Does it make a difference at all? Which gender stays in the womb longer?
Also, is labor faster/slower with either gender?
Printable View
Does it make a difference at all? Which gender stays in the womb longer?
Also, is labor faster/slower with either gender?
This is anecdotal evidence but I've never noticed a correlation between labor length or pregnancy length and gender. I've been a member of this site for a long time and have known many women IRL where those things vary so much I don't see any pattern.
I only have boys but even gestational length and labor has varied with them. DS1 was born at 40w with an 8 hr labor. DS2 was born at 39w and was a 4 hr labor. DS3 baked the longest and was born at two days shy of 42w after a 1 hr labor. Typically after your first, labor tends to be shorter and easier but not always.
I'm sure Atomic has read up on studies about this and can give her thoughts on it.
nope
:agree: this is what I've seen as well. Human gestation is really variable and a LOT factors into it, I have seen no relible info that gender enters into the equation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ksmom
All my kids werwe 1-5 days late, including my daughter. My daughter was a pretty easy labor and birth but that's because she was my 5th kid and not because she was a girl - I know plenty of people who had miserable labors with girls and easy ones with boys.
Two boys, both born 41.2w
First one was 4,5 hours
Second one 2 hours
There is actually some science that says boys tend to go more overdue than girls and complications during delivery are more likely to occur with boys (though not in any regards to labor length). But as with many things, they are not "for sure" things at all. And complication wise is literally a barely negligible hospital admission rate difference. Was just reading and discussing this in my EDD group as we all hoped me going inexplicably over might be because it was a boy, but alas, I just had a 9 days post due girl so... lol ;)
My labors were also dramatically different (roughly 24 hours compared to a little over 2).
https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/2016...=1547907206947
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...s-trouble.html
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-l...76H68LeavfxNUc
two of my boys were born 12 days early and my girl was 3 day "late".
And coincidentally with 2 boys my waters had a slow leak.
all mine have been born in either the 39th or 40th week, all home-births with no interventions, my girls were full term births #5 and #6 for me so by then it was going to be fast no matter what!! but time wise i haven't seen any difference in the boys vs girls.
oddly enough all 5 of my boys have had clear amniotic fluid but with both of my girls it was stained, not heavily so no intervention needed but i just thought id mention as strangely it seems gender related for my babies. when my youngest was born i was team green, waters went right before he was born and were clear so i figured it was a boy and he was :) other than that there has been no difference between the girls vs the boys births.
From my friends boys were born earlier (also my son 10 days before term) girls in term or later.
I have heard that girls go overdue than boys..
My DS was born 14 days earlier than EDD
My boy was born 12 days too early..
My DS2 was born +2 late
Sent from my A7155_X4_mini using Tapatalk
Dont think it makes a diff
1st boy c section as breech
2nd boy bang on due date - labour was about 12 hrs from first pain to last
3rd boy 46 week 4 days - labour about 7 hours
4th girl 39 weeks 2 days - labour about 5 house but came very quick with 3 pushes
I don't think it makes a difference.
My boys were early. My female cousin's kids were all early, boys and girls. I think it is a family thing, we don't typically go to 40 weeks.
A woman I know had a boy then girl. Both arrived on exact due date.