Gay/bi men fathering children...

[wdwpins]

Ever since I've been online (1997) and after having spoken to many closeted gay/bisexual men both online and in person (friends of friends, for example) who fathered children, I started noticing a pattern. They almost always fathered:

a) all females, or;
b) a female first (or just a female with a single birth).

In other words, in my experience I found it extremely rare (though not impossible) for gay/bi men to have either all boys or a boy first, then a girl (or just a boy with a single birth).

Once I spoke to a gay man who was so very proud to have proven my suspicion wrong--it ended up there was a miscarriage on first attempt, and nonviable fetus was female.

Is it possible that gay men's sperm are most likely to carry the X, or female, chromosome? Could this be the the beginning of a genetic basis/explanation for being gay?

Do you know of any gay/bi men who had kids, and did they have all females or a female first?

 

[pixidustmom]

Well as I am a surrogate and know quite a few gay men who are now father's, I can't say I agree with you. I know of 4 recently that have sons and they are either their only children or the first born. I will say it's seems like more girls make it as the little boys are first up but the first to die off so then the little girls come up and finish the job on the egg.

 

[wdwpins]

I'm not saying it's 100% all females. I have found, though, in my experience, that it's grossly skewed towards female offspring (of gay men). Of course, as a surrogate one possibility is the various methods of sex selection.

Apparently in your experience it's the opposite.

 

[jenn&nelsonrego]

I will say it's seems like more girls make it as the little boys are first up but the first to die off so then the little girls come up and finish the job on the egg.

and this is exactly why I ask my dr.'s office to schedule my inseminations just prior to when I am expected to ovulate. I WANT BOYS!!! (Girls have PMS from the moment of conception... )

Of course, I am just kidding... I will be perfectly happy with whatever sex I end up with...

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

All of the gay men I know who have biological children have boys.

It is interesting to ponder, but I think it just is a coincidence.

 

[Dr. M]

This is interesting. I personally see no real evidence that there is a "gay gene". My under-grad degree was in Biological Sciences, and my senior thesis was in genetics. I've read Darwin's "Origin of the Species" cover to cover. I don't agree with Darwin's thories 100%, but his theory of Natural Selection makes perfect sense to me. If a gay gene did indeed exist, Darwin would theorize that this gene would be naturally selected for extinction due to the carrier's inability to pro-create (pre-artificial insemination). I believe that "nurture" as opposed to "nature" has more of a part to play in creating a gay individual. Much like how a man may be more sexually attracted to blonds, or large breasts, or no breasts at all--nurture, life experiences and environment. Not genetics.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

This is interesting. I personally see no real evidence that there is a "gay gene". My under-grad degree was in Biological Sciences, and my senior thesis was in genetics. I've read Darwin's "Origin of the Species" cover to cover. I don't agree with Darwin's thories 100%, but his theory of Natural Selection makes perfect sense to me. If a gay gene did indeed exist, Darwin would theorize that this gene would be naturally selected for extinction due to the carrier's inability to pro-create (pre-artificial insemination). I believe that "nurture" as opposed to "nature" has more of a part to play in creating a gay individual. Much like how a man may be more sexually attracted to blonds, or large breasts, or no breasts at all--nurture, life experiences and environment. Not genetics.

Every one has a right to their own opinion. One of the many benefits of this country... However, socialization being the 'reason' people are gay does not hold out either. Who socialized the first gay person? Who went on to "nurture" the others as they came into being. Perhaps the evolution behind being gay is the fact that it is a genetic superiority to protect the human race from over population. Theories. Interesting things...

With regard to the op, being gay does not mean being female. That is a misconception that seems to be implied here. To be a gay man, does not mean that the MAN is more female, than male. That would not support the idea of the x versus y.

With regard to genetics... time and thorough studies will tell. Genetics are a complex and extremely detailed topic, not something to be answered with one undergrad thesis or even one doctoral study, rather a tedious inch by inch process of discovery which leads to understanding and further discovery, which leads to yet more understanding of a single given aspect of genetics and continued study...

 

[ConcKahuna]

This is interesting. I personally see no real evidence that there is a "gay gene". My under-grad degree was in Biological Sciences, and my senior thesis was in genetics. I've read Darwin's "Origin of the Species" cover to cover. I don't agree with Darwin's thories 100%, but his theory of Natural Selection makes perfect sense to me. If a gay gene did indeed exist, Darwin would theorize that this gene would be naturally selected for extinction due to the carrier's inability to pro-create (pre-artificial insemination). I believe that "nurture" as opposed to "nature" has more of a part to play in creating a gay individual. Much like how a man may be more sexually attracted to blonds, or large breasts, or no breasts at all--nurture, life experiences and environment. Not genetics.

I actually think social pressures would cause the gay gene to continue to be in existance. A person may be born gay, but due to familial/social pressures live life as if they were heterosexual, and even have children.

Also, Darwin's theories don't touch recessive genetic traits at all. If you studied biological sciences, you should know that. You yourself could be carrying the recessive gay gene, and you wouldn't know until one of your children came out to you.

 

[Kickapoo Joie Juice]

Read something in Scientific American last year, year before? There's an assertion that they think there's a gene that either expresses, does not express or expresses partially during the first 29 days of gestation that sets the spot on the sexuality spectrum.

The article assumed that sexuality in both genders was on a spectrum, with strongly hetero on one end and strongly same-sex on the other, with people who are neutrally oriented in the middle.

Where you fell on the spectrum, combined with your genetic gender, combined with the expression, partial expression, or non expression of the gene, is what you are.

Yeah, men carry the determining genetic factor for gender in their sperm, but women play a role as well-older women tend to have more girls because of the acidity of the ******, the thickness of the mucus, and the time between when the sperm arrives in the uterus and heads out the fallopian tubes to meet the egg-the female sperm are tougher and sturdier in physical makeup (of course ).

MIL, who is a retired neonatal ICU nurse, would also say that female fetuses/babies are stronger, as well, but that's anecdotal.

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

It is fact that more males are conceived, but more females survive. So the assertion that femal fetuses are "stronger" does have validity.

I think there are a TON of factors that play into gender determination. I do NOT think the father being gay has anything to do with it.

My grandma had 3 girls. Each one of those 3 girls had 3 girls. Of the 9 grandaughters, 7 have had children. 5 had girls, the other 2 had boys. Of the 2 that had boys, 1 went on to have a second child which was a girl. I am the only one to have JUST a boy. And we only wanted one child, so I will not be trying again.

To the best of my knowledge none of the men in the above example are gay. It's just the way it turned out.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

White males, last I knew were the babies with the highest chance of death in infancy.

One other aspect of genetics that is important to keep in mind is that there is a theory "out there" that says the y is not a y, rather a broken x which is the reason that mothers are carriers and sons are those who end up with the problems. (Like hemophilia).

All that to say, that there is no study to show even a correlation, never mind significance for gay men fathering more female babies than male...

Interesting topic, though.

 

[wdwpins]

I have tried to find something online about this for years because it just kept coming true in my experience. Maybe there is a study and we just don't know about it.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

I have tried to find something online about this for years because it just kept coming true in my experience. Maybe there is a study and we just don't know about it.

A secret study done? I'm not thinking so...

 

[wdwpins]

why not?

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Because it doesn't seem plausible to me. Studies take money, data collection, statistical measures, not to mention design, identification of population and sample selection, so it'd be pretty hard to keep it quite I think.

Plus, one of the major factors of doing a study is to be published. Careers are developed (or broken, or stalled) on the entire "are you published" factor.