Men's X and Y sperm ratio

I've learnt so much from this forum about swaying! One thing I have never seen addressed though, especially with regards to failed sways and why some couples might have more daughters or sons, is the man's sperm. I'm referring to this: https://phys.org/news/2008-12-boy-gi...her-genes.html (quite an old article, it's not the only one I found).

If there really are men with equal numbers of X and Y and some with more X and some with more Y sperm, what does that mean, practically...? Could that mean that some couples will never have much more than a 50% chance of conceiving their desired gender? Imagine a man naturally produces 70% boy sperm (if that's actually realistic... what does atomic sagebrush think?)... But this very couple is planning a sway and covers things like attempts, diet, supplements, etc. for a girl... Could it be that their chances of conceiving a girl then go up from 30% to about 50% but never much higher? I find this really interesting to think about.

Could this explain why some couples struggle to have successful sways? (I know you can't tell much from just one failed sway, because they could have had an amazing chance but simply been part of the 30% that didn't get lucky...)

That was an article done on sheer speculation by a grad student that was reported in the media as some amazing development. But no such gene has ever been found. It's all hypothetical. It was only noting gender variations in what is statistically expected (which is interesting! if only they would have simply left it at that) and then a genetic explanation was made up from thin air. I've spoken to a couple researchers about this study and they consider it a "facepalm" theory where they cringe at how widely it got covered by the media, because it isn't even REAL. It would be like if I said "wow, look at all the pretty flowers, my theory is that fairies come in the night and pollinate them" and someone published that article as fact and all the media outlets treated it as truth even though bees and moths and birds are actually what is pollinating flowers. Obviously something is pollinating flowers, and something is altering the gender ratio in some families, but that doesn't mean that the wrong explanation is somehow magically correct.

It is very, very, very unlikely that this is true due to scientific reasons. I actually have extensive articles done about that subject on the site and I'll post links, but just briefly (since people sometimes don't want to read links) this simply CANNOT be true in the way the "researcher" describes. Firstly because men make 50-50 X and Y sperm, they have to, because their bodies are made up of XY sperm that divide in the testicles to make half X and half Y. We have not only studies that show that men have about 50-50 sperm, but also our own experiences, in which several people "had their husband's sperm tested" by reputable clinics and found it was 50-50. IVF clinics see sperm samples every day and we would know this 1000% by now (note: while you can find some clinics that claim otherwise, they are outright charlatans in countries with no oversidght, and the few who aren't total charlatans are making money "testing sperm" only to reveal every sample is 50-50)

Additionally, EVERY time people come to me and say things like "well, my husband's family HAS TO be making more boy sperm, because there's "only" boys in his family for 10,000 years" they then go on to mention that his cousin actually has 5 girls and his mom's sister has all girls and then I say "wait a minute, his mom's sister, he had a mom, right, well what about her genes??" It's very often the case that "all these boys" were in ONE generation or in ONE branch of the family and the rest of the family had equal splits or there were some brothers with girls and some with boys. It's a very selective reasoning process that people undertake when they look for "proof" that gender has to run in a family! This even happened to me, where my MIL told me that she "knew" I would have all boys because my husband's father was one of 5 B, 1g. But the truth is, my husband had a sister and no brothers, all his cousins were BG pairs, all his cousins were all girl families or BG. We were the only ones with boys. It just wasn't a thing, people looked at the things that confirm the theory and not anything beyond it.

And secondly because even though we can speculate about there being SOME reason why gender does seem to run in families, it simply CANNOT be genetic. We could imagine something like "well ok, maybe there are 50-50 but the X don't swim as well, or don't live as long, or whatever" but according to a theory called "Fisher's Principle", that just can't be the case. Because if there was such a gene, and it was present in a tribe or a village (keeping in mind thru most of human history, people were pretty genetically isolated from each other) what would happen is that gene would quickly spread, and would make the gender ratio skew wildly. There has never been a tribe, village, or community found anywhere in the world with other than roughly 50-50 gender ratio, no matter how isolated, so this whole notion is skewed because it doesn't happen in nature. After that happened, families that "made girls" would have a huge genetic advantage because girls would become scarce, and then their genes would spread far more successfully than the families that made only boys. There's just NO potential advantage to having genes that make one gender or the other, because of the way traits spread - sex ratio "wants" to have equilibrium because having too many of one gender quickly gets cancelled out by the other gender becoming scarcer, so "luck" favors maintaining equal numbers of each for human beings.

Additionally, having boys is actually not all its cracked up to be in nature. Of all the men who have ever lived, only 40% have surviving offspring living today, while 80% of all women who ever lived do. Right away a family that "only makes boys" would be at a huge disadvantage genetically. And men have, throughout history, been highly subject to early deaths - in war, from opposing tribes, from Pharoah or Genghis Khan taking over and killing off the competition - that any family that genetically made boys would have died out a long time ago.

It makes the most sense, genetically speaking, for families to make boys when they have a better chance of surviving to pass down genes, and to make girls when they do. Evolution does not select for dead ends, and any family that made only one (or even mostly) or the other would not live very long because the first time circumstances favored the other gender, their genes would die out!

So why does gender run in some families? The reason is most likely because of NONgenetic factors that also run in families (like diet, lifestyle, social status, all things proven to alter gender ratio in studies) or indirect factors that may be genetically linked but are not genetic THEMSELVES, such as height, muscle mass, PCOS, that sort of thing (any or all of which can change with different genetic combinations in a generation or two, and have to do with lifestyle as well). It just CANNOT be the case that any family is preferentially making more X or Y sperm - every bit of data points the other way.

Now, as for your question why do some couples have seemingly "perfect" sways and still get the opposite, the truth is this...while some people do really have great sways and have some bad luck (if not for that "bad luck" the whole human race would have died out a long time ago due to the Fisher principle...if lifestyle COULD produce 100% results the gender ratio would be skewed too easily and Mother Nature does not support that), and while there is so MUCH we do not know that it's possible we are getting some things wrong, some people really don't have "perfect" sways.

I personally don't like going over people's sways looking for flaws, and I choose not to do that because much of the "flaws" are personality things that can't really be changed anyway. Suffice to say, a good number of people who get opposites (not ALL, please don't @ me anyone) really don't do things as well as it might seem from a cursory examination of their sway. I see a lot more of the day to day on my end than anyone else does, in many cases I talk to people every day for months and even years, and there are just pitfalls that people fall into that make their sways more likely to not work out. I can almost, but not quite, pick out the people whose pink sways are not going to work based on the following things:

There are tons of people who diet WAY too strictly at the start, and end up having to basically sway blue just to get their cycle going again. Then there are people who sway so hard doing things that don't even work, like douching and timing, that they don't get pregnant for years, refuse to drop anything, then give up everything all at once, in a panic.

There are people who do the opposite, convincing themselves that they're harming their fertility and their bodies forever because they made the most minor, mild changes in their diets and in a panic that they're dying, start trying after only a couple weeks on diet, or give up diet totally. (Interestingly, while it may not seem like it, this is the SAME PROBLEM as the people who diet too strictly...basically, being so controlling that they have a misguided belief that if they aren't in complete control of their diet, taking tons of vitamins, etc they're going to be severely malnourished and kill their unborn child)

There are people who are so controlling that they are scheduling their days in 15 minute increments, including all these really complicated things that do nothing (like burning incense, meditating, taking hot showers, testing pH, etc) They obsess with everything happening in their life, certain it's ruining their sway, and are basically in this constant state of full freakout in which they try to micromanage every detail they come across.

In every one of these cases, the issue is that control freakishness really, really, REALLY undermines pink sways. No matter how great a pink sway, if a person is completely indulging that control freak stuff, it can mess them up in a number of ways. That is the elephant in the room in most sway opposites. The number of people where their sways don't work out and I'm really truly surprised by it is maybe 10-15% max (more for blue swayers than pink, TBH) This control freak thing is HUGE and that's why I say I can almost pick the people out whose sways are endangered, because their behavior is quite unique and extreme and sticks out like a sore thumb compared to others.

Aside from the control freak element, there are some pink swayers who are under a lot of pressure from husbands or by virtue of time, that they have to get pregnant very quickly and they simply don't have time to sway much if at all. So they have no choice but to start trying very quickly and just have whatever level of sway they can. Not their fault at all but it just comes into play.

But long story short (too late!) there is literally NO evidence supporting that men make more X or Y sperm and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Here are some of my essays that may help:

https://www.genderdreaming.com/forum...X-AND-Y-SPERM=

https://www.genderdreaming.com/forum...f-that-gender=

https://genderdreaming.com/forum/gen...make-boys.html

https://www.genderdreaming.com/forum...m-and-Y-sperm=

Wow, thank you!! I've gone through it all, must have missed some things that were already published! This is so interesting... And biologically makes a lot of sense!! You're right, it doesn't sound scientific at all and looking back at the link I shared, it's all just speculation everywhere.

There's a LOT of info on this site and so I am the facilitator to help you guys find things you missed! I LOVE talking about these aspects of swaying, it's great fun to me.

Yep just pure speculation based on an actually interesting observation. That's actually how a lot of studies are (not just swaying studies) when you read them - an interesting observation followed up by a conclusion that is completely made up from wholecloth and then inexplicably, the conclusion is all too often treated as fact for years if not decades till another study comes along and reveals it is not true. Just keep that in mind whenever you read a study - the observation part is the important part, the explanation is often the scientist(s) using their imaginations. :/