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
Printable View
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by lindz
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 :/Quote:
Originally Posted by trifecta
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lindz
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwaway_panther
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwaway_panther
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!