Ever heard of Epigenetics? This may be cause of homosexuality

Sorry, I wrote in a hurry. The ratio refers to the kids of people in the House and the Senate; I know they are mostly men, but to marry a successful man, you’re most likely to be a successful woman. I’ll look for the links tomorrow (same for the statistics on women suffering from autoimmune illnesses). As far as the socio-economic status goes, the correlation can be supposedly found when you compare women within a group of other women they know. Basically, we surround ourself by more or less hundred people and the more successful women tend to have on average more boys. There are some reasons why this makes evolutionary sense, but I am not going to go into it now.
The whole thing gets actually even more bizarre when we look at the behaviour of some birds (forgot which ones now). They found that when the female’s offspring is the “wrong” sex (i.e., incompatible with her status) she will penetrate the egg with its beak and kill it. How the bird knows the sex of the little one inside the egg is anybody’s guess. And if you get your speculation run wild, it makes you think if some miscarriages in humans can happen for the same reason. We men bring in the crutial chromosome, but we may not have the last word on what sex our kids will be.

Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother. It is well documented in birds, for example, that the higher the status of the female, the more likely she is to have a male offspring. And we can see it in humans as well. The sex ratio is 50/50, but the sex ration of the kids in the US government is 60% boys and 40% girls. Basically, the higher the socio-economic status of the woman (not the man!) within the group of people she knows, the more likely she is to have a boy. Having boy is expensive--expensive in regards to the mother's health. Women who have boys are also more likely to suffer from autoimmune diseases. I would be interested to know what other impacts having older brothers has. Are the younger ones sicker? Do they end up making less money?
Making money and success is not so much a matter of brothers, but birth order. First children and only children are usually the smartest in school and most successful in their careers. Youngest children tend to be the most rebellious. There's a good book on birth order called Born to Rebel. It's a few years old but the science has not been refuted. It's a fascinating book. I don't know if anyone has done a study on the relative health of siblings. That would be interesting too.

As far as I know, the evidence to show that birth order can affect personality is not there. I have never read Born to Rebel, but Judith Rich Harris talked about the mistakes the author of that book committed (which I now forgot what those were–but can look it up if you’d like me to) in her book, “The Nurture Assumption.”

Jumping away from Epigenetics, but sticking with the theme... Have you folks heard/read this one
Fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_male_sexual_orientation ~ ~ ~ Empirical basis The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.[3] According to several studies, each older brother increases a man's odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%.[4][5][6][7][8] The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.[9] There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.[10][11]O ~ ~ ~ Theories on the cause Anthony Bogaert's work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother's body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.[6][16][20][21] The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.
I don't know what to think of it one way or other... and actually, for me, the most amazing part of the story was being introduced to the "in-utero maternal immune response." The folds within folds of complexity never cease to amaze.
It makes sense to me that gestating sons changes something in a mother, perhaps an immune response or a change in her own hormones as a result of gestating males, which affects later sons. Statistics show that the number of males who are gay is greater among those with older brothers. Orientation could have an additional explanation, but older brothers obviously have an influence. I know of a couple who had one daughter and one son, both of whom are gay. It would be interesting to know what might have triggered that unusual circumstance. As far as I can tell they both had ordinary upbringings with good relationships with both of their parents. Both are psychologically stable and successful. In this case, there were no older sons, so there must have been other factors involved for the male. I think it may be a different mechanism that affects boys' and girls' orientation. Certainly worth looking into.

We can theorize about the causes of a particular correlation all day but it may not be a good use of time unless we have evidence that the correlation exists and better yet that there is some evidence beyond correlation for actual causation ( ie. is there evidence that giving birth to sons actual causes health problems for the mother). So far in this thread no one has posted anything remotely resembling evidence to support that claim.

As far as I know, the evidence to show that birth order can affect personality is not there. I have never read Born to Rebel, but Judith Rich Harris talked about the mistakes the author of that book committed (which I now forgot what those were--but can look it up if you'd like me to) in her book, "The Nurture Assumption."
I'll take a look, but there is plenty of evidence that birth order is a factor in people's personalities and intellectual abilities. As one instance,the incoming class at Harvard was surveyed for birth order. 3/4 of the class were first borns. There has to be a link. I have seen it in my own family and in the families of my friends and acquaintances, too. The first born is almost always the brightest one. There is one other point to be noted. If there are five years between a child and his next oldest sibling, he or she often has the characteristics of a first born. I have seen this in many families, including my own. I have an actual first born and a third child who was born 5 years after the second. Both are more motivated and successful than their two siblings, the second and fourth, though they are not slouches, either. It's only one family, so its not scientific, but I think that this example and the Harvard survey are indications that first borns generally have higher IQs and are more motivated to succeed than later children.

Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn’t enough evidence to show it’s true. Also, let’s not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the effect won’t fade out with time.

Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.
This is a good point that I don't think most people realize. I was talking to a coworker who is a nurse (BSN) and she said that no pregnancy is healthy for a woman. The fetus demands a lot from the female body and takes nutrients and vitamins, hence the necessity for a healthy pregnancy being the ingestion of prenatal vitamins. She went on to cite examples from the earlier days (before birth control) when some women would become pregnant "too many times" and at intervals that were too close and the toll on the body is significant. She said women in days before birth control would actually lose teeth because their bodies were so depleted of nutrients. I would venture to say they probably developed many other health issues such as osteoporosis, perhaps, due to lack of calcium and so forth. Fortunately, nowadays, there is the medical knowledge available for woman to have healthier pregnancies and birth control to control the number. The aforementioned applies to all pregnancies, but being pregnant with a male probably comes with even more risk, or so it seems based on what I've read. I am pretty sure there was a medical doctor who commented earlier in the thread--I'd love for this person to weigh in on this (and its accuracy).
Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.
This is a good point that I don't think most people realize. I was talking to a coworker who is a nurse (BSN) and she said that no pregnancy is healthy for a woman. The fetus demands a lot from the female body and takes nutrients and vitamins, hence the necessity for a healthy pregnancy being the ingestion of prenatal vitamins. She went on to cite examples from the earlier days (before birth control) when some women would become pregnant "too many times" and at intervals that were too close and the toll on the body is significant. She said women in days before birth control would actually lose teeth because their bodies were so depleted of nutrients. I would venture to say they probably developed many other health issues such as osteoporosis, perhaps, due to lack of calcium and so forth. Fortunately, nowadays, there is the medical knowledge available for woman to have healthier pregnancies and birth control to control the number. The aforementioned applies to all pregnancies, but being pregnant with a male probably comes with even more risk, or so it seems based on what I've read. I am pretty sure there was a medical doctor who commented earlier in the thread--I'd love for this person to weigh in on this (and its accuracy). You can look at undeveloped countries to see the price women pay during childbirth. It is the most frequent cause of death and debility. Sometimes the woman develops a fistula between the vagina and colon, causing fecal leakage and incontinence. These women are often abandoned by their husbands. Many men in these countries go through several wives due to the high maternal death rates. The papal decree on condoms and birth control doesn't help the situation.
Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.
This is a good point that I don't think most people realize. I was talking to a coworker who is a nurse (BSN) and she said that no pregnancy is healthy for a woman. The fetus demands a lot from the female body and takes nutrients and vitamins, hence the necessity for a healthy pregnancy being the ingestion of prenatal vitamins. She went on to cite examples from the earlier days (before birth control) when some women would become pregnant "too many times" and at intervals that were too close and the toll on the body is significant. She said women in days before birth control would actually lose teeth because their bodies were so depleted of nutrients. I would venture to say they probably developed many other health issues such as osteoporosis, perhaps, due to lack of calcium and so forth. Fortunately, nowadays, there is the medical knowledge available for woman to have healthier pregnancies and birth control to control the number. The aforementioned applies to all pregnancies, but being pregnant with a male probably comes with even more risk, or so it seems based on what I've read. I am pretty sure there was a medical doctor who commented earlier in the thread--I'd love for this person to weigh in on this (and its accuracy). I have weighed in. I have been unable to find any evidence to support the contention that a male fetus is any more likely to trigger health problems in the mother than a female fetus. The only documented linkage I can find is that male fetuses are more frequently associated with premature labor and gestational diabetes. Its certainly possible my search may have missed something so if anyone has come across literature supporting these claims please post a link here. I would like to review them to see if we are talking about a well established association and if so, whether any causal link has actually been determined.
Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn't enough evidence to show it's true. Also, let's not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn't necessarily mean the effect won't fade out with time.
It didn't with my children. All I suggested is that there is a correlation so all I should have to do is show statistics that show that correlation. I don't have to show evidence of anything further because I'm not claiming anything beyond a statistical correlation and hoping for further investigation to see if the correlation means anything. I suspect you are not a first born. :)

Never heard anything about a male vs female fetus except a slight increase in severe morning sickness, and I don’t think the evidence is clear.

Having a boy is not a healthy thing for the mother.
It hasn't been shown that a woman's health is negatively affected by having sons more than it is when having daughters. But the male fetus or baby is negatively affected. More boys than girls die before, during and after birth (assuming the parents aren't killing off the girls, as happens in some societies). This is a medical fact. Maybe McGyver can weigh in on this and offer an opinion as to why.

First off, I’m just spit-balling here but what’s the spread? Percentage wise?
Obviously there are only 2 sexes so it’s a fifty-fifty type statistic.
A slight lean in one direction is to be expected versus an exact 50-50 type scenario.
I don’t know…

After looking at some of the research on male/female ratios I realize I was wrong about the statistics. I was going by statistics I remembered from some years ago. My memory may be faulty or the statistics I read then might have been incorrect or statistics may now be more accurate than they were even 20 years ago. I haven’t revisited this subject in a while and no longer remember my sources. I made the mistake of depending on my memory instead of checking the current statistics. According to online sources more males are born than females though the ratio drops throughout life for various reasons.
Wikipedia says this:
“In anthropology and demography, the human sex ratio is the sex ratio for Homo sapiens (i.e., the ratio of males to females in a population). Like most sexual species, the sex ratio is approximately 1:1. In humans the secondary sex ratio (i.e., at birth) is commonly assumed to be 105 boys to 100 girls, an assumption that is a subject of debate in the scientific community. The sex ratio for the entire world population is 100 males to 99 females.”

There are some interesting maps that show sex ratios around the world. They show that in most parts of the world females outnumber males.
So I will have to do some studying of the statistics before I can continue a discussion of sex ratios and whether males are actually more vulnerable from conception to infancy, which was my understanding before I checked.
:red:

First off, I'm just spit-balling here but what's the spread? Percentage wise? Obviously there are only 2 sexes so it's a fifty-fifty type statistic. A slight lean in one direction is to be expected versus an exact 50-50 type scenario. I don't know...
If you've seen as many newborns as I have, you'd know it isn't that clear cut.. along with XX and XY, you can get other combinations such as XXX, XXY, XYY, and genetalia that boggles the mind.....

Let’s see. I weighed nine pounds two ounces, my mother was just over five feet tall and weighed 95 pounds before she was pregnant. Then she lived until she was 92. Gee, if I’d been a girl, she would have made to more than 100. :lol:
Occam

Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn't enough evidence to show it's true. Also, let's not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn't necessarily mean the effect won't fade out with time.
It didn't with my children. All I suggested is that there is a correlation so all I should have to do is show statistics that show that correlation. I don't have to show evidence of anything further because I'm not claiming anything beyond a statistical correlation and hoping for further investigation to see if the correlation means anything. I suspect you are not a first born. :) According to a news story on local TV this past week bald men have more heart attacks. Judging by my mop I should have a much reduced chance of one , statistically speaking. :lol:
Yes, Lois, I have heard it too before. But, once again, according to Harris there just isn't enough evidence to show it's true. Also, let's not forget that there is a big difference between short- and long-term effect. Maybe the older kids do better in school because parents have more energy and patience to help them out, but that doesn't necessarily mean the effect won't fade out with time.
It's possible, but the books and articles on birth order do say that differences are probably all environmental. First borns may very well do better in school because their parents have more energy or it could be a combination of factors, many of which have not been identified yet. All the the statistics show is that first borns tend to have higher IQs and do better in school and career than later borns. I dont think anyone has said there is a proven reason for this. The statistics simply show that it is the case. Exactly why this is so has not been definitely established. I think you are protesting too much. Is it a case of sibling rivalry?

Regarding gay men more likely to have older brothers, there is an interesting item on Wikipedia:
A correlation between fraternal birth order and male sexual orientation has been suggested by research. Ray Blanchard identified the association and referred to it as the fraternal birth order effect. In several studies, the observation is that the more older brothers a man has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation.It has sometimes been called the older brother effect. It has been estimated that 15% of the homosexual demographic is associated with fraternal birth order.
The fraternal birth order effect is the strongest known biodemographic predictor of sexual orientation.According to several studies, each older brother increases a man’s odds of having a homosexual orientation by 28–48%. The fraternal birth order effect accounts for approximately one seventh of the prevalence of homosexuality in men.There seems to be no effect on sexual orientation in women, and no effect related to the number of older sisters.
The fraternal birth order effect has also been observed among male-to-female transsexuals: MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in men have a greater number of older brothers than MtF transsexuals who are sexually interested in women. This has been reported in samples from Canada,the United Kingdom,the Netherlands, and Polynesia.
The effect has been found even in males not raised with their biological brothers, suggesting an in-utero environmental causation. To explain this finding, a maternal immune response has been hypothesized. Male fetuses produce H-Y antigens which may be involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates. Other studies have suggested the influence of birth order was not due to a biological, but a social process . . .
Anthony Bogaert’s work involving adoptees concludes that the effect is not due to being raised with older brothers, but is hypothesized to have something to do with changes induced in the mother’s body when gestating a boy that affects subsequent sons. An in-utero maternal immune response has been hypothesized for this effect.The effect is present regardless of whether or not the older brothers are raised in the same family environment with the boy. There is no effect when the number of older brothers is increased by adopted brothers or step brothers.
The fraternal birth order effect appears to interact with handedness, as the incidence of homosexuality correlated with an increase in older brothers is seen only in right-handed males.
Bogaert (2006) replicated the fraternal birth order effect on male sexual orientation, in a sample including both biological siblings and adopted siblings.[3] Only the older biological brothers influenced sexual orientation; there was no effect of adopted siblings. Bogaert concluded that his finding strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.