Some thoughts on determination of the gender of the child before it is born
Or something on secondary and moreover primary genders’ relationsForum on Women's Reproductive ChoiceC÷àñòüå
TERRA GENEALOGICA
SOME THOUGHTS ON DETERMINATION OF THE GENDER OF THE CHILD BEFORE IT IS CONCIEVED
Or something on secondary and moreover primary genders’ relations
We are still to explore the worlds of unknown fantasies;
The world of surrounding realities? – If only we could understood it…
From antique authors We hope that you have looked through the article of Geodakyan “The evolutionary theory of genders” since a lot of what discuss here is based upon the article.
All the evolutionary progressive forms of animals (mammals, birds and insects) and some plants are of two genders. Geodakyan still in the 60-ies said that differentiation of genders is a form of informational contact with the environment, specialization according to the two main aspects of evolution – the conservative and the operative one. We shall add that this system is quite flexible, mobile and, after all, effective according to the variety of its indicators. This system allows utilizing the possibilities of “the existence niche” at the level of population. It includes widening and exploring of the niche.
TWO GENDERS ARE A BALANCED FUSION OF TWO INFORMATIONAL AND ENERGETIC STREAMS,
or looking for origins of peace and love
The idea of evolution consists of two necessary and polar aspects - survival and mutation. The species suited to survive ought to accumulate strength in order to remain functional under conditions of energy entropy. Such necessity allows utilizing the environment favorable to the species as much as possible. Evolution, so far at least dealing with human, allowed this as well. On the other hand, if the environment was not as favorable to the species they had to plan their life with a lesser usage of energy. It means that there should have been less of energy entropy, and that there should have been more of informational entropy as far as finding favorable “niche of existence” was concerned. And this meant that the species were deprived of a lot of things. There was no time to think of adventures. The species were concerned about simple survival.
It’s evident that for one individual as well as for a whole part of the population it is quite hard to realize these mutations and to survive them. This process follows the pattern “from rags to riches” and “went for wool and returned clipped”. It’s only logical to assume that if the conditions are favorable the species are going to be more open, and to the contrary – if the conditions are unfavorable the species will try harder to protect themselves and they won’t be “outgoing”.
Preservation (as a temporary measure) is also reasonable if the situation is indefinite. And when the situation is definite, there are always tries to change it for better (it concerns evolutionary successful individual or species only). Even if the existence is a pure survival (this is where you need successful search activeness), if it’s like there’s no light at the end of the tunnel (compare to the war period), if there are no tries to change the situation for better – the population can simply die out. It means that we need to have a constructive and positive perception of reality.
With these conclusions, the author doesn’t quite agree with Geodakyan’s interpretation of a steady environment as the optimum one. But we shall discuss it later on.
Let us quote Geodakyan: “If you take two streams of information – general (transporting the genetic information from generation to generation, from past to future) and ecological (the environmental information that is to be passed from present to future), - you can see that two genders participate in this activity differently. In the process of gender evolution at different levels of organization a whole group of mechanisms has appeared. They provided a more close connection of the females with the conservative stream (the phase, where part of the original genetic material and the potential for the future kids are created, takes place only at the time when the future mother is not born yet; this phase takes place during the ontogenesis, in the phase of ovule’s meiosis in the mother’s reproductive system that is only being formed – the author), and a closer connection of the males with the ecological (or operative) stream. In comparison with females, males have a higher frequency of mutations, they do not combine the features of the two parents as often, they have the norm of reaction (which means that he is not as sensitive and can function under conditions of high informational entropy, although this term is relative – the author), aggressiveness and inquisitiveness, active search system, risky behavior and other qualities that make the males “close to the environment”. All these qualities supply males with ecological information. Another group of particularities is a great extra amount of male cells, their small size, high activeness and mobility, their tendency to polygamy and other ethological and psychological characteristics. (We would like to add the third group of particularities that point at the influence of ecological and running factors. They belong to the reproductive functions of the man. In process of spermatogenesis of the males the formation of spermatozoids as genetic material happens at the same time: first - on the basis of the born parental material, and second – on the basis of constantly renewed spermatogoons which are modeled by corresponding and running hormonal phone in the meiotic phase of their formation. Only on this phase is it possible to realize typical influence on inherited informational complex of running conditions. The latter reflect the influence of the environment – the author). Long periods of pregnancy, feeding and care of the kids factually strengthen the effective concentration of the males. It turns the males into superfluous, and thus cheep, and the females into the scarce and more valuable.
It leads to the selection that avoids males (not only those who are born but also those who at the moment remain at the level of the basic genetic material of man before being conceived - relatively more spermatozoids interact with Y-chromosomes – the author), the fact that they are superfluous and cheep allow them to work with high coefficients. As the result there are not as many males as there were before, but they have a higher potential which allows them to impregnate all the females (again, this is the ideal – the author). The small number of the males passes to the descendants the same amount of information as all females (to be more exact, a male has more various personal informational sets, so to say programs, and the women have fewer sets of universal, reproductive programs that for a particular perception of outer and inner conditions use a particular personal male program, the most suited for the situation - the author). To say it differently, males have a wider canal of the connection with the posterity than females. It means that genetic information passed through the female line, is more representative, and the one passed through the male line is more selective. And this means that in the female line former diversity of genotypes is more preserved and in the male line an average genotype changes more.
Let’s pass on to population – an elementary evolutionary unit.
Any population with two genders is characterized by three main parameters. They are the proportion of the genders (their number to be more exact), the dispersion of genders (different meanings of dispersion of the sign or its diversity with males and females) and gender dimorphism. According to the theory, females have the conservative mission and the males have the operative one. The theory connects these parameters of population with conditions of the environment and evolutionary flexibility of the species.
In a steady (optimal (how often and how long? – the author)) environment, when there is no necessity to change anything (for an evolutionary successful type it’s just a nonsense – the author), the conservative tendencies are strong and evolutionary flexibility is minimal. In a moving (extreme) environment, when the flexibility needs to be higher (rather the mobility – the author), the operative tendencies get stronger. Some species, say, simplest crustaceans, realize those shifts by switching from one type of reproduction to the other one. The majority of those who have two genders this regulation is smooth – in optimal conditions the main characteristics partially disappear (there are not as many males, there’s less of their disperse and gender dimorphism), and if the situation is extreme the opposite happens (this is the ecological rule of gender differentiation).“
We’ll not agree with the mostly respected author of the quotation talking about a human. When the perception of the conditions (either objective based on the medical indicators, or subjective – based on the minimum of divergence of desires and possibilities) as optimal (minimum of informational entropy and possibility to function under conditions of sufficiently large energy entropy which is connected to the amount of physical and psychical energy; certain individuals have some best possibilities for functioning in such conditions) by both man and woman - now there are more chances that a male will be conceived. Yes, a male (we agree with Geodakyan at this point) because only males should widen the niche of existence if there’s success and not to give away the explored niche after the first shock. Under conditions of an unfavorable situation, when it’s quite hard to have a success (a large informational entropy and impossibility to function in conditions of large entropy) and the possibility of conceiving a girl, so to say, at the level of population rises.
You can’t think that, say, Afghanistan doesn’t have optimal conditions, and that the US or the Western Europe does, and thus more boys will be born there, and more girls will be born in the USA, which doesn’t coincide with the reality. It’s largely depends upon accommodation to any (in the boundaries of adaptation possibilities) conditions and in hopes for better at the usual age for bearing a child. In the USA and other developed and “fed” countries if the number of girls rises, it doesn’t happen because the people are satisfied with the life but because the people are not satisfied with how the things are, because of stresses and general feeling of unhappiness. It all happens because at a certain level of wellbeing the latter hardly correlates with the income. I have written about it in my material “What do we know of happiness?” taking the work of M. Argile for the basis.
THE GRIEF OF THE MEN’S CHAUVINISM
or some thoughts on genetic predetermination of the primary genders’ relations
Human (Nota bene!) yet remains the most evolutionary successful type. The selection of its features was made on the genetic level and the level of subconscious. This selection is being realized in favor of the ever growing production of spreaders and developers of this success which is the species of the male gender. This all is indirect proof of our hypothesis.
If we talk about the survival of the species it’s only logical to assume that in crucial moments nature (that has been developing for hundreds of millions of years) remains quite predictable. Moreover it doesn’t follow the principle “to break but not to build”. It’s doubtful that what was made fast can be flexible and steady. Nature will always retract to its prepared positions and will give away part of the potential it has accumulated (and probably it’s not going to do that with pleasure). But nature presumes that once the situation is stabilized the potential will return and it will have an even greater volume. To be more exact, nature wants to increase its potential. If not the potential of itself then the potential of the descendants. And that’s why when either on the basis of objective or subjective assumptions one can say that the situation has got worse, or it actually gets worse, the possessor of the so-called conservative origins will be preserved. This all means that more girls will be conceived. Whereas when the situation and the perception of it get better more boys are conceived.
Owing to this pattern, secondary and, of course, primary genders’ relations still benefit the males. It’s going to be a boy - should only the parents and especially the women (the people who are to bear children) be sure of their future in general and throughout the time of the conceiving in particular.
Otherwise we would have to acknowledge that the living conditions of humans as species have been getting worse, which doesn’t coincide with reality. The fact that ontogenesis actually copies philogenesis is an obvious advancement in comparison with protozoa, not to mention unicellars. It happened because of stabilization of the environmental factors which promoted spreading and creation of a wider space for existence and a deeper exploration of the old place. Of course, during the evolutionary process there were times when the deterioration was drastic for the most… (I was going to say advanced but I should say) for the laziest species. The dinosaurs could have belonged to the group of the latter.
The tendency to break the rules, to be bold and successful in every situation, be mobile and quick to react has been created for thousands of years in the genotype of human as an evolutionary successful type. This tendency is also represented in partial superiority of the males in relations between genders. We can’t but recall an outstanding thought proclaimed to be one of the Aristotle’s. It says that nature always strives to create a man and only when it fails to do so, it creates a woman. We agree with Geodakyan that only the male basis has the set of the qualities essential for this purpose. This set is not going to be changed soon neither by feminists nor by destruction of the environment of existence.
NO, GUYS! THIS IS NOT IT! THIS IS NOT IT AT ALL, GUYS!
or on the three components of the conceiving of a child.
Embryos of boys and girls start to develop during some weeks as if they all were embryos of girls and only then the difference between sexes begins to appear. Now recall that that ontogenesis repeats philogenesis. Taking this all in to consideration it becomes clear that conceiving boys at the level of diversity shows that the woman is sure that she can influence the situation as she only wishes. It means that at the level of subconscious and unconsciousness conceiving a boy is evolutionary successful. It happens when it’s clear what to do and the decision to do it has been made. There are no doubts, but there’s a purely personal motivation, inner necessity to change or develop the situation. It is, so to say, minimization of informational entropy.
But before conceiving and bearing a child in general there should be the possibility to give him the potential to be active if there’s entropy of energy. And for that reason there must be something in the mother’s body from the very beginning It should balance all the processes in the body, such as the type of temperament, character etc. even a genetic training (maybe in her family, especially in the mother line, boys were often born.
Yet, besides such, so to say, quasi-permanent components there’s a whole group of present and quasi-occasional factors (weariness, stress, the type of activity, the environment, food, diseases, and the like). They can change the condition to the better or to the worse. They all influence common energetic and physical abilities of the mother and father. And this set of influents as well as its perception with different levels of main physiological and other processes by specific bodies can be quite various. This all, obviously, can be favorable or not to conceiving a child of either of the genders.
But this all is, so to say, just “decoration”. In order to have sufficiency, reproductive organs should function well. In a developed body they function autonomously in the quasi-periodical regime of readiness. An average cycle of ability to conceive a child for women is 28 days and it coincides with ovulation (it is also the duration of emotional cycle and the cycle of Jonas-Schulman’s method). Quasi-permanent and quasi-occasional factors can partially shift this cycle in direction of increase. And as soon as this indicator is close to the periodic one, it becomes clear that it has phases more and less favorable for conceiving in general and for conceiving a child of a certain gender in particular. It’s reasonable to suggest that the most favorable and powerful phases especially at the level of ovulation in ideal should be also favorable for conceiving boys. This period of activity at the level of quasi-periodical factors follows the method of L. Shattles from Chicago, who was already famous in the 60-ies.
And yet there are some men with, so to say, no permanent affection, or men who are genetically unidentified towards a particular woman (genetically to a female). Look at your sides and behind you – look at the males of monkeys. Are there many males who can keep the female without being deprived of her by a stronger male? Very often she will leave the former for the latter. And that’s why the male of average sizes is always ready. I mean if we are talking about a man he won’t necessarily cheat but reproduction material should always be at his side. This is a genetic program of the male spermatogenesis.
It’s evident that since the conceiving is a process in which both males and females take part, in the long run embryos of different genders can be conceived. And our thoughts on preciseness of determination of the embryo’s gender will concern only polar and untypical cases. This is proven by the experiments of Doctor Valerie Grant from New Zealand. She says that one of the main signs that it’s going to be a boy is superiority and straightforwardness that comes to women at those moments. And we would emphasize confidence. One could say that some birds, mammals, deer especially (this was noticed by Valerie Grant) and human, of course, follow this principle. Dutch biologists examined the only type of small birds on the Seychelles to find what the situation is there. The biologists considered the birds’ conditions of life and their functions. If there were no usual enemies and if there was enough food more males were coming to life. And to the contrary if there was overpopulation, ever-growing discomfort, the balance was being achieved by brining to life fewer males. There was an article about it in the “Nature” magazine (1997, the 6-th edition).
We also only partially agree with the following statement of Geodokasyan that ecological stress causes a sudden jump of basic characteristics (there is grow in the number of males born, their dispersion and the number of their sexual mutation) and “those parameters of population can be the indicators of the condition of the ecological niche. It’s worth to be mentioned that the number of boys born in Karakalpak has grown by 5% during the last 10 years (1980-1990). According to the ecological rule, main parameters should increase under any natural or social cataclysms (earth-quakes, wars, famines, migrations etc).”
At the level of morphogenesis we can agree with this statement. But if we consider relations between the genders and moreover the question who is going to be conceived in every particular case, we should consider not only the statistics but the diversity of the processes that take place in the bodies and psyche of men and women. As well as running and long lasting tendencies at the moment of conceiving (we have mentioned this before). Actually everything that influences reproductive functions (ovogenesis and spermatogenesis, conditions and preferences of the conceiving act and the bearing itself). That’s why we think that, although the 5% could have been the truth, to explain this phenomenon we should have a more exact information. There are different actions of the stressors (prolongation, intensity, nature), as well as different perception of it by different species. That’s why we should consider not only environmental and ecological factors but also the condition of the psyche at the born and present levels (depending on particular factors).
COMMENTS ON SOME EXAMPLES,
the way it is beforehand is the way it is afterwards
We shall quote the lector of Saint Petersburg state Technical university of Iskrin, the author of the book Dialectics of the Genders who took the ideas of Geodokasyan as for the background (“Science and Life”, #11, 2003). “So, the scientific society and simply interested public have the bases of the genders theory at their disposal. According to the logic the next step should be explanation of the so called secondary genders’ proportions (correlation between the two genders in percentage at the time of birth, and the primary proportion concerns the day of conceiving). By that time ten if one statistical proves of deviations from the usual proportion between the born boys and girls were made. I shall discuss some of them.
First of all, the phenomenon of the war-time, when during and after the war the number of new born boys has increased drastically. Then, one cannot but mention a group of phenomena connected to the age of the parents. The older they are, fewer chances they have to born a boy. The most influential phenomena are the ones of unhealthy fathers. Fathers who suffer from diabetes, oncological, heart and other types of diseases conceived 120-130 boys and 100 girls (evidently, Iskrin confused the girls with the boys - author). A record in this row belongs to Great Britain, where after the catastrophe on the nuclear center Cellarfield (1957) irradiated fathers during the next 30 years conceived 143 girls and 202 boys (I have heard of this phenomenon as well – the author). In such a way, the secondary gender proportion in this case raised up to 141!”
So, we have already understood that with age and diseases of the parents more girls are born. We shall give another quotation of Muslow which states that at the subconscious level necessities of a higher range will not be considered reasonable until the necessities of a lower range which is closer to the level of survival are satisfied. And as it was mentioned above from the point of view of survival of the population girls are better suited for this purpose. Since under bad (in the respect of reproduction) conditions for the parents there is an objectively more adapted basic genetic material (in next mothers it was programmed during the conceiving, and the fathers according to the spermatozoids with female X-chromosomes. The situation in this case is better than with the owners of the male chromosomes). To bear a girl is easier for the mother and for the embryo itself.
For years there were experiments going on with famous and not very famous personalities and the gender of their children in different aspects. Those who suffered from diabetes (we mean the late phases) – those were mostly men – only in some cases boys were born. And even if that happened there were three girls at first. That was a sportsman from an English speaking country who won the Olympiad games in rowing for 5 times. We don’t have much information as far as Cellarfield is concerned. It would be interesting to have the data three years after the catastrophe (we could suggest that more girls were born). And then a few years later when the first shock has passed, it became obvious that there are no terrible outcomes (we mean that the entropy for the women decreased considerably; and the possibility to survive in conditions of large entropy has objectively increased too). For a certain period of time, following the principle of psychical pendulum, perception of all the indicators has shifted to the positive - which is to conceiving boys. Probably there was some aid from the government. Not like with the victims of Chernobyl. Although the author doesn’t have such information, still he answers for it with his reputation.
Iskrin following Geodakyan gives some interesting facts. Yet his interpretation of them doesn’t quite satisfy me. “In 1958 one of the provincial magazines published an article, where the author - an Armenian scholar Kamalyan - informed on proportion of boys and girls in families of the men who had worked in highland conditions. Those were workers of astrophysical stations, geological and other expeditions. In those families the proportion was 100 to 36 in favor of girls. Kamalyan suggested that this highland anomaly can be explained by lack of oxygen and mineral salt in drinking water as well as increased radiation and low pressure. He especially emphasized the contrast between the place of permanent living and the highlands.
As a real scholar Kamelyan decided to check whether his hypotheses are true and took some male rabbits up in the highland. What do you think, my dear reader, did he manage to prove his hypothesis if the rabbits-mountain-climbers after a month-and-a-half-long business trip to the mountains caused the secondary gender proportion in number 68, whereas on the farm it was 96? Don’t jump at conclusions. Read the following phrase. To the males, selected for the control and who were getting bored on the farm waiting for the contact with the females during that period of time 43 girls and 28 boys were born (the secondary gender proportion was 65).
It means that height of the place doesn’t matter. So what does then? What’s in common between the rabbits-mountain-climbers and astrophysicians? Of course continence. Both of the groups were getting boring without the females. For a rabbit one month and a half is a lot of time. And the scientists should we suppose labored in the mountains without a break for 11 months - from this vacation till the next one, as the law says. As a matter of fact, cattle-breeders know well that that if you keep your animals separated or if you use the producers rarely, the secondary gender proportion decreases, sometimes quite considerably.”
We wouldn’t tie conceiving girls to a long continence. At least for the sake of engineers. Actually, it all is quite opposite. With a high frequency of sexual relations the possibility for a boy to be conceived gets lower. And the explanations of Kamalyan are proven by other example with submariners and high flight pilots. One example more concerns professional spies and artistic personalities (Hemingway, Yevtushenko, Homelskiy and the like who have many sons from different wives is a particular case and doesn’t count here). We should not confuse the people who temporally live in mountains (mountain-climbers, geologists, astronomers etc.) with the people who live under conditions of highlands permanently, because they are long adapted at the genetic level. And rabbits as well as pigs, rats and, of course, dogs and other mammals arenot quite the comparison here.
SOME PERSONAL CONCLUSIONS,
Or and so what?
We shall stop here. And further aspects of the Geodakyan article “The Evolutionary theory of genders: is not going to be discussed here. Yet, if we need to, we will discuss modification of the genetic information, but in our own interpretation and concerning some other aspects of it. The main point is that we have taken out of this discussion is that the female gender is genetically responsible for survival of the family from the point of view of the future posterity. And the man is responsible for widening and protection of the existence niche more. This means that the frequency of conceiving shifts to the male’s side, when, if you take into consideration the indicators, the women can and know what they should do next. It’s not about suicidal moods and other pathological conditions.
We shall pay the tribute to Geodakyan. Particularly in this work (although with some conclusions of our own) a whole set of ideas that let us answer such a principle question as what is the reason for superiority of boys in secondary and primary genders’ relations. We should emphasize that this all in the evolutionary sense is a sign of successful evolution of human as species. If you wish particular passionarities (we mean confidence in thoughts and actions) of the human population. In my article “You can’t just ignore evolution” I was going to call this condition “the syndrome of being successful” but then I called it “the quasi-complex of being successful”. When I said “syndrome” I didn’t mean the medical term which is a complex of connected negative and unhealthy signs of a particular disease. I meant generalization and mobilization of positive condition of the individual and population and their determination plus self-confidence. In this condition some pathology element is present. Yet it is of Munchausen’s type: a person always solves the problem pulling his or her hair upwards, looking for a certain positive motivation (successful search activeness - add to the mentioned articles).
And undoubtedly the second conclusion (others are not to be mentioned here) is that the article has that something which can show what is in common between diversity of different types of determination of the child’s gender before it’s conceived in a natural way. There’s less information on how to select the gender before conceiving. We suppose that you can feel the difference between determination and selection, since the former shows what there is and the latter wants to achieve what is desired, which is not always possible. Is it possible for an actor to play a role which is not typical of him without a false? I think no.
In further articles the author will talk about the evolutionary side of genders’ division and also will mass around with those smells, fluids, which would point at different solution to the … But this is going to be discussed – God willing – the next time.
Yuriy Hetsko
<
<
