In my last long post, I discussed a preference in many societies for baby boys as opposed to baby girls. I also promised to discuss how in some societies, men believe women can choose the sex of their child during conception or pregnancy.

I would like this post to be the first in some loose series about how biology—especially related to human sexuality and reproduction—is so important. In order to describe the biological basis of sexism in the world, we must be informed of that biology and what is scientifically observable versus what is not observable or impossible.

So I will begin with the biological truth: Women cannot choose the sex of their children. Put very simply:

A baby’s genetic sex is determined at the time of conception. When the baby is conceived, a chromosome from the sperm cell, either X or Y, fuses with the X chromosome in the egg cell, determining whether the baby will be genetically female (XX) or male (XY). To be genetically female, one needs to be (XX), whereas to be a genetic male, (XY) is needed. It is the Y chromosome that is essential for the development of the male reproductive organs, and with no Y chromosome, an embryo will develop into a female. This is because of the presence of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome, also known as the SRY gene. (Source)

Since the male contributes the sperm cell in mammal sexual reproduction, it is actually his biological contribution that determines whether the baby will be male or female.

Of course, men also cannot control whether the sperm cells they produce have X chromosomes or Y chromosomes, or which of those sperm cells which reach a female egg fastest. Once the sperm reaches the egg and burrows in and genetic material from the mother and father are combined, the entire genetic sequence of the zygote has already been determined and there is no possible way with available science to change it.

With technological advances such as in vitro fertilization, parents can choose the sex of their child. However, it is important to note that this is expensive and invasive. In the United States in 2012, less than 2% of babies are born through in vitro fertilization, and I couldn’t find statistics on how many of those parents chose the sex of their baby.

Given that the USA is a wealthy country with generally better access to cutting-edge healthcare than most (although poor people in the USA are cut off from healthcare and this is unacceptable) we can reasonably assume that globally, a vast majority of babies are conceived through penis-in-vagina sex and not in a laboratory with a scientist able to determine the chromosomal characteristics of the zygotes.

Even in these laboratories, doctors and scientists screen the available embryos for viability and choose the healthiest ones (without chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome of Turner Syndrome) to use for the pregnancy, and discard the others or use them for genetic research. From here, if there are many viable embryos, some doctors will give parents a chance to choose some characteristics for their potential child(ren).

As geneticists discover more about the human genome, we have a better idea of which genetic sequences determine which characteristics in people and we can use this biological knowledge and technology to make reasonable assumptions about certain traits.

For example, we can use genetic sequencing to determine whether a person carries the recessive trait for an extremely painful and terminal disease called Tay Sachs. If both biological parents carry the recessive gene for Tay Sachs, there is a 25% chance they could have a baby with the disease.

People who suspect this is a possibility (as perhaps they come from a background where it is more common, like having Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, or have had someone in their family die of the disease) have very good reasons to be aware of this and, if they can afford it, take measures to save their potential child from a short, painful life and early death. These measures might include:

Having both parents tested for the recessive trait before trying to become pregnant in order to make more informed decisions.

Undergoing amniocentesis during pregnancy to determine whether the fetus has two recessive traits (and could eventually be born with the disease), and considering aborting a fetus that does.

Using in vitro fertilization and discarding embryos that would grow into babies with the disease, and only implanting healthy embryos.

Using donor eggs or donor sperm from a biological parent without the recessive trait for the disease to so offspring do not have the disease.

Adopting a child born without the disease.

Choosing not to have children because of the possibility they might bring someone into the world with a short and painful life.

Advances in genetic screening and reproductive technology have already reduced the number of babies born with horrible genetic disorders like Tay Sachs, but haven’t eliminated them. About 16 cases of Tay Sachs are diagnosed annually in the United States. Without using the technology mentioned above, it is simply impossible to know genetic information about a zygote, embryo, or fetus until the baby is born.

Most people in the world conceive children through penis-in-vagina sex, and whether this conception was planned or unplanned, it is impossible to choose any characteristics of the zygote through this method.

Following conception, parents may learn the sex of the fetus through amniocentesis or, later in pregnancy, an ultrasound. Sex-selective abortion is common in many parts of the world, and usually female fetuses are aborted.

Still, as all this evidence has shown, it is impossible to change the sex of a human being once the egg has been fertilized. At no point during pregnancy can a woman—or a doctor or scientist—change the sex of the fetus.

Furthermore, it is impossible to choose specific genetic traits that will be passed on through penis-in-vagina sexual reproduction. If women could choose the chromosomal makeup of their offspring during pregnancy, why would any woman bring a baby with a painful genetic disorder into the world?





But why is any of this so important?

There is a correlation between male domestic violence against women and the preference for male offspring (Okour & Badarneh, 2011) (Mahapatro, et al, 2011). Many women cite their husbands’ preferences for boys as a reason for intimate partner violence and discuss pressure to give birth to sons. People who do not understand how sex is biologically determined sometimes believe that women can choose the sex of the baby. Some husbands become angry with her and react with violence when she has a daughter instead of a son. In many cases, that daughter might also be a victim of domestic violence.

Discussing this is important because we need to acknowledge the biological basis for sexism to change it at all. Science is concrete and observable. We can build our arguments in scientific facts and logical reasoning and wield these arguments against the unscientific things like gender roles that harm us.

While there are still “flat earthers” in the world, reasonable people with any education on the subject now understand the earth is round. We can use observable scientific fact to show this. People can deny it, but they aren’t using facts and logic. They’re using conspiracy theories that aren’t supported by science.

In such a way, I believe sexism is very much a material reality and needs to be fought with scientific and logical arguments that work toward clear and concrete goals. By this I mean:

Women are adult human females, and many women will be pregnant and give birth during their lifetimes.

Some men believe that women can choose the sex of the fetus during pregnancy and blame the mother when the sex is not the one they preferred. Sometimes, this is used as a reason for violence against the woman or the child. This is one material example of sexism.

Women are biologically incapable of choosing the sex of their offspring without using expensive and often inaccessible technology like in vitro fertilization. The sex of a zygote cannot be changed during pregnancy.

Educating men with these facts might discourage them from abusing women for the sex of their offspring, or at least take away this reason. This makes it more difficult for men to attempt to justify acts of violence.

Is this issue alone the core of male violence? I really don’t think so. It often seems that feminists are playing a game of whack-a-mole. As soon as we get rid of one sexist myth, another one pops up for men to use as an excuse to commit violence. (Women can choose the sex of the child, women always bleed the first time they have sexual intercourse, vaginas become looser if a woman has more sexual partners, a baby will die if it touches the clitoris, a menstruating woman will contaminate anything she comes into contact with, female orgasms don’t exist, rape cannot result in pregnancy, the list goes on…)

But by undermining these myths one-by-one, we are slowly taking away any perceived rationality or excuse behind sexism, and exposing how irrational these men are. We are also evening out the playing field for when we do have discussion about the societal implications of gender and patriarchy. It is impossible to hold a rational discussion if the basis for that discussion is itself irrational.

“Well,” you might say, “even if a woman could choose the sex of her baby, it’s her pregnancy and that doesn’t warrant violence.” And I would absolutely agree with you. However, pragmatically, it is much easier to categorically disprove a scientific falsehood than entertain a hypothetical discussion.

I am certainly interested in discussions about more abstract sociological concepts, but I am most interested in liberating women. We need to lay out concrete reality—the truths and the myths—in order to properly discuss how these sociological phenomena came to be, to what extent they are human creation, how they affect us, and if or why they should remain the same or be changed.