Oy with the pigeon pairs already....

[Beau82]

Just when I'm starting to feel sort of ok with having only boys, someone else announces they will be having a baby opposite gender of their first. Gah! Just now, it was DH's cousin who had a girl first and will have her second before the girl turns 2. So that alone should sway girl, but nope! She's' having a boy. A girl I went to high school with married a guy who had 2 girls from a previous relationship. Their first together was a girl so it appeared that maybe they would just have all girls. She just had her second which was (say it with me!) a boy!
I never wanted a pp at all. I actually always wanted a boy-heavy family with just one girl thrown in the mix. But it irks me to high heaven when EVERYONE around me gets a pp without even thinking twice about it. It just happens for them. Come on universe, you're killing me!!

It hurts worse lately b/c DH is still adamant that we're done having babies. I just need to stay away from Facebook altogether. If it's not a gender announcement, it's a pregnancy announcement or newborn photos.

[lindz]

I was looking up stats the other day and it said if your first is a girl, you have a 54% chance of having a boy for your second. If your first is a boy, you have a 50% chance of having a girl so an equal chance of either gender instead of having an advantage like girl moms. So unfair! It just makes me wonder why couldn't I have a girl first?! Then I'd most likely have a boy next, my own pigeon pair! It seems like all my friends that had girls first are now having boys and being two and done. I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and it's killing me not knowing if it will be another boy. I just want to be one of the lucky ones! Facebook kills me, especially since so many of those moms would say we'd be "happy with either gender", great give them two boys and the universe can send me my girl!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Throwaway_panther]

Having a second before the first turns 2 is a girl sway? That seems a stretch considering the statistics of pigeon pairs, and the slightly greater likelihood of having a boy after a girl...

That said, I feel this, especially when EVERYONE in my husband's family has a boy-girl pigeon pair. I'd like to think statistics are on my side, but I'm already depressed about our next one being a girl instead of boy, and we're not even trying yet...

The theory behind why a boy or girl might come next based on statistics and how a mother's diet might change after the first makes sense, but then I perceive so many who seem to just luck out regardless, and then stop because they got "one of each." And here I want more than 2 regardless, but couldn't bear the pressure of the third by not having a boy with my second...

If only we could switch zygotes, eh?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Kittybear]

Nearly everyone I know has a PP. I can literally count the single gender families on 1 hand. I would never change either of my little guys for the world but sometimes the GD does make it feel like I must be the punchline of some cosmic joke that I don't really find funny :/

I KNOW it is all just coincidence.... But still, it doesn't half hurt/ make me sigh sometimes.

Sending hugs, you are not alone ladies xxx

[foxtrotmama]

Anyone with a mixed family gets to me. :/ All girls or one girl doesn't bother me much though. But all of my friends have girls, in fact everyone we hang out with regularly has a girl younger than my DS2, and that really gets to me.

[netti02]

Pink_bean i agree with you. Older pp don't appeal to me at all. I have 5 boys and they are the greatest of friends (that like to argue here and there 😂 ) but im hoping this continues when they get older.


Sometimes i look at other large families and they got the perfect mix 2 boys and 2 girls and im like whyyyyy. my mum was one of them

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[lindz]

My SIL had a girl, boy, girl, boy! So jealous! Not only do they have both genders but the boys get a brother, the girls get a sister and they're all close in age too. If I had a guarantee of that, I'd probably have 4 children


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Throwaway_panther]

My SIL had a girl, boy, girl, boy! So jealous! Not only do they have both genders but the boys get a brother, the girls get a sister and they're all close in age too. If I had a guarantee of that, I'd probably have 4 children


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
100%.

Ultimately it's hard to predict how sibs end up too. I'm close with both my sisters, while my husband -- part of a BBBG family -- is only close with one bro and hates his sister. But then my mom only had her brother, so they were close, and his daughters are like extended siblings to me.

I hate saying it, but I think the external pressure to have both really weighs on me :( that only exacerbates my existing GD.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[netti02]

I agree tp. Its like this little chart i seen floating around facebook. If you have a child you need to have another. If its the pp perfect, if its 2 of the same gender you need to try for an opposite and then it goes on to 4 'get some birth control' and 5 'you want your own tv show' but it definitely sums up the pressures particularly when just starting your family and everyone expects a pp or if you have 2 of the same gender they expect the 3rd to be the opposite. Its mostly small talk when people mention things but still.

Ive also had people tell me i need to have a girl and a son is your son until he gets a wife crap. Im hoping with 5 boys one of them will shop with me. Maybe instead of a shopping trip i have a monthly date with my boys to the movies. No point in expecting them to shop girlie with me ill have to get on their page and try paintball, bowling etc 😀

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[purple]

I was part of a pigeon pair for the first 15 months of my life so I'm happy my parents then had another girl as although I get along with my brother pretty well I am much closer with my sister.

I think a PP is more perfect for parents than the kids. I know a lot of people who weren't so happy being in a PP and don't have great relationships with their sibling.

Having BBGG or GGBB would probably be the optimum pattern but even then the kids personalities may clash so you can't guarantee they will all be friends.

[netti02]

Ikwym purple. I think theres this ideal that you have a son and a daughter. Even looking over movies they generally create this type of expected family.

Thats why i love diary of a wimpy kid. A mum with 3 boys 😁

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[trifecta]

My SIL had a girl, boy, girl, boy! So jealous! Not only do they have both genders but the boys get a brother, the girls get a sister and they're all close in age too. If I had a guarantee of that, I'd probably have 4 children


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's what I really envy: when you have a PP the stakes are a lot lower when it comes to the sex of the next one. You don't have to worry about this particular, uncontrollable thing.

[Throwaway_panther]

That's what I really envy: when you have a PP the stakes are a lot lower when it comes to the sex of the next one. You don't have to worry about this particular, uncontrollable thing.
That's my biggest thing. I wouldn't be completely adverse to another girl so my DD could have a sister considering how strong I think that bond can be, but I absolutely can't consider it until I've had my boy first :/

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[atomic sagebrush]

literally everyone I know IRL since the time I had my 4th had a pigeon pair. I don't even LIKE pigeon pairs and never wanted one, it is just annoying that it happens so easily for everyone else and then some of us end up with 4 boys.

[atomic sagebrush]

I was looking up stats the other day and it said if your first is a girl, you have a 54% chance of having a boy for your second. If your first is a boy, you have a 50% chance of having a girl so an equal chance of either gender instead of having an advantage like girl moms. So unfair! It just makes me wonder why couldn't I have a girl first?! Then I'd most likely have a boy next, my own pigeon pair! It seems like all my friends that had girls first are now having boys and being two and done. I'm currently 16 weeks pregnant and it's killing me not knowing if it will be another boy. I just want to be one of the lucky ones! Facebook kills me, especially since so many of those moms would say we'd be "happy with either gender", great give them two boys and the universe can send me my girl!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That is actually not what the statistics are saying. It is referring to the entire population and not the individual odds for one person. It is very clear to me that some of us are not coming into this with a 50-50 or even a 54-46% chance. Just because this averages out across the population to be that, it is very likely that at least some of those people are coming into TTC with a much higher or much lower chance.

[atomic sagebrush]

Having a second before the first turns 2 is a girl sway? That seems a stretch considering the statistics of pigeon pairs, and the slightly greater likelihood of having a boy after a girl...

That said, I feel this, especially when EVERYONE in my husband's family has a boy-girl pigeon pair. I'd like to think statistics are on my side, but I'm already depressed about our next one being a girl instead of boy, and we're not even trying yet...

The theory behind why a boy or girl might come next based on statistics and how a mother's diet might change after the first makes sense, but then I perceive so many who seem to just luck out regardless, and then stop because they got "one of each." And here I want more than 2 regardless, but couldn't bear the pressure of the third by not having a boy with my second...

If only we could switch zygotes, eh?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

You don't have to believe me and I don't want you to feel you have to argue, but I will say again and again that the data indicates that having close child spacing sways pink. It is not glaringly obvious because of the "fertility factor" (the people with the lowest condition and lowest fertility and a poor diet cannot get pregnant with a close spacing and they are also the ones the most "set" for pink, and those who are the healthiest, most fertile, and eating the most cals have more boys) but going from being 80% likely to have a boy to 50% likely is still going to produce 50% boys. For someone that may be 50-50, then adding that 30% sway would then make them very much more likely to have a girl (and I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air to illustrate the point)

That is what I always tell people when they ask me "well how'd I get a boy and a girl, then, I didn't do anything" and it is that they got lucky. Or perhaps they simply didn't get UNlucky. The thing is that most of us here on this site are NOT coming into this 50-50. After 4 boys over 20 years it kinda gets you thinking LOL. I think that anyone with only one child has a very good chance of an opposite next and so should not feel sad, defeated, depressed, or any such thing.

I do know of SEVERAL families, including some famous ones, where they had a girl first and then had 4,5,6,7 boys in a row. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Mel Gibson come to mind. The Duggars had a run of B/G mixed, then a run of boys, then a run of girls all of which are longer than most of us even have children. So this is absolutely a thing that happens and I agree with your point that most people tend to stop at two and we never actually know how their gender split would shake out if they had had 10 kids or whatever.

[Throwaway_panther]

You don't have to believe me and I don't want you to feel you have to argue, but I will say again and again that the data indicates that having close child spacing sways pink. It is not glaringly obvious because of the "fertility factor" (the people with the lowest condition and lowest fertility and a poor diet cannot get pregnant with a close spacing and they are also the ones the most "set" for pink, and those who are the healthiest, most fertile, and eating the most cals have more boys) but going from being 80% likely to have a boy to 50% likely is still going to produce 50% boys. For someone that may be 50-50, then adding that 30% sway would then make them very much more likely to have a girl (and I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air to illustrate the point)

That is what I always tell people when they ask me "well how'd I get a boy and a girl, then, I didn't do anything" and it is that they got lucky. Or perhaps they simply didn't get UNlucky. The thing is that most of us here on this site are NOT coming into this 50-50. After 4 boys over 20 years it kinda gets you thinking LOL. I think that anyone with only one child has a very good chance of an opposite next and so should not feel sad, defeated, depressed, or any such thing.

I do know of SEVERAL families, including some famous ones, where they had a girl first and then had 4,5,6,7 boys in a row. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Mel Gibson come to mind. The Duggars had a run of B/G mixed, then a run of boys, then a run of girls all of which are longer than most of us even have children. So this is absolutely a thing that happens and I agree with your point that most people tend to stop at two and we never actually know how their gender split would shake out if they had had 10 kids or whatever.
It's not that I don't believe you, but what's considered close spacing, what's the source of the data, etc.? I know personal observations don't trump larger findings, but I remember reading everything I could when pregnant and 2 year gaps were considered outside of close spacing, and that boys were more likely to follow girls.

Considering I'm EBF and am ovulating, with regular to short cycles 3 months out and all other factors, I have to wonder if maybe I'm set for boys and was just unintentionally working against myself when I conceived my DD. The waiting game because of some but not all data is particularly hard to follow when my GD is still just as strong, even though I love my daughter. Every cycle feels like a waste of time to me now.

And that's not meant to make this thread all about me. I just obsess over PPs now too because I'm so desperate for a boy -- so much else in my life is a struggle, it seems I'm not much use for anything other than babies, so at least aiming to get my DG gives me purpose.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[trifecta]

I'm sure you're good for plenty, Panther! Don't give in to hopelessness.

I would also be very, very surprised if you didn't have a boy at some point, especially if you sway. You just seem to have that focused, goal-oriented, information-amassing quality many mothers of boys seem to have.

[foxtrotmama]

I'm sure you'll get your boy at some point, panther!

A Facebook acquaintance is expecting her second baby and got a PP and keeps posting about her "million dollar family", and today I was hanging out with a friend with a son DS2's age and a baby girl. I'm jealous and feeling a little bit hopeless today.

[atomic sagebrush]

It's not that I don't believe you, but what's considered close spacing, what's the source of the data, etc.? I know personal observations don't trump larger findings, but I remember reading everything I could when pregnant and 2 year gaps were considered outside of close spacing, and that boys were more likely to follow girls.

Considering I'm EBF and am ovulating, with regular to short cycles 3 months out and all other factors, I have to wonder if maybe I'm set for boys and was just unintentionally working against myself when I conceived my DD. The waiting game because of some but not all data is particularly hard to follow when my GD is still just as strong, even though I love my daughter. Every cycle feels like a waste of time to me now.

And that's not meant to make this thread all about me. I just obsess over PPs now too because I'm so desperate for a boy -- so much else in my life is a struggle, it seems I'm not much use for anything other than babies, so at least aiming to get my DG gives me purpose.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

That came off snippy which isn't my intent, I am just trying to alleviate you of the need to argue and defend your position. You are absolutely free to proceed with what you believe to be right for you. But I feel that you are desperately trying to justify your desire to have a closer spacing and I simply cannot and will not sign off on that.

There are gillions of studies that indicate maternal condition is what is swaying. I have had 5 babies and I can tell you, ya don't get back to normal within 3 months, I don't care if you're ovulating or not, it's your condition. I am just trying to get you in here with the best chance of a boy. I do not feel that you are going to have that now.

What I am trying to explain is that if (and I believe this to be the only plausible mechanism for Trivers-Willard that anyone has ever come up with) if, the idea that what is really truly swaying is our body's natural mechanisms for birth control via diet, BMI, breastfeeding, age, etc ie overall fertility then observations are skewed by this. The "data" you're referring to is ALSO skewed by this. Because only women who are in the best condition are going to be ABLE to get and stay pregnant 3-6-9-12 months postpartum while breastfeeding, and these women are almost certainly also coming in more skewed for boys, this makes it extremely difficult to observe. Additionally, since MANY women don't even breastfeed at all, this is not a random sample size. Others only breastfeed for a week or a month. Additionally additionally, it's quite unusual to even WANT to get pregnant with this close a spacing or with breastfeeding. Most people don't do it. The data you are talking about is NOT random. IT's in a very select group of people and not rats in a lab under control of some sort of scientific puppetmaster. If something sways even a huge amount like 20-30%, but the group of people who are in this category are 70-80% set for boys anyway, it is ENTIRELY possible that group of woman could do something that sways 20-30% and end up 50-50 overall. This does NOT mean that this does not sway, just that it isn't observable on the basis of the numbers.

I actually think it is one of the "genius" settings of the human body to keep gender ratio about 50-50. Under ideal circumstances, everyone's getting pregnant and those in lower condition, lower fertiliy have more girls and those in the best conditions have boys. Under less ideal situations, those at the lower end of the fertile range stop having babies, everyone shifts down a step on the continuum, some who were having boys would have girls, everything stabilizes again at 50-50. Etc, etc, etc. This is how it stays 50-50 ish even in time of famine and time of feast. If it didn't work this way, the gender ratio would be seriously skewed!

[atomic sagebrush]

And I know you know this, but this time is not a waste. This time is precious and it's only the GD blinders that are lamenting this time passing. Someday you will have a 20 year old child and long for the days when she is small and you could just hug her all day long and she can't escape. :)

Trust me, you are about to enter a whole new (and more challenging) phase with her. While having a newborn is hard to be sure, they are not yet mobile and once she starts motating herself, it's going to be a lot more work than it seems like right now and I personally would NOT x 1 billion want to have a 15 month old and a new baby. IT IS HARD. Seriously, seriously hard. The months from 9-18 in particular can be very challenging ones and it is really, really tough to be preggo and trying to change diapers and deal with a fussy, into everything toddler. I did this one time with a 21 month old and a newborn and it nearly KILLED me and I had already had 3 kids before that. So please, while I know it is terribly tempting, both for your sway and your own well being, don't be in a huge rush for another one just yet. :)

[lindz]

That came off snippy which isn't my intent, I am just trying to alleviate you of the need to argue and defend your position. You are absolutely free to proceed with what you believe to be right for you. But I feel that you are desperately trying to justify your desire to have a closer spacing and I simply cannot and will not sign off on that.

There are gillions of studies that indicate maternal condition is what is swaying. I have had 5 babies and I can tell you, ya don't get back to normal within 3 months, I don't care if you're ovulating or not, it's your condition. I am just trying to get you in here with the best chance of a boy. I do not feel that you are going to have that now.

What I am trying to explain is that if (and I believe this to be the only plausible mechanism for Trivers-Willard that anyone has ever come up with) if, the idea that what is really truly swaying is our body's natural mechanisms for birth control via diet, BMI, breastfeeding, age, etc ie overall fertility then observations are skewed by this. The "data" you're referring to is ALSO skewed by this. Because only women who are in the best condition are going to be ABLE to get and stay pregnant 3-6-9-12 months postpartum while breastfeeding, and these women are almost certainly also coming in more skewed for boys, this makes it extremely difficult to observe. Additionally, since MANY women don't even breastfeed at all, this is not a random sample size. Others only breastfeed for a week or a month. Additionally additionally, it's quite unusual to even WANT to get pregnant with this close a spacing or with breastfeeding. Most people don't do it. The data you are talking about is NOT random. IT's in a very select group of people and not rats in a lab under control of some sort of scientific puppetmaster. If something sways even a huge amount like 20-30%, but the group of people who are in this category are 70-80% set for boys anyway, it is ENTIRELY possible that group of woman could do something that sways 20-30% and end up 50-50 overall. This does NOT mean that this does not sway, just that it isn't observable on the basis of the numbers.

I actually think it is one of the "genius" settings of the human body to keep gender ratio about 50-50. Under ideal circumstances, everyone's getting pregnant and those in lower condition, lower fertiliy have more girls and those in the best conditions have boys. Under less ideal situations, those at the lower end of the fertile range stop having babies, everyone shifts down a step on the continuum, some who were having boys would have girls, everything stabilizes again at 50-50. Etc, etc, etc. This is how it stays 50-50 ish even in time of famine and time of feast. If it didn't work this way, the gender ratio would be seriously skewed!

I breastfeed my son for the first year, stopped breastfeeding in February, and got pregnant in June. I'm curious is that still considered beneficial for a girl sway or is that too much time from stopping the breastfeeding and getting pregnant? It won't chance things either way obviously, but I didn't realize that an age gap of about two years was considered "close spacing" and more likely to result in girls. I'm hoping it works in my favor..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atomic sagebrush]

I can't say for sure because SO much enters into it. I would consider that much more pink friendly than someone who gets pregnant to have a 2 1/2-3 year spacing and has not been nursing for a year or more prior to that, but obviously short of a crystal ball I can't extrapolate that down to an individual.