This article was downloaded by: [Charles B Nam]On: 06 February 2014, At: 12:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Biodemography and Social BiologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hsbi20

Sex predetermination: Its impacton fertilityGerald E. Markle a & Charles B. Nam aa Department of Sociology , Florida Stale University ,Tallahassee, FloridaPublished online: 23 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Gerald E. Markle & Charles B. Nam (1971) Sex predetermination:Its impact on fertility, Biodemography and Social Biology, 18:1, 73-83, DOI:10.1080/19485565.1971.9987902

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1971.9987902

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Sex Predetermination: Its Impacton Fertility*

Gerald E. Markle and Charles B. Nam

Department of SociologyFlorida Stale UniversityTallahassee, Florida

In recent years, much has been writtenabout techniques which allow people to con-trol the number and spacing of babies. With-in a few years, a refined technique of familyplanning may allow people to predetermine,prior to conception, the sex of their unbornchildren. People would then be able to real-ize their ideal family, not only with respectto spacing and number but also sex com-position.

The research reported in this article wasdesigned to achieve the following five pur-poses:

1. Measure the extent of public knowledgeconcerning biological research develop-ments in sex predetermination.

2. Determine the extent to which people arein favor of, uncertain about, or againstthe idea of sex predetermination for them-selves and for others.

3. Ascertain some of the major influencesaffecting predispositions to accept thisnew technique for themselves and others.

4. Determine which social variables are as-sociated with opinions toward sex pre-determination.

5. Examine the probable association of sexpredetermination and fertility patterns.

TECHNIQUES OF SEXPREDETERMINATION

The idea of sex predicting, and even sexchoosing, is not new. According to Gordon(1958), an Egyptian papyrus written about

4,000 years ago predicted that women withgreenish cast were certain to have boys. TheHebrew Talmud went further. I t forecastthat placing the marriage bed in a north-south direction favored the conception ofboys.

Zirkle (1958) has outlined three ancienttheories of sex determination. The ancientHebrews believed that each testicle con-tained semen of one sex; the right testiclecontained male semen while the left onecontained female semen. A second prevailingtheory was that the sex of the offspring wasthe same as the gender of the most "heavilysexed parent." A third theory advocatedthat sex was determined by the direction ofwind at the time of coition. North windbegot males; south wind begot females. Ac-cording to Zirkle, this last theory faded outin the seventeenth century.

Although techniques of sex predetermi-nation have not yet been perfected, no majorbiological or chemical breakthroughs arenecessary to implement the technologyneeded for sex choosing. Etzioni (1968) pre-dicted that the predetermination of sex isfive years away, while Taylor (1968) fore-casted sex choosing sometime before 1975.

* Revision of a paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Population Association of America,Atlanta, Georgia, April 18, 1970.

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

Markle and Nam Social Biology

Kahn and Weiner (1967) stated that one ofthe hundred technological innovations fore-cast for the next 33 years is the "capacityto choose the sex of unborn children."

There are two general strategies forchoosing the sex of unborn children. Thefirst is artificial insemination following theseparation of semen into X and Y sperm.The second calls for selection against onetype of sperm within the reproductive tractof the female after natural intercourse.

In the past several years there have beenmany advances in techniques for separatingorganic molecules, cellular components, andcell types. Because X sperm are heavier thanY sperm, the two can be separated by cen-trifuging at high speeds for short periods oftime. Using bull semen, Lindahl (1958) hasreported excellent separation of male sperm(quantified by determining sex ratios afterartificial insemination). However, the Xsperm were apparently damaged by the highgravitational forces generated. Neverthe-less, in the ten years since this work, centrif-ugation techniques have been refined con-siderably and this method possibly holdspromise of success.

Even more promising is the separation ofsemen in an electrical field (electrophoresis)followed by artificial insemination. Usingrabbit semen, Gordon (1958) has reportedcorrectly predicting the sex of females in71% of the cases, while prediction for maleswas 64%. Human sperm can also be sepa-rated by this technique. To date, however,no insemination has been tried with sepa-rated sperm, primarily because it has beenimpossible to quantify the separation priorto breeding. However, Barlow and Vosa(1970) have developed a staining procedurewhich differentiates between X and Ysperm. According to Nature magazine's"News and Views" (1970, p. 897) "the tech-nique will certainly afford a useful test ofsuccess to those who are trying to separatemale and female determining sperm as ameans of sex control." With some refine-

ments, in vitro separation of semen followedby artificial insemination seems to be themost promising technique for actual usein the near future.

Other scientists have opted for methodswhich would avoid artificial insemination.About thirty years ago, there was some ex-citement over the use of acid and alkalinedouches. Supposedly, an alkaline doucheafter intercourse completely selected againstX sperm (Cook, 1941). However, other sci-entists were unable to duplicate these results.

There is one method of sex choosingwhich enjoys some popularity today. Sinceit is known that Y sperm swim faster thanX sperm, Shettles (1961) has postulated amethod of sex choosing based on the rhythmtechnique. If intercourse occurs shortly afterovulation (when the egg is high in the Fal-lopian tube) there will be a greater chancethat fertilization will be by a Y sperm. Al-though the reliability of this technique isquestionable, a new drug, Estrindex (TaraIndustries, Inc.), is now being marketedwith the specific intent of facilitating sexpreselection.

I t seems probable, however, that thetechnology of sex choosing will be refinedwithin a few years. Assuming that this inno-vation were adopted, what kind of demo-graphic and social psychological implica-tions would this technology have on humanpopulations?

EARLIER FINDINGS ON SEX PREFERENCESAND THEIR IMPACT ON FERTILITY

There are two levels of analysis whichyield markedly different perspectives. Atthe macro-analytic level, the world popula-tion explosion has already challenged the"how many" question. The "what kind"question is more complex and certainly lessimportant at this point in history. However,many scientists, as well as laymen, in theabsence of empirical data, are alarmed atthe possible consequences of sex predeter-

74

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

Vol. 18, No. 1 Sex Predetermination 75

mination. As the journal Science (1957, p.1059) stated in an editorial:

The obvious problems that are likely to ariseif successful control of human sex determina-tion becomes practicable . . . makes onewonder whether human beings have yetacquired the wisdom to make use of suchwide powers.

While such macroscopic problems are ofultimate importance, this study was de-signed to analyze some possible problems onthe more immediate microscopic level. Withthe individual or family as a focal point, sexpredetermination for some would have astrong positive effect. People could controla critical variable in their family planningor correct previous sex imbalances in theirfamily. However, for many others, the avail-ability of sex predetermination techniquescould be a mixed blessing. As Michelmore(1968, p. 412) stated:

Many scientists think the day is not far offwhen parents will be able to choose the sex oftheir children. It will be interesting to seewhat effects this has on the population.There are already millions of people quiteincapable of making a decision. How willthis vast army of "don't knows" react whenfaced with so important a choice?

From a demographic point of view, sexpredetermination could influence three im-portant population variables: first-child pat-terns, sex ratio, and family size. If sex choos-ing becomes a reality, the relative socialvalues of bearing male or female childrenwould be critical. Ideal family sex ratioswould become real sex ratios. As WilliamGraham Sumner (1906, p. 312) said:

In all variations of the life conditions, in allforms of industrial organization and at allstages of the arts, conjunctures arise inwhich the value of children fluctuates andalso the relative value of boys and girls turnsin favor, now of one, now of the other.

There are data to suggest that Sumner'sstatement could be more specific today.May and Heer (1968) cite evidence whichshows that, in India, parents would ratherbear male than female children. Williamson

(unpublished) demonstrated that there is apreference for male babies in many diversecultures around the world.

In the United States, Dinitz, Dynes, andClarke (1964) asked unmarried college stu-dents to indicate their sex preferences fortheir future children. The results were strik-ing. When confronted with the hypotheticalpossibility of having only one child, 91%of the males and 66% of the females wanteda boy. Concerning the first child of the fam-ily, men and women chose similarly: 60%wanted a boy; 5% chose a girl; and 34% ex-pressed no preference (a choice not availablefor the first question). When religion wascontrolled, Catholics and Jews chose boysoverwhelmingly, while Protestants favoredboys somewhat less.

Winston (1932) studied 55 upper-classstudents, recording anonymously their de-sire for marriage and children. In total, thestudents wanted 86 boys and 52 girls, a65% greater demand for males over fe-males. Other studies (Clare and Kiser, 1951;Freedman, Freedman, and Whelpton, 1960)showed a similar preference for male chil-dren.

There is good evidence that the prefer-ence for male children is more than ideal.Winston (1932) studied 5,466 high-incomecompleted families and found that therewere 8,329 males born alive as compared to7,434 females, which gave a sex ratio atbirth of 112.0 (compared to the nationalaverage which was 105.6). The sex ratio ofthe last child born to these families was117.4; that is, significantly more familiesstopped having children after they had aboy than after they had a girl. Westoff et al.(1961) found that when the first child wasa boy the interval before a second child wasconceived averaged three months longerthan when the first child was a girl. In otherwords, people already make crude efforts todetermine the sex composition of theirfamilies.

Etzioni (1968), summarizing the demo-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

76 Markle and Nam Social Biology

graphic implications of sex predetermina-tion, predicted that such a technology wouldresult in a 7% increase in male children inthe United States. Implicit in this forecastare two assumptions: that, in time, sexchoosing would be adopted by virtuallyeveryone and that people would choose thesex according to past indications.

Along with the desire to have more boysthan girls, there is the concomitant wish tohave at least one of each sex in completedfamilies. This line of reasoning has led in-vestigators to postulate that sex predeter-mination would result in smaller families(Pohlman, 1968). Clare and Kiser (1951)and Westoff, Potter, and Sagi (1963) statedthat preference regarding the sex of childrenaffects the size of a family, but is not a majordeterminant of family size. If couples fail toachieve the desired sex composition of theirfamilies, there is pressure to have anotherchild with the hope of obtaining a propersex ratio. Using a national probability sam-ple of white females in childbearing years,Freedman (1960) stated:

Preference for at least one child of each sexhas a minor but significant influence indetermining whether couples with 2, 3, or 4children expect to have an additional child.This relationship was found to persist with anumber of socioeconomic and demographiccontrols.

To summarize, it seems evident that thetechnology of sex predetermination has suf-ficient implications in many areas of demog-raphy to merit study. As Meier (1968), dis-cussing sex choosing, stated:

At this stage of the study, the investigator...must find means for detecting new stormcenters of potential change while they arestill on the distant horizon. He must inter-pret what impact they are likely to haveupon territories in which a population prob-lem exists.

For these reasons, the authors decided toundertake a study which would throw morelight on public attitudes toward sex prede-termination and on the likely choices re-

garding the sex of children in the event thatcontrol of the process were possible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was constructed whichincluded items relevant to the several con-cerns of the study. These items covered thedemographic and social characteristics ofthe respondent, his views on ideal familysize and desired sex composition, his opin-ions about heart transplants and birth con-trol, his knowledge of developments con-cerning the process of sex predetermination,and his attitudes about sex predetermina-tion and the conditions under which theymight change.

Some 438 questionnaires were distributedto groups of students at Florida State Uni-versity, Florida Agricultural and Mechani-cal University, and Tallahassee Junior Col-lege. Of the total sample, 283 (64%) werereturned. In addition to the high rate ofnonresponse, the sample of students washeavily biased toward social science majorsand slightly biased toward females. General-izations to the broader population are notwarranted, but many of the findings are soclear-cut as to permit tentative generaliza-tions. Moreover, there are two characteris-tics of this, sample which make it worthy ofstudy. Most of these students will be mar-ried in a few years, if they are not marriedalready. The technology of sex predetermi-nation is estimated by many to be three tofive years in the future. Thus, a considerableportion of this sample will be planning theirfamilies when sex predetermination willprobably be a real option to them. Also, theeducated community may act as opinion-makers and wield influence beyond theirnumbers in determining whether sex-choos-ing will be adopted by the general popu-lation.

RESULTS

As stated previously, sex predetermina-tion, in its initial stages, will call for rather

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

Vol. 18, No. 1 Sex Predetermination 77

sophisticated techniques of birth control.Ninety-seven per cent of the sample believedthat married people should be allowed touse any method of birth control, 2% wouldrestrict people to the rhythm method, and1% were opposed to married couples usingany form of birth control. For themselves,92% favored the possible use of birth con-trol, 3% would only use the rhythm method,and 5% stated that they would never usebirth control.

Only 33 Catholics were included in thesample. However, they were overwhelminglyin favor of birth control for others (97%) andfor themselves (94%). On the other hand,there was some opposition to birth controlamong black students. While 92% of thesefavored birth control for others, 19% statedthat they would not use any form of birthcontrol.

A recent medical breakthrough which hasreceived a substantial amount of publicityis the human-heart transplant. There wasinterest in knowing to what extent the re-spondents accepted this medical innovation,since acceptance of one medical innovationmay be related to acceptance of other suchinnovations. In this sample, 88% approvedof that technique. There was little variationin this percentage among population sub-groups, indicating widespread acceptanceof this medical innovation. The rejection-acceptance patterns of past medical innova-tions thus suggest acceptance of such aninnovation as one permitting sex predeter-

mination, but the uniqueness of this partic-ular innovation could possibly create a dif-ferent set of attitudes among the public.

There is a consensus among most scien-tists that the adoption of sex-choosing bythe general population would lead to an ex-cess of male infants. With the exception ofthe study by Dinitz et al. (1964), all previ-ous predictions were based on direct evi-dence. In this study, respondents wereasked: "Ideally, how many children of eachsex would you like to have?" The data showthat this sample wanted 485 (55.4%) malesand 390 (44.6%) females. This would resultin a sex ratio of 122 males for every 100 fe-males if ideal family size could be convertedinto actual family size.

Logically extending the analysis, it wasthen determined in what order, accordingto sex, the sample wanted their future chil-dren. Table 1 makes it quite clear that es-pecially for their first child this populationpreferred male over female children.

Both men and women overwhelminglywould like their first child to be a boy. Re-gardless of their ideal family size, fully 80%of the men desired a first boy, while only 4%wanted a girl, and 16% listed no preference;79% of the women wanted a male childfirst, 12% wanted a girl, and only 9% listedno preference. After the first child, 60% ofall respondents wanted a girl for their secondchild. When ideal family size was held con-stant, of those respondents wanting onlytwo children, 76% chose a boy for their first

TABLE 1

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF PREFERRED ORDER AND SEX OF CHILDREN IN IDEAL FAMILY

OIDEB or

CHILDXEN

FirstSecond.. . . .ThirdFourth..FifthSixth

BOYS

No.

210558720116

%

792248173740

GlSLS

No.

231514963

74

%

86027532327

NO PSEPESZNCE

No.

32474436125

%

121924304033

No.

2652531801193015

TOTAI

%

100100100100100100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

78 Markle and Nam Social Biology

child and then 74% listed a girl for theirsecond child.

For those wanting additional children,48% desired a boy for their third child, and53% wanted a boy for their fourth child.As Table 1 indicates, the percentage of thoserespondents indicating no preference becamelarger with each additional child. Thus, forlarger families, the pattern of beginning witha boy and then alternating sex still exists,although somewhat weakened.

It was necessary to establish whether thesubject material of this investigation wassalient to the respondent. The data showthat about two-thirds of the women andone-half of the males in this sample have de-voted frequent thought to their future fam-ily size. However, all studies of the futureare fraught with one danger—that due to itsremoteness people have never been exposedto the ideas concerning the research topic.When this sample was asked: "Have youever heard of sex predetermination of chil-dren before?", 76% responded "yes." Ofthose who listed "yes," 60% said that theirsource of knowledge was the mass media,while 26% listed school sources (professor,textbooks, etc.), and 14% listed personalsources (parents, friends, etc.).

We are not convinced that three-quartersof these students have indeed heard of sexpredetermination, as the data would indi-cate. Many of their sources were vague;70% who listed mass media could not givethe specific source of their information. Fur-ther, many listed sources which, to ourknowledge, have never published materialin this area.

Implicit in Etzioni's (1968) analysis ofsex predetermination was the assumptionthat there would be little or no resistance toits adoption by the general population.Table 2 shows that 26% of the sample wouldlike to choose the sex of their future children,while 33% are undecided or have no prefer-ence, and 40% are opposed to the idea.

We also asked our sample if they would

favor allowing others to predetermine thesex of future children. Under these circum-stances, 40% would permit sex choosing byothers, while 36% were undecided or had nopreference, and only 18% were opposed.

Attitudes toward sex predeterminationwere unrelated to father's occupation andfather's and mother's education. However,many independent variables did have a pat-terned influence on sex-choosing attitudes,as shown in Table 2.

These data show that as class rank andage increased sex-predetermination attitudesbecame more favorable. Black and male re-spondents favored sex-choosing more thanwhite female respondents.

People who are, or have been, married("ever married") favored sex predetermi-nation much more than people who hadnever been married. Possibly, the problemsof family planning were much more relevantto this group of people. The data show thatmarried people had more frequent thoughtabout their ideal family size (70% to 58%for nonmarried people); married people alsowanted smaller families than did single peo-ple (3.05 to 3.30 children).

The relationship between sex-choosingattitudes and religious preferences is alsoshown in Table 2. The data show that therewas almost no variation among variousProtestant groups. Those who listed no re-ligion had, as a group, the most favorableattitudes towards sex predetermination. Onthe other hand, Catholics were most opposedto that innovation.

There was a complex interrelationship be-tween people's attitudes and what they per-ceived to be the attitudes of their churchestoward a given subject. No religious institu-tion has commented on the future possibilityof sex predetermination; yet, of those peoplewith church affiliations, 64% perceived thattheir church would take a specific stand onthis issue. Table 3 deals with the respon-dent's perception of his church's attitudestoward sex choosing.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

TABLE 2

PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE ATTITUDES

TOWARD SEX PREDETERMINATION, BY AGE, SEX,

RACE, CLASS RANK, AND SCHOOL GROUP

Independent Variable Favorable

Allclasses (#=283) 26

Class rank (#=280)Freshman (iV= 75) 13Sophomore ( # = 101) 24Junior (JV= 52) 35Senior (#=52) 38

Age (#=281)18 and under (#=32) 1419 (#=58) • 1720 (#=73) 2921 (#=43) 3122 through 25 (#=47) 3026 and above (#=28) 41

Race (#=277)White (#=207) 22Black (Ar= 7 0 ) . . . . 37

Sex (#=283)Ma!e(#=118) 29Female ( # = 165) 24

Marital statusSingle (#=218) 23Ever married (#=65) 36

ReligionBaptists (#=90) 28Methodists (#=51) 24Other Protestants ( # = 63) 27Catholic (#=34) 9None (#=35) 38

Not Sureor No

PreferenceNot

Favorable Total

33 40 100

37342933

224533263426

3722

3333

3530

2633305538

49423629

643838433633

4140

3842

4233

4643433624

100100100100

100100100100100100

100100

100100

100100

100100100100100

TABLE 3

PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE ATTITUDES TOWARD

SEX PREDETERMINATION, BY PERCEIVED CHURCH ATTITUDES

Not Sureor No

Perceived Attitude Favorable Preference Unfavorable Total

Do not care what church thinks( # = 4 2 ) . . . . 29 40 31 100

Do not know what church thinks(#=50) 34 36 30 100

Church neutral or positive (#=51). 24 35 41 100Church negative (#=89) 19 28 53 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

80 Markle and Nam Social Biology

Those who listed no religion, had no per-ception of what their church thinks, or didnot care what their church thinks of sexpredetermination were more likely to be infavor of sex choosing than groups which hadother religious perceptions.

I t has been postulated that sex predeter-mination could decrease actual family sizeby allowing people to achieve the sex com-position of their ideal family. Table 4 showsthe relationship between sex-choosing atti-tudes and ideal family size.

Those who favored sex predeterminationwould like, on the average, 0.75 less childrenthan those who were opposed to that inno-vation. Table 4 shows that such families de-sired 0.45 less boys and 0.17 less girls. Theidea implied from these data, that sex-choosing could possibly lower the birth rate,will be developed in the discussion at theend of this paper.

It has been stated previously that the

whole concept of attitude toward a futuretechnology is rather tenuous. It should beexpected that people's attitudes toward sexpredetermination are quite fluid at this pointin history. This study was designed to testthe firmness of people's attitudes towardsex-choosing by presenting conditions whichmight make the alternative choice more orless attractive.

Presumably, if people have all childrenof one sex, they might turn to sex predeter-mination to assure them a balanced family.On the other hand, the medical techniquesby which sex-choosing might be accom-plished were never made explicit in thisquestionnaire. How would those alreadycommitted to sex predetermination react toaccomplishing that act by use of artificialinsemination with the husband's sperm orthe use of a prescription pill? Table 5 ex-amines the pattern of opinion shifts uponthe addition of extenuating circumstances.

TABLE 4

FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE ATTITUDES TOWARD SEX PREDE-

TERMINATION, BY MEAN IDEAL FAMILY SIZE, MEAN IDEAL

NUMBER BOYS, AND MEAN IDEAL NUMBER GIRLS

Ideal Favorable

Total family size 2.79No. boys 1.53No. girls 1.36

Not Sureor No

Preference Unfavorable Total

3.281.831.38

3.541.981.53

3.171.811.47

TABLE 5

PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE ATTITUDES TOWARD

SEX PREDETERMINATION, BY EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Not Sureor No

Question Favorable Preference Unfavorable

Sex choosing for others 46Sex choosing for self 26All one sex, want other 62Artificial insemination* 16Prescription pillf 30

• "No preference" was not a choice.t "Not sure" and "no preference" were not choices, but were marked anyway.

Total

3634

235

1840386265

100100100100100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

Vol. 18, No. 1 Sex Predetermination 81

Faced with an all-boy or all-girl family(even though these two situations wereposed as separate questions, the responseswere almost identical), 26% of those whowere against sex predetermination changedtheir minds, while 84% who listed "notsure" or "no preference" switched to a posi-tive evaluation of sex-choosing.

Many of those in favor of sex predeter-mination did not like the idea of using arti-ficial insemination techniques to choose thesex of their future children, however. Fully50% defected from their favorable opinion;17% changed to "no," while 33% moved toa "not sure" position. The use of a pre-scription pill would bring mixed results.Of those who favored sex-choosing, 21%changed their opinion to "not sure," while15% changed to "no." Of those against sexpredetermination, 14% would be "not sure"of the technique if it could be accomplishedby taking a pill, while 13% would favorsex-choosing under those circumstances.

DISCUSSION

The adoption, even to a limited extent,of sex-predetermination techniques wouldhave obvious implications for many areasof demography. Three consequences will beemphasized here: first-child patterns, sexratio, and the birth rate.

The data from this study and from Dinitzet al. (1964) support the contention thatmost people would like their first child to bea male. The sample for both studies wascollege students. However, other indirectevidence (Williamson, unpublished) sug-gests that the first male preference is quitegeneral, if not a universal phenomenon. Inthis study, people listed three broad cate-gories of reasons for wanting a first-bornmale: "carry on the family name," "girls areharder to raise," "a girl should have anolder brother." In a more comprehensivestudy, these reasons for wanting a first-bornmale could be further studied and analyzed.

As discussed previously, Etzioni (1968)

stated that sex choosing could cause a seri-ous imbalance in the sex ratio. There aretwo implicit assumptions in his work: thateveryone would adopt this innovation andthat they would choose the sex of their fu-ture children according to past indications.Further, these patterns of sex predetermi-nation would not only operate in the nearfuture, but also would remain unchanged inthe foreseeable future.

Concerning the first assumption, thesedata indicated that a sizeable percentage ofpeople would initially take advantage ofsex-predetermination techniques. Etzioni'ssecond assumption is impossible to test a pri-ori. However, in this study, respondentswere quite specific about the order, accord-ing to sex, of their future family. Less than25% of the sample checked "no preference"in choosing the sex composition they de-sired, and only 15% expressed no sex prefer-ence for their first two children.

But there are no data anywhere whichwould suggest if or how people would adjusttheir actual or ideal family if there were anexcess of male children. These data onlyproject into the near future and suggest thatif sex-choosing were adopted there would bean excess of male children.

It is well known that there is already anexcess of male babies at birth. A count oflive births shows that 105 males are born forevery 100 females. Thus, it might be statedthat the desire for excess male children ismerely a reflection of infant mortality ratesand that, in fact, people want balancedfamilies. This idea may be refuted for tworeasons. There is no evidence that peopleplan the sex composition of their familiestaking into account the infant mortalityrates of the sexes; rather, it is more probablethat respondents were thinking of grownchildren, not infants, in their ideal family.Secondly, even if male mortality were animportant factor in family planning, the sexratio at birth would account for little of theproposed excess males in ideal families.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

82 Markle and Nam Social Biology

These data show that if sex choosing wereadopted, initially 122 males would be bornfor every 100 females.

It has been postulated that sex choosing,if adopted, would lower the birth rate.Westoff et al. (1963, p. 207) stated that "sexpreference operates to affect family size ifthe desired sex expectation is not readilyachieved." According to May and Heer(1968, p. 208), "the prerequisite for a solu-tion of the population problem in India isreduction of the family size required to as-sure son survivorship." Here the techniqueof sex predetermination could possibly helpto reduce family size by giving people thepower to have the appropriate number ofsons, but not necessarily daughters, to meettheir desires.

These data showed a strong relationshipbetween small family size and favorableattitudes toward sex predetermination. The-oretically, there is a problem, since discus-sions of both ideal family size and sex-choosing attitudes are discussions of future

situations; causal relationships between thetwo variables are probably not easily visual-ized. What these data suggested, but did notestablish, was that people favor sex choosingso that they may have smaller families.

The authors are now planning a morecomprehensive study of probable patternsof sex predetermination and their possibleconsequences for population size and struc-ture. The larger study will survey a repre-sentative sample of the population 18 to 39years old in one city in Florida. The result-ing information should provide a sounderbasis for gauging the demographic conse-quences of an imminent but largely ignoredmedical development that promises to havea substantial impact on international child-bearing patterns.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper was adapted from Gerald E.Markle's unpublished master's thesis, FloridaState University. All data analysis was per-formed on Florida State University's CDC 6400computer under support from National ScienceFoundation Grant GJ-367.

REFERENCES

BARLOW, PETER, and C. G. VOSA. 1970. Definiteevidence for the short arm of the Y chromosomeassociating with the X chromosome duringmeiosis in the human male. Nature 226:959-962.

CLARE, JEANNE, and CLYDE KISER. 1951. Social andpsychological factors affecting fertility XIV:Preference for children of given sex in relation tofertility. Milbank Mem. Fund Quart. 29:441-492.

COOK, ROBERT. 1941. Sex control in the news again.J. Hered. 31:265-271.

DINITZ, SIMON, RUSSELL DYNES, and ALFREDCLARKE. 1964. Preference for male or femalechildren: Traditional or affectional. Marr. Fam.Liv. 16:128-130.

EDITORIAL. 1957. Sex determination. Science 126:1059.

ETZIONI, AMITAI. 1968. Sex control, science, andsociety. Science 161:1007-1012.

FREEDMAN, DEBORAH S., RONALD FREEDMAN, andPASCAL K. WHELPTON. 1960. Size of family andpreference for children of each sex. Amer. J.Sociol. 66:141-146.

GORDON, MANUEL J. 1958. The control of sex. Sci.Amer. 199:87-94.

KAHN, HERMAN, and ANTHONY WEINER. 1967.Towards the year 2000: Work in progress.Daedalus (Summer): 705-732.

LINDAHL, P. 1958. Separation of bull spermatozoacarrying X and Y chromosomes by counter-streaming centrifugation. Nature 181:784.

MAY, DAVID A., and DAVID M. HEER. 1968. Sonsurvivorship motivation and family size in India:Acomputer simulation. Pop. Stud. 22:199-210.

METER, RICHARD. 1968. Modern science and thefertility problem, p. 406-412. In Louise B. Young(ed.), Population in perspective. Oxford Univ.Press, New York.

MICHELMORE, SUSAN. 1968. Sexual reproduction,p. 412. In Louise B. Young (ed.), Population inperspective. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.

POHLMAN, EDWARD. 1968. Some effects of being ableto control sex of offspring. Eugen. Quart. 14:274-281.

SHETTLES, L. B. 1961. Conception and birth sexratios: A review. Obstet. Gynec. 18:122-000.

SUMNER, WILLIAM GRAHAM. 1906. Folkways. Ginnand Company, Boston.

TAYLOR, GORDON RATTRAY. 1968. The biologicaltime bomb. World Publishing Company, NewYork.

WESTOW, CHARLES, ROBERT G. POTTER, andPHILLIP C. SAGI. 1963. The third child: A studyof prediction of fertility. Princeton Univ. Press,Princeton.

WESTOFF, CHARLES, ROBERT G. POTTER, PHILLIP

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4

Vol. 18, No. 1 Sex Predetermination 83

G. SAGI, and E. MISHLER. 1961. Family growthin metropolitan America. Princeton Univ. Press,Princeton.

WILLIAMSON, NANCY E. Son preferences around theworld. Library of the Harvard Center for Popula-tion Studies. Ms.

WINSTON, SANFORD. 1932. Birth control and sexratio at birth. Amer. J. Sociol. 38:226-231.

ZIRKLE, CONWAY. 1958. The knowledge of hereditybefore 1900, p. 35-55. In L. Dunn (ed.), Ge-netics and the 20th Century. Macmillan andCompany. New York.

Erratum

LARRY D. BARNETT: Political affiliation and attitudestoward population limitation, Social Biology, 17:124-131.

The second footnote to Table 2 on page 128 should givea chi-square value of 5.81 (not 5.54), making this calcula-tion significant at the 0.06 level. Also, at the top of page129, the educational categories should not appear.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cha

rles

B N

am]

at 1

2:09

06

Febr

uary

201

4