Originally Posted by
atomic sagebrush
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!
