Does the father's T-levels help determine the sex of his child?

I recall hearing, a few years ago, a theory that high-T men are more likely to produce daughters and lower-T men are more likely to produce sons. I even read in some running magazine (I was into long-distance running back then) that a man could help determine the sex of his child by altering his training volume (of running) at the time of conception (which, I suppose, affects hormone levels.)

Whatever article I read about this had a couple historical examples of wussy men who fathered mostly sons or manly men who fathered mostly daughters. Actually, the only one I can remember offhand was that Oscar Wilde only had sons. But I was just reminded of it now, looking at heavythrower’s pics of his 2 daughters and cupcake’s 3 daughters. And, if memory serves, Don Alessi has 3 daughters as well. I haven’t been on the Forum very long, but I don’t recall offhand anyone mentioning having a multitude of sons.

Supposedly, the evolutionary reason for this phenomenon has something to do with keeping T-levels toward the mean. . .I don’t 100% understand it, but I suppose a high-T man would produce high-T daughters, whose T would be lower than the average of both sexes, rather than producing super-high-T sons who are off the chart. And a low-T man would produce low-T sons, whose T would still be above the average for both sexes (because they are male), instead of super-low-T daughters, who are off the chart on the low end.

Anyone heard of this before? Any truth to it? Anyone considered taking this into account to determine the sex of their child (such as, for example, laying off the Tribex when trying to conceive if you want a son?)

I know a little bit about the mathematics of genetic trait transmission, but I can guarantee you this: unless each generation takes very careful steps to not breed with subpar mates, regression to the mean is inevitable. Mating with equals or betters lengthens the time period before eventual regression takes place.

Good question, though. Maybe some of these parents have just dominant genes over their partners for sex determination. I dont have access to Dawkins book right now, but some gene survival strategies do just that: kill the competition, and that includes some of the mates genes.

This will be a good thread.


A female contributes an X to the offspring.
A male contributes a Y or an X to the off spring.

If the male’s sperm kills the female’s X, this is going to be neither a male nor a female. But it is going to be one screwed kid.

Does a bad temper and agressiveness account for high-T?
I have SEVERAL brothers with no sisters. My father should’ve been a pussy right? Not so. He walked into lawyers and insurance offices and literally had to be restrained from physically assulting them. He put a number of people in the hospital with his own hands. Heck I saw him pick up a TABLE and throw it out the window from a third floor building in a fit of rage. He was a GREAT guy, and a fair guy, but damn you if you feed him bullshit.

I read once that T-levels affect offspring, but it was the opposite. A low T-level meant a greater chance of having a girl, a higher T-level, a boy. A co-worker was trying to have a girl, so I told him to start running all the time.

DIESEL23: We are not talking at the same level. To clear things up, here is what I meant (from Dawkins):

A gene for making a father have nothing but daughters could achieve its object by making him manufacture nothing but X-sperms. A gene for making a mother have nothing but daughters could work by makint her secrete a selective spermicide, or by making her abort male embryos. (…) An individual cannot litteraly choose the sex of his children. But genes for tending to have children of one sex or the other are possible.

And another good one (talking about seals but you get the point)…

Superficially, therefore, we might expect the daughter-producing gene to go on spreading until the sex ratio was so unbalanced that the few remaining males, working flat out, could just manage. But now, think what an enormous genetic advantage is enjoyed by those few parents who have sons. Anyone who invests in a son has a very good chance of being the grandparent of hundreds of seals. Those who are producing nothing but daughters are assured of a safe few grandchildren, but this is nothing compared to the glorious genetic possibilities that open up before anyone specializing in sons. </font color>Therefore genes for producing sons will tend to become more numerous, and the pendulum will swing back.

As for your dad`s aggressiveness, this is the age old nature VS nurture debate. Is he like that or has he learned to flash his anger that way? And I could point out a study that mentionned that people with lower lose control more often than people with higher T-levels. My hunch is that he learned his showoffish behavior because nothing else worked better under said conditions. No disrespect meant. You know him better than me by leagues.

“Anyone who invests in a son has a very good chance of being the grandparent of hundreds of seals.”

– At first I thought that must be one fucked-up son. Then I realized the whole Dawkins quote had to do with seal reproduction, not human.

Yep, Bald Scholar, just an example. That guy`s book has tons of other ones.

Ever heard of the fratricide genes in some bird species? The first one to hatch kicks out all the other eggs out of the nest (smashing to the ground).

Or the other one, a recessive gene that spreads like wildfire in mouse populations. 95% of the population has only one allelle, but you can`t live if you have both…

Etc. Nature is incredible.