Printable View
This is a random one, but.. does family history have any insight on what gender you will have?
example with me my mum had 2 girls (me and my sister but she was by my step dad) my real dad went on to have another 2 kids both female, my dads nan had all boys...
DH family had 3 boys , 1 girl... 1 of brothers gone on to have a boy with gf who has 1 sister.
Is there any link to what you could concieve based on family history of conception?
I feel like I’ve looked into this, but it’s been awhile. My husband’s family has three boys, and we now have three grandsons. However, my husband’s dad has a sister, and my side is all girls. Ultimately, you still have a 50/50 chance when trying. So, I’m not sure if it can be pre determined by genetics. Sorry this answer isn’t the most helpful. It’s a really interesting question!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
NO there is NOT.
While one study did seem to find some families have more boys and others more girls than is statistically expected, this is almost certainly down to changeable lifestyle factors that tend to run in families and NOT straightforward genetics the way people think of it. There's not a boy gene or a girl gene and here's why:
Your genes are weirdly "smart" things (they're not actually smart, but they're good at surviving to be handed down to future generations). A gene that tied itself to having to be one gender or the other is at a pretty big disadvantage, especially for males because male offspring are both less likely to hand down genes (only 40% of all males who have ever lived have surviving genetic offsping while 80% of all females who have ever lived, have) and more likely to be killed off over the course of their lives as well. In fact we know of several genetic bottlenecks, one of which happened only a few thousand years ago and entailed a time period where only one male reproduced for every 17 females!!
What all this means is that if a family had a "boy gene" it would put them at a huge reproductive advantage because not only would their offpring tend to be less likely to reproduce, they'd be more likely to die before they ever had the chance to. Genes that are at that kind of disadvantage simply do not survive to be passed down to future generations. It just doesn't happen and so it is very, very, very unlikely that there is a boy gene, and a girl gene can't exist either because if it did (unless there was a boy gene to keep it all in balance) the population would be hugely skewed towards females. If only 4000-8000 years ago 17 to 1 females were reproducing for every male and even just some of them had "girl genes" we would see gender ratios skewed away from 50-50 at least among some ethnic groups. But it is about 50-50 everywhere you go all around the world.
It is by far and away the most likely scenario that humans (and indeed all animals) have the ability to alter the likelihood that they have male or female offspring based on cues from the environment about what gender has the best chance to pass down genes successfully to future generations
No. All men make equal amounts of X and Y sperm.
Atomic has been asked this question many times before. Here's her answers here from previous posts:
"It makes NO evolutionary sense for there to be "boy genes and girl genes". The first time a war came through and most of the guys got killed off, that would be a genetic dead end for the family that carried them. Much more sensible for women to be able to adjust the gender of the children they conceived to which gender has the best chance of survival.
If it came down to genes, there would also be some tribe or ethnic minority out there where the people were closely genetically related somewhere that had mostly boys or mostly girls and yet no such group exists. It's abotu 50-50 wherever it goes.
It is possible that there could be some difference between a guy's X vs. Y sperm (genetically) sure, but I personally doubt it, firstly because X and Y sperm are actually just one big XY sperm for most of their development and something that is wrong with one of them, would affect BOTH of them. Secondly because since men only HAVE one X chromosome, and the Y chromosome doesn't really do anything other than say "make me a dude" if there was something fundamentally wrong with X, I kinda doubt hubby would be a healthy person.
Lastly, I think I mentioned this before but just to reiterate, a family that put all their eggs in one gender's basket in terms of handing down genes, put themselves at a huge disadvantage, esp. if that gender is MALE. Males are always getting killed off prematurely and have been throughout time. They've tested genetics and only 40% of males ever reproduced. The majority of the men who have ever lived, died without having a single child. It would be idiotic for genes to hook themselves to that train wreck. If you were a man or woman who could only have boys, your gene pool woudl have died out a long, long time ago. Being able to shift the gender ratio of your offspring on the basis of environment and which gender has a better shot at surviving and reproducing, makes sense. Being locked into having all/mostly boys in a world where only 40% of them ever live to hand down their genes, is a dumb strategy that would have quickly led to the dying out of the families that carried those genes. It HAS to be environmental, not genetic.
IF there was this gene, it would have gotten handed down and you would see some country, ethnic group, or tribe out there that was having all or mostly one gender vs. the other. But there isn't. The gender ratio hovers at about 50-50 regardless of where you go."
Also here
And here