to my family and friends and the media to see lots of anecdotal evidence.

 

[reedsgirl1138]

I see and understand what your saying..but have they actually proven this in humans we can be compared to a all different kinds of animals but the bottom line is we are not. I will go with my belief and my faith that God provides my child and sex of that child before s/he is even in my womb....it doesn't matter what my estrogen or testosterone levels are. Just a blessing.

 

[amy_2]

I see and understand what your saying..but have they actually proven this in humans we can be compared to a all different kinds of animals but the bottom line is we are not.

What are you trying to say? That humans are not animals??

Humans are indeed animals. And have the same instincts to survive and reproduce just as any other animals does. We are animals of a higher cultural and intellectual order.

 

[reedsgirl1138]

Point taken...and yes we are animals. Your missing my point. But thats okay. Have a blessed night hun

 

[welshprincess]

reedsgirl i agree with you, the Lord works in mysterious ways. And he alone chooses what sex we have. All our lives were written before we were born. I personally dont mind what i have. To have a healthy baby is all i ask of the Lord.

 

[reedsgirl1138]

My point exactly!! Thanks welshprincess