4 of 4
4
Ever heard of Epigenetics? This may be cause of homosexuality
Posted: 09 April 2013 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn’t enough evidence to show it’s true. Also, let’s not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the effect won’t fade out with time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  169
Joined  2011-11-06
George - 08 April 2013 04:58 PM

Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.

This is a good point that I don’t think most people realize. I was talking to a coworker who is a nurse (BSN) and she said that no pregnancy is healthy for a woman. The fetus demands a lot from the female body and takes nutrients and vitamins, hence the necessity for a healthy pregnancy being the ingestion of prenatal vitamins. She went on to cite examples from the earlier days (before birth control) when some women would become pregnant “too many times” and at intervals that were too close and the toll on the body is significant. She said women in days before birth control would actually lose teeth because their bodies were so depleted of nutrients. I would venture to say they probably developed many other health issues such as osteoporosis, perhaps, due to lack of calcium and so forth. Fortunately, nowadays, there is the medical knowledge available for woman to have healthier pregnancies and birth control to control the number. The aforementioned applies to all pregnancies, but being pregnant with a male probably comes with even more risk, or so it seems based on what I’ve read. I am pretty sure there was a medical doctor who commented earlier in the thread—I’d love for this person to weigh in on this (and its accuracy).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
FinallyDecided - 09 April 2013 01:43 PM
George - 08 April 2013 04:58 PM

Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.

This is a good point that I don’t think most people realize. I was talking to a coworker who is a nurse (BSN) and she said that no pregnancy is healthy for a woman. The fetus demands a lot from the female body and takes nutrients and vitamins, hence the necessity for a healthy pregnancy being the ingestion of prenatal vitamins. She went on to cite examples from the earlier days (before birth control) when some women would become pregnant “too many times” and at intervals that were too close and the toll on the body is significant. She said women in days before birth control would actually lose teeth because their bodies were so depleted of nutrients. I would venture to say they probably developed many other health issues such as osteoporosis, perhaps, due to lack of calcium and so forth. Fortunately, nowadays, there is the medical knowledge available for woman to have healthier pregnancies and birth control to control the number. The aforementioned applies to all pregnancies, but being pregnant with a male probably comes with even more risk, or so it seems based on what I’ve read. I am pretty sure there was a medical doctor who commented earlier in the thread—I’d love for this person to weigh in on this (and its accuracy).

You can look at undeveloped countries to see the price women pay during childbirth. It is the most frequent cause of death and debility. Sometimes the woman develops a fistula between the vagina and colon, causing fecal leakage and incontinence. These women are often abandoned by their husbands. Many men in these countries go through several wives due to the high maternal death rates. The papal decree on condoms and birth control doesn’t help the situation.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 05:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
FinallyDecided - 09 April 2013 01:43 PM
George - 08 April 2013 04:58 PM

Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.

This is a good point that I don’t think most people realize. I was talking to a coworker who is a nurse (BSN) and she said that no pregnancy is healthy for a woman. The fetus demands a lot from the female body and takes nutrients and vitamins, hence the necessity for a healthy pregnancy being the ingestion of prenatal vitamins. She went on to cite examples from the earlier days (before birth control) when some women would become pregnant “too many times” and at intervals that were too close and the toll on the body is significant. She said women in days before birth control would actually lose teeth because their bodies were so depleted of nutrients. I would venture to say they probably developed many other health issues such as osteoporosis, perhaps, due to lack of calcium and so forth. Fortunately, nowadays, there is the medical knowledge available for woman to have healthier pregnancies and birth control to control the number. The aforementioned applies to all pregnancies, but being pregnant with a male probably comes with even more risk, or so it seems based on what I’ve read. I am pretty sure there was a medical doctor who commented earlier in the thread—I’d love for this person to weigh in on this (and its accuracy).

I have weighed in. I have been unable to find any evidence to support the contention that a male fetus is any more likely to trigger health problems in the mother than a female fetus. The only documented linkage I can find is that male fetuses are more frequently associated with premature labor and gestational diabetes.

Its certainly possible my search may have missed something so if anyone has come across literature supporting these claims please post a link here. I would like to review them to see if we are talking about a well established association and if so, whether any causal link has actually been determined.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 05:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 09 April 2013 12:17 PM

Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn’t enough evidence to show it’s true. Also, let’s not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the effect won’t fade out with time.

It didn’t with my children.  All I suggested is that there is a correlation so all I should have to do is show statistics that show that correlation.  I don’t have to show evidence of anything further because I’m not claiming anything beyond a statistical correlation and hoping for further investigation to see if the correlation means anything.

I suspect you are not a first born. smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 05:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Never heard anything about a male vs female fetus except a slight increase in severe morning sickness, and I don’t think the evidence is clear.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 05:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 08 April 2013 04:58 PM

Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.


It hasn’t been shown that a woman’s health is negatively affected by having sons more than it is when having daughters.  But the male fetus or baby is negatively affected. More boys than girls die before, during and after birth (assuming the parents aren’t killing off the girls, as happens in some societies). This is a medical fact. Maybe McGyver can weigh in on this and offer an opinion as to why.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 06:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

First off, I’m just spit-balling here but what’s the spread? Percentage wise?
Obviously there are only 2 sexes so it’s a fifty-fifty type statistic.
A slight lean in one direction is to be expected versus an exact 50-50 type scenario.
I don’t know…

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2013 11:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

After looking at some of the research on male/female ratios  I realize I was wrong about the statistics. I was going by statistics I remembered from some years ago.  My memory may be faulty or the statistics I read then might have been incorrect or statistics may now be more accurate than they were even 20 years ago.   I haven’t revisited this subject in a while and no longer remember my sources.  I made the mistake of depending on my memory instead of checking the current statistics.  According to online sources more males are born than females though the ratio drops throughout life for various reasons. 

Wikipedia says this: 

“In anthropology and demography, the human sex ratio is the sex ratio for Homo sapiens (i.e., the ratio of males to females in a population). Like most sexual species, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1. In humans the secondary sex ratio (i.e., at birth) is commonly assumed to be 105 boys to 100 girls, an assumption that is a subject of debate in the scientific community. The sex ratio for the entire world population is 100 males to 99 females.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

There are some interesting maps that show sex ratios around the world.  They show that in most parts of the world females outnumber males.

So I will have to do some studying of the statistics  before I can continue a discussion of sex ratios and whether males are actually more vulnerable from conception to infancy, which was my understanding before I checked.

  red face

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2013 03:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
VYAZMA - 09 April 2013 06:41 PM

First off, I’m just spit-balling here but what’s the spread? Percentage wise?
Obviously there are only 2 sexes so it’s a fifty-fifty type statistic.
A slight lean in one direction is to be expected versus an exact 50-50 type scenario.
I don’t know…

If you’ve seen as many newborns as I have, you’d know it isn’t that clear cut.. along with XX and XY, you can get other combinations such as XXX, XXY, XYY, and genetalia that boggles the mind…..

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2013 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Let’s see.  I weighed nine pounds two ounces, my mother was just over five feet tall and weighed 95 pounds before she was pregnant.  Then she lived until she was 92.  Gee, if I’d been a girl, she would have made to more than 100. LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2013 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1764
Joined  2007-10-22
Lois - 09 April 2013 05:13 PM
George - 09 April 2013 12:17 PM

Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn’t enough evidence to show it’s true. Also, let’s not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the effect won’t fade out with time.

It didn’t with my children.  All I suggested is that there is a correlation so all I should have to do is show statistics that show that correlation.  I don’t have to show evidence of anything further because I’m not claiming anything beyond a statistical correlation and hoping for further investigation to see if the correlation means anything.

I suspect you are not a first born. smile

According to a news story on local TV this past week bald men have more heart attacks.  Judging by my mop I should have a much reduced chance of one , statistically speaking. LOL

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2013 11:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
George - 09 April 2013 12:17 PM

Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn’t enough evidence to show it’s true. Also, let’s not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the effect won’t fade out with time.

It’s possible, but the books and articles on birth order do say that differences are probably all environmental. First borns may very well do better in school because their parents have more energy or it could be a combination of factors, many of which have not been identified yet.  All the the statistics show is that first borns tend to have higher IQs and do better in school and career than later borns.  I dont think anyone has said there is a proven reason for this.  The statistics simply show that it is the case. Exactly why this is so has not been definitely established.  I think you are protesting too much.  Is it a case of sibling rivalry?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2013 09:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Regarding gay men more likely to have older brothers, there is an interesting item on Wikipedia:

A correlation between fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation has been suggested by research. Ray Blanchard identified the association and referred to it as the fraternal birth order effect. In several studies, the observation is that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation.It has sometimes been called the older brother effect. It has been estimated that 15% of the homosexual demographic is associated with fraternal birth order.

The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.According to several studies, each older brother increases a man’s odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%. The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.
The fraternal birth order effect has also been observed among male-to-female transsexuals: MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in men have a greater number of older brothers than MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in women. This has been reported in samples from Canada,the United Kingdom,the Netherlands, and Polynesia.

The effect has been found even in males not raised with their biological brothers, suggesting an in-utero environmental causation. To explain this finding, a maternal immune response has been hypothesized. Male fetuses produce H-Y antigens which may be involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates. Other studies have suggested the influence of birth order was not due to a biological, but a social process . . .

Anthony Bogaert’s work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother’s body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.

The fraternal birth order effect appears to interact with handedness, as the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males.

Bogaert (2006) replicated the fraternal birth order effect on male sexual orientation, in a sample including both biological siblings and adopted siblings.[3] Only the older biological brothers influenced sexual orientation; there was no effect of adopted siblings. Bogaert concluded that his finding strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 April 2013 09:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Heres another article from Scientific American:

Having Older Brothers Increases a Man’s Odds of Being Gay
By Tracy Staedter


The number of biological older brothers a boy’s mother has carried—whether they live with him in the same household or not—affects his chances of being gay. The findings, reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, by Anthony Bogaert of Brock University, lend credence to the theory that it’s not the social or rearing factors that influence a man’s sexual orientation, but rather prenatal mechanisms that begin in the womb.
The idea that prenatal mechanisms may influence sexual orientation has been around for a couple of decades. In 1996, Bogaert along with colleague Ray Blanchard correlated sexual orientation in men with the number of older brothers, but it wasn’t clear if that influence was occurring because the boys shared the same household or because they had shared the same womb.

In the new study, Bogaert pitted prenatal against postnatal by examining four samples of homosexual and heterosexual men, for a total of 944 participants. The data for three of the samples had been collected previously, and included detailed information about the men’s sexual orientation, as well as their family life. Because most of the men from these three study groups came from unbroken families, Bogaert looked at a fourth group, composed of men who had been adopted or raised with half- or step-siblings. He also gathered data from this group about how long members lived with each sibling and whether they had brothers or sisters with whom they had never lived.

He reasoned that if the social or rearing factor theories were correct, he would expect to see certain things. First, it wouldn’t matter whether a gay man’s older brothers had been biologically related or not, the social influence would be there. Second, the amount of time the young boy lived with his older brothers, biological or not, should affect his sexual orientation. Third, if the boy did not live with older brothers, then the numbers should not impact his sexual preference.

Bogaert found the opposite to be true. First, he found that only the number of biological older brothers predicted sexual orientation in men—even when the number of non-biological older brothers was significantly higher. Second, his study showed that the amount of time reared with older brothers—either related or not—did not predict a young boy’s becoming homosexual. And surprisingly, Bogaert discovered that even if a young man did not grow up in the same house as his older brothers, the fact that he had older biological brothers increased his odds of being gay.

The fact that the common denominator between the older and younger biological brothers is the mother hints at a prenatal influence on sexual orientation. What it could be is still a mystery. But one theory suggests that after delivering a boy, a woman’s immune system produces antibodies to male-specific proteins. During subsequent pregnancies the mother’s placenta may deliver the antibodies to the fetus, possibly affecting its development.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4