Are there more females than males in the world?

[ikos9lives]

If it is true, I will appreciate if somebody can share the proof/source.

 

[Pythagorean]

I actually saw a proof in an evolution book showing how equal ratios is the stable point. I'll see if I can't find it.

 

[Monique]

According to the world fact book it is 1.049 male/female at birth, but 0.803 at age 65 and over (as expected, because females on average live longer). It is 0.994 for the total population.

Based on the following data: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html

 

[mugaliens]

Males tend to engage in riskier behavior than females. As a result, their death rates at all ages are higher than for females of the same age.

 

[ikos9lives]

According to the world fact book it is 1.049 male/female at birth, but 0.803 at age 65 and over (as expected, because females on average live longer). It is 0.994 for the total population.

Based on the following data: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html

Incredible information! Thank you for that. How about in the entire animal kingdom? We can't extrapolate data on humans to the entire animal kingdom. If it's true that females are more than males, why? What's the scientific explanation?

 

[Monique]

Incredible information! Thank you for that. How about in the entire animal kingdom? We can't extrapolate data on humans to the entire animal kingdom. If it's true that females are more than males, why? What's the scientific explanation?

It depends, some animals can change their sex based on environmental conditions. Nile crocodiles for instance, where the sex is determined by the temperature during embryonic development. Some nematodes live as hermaphrodites, where males are generated spontaneously 0.01% of the time. I'm not aware of data resources on sex ratios in specific species.

 

[G037H3]

It depends, some animals can change their sex based on environmental conditions. Nile crocodiles for instance, where the sex is determined by the temperature during embryonic development. Some nematodes live as hermaphrodites, where males are generated spontaneously 0.01% of the time. I'm not aware of data resources on sex ratios in specific species.

Right, species ratios would likely be an extrapolation of ratios observed in studied populations.

 

[nismaratwork]

It depends, some animals can change their sex based on environmental conditions. Nile crocodiles for instance, where the sex is determined by the temperature during embryonic development. Some nematodes live as hermaphrodites, where males are generated spontaneously 0.01% of the time. I'm not aware of data resources on sex ratios in specific species.

There's a fish, the name of which I'm currently failing to remember which are all female except for one male in any group. If that male dies, the next largest and healthiest female begins a metamorphosis into a male, and it's not a "little thing" either, but entails major morphological changes.

I would add that AFAIK, it is all crocodilians who's gender are determined by temp.

 

[Siv]

Do you mean throughout the animal kingdom or only humans ?
I know that in some parts of Asia (including India and China), the sex ratios are horribly skewed due to the practice of female infanticide.

 

[Monique]

Hi Siv, that is indeed true (about the skewed ratios). It's in the link I provided: in the United Arab Emirates there are 2.2 males per female, which is on the top of the list.

 

[Siv]

Hi Siv, that is indeed true (about the skewed ratios). It's in the link I provided: in the United Arab Emirates there are 2.2 males per female, which is on the top of the list.

Hey Monique.

Yes, but that's a different phenomenon. Probably common in the Middle East.

What I was talking about is plain infanticide. If the baby is a girl, its killed. Sometimes if they do a 6 month scan and discover its female, they abort. Thats why in most maternity wards and scan centres you'll find the notice saying its illegal to ask for the sex of the child during a scan.

 

[Upisoft]

What I was talking about is plain infanticide. If the baby is a girl, its killed. Sometimes if they do a 6 month scan and discover its female, they abort. Thats why in most maternity wards and scan centres you'll find the notice saying its illegal to ask for the sex of the child during a scan.

Why is it illegal to ask for the sex of the child? If someone is eager to kill his own child, he'll do it after the birth. It's plain stupid to fight stupid ideas with stupid ideas. Anyway in my country it is not illegal. The birth rate here is 1.06/1 male/female. I think that birth rate can be explained by the different mass of Y an X chromosomes.

 

[Monique]

Why is it illegal to ask for the sex of the child? If someone is eager to kill his own child, he'll do it after the birth. It's plain stupid to fight stupid ideas with stupid ideas.

Your argument is ridiculous. Provide some data to show that a ban on in utero gender determination is "stupid".

I think that birth rate can be explained by the different mass of Y an X chromosomes.

Can you provide data on that as well, as far as I know it is just speculation.

 

[Upisoft]

Your argument is ridiculous. Provide some data to show that a ban on in utero gender determination is "stupid".

In my country it is legal. Some people want to know. I don't see any benefit of denying them that information. Knowing it can be helpful as you can plan in advance what you will buy for the baby. You can start buying thing appropriate for boy or girl 3 months before the birth instead doing it in hurry. Usually that translates to color choices blue vs. pink, or something like that.

Can you provide data on that as well, as far as I know it is just speculation.

I said "I think", therefore it is speculation.

 

[Monique]

In my country it is legal. Some people want to know. I don't see any benefit of denying them that information. Knowing it can be helpful as you can plan in advance what you will buy for the baby. You can start buying thing appropriate for boy or girl 3 months before the birth instead doing it in hurry. Usually that translates to color choices blue vs. pink, or something like that.

You answer is shocking. I think it should be clear that the combat against illegal abortions is more important than knowing what color to decorate a room in. I don't know what country you live in, but the fact that the birth ratio is close to average tells me that sex-biased abortions are not a major concern in your region.

 

[Siv]

Why is it illegal to ask for the sex of the child? If someone is eager to kill his own child, he'll do it after the birth. It's plain stupid to fight stupid ideas with stupid ideas. Anyway in my country it is not illegal. The birth rate here is 1.06/1 male/female. I think that birth rate can be explained by the different mass of Y an X chromosomes.

Wow, you're nice

The reason they ban in utero determination of the child's sex is because then the people who don't want girls would abort immediately. And its risky to do so after the first trimester.

 

[Upisoft]

You answer is shocking. I think it should be clear that the combat against illegal abortions is more important than knowing what color to decorate a room in. I don't know what country you live in, but the fact that the birth ratio is close to average tells me that sex-biased abortions are not a major concern in your region.

With that attitude you must also forbid teaching medicine. What if someone decides to learn how to make abortions? BTW, who makes the illegal abortions? I guess that are people having the means and the knowledge to tell the gender of the baby. You must fight the people doing the illegal activities, not the people doing their job.

 

[DaveC426913]

There's a fish, the name of which I'm currently failing to remember which are all female except for one male in any group. If that male dies, the next largest and healthiest female begins a metamorphosis into a male, and it's not a "little thing" either, but entails major morphological changes.

Betta splendens - Siamese Fighting fish

A fine example of which is currently eyeing me with consternation, wondering how me being over here pounding on these little square things is facilitating the process of it being fed.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is it illegal to ask for the sex of the child? If someone is eager to kill his own child, he'll do it after the birth. It's plain stupid to fight stupid ideas with stupid ideas. Anyway in my country it is not illegal. The birth rate here is 1.06/1 male/female. I think that birth rate can be explained by the different mass of Y an X chromosomes.

Your argument is ridiculous. Provide some data to show that a ban on in utero gender determination is "stupid". Can you provide data on that as well, as far as I know it is just speculation.

Sorry Mon, you're out of line. The onus is not on Upisoft to "show any evidence that it's stupid". His argument can be as simple as "I see no justification for it". Rather, the onus is on you to provide data that shows why the ban is justified in the first place (even if it is "well known").

 

[Monique]

With that attitude you must also forbid teaching medicine. What if someone decides to learn how to make abortions? BTW, who makes the illegal abortions? I guess that are people having the means and the knowledge to tell the gender of the baby. You must fight the people doing the illegal activities, not the people doing their job.

No, you do not need to forbid teaching medicine. These kinds of abortions are often done without any medical aid, people use needles to extract the fetus or take medications to induce abortion. It is something that is done hidden away from public view and is very dangerous for the pregnant woman. It's something done out of desperateness, because the social status of women is so different from men in those countries.

DaveC: I don't think that saying that something is "stupid" is a reasonable argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC: I don't think that saying that something is "stupid" is a reasonable argument.

Which is why I rephrased the words for him without changing the meaning. He can just as easily have said "I see no justification for this." This is perfectly valid, and puts the onus on you to offer an explicit reason why this practice is in place, which can then be debated.

 

[Monique]

There is a difference Dave, there is a standard to uphold on the forum and people should learn to be articulate.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is a difference Dave, there is a standard to uphold on the forum and people should learn to be articulate.

I agree. It's just that your initial answer of "provide some data to back up your claim of stupidness" served only to dignify a poor argument with a worse one.

 

[Monique]

Let's get back on topic, shall we? Statements should be argumented.

 

[Upisoft]

I'm sorry I didn't know the proper synonym for "stupid" that I had to use here. After all English is not my first, even not second language.

Back to the topic. You can't stop motivated killer by hiding the gun. The same is valid here. You can't stop a motivated baby killer by denying access to information. You have to fight the motivation of the crime.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can't stop a motivated baby killer by denying access to information.

A large portion of the population see a big distinction between terminating a fetus and terminating a baby. So yes, divulging knowledge of gender before birth will almost certainly result in more terminations.

How many more is what is up for debate. If the abuse of female babies remains institutionalized (poorer lifestyle, education or even banishment ) then Monique's solution has not solved the problem. In this sense Upisoft is correct, the key is to address the underlying gender bias.

 

[Monique]

Of course you need to fight the motivation of the crime as well, that does not mean that it is a basic human right to investigate the gender of an unborn baby. The only argument given so far is that the parents-to-be can decide whether to buy blue or pink clothes. Gender determination is not 100% accurate, so that might not even be a good idea anyway.

I'm sure you are aware that many things are illegal in many countries, such as owning guns or hard drugs. You could make a case that it should be freely available and that you should convince people not to own the gun or take the drug. The reality is that governments act on problems that exist in their community and make laws to regulate those problems.

Nobody is arguing that in utero gender determination should be illegal in every country, it is however an important tool to prevent premature termination of pregnancies in countries where girls are unwanted. I'm sure that some baby girls will still be killed at the moment they are born, and many will be abandoned/put up for adoption. It means a lot still needs to be done to change the social status of girls in those countries.

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course you need to fight the motivation of the crime as well, that does not mean that it is a basic human right to investigate the gender of an unborn baby. The only argument given so far is that the parents-to-be can decide whether to buy blue or pink clothes.

There doesn't need to be arguments for it. Basic technology advancement and capitalism in a free country are enough to allow anyone who wants to avail themelves of a service to do so.

The only argument required is why a government would be justified and stepping in the prevent it.

Gender determination is not 100% accurate, so that might not even be a good idea anyway.

Virtually no tests are 100% accurate. This is a non-argument.

it is however an important tool to prevent premature termination of pregnancies in countries where girls are unwanted.

This is key. What is in dispute here is whether the practice is effective in cutting down abortions while providing an acceptable quality of life to those baby girls who are born.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not against your stance, I simply think that what you're presenting is an extremely weak argument.

 

[Upisoft]

I think you will agree the problem is based on the lack of proper education of these people. Fighting the problem is giving them proper education, i.e. giving them knowledge.

Instead of giving them knowledge you deny it. That is simply the wrong signal you send to them (even if it is effective in some way). The usual reaction to this signal will be people refusing to listen, as they will expect more censure/propaganda instead real value.

 

[Monique]

Please show me some data that it is not effective, I've asked for it when you first postulated that it isn't.

 

[Upisoft]

Please show me some data that it is not effective, I've asked for it when you first postulated that it isn't.

Thats why in most maternity wards and scan centres you'll find the notice saying its illegal to ask for the sex of the child during a scan.

There is the data. If the measures that fight the real problem were effective there would be no reason for a ban.

 

[Siv]

There is the data. If the measures that fight the real problem were effective there would be no reason for a ban.

I don't see how that follows at all.

The ban has definitely reduced cases of aborting girl foetuses. But there are places where you can bribe the technician to tell you the sex anyway, and in those cases the abortions continue ...

The fundamental problem of not wanting girl babies is a bigger one, though ... and in all this bickering over technicalities, no one seems to be bothered about that

 

[G037H3]

more males

mainly because of China

 

[Siv]

more males

mainly because of China

Nope, most of Asia. Not just China.

 

[G037H3]

Nope, most of Asia. Not just China.

30 million more males than females

though I agree that other Oriental nations affect the total

But I don't really care about 'world' figures :)

 

[Monique]

I don't see how that follows at all.

The ban has definitely reduced cases of aborting girl foetuses. But there are places where you can bribe the technician to tell you the sex anyway, and in those cases the abortions continue ...

The fundamental problem of not wanting girl babies is a bigger one, though ... and in all this bickering over technicalities, no one seems to be bothered about that

I think the following article covers the issue well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20879612" ).

Arildno, you are right. I corrected the statement.

 

[Upisoft]

I don't see how that follows at all.

The ban has definitely reduced cases of aborting girl foetuses. But there are places where you can bribe the technician to tell you the sex anyway, and in those cases the abortions continue ...

The fundamental problem of not wanting girl babies is a bigger one, though ... and in all this bickering over technicalities, no one seems to be bothered about that

I completely agree with you, maybe I was not clear enough. The fundamental problem is what you say it is. And the ban is only prevention and, as you say, maybe not completely effective, but having effect.

The problem I see is that this ban does nothing to remove the fundamental problem. Further, if you want to address the fundamental problem, you have to teach these people to think different. The ban itself is censuring information. It does the 'trick' to force (most) people to keep the baby. But these people will expect more 'tricks' in the future, especially from government that say they want to share information (teach them), but in the same time are censuring the information.

 

[Siv]

I agree, Upisoft.

The trend has changed a while ago for the educated middle class. Where the practice of dowry has also drastically reduced.

However, many Indians are illiterate and below the poverty line.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, many Indians are illiterate and below the poverty line.

Some (Wiki) figures:
- India's literacy rate appears to be ~67%, as compared to the average world literacy rate of 84%.
- India's poverty rate seems to have about 42% below the extreme poverty line, compared to the world average of 21%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Absolute_poverty

 

[Gokul43201]

The problem I see is that this ban does nothing to remove the fundamental problem.

That is not its purpose. The ban prevents the equivalent of a genocide from taking place, while the slow and decades long process of changing deep-rooted social stigmas through greater access to education can take place.

 

[Gokul43201]

Back to the topic. You can't stop motivated killer by hiding the gun. The same is valid here. You can't stop a motivated baby killer by denying access to information.

This is a bogus argument (even after ignoring the use of the term "baby killer" to describe someone having an abortion). Killing a child could land you in jail for the rest of your life. Having an abortion, on the other hand, comes with no punishment. How can you not see the difference?

 

[Gokul43201]

Sorry Mon, you're out of line. The onus is not on Upisoft to "show any evidence that it's stupid". His argument can be as simple as "I see no justification for it". Rather, the onus is on you to provide data that shows why the ban is justified in the first place (even if it is "well known").

Wrong. If Upi asked what the justification for the ban was it would have been nice of someone to provide it. If Upi claims that there is no justification (which is what happened in this case), then the onus is squarely upon Upi to justify that claim. Upi, in post #12, made the first unsubstantiated claims along with personal speculation. Saying that there is no onus on Upi to fix this is just flat out silly. At this point Monique hadn't even claimed that the ban was justified, so demanding she substantiate an claim she never made is even sillier still.

 

[Upisoft]

This is a bogus argument (even after ignoring the use of the term "baby killer" to describe someone having an abortion). Killing a child could land you in jail for the rest of your life. Having an abortion, on the other hand, comes with no punishment. How can you not see the difference?

We are talking about abortion in the third trimester. Anyway, how is "death" legally defined there? Is it something about "brain activity"? At this development stage of the fetus there is definitely brain activity, so don't be surprised I consider an abortion at this stage a murder.

 

[Upisoft]

That is not its purpose. The ban prevents the equivalent of a genocide from taking place, while the slow and decades long process of changing deep-rooted social stigmas through greater access to education can take place.

And my argument is that the ban will make a slow process even slower. And also it will promote new crime. There will be people who will accept payment to tell the gender, not officially of course.

 

[Gokul43201]

And my argument is that the ban will make a slow process even slower.

It's possible, but I don't think it will have a significant detrimental effect on the process of rewiring social thought. On the other hand, there is the more obvious benefit of preventing (assuming there is some success in enforcement) millions of dangerous and arguably unnecessary abortions.

And also it will promote new crime. There will be people who will accept payment to tell the gender, not officially of course.

This is true. And while part of it is a semantic issue (although the same practice was possibly orders of magnitude more prevalent before the ban, it wasn't considered a crime then), there are problematic aspects. That the negatives outweigh the positives within a third-world setting is, in my opinion, a hard argument to make.

Out of curiosity, have you spent any significant time living in or studying the socio-economic conditions in the countries where this practice is most prevalent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chine, etc.)? There is a huge difference between the thought processes of these societies and those in the west.

 

[Siv]

This is a bogus argument (even after ignoring the use of the term "baby killer" to describe someone having an abortion). Killing a child could land you in jail for the rest of your life. Having an abortion, on the other hand, comes with no punishment. How can you not see the difference?

Actually, Gokul, it is a crime to abort a child because of its gender.

Also, let's not forget, cultures and regions where this practice is widespread, neither baby killers not foetus killers get punished. Making identification of the foetus' sex a crime really does nothing to deter the basic motivations behind not wanting a female child. Of course, that's changing, but very slowly.

 

[Siv]

And my argument is that the ban will make a slow process even slower.

I don't see how you can make that argument.
On the contrary, the very fact that it is a crime to know the sex of the child might make people think twice.

I have worked with some NGOs in rural areas where this practice was prevalent. People are a bit hesitant ever since the ban, of course it hasn't been much of a deterrant.

On the cynical side, one old lady once told me that female infanticide has now reduced, not because people think girls can also take care of their parents when they get old, but because they realize that even boys don't take care of their parents during old age now