30 million more men than women in China by 2020

[sui.generis]

Half of them have an Y chromosome, half an X. How would the mother's hormones (assuming that they do chance when she has to do a different job) influence which of those millions (/billions) of sperm cells reaches the egg?

It's not known. One way that has been suggested is that gondotropin (I'm too lazy to make sure I spelled that right), the suspected culprit, affects vaginal acidity, and that that gives some sperm an advantage over others. If you can accept that tempature affects the sperm on the father's side, why is it more a leap to suspect a similar mechanism on the mother's side?

but I am still skeptic.

There's nothing wrong with that. As I said, it is science, but it isn't science fact. Without people asking why and how, progress doesn't happen. The sheer weight of things we don't really understand is crippling, and every discovery we make only increases the number of mysteries in our world. One of the things that really bothers me is that we don't understand how a lot of medicines on the market work, even though we know they are effective.

[chenpv]

Interesting discussion.

From a biological stance, it indeed oversimplifies the much unknown process of sex determination in mammals, if we take sex chromosome as the only determinant into consideration. Though almost 99%, or even 99.99% individules in all spieces of mammals strictly abide by this Law of Nature, some uncanonical cases did occur and seem to go against the X/Y determinant, which asks for some more scientific explanations people unfortunately haven't achieved. So as sui.generis had pointed out, I would tend to regard any attempts at this question a way of exploring the unexplored, which needs more upcoming scientific facts.

Speaking of hormones as in the process of sex determination, it is undoubtedly very unreasonable to shrug off the might-be significant effects of female hormones (or other effectors from the maternal side) for the lack of evidence, but I do have some doubts on that female hormones can take effects on sperms during fertilization. On the ground that chromosome is very compact and inactive (maybe, I guess?) in a small cell in sperm, the successive signal transduction pathways and relative regulations in all levels in response to female hormones do not seem to be triggered under such conditions. Besides, hormones are those molecules in tiny tiny amounts which can cause great physiological effect by magnifying mechanisms. Then how are they regulated by the body in a simple and efficient way, if they do affect sex, so as to lower their possibility of malfunction to the minimum? Of course, it might be too much delicate a mechanism for us to know with current science and technology, but come on...

Now put this hormone question to a broader scale, as if it could be a way out for gender disparity in a population. Well, I don't know seriously, but consider this question (I don't if it has been discussed in the book.): Is it possible the great gender disparity in one area will also greatly affect the behaviors of females in other areas, where no gender disparity is discerned, by way of hormones? Maybe yes, maybe no. but you know, what's the limit? Does this thoery suggest polygynic man will have more baby boys (if the family are living some remote area), and likewise, polyandric woman more baby girls?

[Lu]

Does this thoery suggest polygynic man will have more baby boys (if the family are living some remote area),

That's easy enough to investigate. There are still plenty of societies where men are polygynic, just count the number of boys and girls born and you should get an idea.

sui.generis: I am still skeptic, AFAIK there is just virtually no difference between sperm cells carrying a Y chromosome and sperm cells carrying an X, and I really don't see how any hormones or acidity or whatever would be able to let more Y than X's come through. But it's also possible that my knowledge of biology just falls short here. I would be interested to know more about this, if someone would find an article.

[adrianlondon]

The Chinese government, according to the BBC, is taking action to rebalance the genders. No, not forced sex-change operations or compulsory trips to gay nightclubs ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6963445.stm

To quote a bit in case you're firewall illiterate :

The Chinese government says it is drafting new laws to tackle the growing gender imbalance caused by the widespread abortion of female foetuses. The practice is already banned, but new rules are expected to set out specific punishments for parents and doctors.

China's Family Planning Association (CFPC) has revealed the extent of the imbalance - in one city there are eight young boys for every five girls.

Experts fear the phenomenon could have unpredictable social consequences.

Some believe that with millions of men unable to find a wife, there could be risks of increasing anti-social and violent behaviour.

[Woodpecker]

Some believe that with millions of men unable to find a wife, there could be risks of increasing anti-social and violent behaviour.

That's interesting. Do they have any evidence to back this up?

Back to an earlier point: whether a man finds a wife or not isn't really determined by how many girls there are, unless love is taken out of the equation. Polygamy might not be possible unless it is legally enforced. Even then, what if each of the man's seven wives each produces seven girls? The ratio of boys to girls in such a situation is surely no less random than it was before; just that there will be more of them whatever the outcome.

[芳芳]

Polygamy might not be possible unless it is legally enforced. Even then, what if each of the man's seven wives each produces seven girls? The ratio of boys to girls in such a situation is surely no less random than it was before; just that there will be more of them whatever the outcome.

How do you expect to have men with 7 wives with more men than women?

No, the solution is polyandry.

[Woodpecker]

Polygamy might not be possible unless it is legally enforced. Even then, what if each of the man's seven wives each produces seven girls? The ratio of boys to girls in such a situation is surely no less random than it was before; just that there will be more of them whatever the outcome.

How do you expect to have men with 7 wives with more men than women?

No, the solution is polyandry.

I meant whatever the outcome there will be more CHILDREN, not more boys over girls!! Anyway, how would polyandry change anything? Surely in reproductive terms it amounts to the same thing?

[gougou]

I take it when others refer to polyandry, their point is not to give birth to more girls, but to make sure that everybody can be in a relationship. It is not meant to cure the problem, only to alleviate its effects.

[davidzq]

I thought I once read that someone was studying in China, the relationship between TB (of a parent) and the sex of the resulting child... (ie: that more boys statisically tend to result). Anyone else heard of this?

[ABCinChina]

The ultimate solution to this problem is as follows.

If the first baby is a girl, then the family will be allowed to have another baby. If it is two girls, than too bad. But if the first one is a boy, then there can be no more babies. This will get the population to even out over the long run.

Also, exceptionally wealthy or good-looking people will be allowed an exception granted only by the government. Any comments?

[gougou]

Apart from the good-looking part, that is pretty much what is happening. In the countryside, you are allowed to have a second child if the first is a girl. However, I am dubious of this rule's merits. For once, it confirms the idea that girls are worth less than boys. Furthermore, about one in four families will end up with two girls. Why would somebody who is unhappy with one girl be happy with two?

(Also, this is not going to even out the population. In comparison to a strict one-child policy, all you are doing is increasing the chances of boys when girls are needed.)

And exceptions for exceptionally wealthy, well, you've got them for every rule in China. But for the one-child policy, you don't even need to be all that wealthy: even in the countryside, there's a significant amount of people that will illegally get a second child and just pay the fine.

[Woodpecker]

"Also, exceptionally wealthy or good-looking people will be allowed an exception granted only by the government. Any comments?"

Yes: that is unfair. The only difference between the wealthy and the poor is the amount of money. The rules should not be bent just because the rich have lots of money. I know this is an exaggeration, but it's like saying: "all middle-class murderers will be sent to jail. All rich murderers will remain free men (and women)". If you make a rule, you make it for everybody. No exceptions.

[gougou]

But in this case the argument might be that if you're rich, you can better support your children. In the poorer parts of the country, there's still a lot of families that have trouble feeding their children.

However, as it is mostly poor people that want a lot of children, while many rich people are happy with just one or even completely childless, that rule would do little good.

[muyongshi]

However, as it is mostly poor people that want a lot of children, while many rich people are happy with just one or even completely childless, that rule would do little good.

I agree with you completely but I see more and more middle class people not wanting any children at all. I was quite surprised by this as it seems to me that it is usually the middle class that have the medium sized families with the poorer having larger ones and the rich being the one or none. I wish I was a statistician and had time to do all these numbers but alas...

[ABCinChina]

I guess that I've always believed that the Chinese race needs to be physically stronger, taller, and even better looking. Since I was a kid, I've always hated being plagued by stereotypes. After reading about Nazi Germany and their plans in a superior race, I thought the same principle can be applied to Chinese people. (The Nazis set up these breeding camps where ideal attributes were picked out to hopefully improve the race) And this plan can only work in a communist government such as China. Of course, this idea would never work due to the ethical issues, but a little daydreaming never hurts anyone.

Regarding the more boys than girls born problem, I think my idea would work fine. You can only have one child is the first-born is a boy. If it is a girl, then you may try again one more time at your own risk. 1 out of 2 the family will get a boy on the second try, while 1/4 the family will get another girl. (Since the chances of landing two heads when flipping a coin are 1/4) This will indeed increase the female population and thus eliminate the problem. I do not see how this would not work.

[muyongshi]

Let me put it to you mathematically and maybe you will see my point.

Family A has a boy- stops having children

Family B has a girl- tries again and gets a boy

Now we have a ratio of 2:1 still more boys than girls

Now obviously Family B could have another girl so in which case the ratio flips. So if you combine the possibility and you would still wind up with more boys than girls

Family A has a boy

Family B has a girl and a boy

Family C has a girl and a girl

(and by the way the chances are still 50% not 25% percent because each time it is 50%. You can't do a summation of the "flipping twice" because each time the probability resets itself in these type of situations. Now if you said the probability of having two girls then it is only 25% but on a second try the probability of them having a girl is still 50%)

Now looking at my example above it all comes out equal except for the fact that we are starting with more boys than girls anyway.

Yes there are a hundred outliers where Family A has a girl and stops and family B has a girl and boy and so on and so forth.

My point is that it may work but there is no guarantee for it work. Your solution does not guarantee and increase in female population or in a reduction of gender gap. It is possible that it only leads to a wider gender gap.

[ABCinChina]

Ok I hear your point, but there are very many families that stop having children after one girl. Your example also would need to have another family (D) listed which would make there slightly be more girls than boys. If everybody follows the plan (which they might not) it would look like this...

Family A has a boy

Family B has a girl (and stops)

Family C has a girl, then a boy

Family D has a 2 girls (must stop) <-- at this point there are 4 girls for every 2 boys.

If the original idea does not guarantee a rise in population of girls, then to further increase the girls in the population, the total offspring number can be set to (say 4) meaning that all families will be allowed to keep having kids until they have a boy or until the set limit of offspring. Of course that means that 1 out of 16 families will have 4 girls which might be unfortunate depending on how the family views the situation. Then it would look like this clearly making more girls than boys in the long run.

Family A has a boy (must stop)

Family B has a girl (and stops)

Family C has a girl and a boy

Family D has a girl and a girl (then stops)

Family E has 2 girls, then a boy

Family F has 3 girls (only one more try) <-- at this point there are 9 girls for every 3 boys!

and so on...(too bad I'm not good at statistics, but this would clearly make much more girls than boys)

[Simon_CH]

Hi, I just read this article,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6983716.ece

and wondered if this shortage of brides, girlfriends, partners that affects this current generation has any visible impact in every day life. I am very interested in real life stories, or experiences that somehow highlight this problem in Chinese demographics. Or is that a problem that affects rural Chinese only who stay in their home provinces, with little visible effect for you? (assuming most foreigners stay in cities where this trend may not be as visible?)

[imron]

merged with existing topic.

[gerri]

The problem (talking more to the girlfriend issue) is actually a whole lot worse already, speaking from the perspective of someone at a rather rural university:

In spite of there being rather more girls than guys here (at least in the departments I know - obviously, not science), the girls chase after those guys who are (said to be, anyways) well-off because they have well-off and well-connected parents. So, if you are a poor guy, forget it.

This is even accepted to such an extent that male students typically say that they may (with a bit of luck, and since it's good for "face" for both) have a girlfriend now, but can't even consider marriage before they are able to afford the usual car, house or apartment, thus have a stable job (yeah, sure, stable, in this day and age).

The girls typically do look for boyfriends, against the will of their parents, but things will not be taken too far... building a future together is not exactly the Chinese way of thinking, and if you lose your virginity, it's better to the good guy you'll marry or you'll not be getting a good guy... thus, again, the focus is on the male's (earning) potential and the security he is supposed to provide.

I loved it, though, when a (female) student, to my question of whether, jobs being so hard to come by, they'd consider just looking to marry rather than find work, replied "it's still much easier finding a good job than a good man" - shows the same kind of thinking, but at least with a twist...