Comments on: Baby Bogus

By: Doc Gurley

Doc Gurley — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:51:58 +0000

Actually, dear Justin, I am not missing the point. Let's start at the beginning, shall we? What is clearly already known is that a guy's frequency of ejaculation leads to slightly different proportions of X and Y sperm in an individual ejaculate - a fact of male biology. What is ALSO well-documented is that X sperm are considerably heavier (molecular-weight-wise) than Y sperm, leading to differences in motility between the two. This obvious, mechanical difference in weight impacts how SOON a sperm gets to an egg. Furthermore, no studies in humans have been done regarding the ability of Y sperm versus X sperm to penetrate the egg capsule, although there is some data to imply there is a difference. And after fertilization? Studies to determine exactly what proportion of post-fertilization Y-versus-X-chromosome-fetuses are successfully implanted have never been done - those would be completely unethical. In other words, except for in-vitro experience or anecdotes indicating a bias for female-zygote success, we don't know exactly what proportion of fertilized eggs successfully implant into the uterus, based on gender. At this point (WAY BEFORE BIRTH) we now have multiple biologically feasible explanations, based on actual data/genetics/biology, to account for the slight gender difference in birth proportions of males versus females. But wait (as the Ginzu knife seller says), there's more. It is very well known (and documented) that the number of post-implantation spontaneous miscarriages is much higher among male fetuses than female fetuses (probably due to Y-linked abnormalities and sperm-based triploidies). This difference in miscarriage rates, alone, tilts the odds toward more females at birth than males - and accounts for the vast majority of that difference. What is much more striking is the dramatically higher rates of perinatal and neonatal deaths in male versus female newborns, even in highly-developed countries - a fact that exaggerates gender differences from the age of about 1 month onward. In other words, there are many, many, many already well described and documented reasons why there is a SLIGHT difference at birth in the proportions of males to females. None of which have anything to do with completely unsubstantiated Make-S#!t-Up "hypotheses" about the influence of a woman's breakfast or mood at the time of sex on a sperm/egg/fetus throughout life - a theory that flies in the face of known genetics and basic biology. Wanting something to be true despite all evidence to the contrary, in science, at least, does not make it true. One begins to wonder why, in the absence of any supporting data (and in contravention of all clearly defined basic biology and genetics) anyone WANTS so passionately to believe this pure bogosity.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:09:59 +0000

You seem to be missing the point. Science has YET to account for the ratio of boys to girls being greater than 1 AT BIRTH. Accidents, mortality, heart attacks, smoking, etc after birth have nothing to do with it. The probability of male vs female at conception MATHEMATICALLY is 50/50. Flip a coin a hundred times. You will get approximately 50 heads and 50 tails. Now flip it 1000 times. You will get even closer to 50% heads and 50% tails. Amazing! Now flip it 6 billion times. Your outcome with be almost exactly 50% heads and 50% tails. How come, then, does it not work out that way with conception? There is a significant difference between the mathematical probability and the actual observed outcome that has yet to be explained scientifically. To further complicate things, it has been observed that heterochromatic genders in species such as birds (in which they are female, instead of male like with mammals) are the opposite as far as the sex ratio goes.

By: Sue

Sue — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:45:36 +0000

Having been a woman all my life (I was born that way) I think the most important point made in Doc Gurley’s original post is the damage this (Bogus) information can to do women all over the world, not just in certain countries. As an OB nurse in the US for many years, I have seen fathers react with dismay (or sometimes anger) when the learn they have another daughter. How can anyone in good conscience publish ANY information without adequate research and verification? Do they not stop to think that this is not just esoteric trivia, but information that can change people’s lives?

By: Doc Gurley

Doc Gurley — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:46:12 +0000

Actually there is already a lot of great research about gender proportions in society – starting with the differences between X and Y sperm motility, then the differences in fetal viability (including increased disease rates from Y-linked traits, the most obvious being as hemophilia), then the increased neonatal mortality rate between males (higher) and females, and continuing to the dramatically higher juvenile death rates from injury, accident and trauma. All that prior to the legal age of adulthood, where increased injury/accident/homicide rates continue, as well as increased rates of age-specific diseases such as heart attacks and emphysema (many of whom are related to behaviors such as smoking). The remaining unaccounted-for differences are, in reality, quite tiny, even across the age spectrum, much less at birth.

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:03:28 +0000

Actually, the X and Y chromosome part is anything BUT a simple matter. While the researcher may or may not have found something, this critique is somewhat bogus. If it were simply due to the X and Y chromosomes and randomly receiving such, then probability would tell us that a large population would produce a sex ratio of 50/50. That is, however, not the case. The human population produces more males than females. This cannot be readily explained by simply looking at the chromosomes. SOMETHING else is going on there; what that is is yet to be determined.

By: Stan Young

Stan Young — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:52:52 +0000

You obviously get it and I’m glad that you had fun writing this wonderful article. Actually, the journal did help immensely, in getting the authors to provide the data set. The authors resisted our request. It was a long slog to get the data, etc. so it was almost one year to get our comment published. Even now, the original authors are sticking to their story. Others should ask for data sets from studies with implausible claims and check them out. It is a target-rich environment. We estimate that 80-90% of claims coming from medical observational studies are wrong!