# What sex would you prefer your first offspring to be?



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Hypothetically,

If you could choose the sex of your first offspring, what would it be?

If you'd like, state the reason why.

**Note*:* This poll is not of maliciously sexist nature, and it would be preferable if the votes are honest.*


----------



## DualGnosis (Apr 6, 2013)

Ideally, I want to have four kids (with enough money to raise them and send them to college of course). And I would prefer to have the first two to be boys and the last two to be girls.

Not really sure why, but I think it's because I grew up as the oldest child and I guess I can relate more to it? I don't know, just a personal preference I suppose. Not that there's anything wrong with having my first born being a daughter; but if I could choose, I'd have a son first.


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

A sex of my first child does not matter to me whether it is conceived naturally or adopted because it very hard now for me to have a child as a single parent. I chose girl in the poll because it seems to me that a girl would be less influenced by my culture's chauvinistic worldview (that of my father and his whole family). In semi-collectivistic culture like mine, the whole family raises the child. It would be to difficult to fight that unless I move to Mars.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Neither. Got names ready for both, so I'm set B)


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

I really have no preference, I'd be happy with both. Ideally however, I'd like to have at least one kid of each gender, since I plan on having maybe two or three.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

DualGnosis said:


> Ideally, I want to have four kids (with enough money to raise them and send them to college of course). And I would prefer to have the first two to be boys and the last two to be girls.
> 
> Not really sure why, but I think it's because I grew up as the oldest child and I guess I can relate more to it? I don't know, just a personal preference I suppose. Not that there's anything wrong with having my first born being a daughter; but if I could choose, I'd have a son first.


Relate in what sense? In a sense that you'll have an easier time guiding his upbringing, being able to comprehend his development more than a female, or relate in a sense that you want to guide him based on your ideal path (which would require him to be a male)?



A_doghouse_for_cats said:


> A sex of my first child does not matter to me whether it is conceived naturally or adopted because it very hard now for me to have a child as a single parent. I chose girl in the poll because it seems to me that a girl would be less influenced by my culture's chauvinistic worldview (that of my father and his whole family). In semi-collectivistic culture like mine, the whole family raises the child. It would be to difficult to fight that unless I move to Mars.


Interesting.

If you actually favored a male, would you move to a country that does not have a significant presence of chauvinistic culture?

What if you were in this most non-chauvinistic culture, would you still favor a female?



Mee2 said:


> Neither. Got names ready for both, so I'm set B)


Is the names all you worry about? You don't see any other influential factors that could alter your currently neutral position?



Amaryllis said:


> I really have no preference, I'd be happy with both. Ideally however, I'd like to have at least one kid of each gender, since I plan on having maybe two or three.


There's no factor that would make your decision tilt on either choices? 

If you were to list every pros and cons, to the simplest detail, from your perspective, you would not have a slight inclination towards either sex?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I don't see why it would matter. If the question were, if you had to choose between having a male or female and you could only have one child which would you pick? That would be different. I might lean one way more than the other. As for order of children, I don't care.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

I don't know why, but whenever I think about maternity, I always imagine myself having sons. Maybe it's because I think that men have it easier in most aspects of life, or maybe for some reason I just find boys cuter.


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> There's no factor that would make your decision tilt on either choices?
> 
> If you were to list every pros and cons, to the simplest detail, from your perspective, you would not have a slight inclination towards either sex?


Well now in the western world we live in a time where whether you're a woman or a man you have a great shot a life, and although sexism still exists, things keep getting better and better in favor of equality and tolerance.
It's hard to say, when I picture having a kid I don't think about a specific gender at all, I just want to make him/her grow into an intelligent, assertive and responsible person who can think for him/herself and who's not a jerk. Really, the only factor that would play were I about to have one right now (very unlikely since I'm single and only 19), is that I haven't found a boy name I like yet.


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

@Eska no, it would not matter that much then. However, my family is clingy, they would visit often. I love them to death though. Still, I would have enough alone time with my child, so that he does not learn to drink alcohol when is 10 years old because it is a male. I know my mother and father would fight to death because they have quite opposite opinions in these matters. I do not think unless you are raised in a collectivistic culture that you could understand how powerful family influence is. What is more, it is not a nuclear family either. It is much wider than atypical Western notion of family. Imagine this INFP in such mess, a highly individualistic, a strongly introverted individual who wants to keep harmony, but values peace and my own values the most.

Try for first time to hold a newborn without knowing its sex, you would not care afterwards a bit what sex it is when you find about it. I was a volunteer in Pre-K organization where they had a baby care center as well. After spending just one day with babies, holding them, changing them, feeding them, and putting them to sleep, I really did not care what was sex or race of the baby was a bit. I loved them all like they were my own.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed, I should have worded it like you've suggested.

Although, if my question was interpreted in the unintended way you've alluded to, it could still matter from the following perspective;

"I want my son to be the first one so that he can be older than my daughter and be able to protect her." (Which is a reason I've personally heard before.)



Mair said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see.



Amaryllis said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see.

Although, in the current state of "equality" (considering not everything has been settled), would you opt for a male or a female.



A_doghouse_for_cats said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see.

Although, I don't understand your second paragraph.

Are you referring to the parents not caring about the baby's sex after he's born or the volunteers?


----------



## Endless Rainbows (Oct 1, 2014)

I don't particularly care about birth order but if I had a child, I said female as I always wanted a daughter so I could have that close mother-daughter relationship like the one I shared with my mother (who passed young) and my mother with her mother and my grandmother with her mother (who passed young as well) . . .


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

I am referring to that emotional connections are formed where one actually does not care about the sex of the baby. It does not have to be your baby.


----------



## sunflowersoul (May 26, 2014)

Interesting question! I'm a firstborn female and I'd prefer to have a daughter first. Only because I would expect a daughter to be more nurturing and attentive to younger siblings and more willing to help out and babysit younger siblings eventually; guess I'm speaking from experience. Of course boys can be helpful too. I'd be more than thrilled to simply have a child or children, so gender doesn't matter so much.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Girls are more cute.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Eska said:


> Is the names all you worry about? You don't see any other influential factors that could alter your currently neutral position?


Saying that I worry about names was just a creative way of expressing how little it matters to me. So no, I don't see any influential factors at all.


----------



## badwolf (Jun 17, 2012)

I've never had a sister and most of my better friends growing up were girls. I don't know, I've just always wanted a little girl. 

Of course, I'm not going to pay a doctor to ensure this, but I would prefer it. My hope is to have two children, a boy and a girl, but the order does not matter. I chose girl just in case I only ended up having one child.


----------



## Amaryllis (Mar 14, 2014)

Eska said:


> I see.
> 
> Although, in the current state of "equality" (considering not everything has been settled), would you opt for a male or a female.


Well the current state of equality is good enough for me, I mean I'm a girl and at the moment I'm studying in one of the hardest and most highly regarded studying path in France.

But if somehow I felt that equality wasn't good enough for a girl to have a satisfying/safe/free life, then I'd prefer to have a boy so that he would have all his chances. But that's a very dangerous way of thinking because that's how some countries in Asia now end up with too many men (although not exactly for the same reasons).


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

For the maths nerds: if you only wanted a boy, how many girls would you expect to have before having a boy?

Edit: in case it's not obvious, assume a 50/50 chance.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

Aww, no one wants to answer my question 

Solution: 

* *




Answer is 1. Proof:
50% of the time you will have no girls and the other 50% of the time you'll be in exactly the same situation except you already have one girl, so the equation looks like this: 
x = 0.5 * 0 + 0.5 * (x + 1)
The first part (in blue) is the 50% chance of having no girls and the second part (in red) is the chance of having one girl and facing the chance of having more. Now let's solve it:
x = 0.5 * 0 + 0.5 * (x + 1)
x = 0.5x + 0.5
2x = x + 1
x = 1

Don't judge me


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

healthy


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

As long as I get at least one of each, I don't think it matters. If I only had one of the two then I would feel like I'm missing out on something.


----------



## Ziggurat (Jun 12, 2010)

Having offspring? Hahahaha!

No thank you!



Eska said:


> **Note*:* This poll is not of maliciously sexist nature, and it would be preferable if the votes are honest.*


I find it hilarious that that kind of disclaimer is necessary on this forum.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

If I had 1 of each I'd choose a girl to be first,but I want only one child and I want it to be a boy


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

He's a Superhero! said:


> As long as I get at least one of each, I don't think it matters. If I only had one of the two then I would feel like I'm missing out on something.


That's pretty much my attitude as well. Don't care what the first one is, but I'd be rooting (lol) for the second one to be the opposite!


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> For the maths nerds: if you only wanted a boy, how many girls would you expect to have before having a boy?
> 
> Edit: in case it's not obvious, assume a 50/50 chance.





Mee2 said:


> Aww, no one wants to answer my question
> 
> Solution:
> 
> ...


Ask and you shall receive!

1 is the right answer but yours is not the right equation. But before I explain why, I'll give you my answer. The question you pose is what is the average number of girls you would have before having a boy? To answer this you have to consider all the combinations of girls and boy that could fit the parameters of this question. If we denote girls by "1" and boys by "0", then these possibilities look like

0
10
110
1110
and so on.

To calculate the average, we need to first assign a probability to each possiblity and then add up all the possibilities. Assuming there is an equal chance of having a girl or a boy, the probabilities are

0 50%
10 25%(=0.5^2)
110 12.5%(=0.5^3)
1110 6.25%(=0.5^4)

and so on. In general, for n girls, the probaility is 0.5^(n+1). The average number of girls before a boy is then the sum of these possibilities, or

S=0 girls*50% + 1 girl*25% + 2 girls*12.5% + ... + n girls*0.5^(n+1)

In practice, n would be a small number, but to answer _your _question we need to consider _all _theoretical possibilities. The general form of the equation for S is 

View attachment 248554


source: Arithmetico-geometric sequence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We can account for all theoretical possibilities by letting n go to infinity, in which case S would be a series with an infinite number of terms (an infinite series) whose value can be expressed as

View attachment 248562


where a=0, d=1/2, and r=1/2. Plugging these values in, we get S=1.


OK, now, why do I think you have the wrong equation? One, it isn't equivalent to the equation for the sum of the infinite series. Two, it doesn't explicitly account for the possible combinations after one girl. Three, it looks like a tautology. x=1 is the solution to an infinite number of equations. Starting with x=1, I can work backwards and derive any of these equations. For example,

x=1
x=1+x-x
x=0.5*(1+x) + 0.5*(1+x) - x
x=0.5*(1+x) + 0.5*(1-x)
x=0.5*(1+x) + 0.5*(1-x) + 0.5*0

since x=1 the second term is zero and we can write

x=0.5*(1+x) + 0.5*0

which is your equation. I could've derived any other equation that has x=1 as its solution in the same way. Maybe I'm wrong and there is a real derivation of your equation. I'd be curious to know how you got it?

I don't care if you judge me. :tongue:


----------



## GoosePeelings (Nov 10, 2013)

Either one, really. Both are perfectly fine.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

@ae1905

A spoiler because I doubt most people appreciate this conversation lol


* *




My equation is absolutely correct (so is yours), just difficult to understand intuitively (I actually thought it'd be easier to understand than the sum of an infinite sequence, but I guess not). I'll try to explain it a little better:

First, draw (or imagine) a circle. From any point on that circle, draw a line (I'm imagining a straight line going outwards but it doesn't really matter). Where the line meets the circle, call that point x. On the opposite side of the circle, call this point "girl." At the end of the line, call this point "boy." The lines represent paths that you can follow, and you can only go around the circle in one direction. Start at point x and pick a path at random. There's a 50% chance of going straight to point "boy" and a 50% chance of following the circle and passing point girl. What we're trying to find out is the average number of times, starting from point x, that we'll pass point "girl," before reaching point "boy." This is, obviously, the exact same question, but I think it makes my equation a little more intuitive. I'll build it from scratch: 

Let z = "the number of times one is likely to pass 'girl' before reaching 'boy,' starting from point x." 
Obviously there's a 50% chance of going straight to boy and never passing girl, so that's half of our equation done:

z = 0.5 * 0 + ?

The other 50% of the time, we'll follow the circle, pass "girl" and end up back at x. So, how many times will we pass "girl" if this happens? Well, we've already passed it once, so it's at least one, but there's a chance of passing it many more times. How many more? Well, let's look at our definition of z: "the number of times one is likely to pass 'girl' before reaching 'boy,' starting from point x." Well, since we're at point x, that's pretty convenient. How many more times? z more times! So the other 50% of the time, the number of times we're likely to pass girl is going to be z + 1. So our full equation is:

z = 0.5 * 0 + 0.5 * (z + 1)

or:

"the number of times one is likely to pass 'girl' before reaching 'boy' starting from point x" = 0.5 * 0 + 0.5 * ("the number of times one is likely to pass point 'girl' before reaching 'boy' starting from point x" + 1)

Does that make more sense?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> @_ae1905_
> 
> A spoiler because I doubt most people appreciate this conversation lol
> 
> ...


That's an interesting way to look at it and I suspected you were doing something like that. There is a problem, though, and the easiest way to see it is to consider the case where the probability of having a girl is 1, a certainty. In that case the answer to your question is infinity since you will never have a boy, just an endless number of girls. Your equation for probability 1 is

x=1*(x+1) ==> 0=1

This is a contradiction. The infinite series, otoh, does diverge and becomes infinite for r=1. The problem is the term 0.5*(x+1) applies the probability twice, first to get x, then again when multiplying by 0.5. Your equation should reduce to x=x if it is going to be expressed in terms of x, that is, it should be 

x=0.5*0 + 0.5*(2x) ==> x=x

Why? Because for the average to be x, the half the time there are girls you actually need to see 2x girls on average since you only see this half of the time. Think about that.

I think the equation worked here by chance, for the special case of 50% probability. Also, the bolded parts don't make sense. If you've already passed girl once then the number of times you'll pass it again, by your reasoning, is z-1, not z. It turns out you can rewrite the equation using z-1 in a way to get the same equation and solution. But this solution suffers from the same problem.


----------



## Children Of The Bad Revolution (Oct 8, 2013)

PowerShell said:


> healthy


^


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

@Mee2



ae1905 said:


> This is a contradiction. The infinite series, otoh, does diverge and becomes infinite for r=1. *The problem is the term 0.5*(x+1) applies the probability twice, first to get x, then again when multiplying by 0.5. *Your equation should reduce to x=x if it is going to be expressed in terms of x, that is, it should be
> 
> x=0.5*0 + 0.5*(2x) ==> x=x
> 
> Why? Because for the average to be x, the half the time there are girls you actually need to see 2x girls on average since you only see this half of the time. Think about that.


I'm going to retract the bolded part because that's not the problem here. If we use your line of argument, the equation should be

x=0.5*0 + 0.5*(2x-1) + 0.5*1 

where the last term is the first girl in the series. This equation does reduce to x=x and will do so for any probability since both the 0.5 and the 2 coefficients remain in inverse proportion in such a way that their product is always 1.


----------



## Sapientia (Jan 1, 2015)

I think I'd definitely prefer male, as I would like to teach my firstborn son to lead his younger brothers/sisters in the right direction 
in life, if I were to "go" one day. Of course, "mom" would still be able to guide them, but I'd definitely have a lot of secrets to share with my firstborn son. Idk, kinda have a thing for my firstborn. But nevertheless, I'd want a girl as my second offspring, but would not essentially mind her being my firstborn child.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> @_Mee2_
> 
> I'm going to retract the bolded part because that's not the problem here. If we use your line of argument, the equation should be


Actually, I'm going to retract my retraction! Sorry. The way you wrote the equation the double application of a probability _was _the problem, and the solution was to rewrite the x term to account for the double probability. The effect of multiplying by 2 is to cancel the probabilty 1/2 so that only the expected value (already adjusted for probability) remains.

I promise this my final position! )


----------



## Balinka (Apr 29, 2014)

I don't have a preference, as long as they're healthy.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

@ae1905

Well, I'm not sure how to make my equation any more intuitive, but I can at least show that it's quite robust:

Let's test for chances other than 50%. The chance (c) of having n number of girls before having a boy can found using the following rather awkward equation, where x is the chance of having a girl:

c = x^n * (1 - x)

First part is the chance of having n consecutive number of girls, then the last part is the chance of having a boy. Make up an excel spreadsheet for n up to 30 or so and test different values. My equation always gives the right answer. Some of yours might too - I haven't tested them - but I don't see how you can claim that I've made an error if it works so reliably.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> @_ae1905_
> 
> Well, I'm not sure how to make my equation any more intuitive, but I can at least show that it's quite robust:
> 
> ...


The equation is

c=(x^n)*(1-x)

right? Just want to be sure. Then when x=1, c=0, when c should, in fact, be 1. If you meant x is the chance of having a _boy_, then c=0 when x=1, which is what you'd expect; but when x=0, c=0 which is not.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> The equation is
> 
> c=(x^n)*(1-x)
> 
> right? Just want to be sure. Then when x=1, c=0, when c should, in fact, be 1. If you meant x is the chance of having a _boy_, then c=0 when x=1, which is what you'd expect; but when x=0, c=0 which is not.


I don't think you understand what I'm calculating... c is the chance of having a specific number of girls, followed by a boy. You can't have a boy if x = 100%, so c = 0 is correct... But you can throw out that equation if you like because I'm sure there are other ways of calculating it. How many girls would you expect to have if there was a 60% chance of having a girl? What about 75% or 90%? You'll see that my equation always gives the right answer. 

So, if there was a 60% chance of having a girl, it would be:
x = 0.4 * 0 + 0.6 * (x + 1)
x = 0 + 0.6x + 0.6
10x = 6x + 6
4x = 6
x = 1.5

For 75%:
x = 0.25 * 0 + 0.75 * (x + 1)
...
4x = 3x + 3
x = 3

For 90%
...
10x = 9x + 9
x = 9

It always produces the right answer.


----------



## Syed (Jan 1, 2015)

I'm a male and I would prefer if my first offspring was a female.


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

Mee2 said:


> That's pretty much my attitude as well. Don't care what the first one is, but I'd be rooting (lol) for the second one to be the opposite!


*high fives*

You do that


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> I don't think you understand what I'm calculating... c is the chance of having a specific number of girls, followed by a boy. You can't have a boy if x = 100%, so c = 0 is correct... But *you can throw out that equation* if you like because I'm sure there are other ways of calculating it. How many girls would you expect to have if there was a 60% chance of having a girl? What about 75% or 90%? You'll see that my equation always gives the right answer.
> 
> So, if there was a 60% chance of having a girl, it would be:
> *x = 0.4 * 0 + 0.6 * (x + 1)*
> ...


How do you know these are the right answers? This equation for x is your original one where x is the expected number of girls before having a boy. In your previous equation for c, x was the probability of having a girl, not the expected number of girls. Your original equation which you've used here can be rewritten

x=r(1+x)

or

x=r/(1-r)

where r is the probability of having a girl. As r-->1, x-->infinity which is right. I rewrote the infinite series solution and it is the same equation, x=r/(1-r), so your equation _is _right--the contradiction 0=1 happens because x is undefined when r=1--but I don't think your derivation is, at least not the way you explained it. That looks like something someone backed into knowing the infinite series solution. Did you read this somewhere?


----------

