Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:55:16.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

If everyone wanted girls more boys might be born

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2015

Helen Christian
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QX
Brian Trustrum
Affiliation:
1 St George’s Apartments, St. George’s Crescent, Port Erin, Isle of Man IM9 6HR

Extract

In the July 2011 Gazette Paseau [1] considers a population in which each birth is an independent event with probability g of being a girl and b of being a boy (b + g = 1). He supposes that, due to a preference for girls, all couples stop after producing k girls, where k is an integer greater or equal to 1. Each new birth will, even after some couples have stopped producing, still have the probability g of being a girl and b of being a boy. Paseau correctly states and shows that this will mean that the ratio

Expected number of girl births : Expected number of boy births is g : b.

So it is the same as if all couples stopped randomly. Paseau was showing that this result was a consequence of the ratio g : b always being the same for all families.

However in humans the ratio g : b is not always the same. The ratio g : b can vary significantly with many variables between couples, which influence either the ratio at conception or the subsequent implantation and survival of male or female foetuses to birth. For example, mothers whose menstrual cycles have a short follicular phase (normally days 1-14 of the 28-day cycle) tend to produce boys [2], resulting in a smaller g : b ratio. Also the timing of insemination within the menstrual cycle is associated with the gender outcome such that insemination early or late in the fertile period means that the offspring is more likely to be male; if insemination occurs in the middle it is more likely to be female [3]. It is therefore likely that changes in parental hormone concentrations during the fertile period can affect the sexes of the children [4].

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Mathematical Association 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Paseau, A.C., Family Planning, Math. Gaz. 95 (July 2011) pp. 213217.Google Scholar
2. Weinberg, C.R., Baird, D.D. and Wilcox, A.J., The sex of the baby may be related to the length of the follicular phase in the conception cycle, Human reproduction 10 (2) (1995) pp. 304307.Google Scholar
3. James, W.H., Analyzing data on the sex ratio of human births by cycle day of conception, Human Reproduction 15 (2000) pp. 12061207.Google Scholar
4. James, W.H., Evidence that mammalian sex ratios at birth are partially controlled by parental hormonal levels around the time of conception, J. Endocrinology 198 (2008) pp. 315.Google Scholar
5. Rosenfeld, C. and Roberts, R.M., Maternal diet and other factors affecting offspring sex ratio: a review, Biology of Reproduction 71 (2004) pp. 10631070.Google Scholar
6. Penfold, L.M., Holt, C., Holt, W.V., Welch, D.G., Cram, D.G. and Johnson, L.A., Comparative motility of X and Y chromosome-bearing bovine sperm separated on the basis of DNA content by flow sorting. Mol. Repród. Dev. 50 (1998) pp. 323327.Google Scholar
7. James, W.H., Variation of human sex ratios at birth by the sex combinations of the existing sibs, and reproductive stopping rules: comments on Garenne (2009), J. Biosoc. Sci. 43 (2011) pp. 751760.Google Scholar
8. Vatten, L.J. and Skjaerven, R., Offspring sex and pregnancy outcome by length of gestation, Early Hum. Dev. 76 (2004) pp. 4754.Google Scholar
9. Edwards, A.W.F., An analysis of Geissler’s data on the human sex ratio, Annals of Human Genetics 23 (1958) pp. 615.Google Scholar
10. Garenne, M., Sex ratio at birth and family composition in sub-Saharan Africa: inter-couple variations, J. Biosoc Sci. 41 (2009) pp. 399407.Google Scholar