Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social sex selection and the balance of the sexes: Empirical evidence from Germany, the UK, and the US

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preconception sex selection for nonmedical reasons is one of the most controversial issues in bioethics today. The most powerful objection to social sex selection is based on the assumption that it may severely distort the natural sex ratio and lead to a socially disruptive imbalance of the sexes. Based on representative social surveys conducted in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, this paper argues that the fear of an impending sex ratio distortion is unfounded. Given the predominant preference for a “gender balanced family,” a widely available service for social sex selection is highly unlikely to upset the balance of the sexes in Western societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table 1
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heyd D. Male or female, we will create them: the ethics of sex selection for non-medical reasons. Ethical Perspectives 2003;10:204–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schaffir J. What are little boys made of? The never-ending search for sex selection techniques. Perspectives Biol Med 1991;34(4):516–25

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schulman JD, Karabinus D. Scientific aspects of preconception gender selection. Reprod BioMed Online 2005;10(Supp. 1):111–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gleicher N, Karande V. Gender selection for nonmedical indications. Fertil Steril 2002;78(3):460–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Egozcue J. Preimplantation social sexing: a problem of proportionality and decision making. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19(9):440–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sills ES, Palermo GD. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for elective sex selection, the IVF market economy, and the child – another long day's journey into night? J Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19(9):433–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pennings G. Personal desires of patients and social obligations of geneticists. Prenat Diagn 2002;22:1123–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berkowitz JM, Snyder JW. Racism and sexism in assisted conception. Bioethics 1998;12:25–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and sex selection. Fertil Steril 1999;72:595–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benagiano G, Bianchi P. Sex preselection: an aid to couples or a threat to humanity? Hum Reprod 1999;14:870–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dai J. Preconception sex selection: the perspective of a person of the undesired gender. Am J Bioethics 2001;1:37–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Davis D. Genetic dilemmas: reproductive technology, parental choices, and children's futures. New York: Routledge, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fukuyama F. Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hill DL, Surrey MW, Danzer HC. Is gender selection an appropriate use of medical resources? J Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19(9):438–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sauer MV. Gender selection: pressure from patients and industry should not alter our adherence to ethical guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynec 2004;191:1543–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Warren MA. Gendercide: the implications of sex selection. San Francisco: Rowman & Allanheld, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  17. Savulescu J. Sex selection – the case for. Med J Australia 1999;171:373–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Savulescu J, Dahl E. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and sex selection : a response to the Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Hum Reprod 2000;15(9):1879–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McCarthy D. Why sex selection should be legal. J Med Ethics 2001;27:302–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Robertson JA. Preconception gender selection. Am J Bioethics 2001;1(1):2–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dahl E. Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sex selection. Reprod BioMed Online 2003;7(4):38–4

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dahl E. The presumption in favor of liberty: a comment on the HFEA's public consultation on sex selection. Reprod BioMed Online 2004;8(3):266–7

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. The House of Commons. Reproductive technologies and the law. London: 2005

  24. Singer P, Wells D. The reproduction revolution: new ways of making babies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  25. Glover J. Comments on some ethical issues in sex selection. In: Sureau C, Shenfield F (eds.) Ethical aspects of human reproduction. Paris: John Libbey 1995;305–13

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pennings G. Family balancing as a morally acceptable application of sex selection. Hum Reprod 1996;11:2339–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertil Steril 2001;75:861–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dickens BM. Can sex selection be ethically tolerated? J Med Ethics 2002;28:335–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Robertson JA. Gender variety as a valid choice. Reprod BioMed Online 2004;8(3):268–9

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dawson K, Trounson A. Ethics of Sex Selection for Family Balancing: Why Balance Families? Hum Reprod 1996;11:2577–78

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ruddick W. Prejudice Against “Unbalanced” Families. Am J Bioethics 2001;1:31–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dahl E. Sex selection: laissez faire or family balancing? Health Care Anal 2005;13(1):87–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Etzioni A. Sex control, science, and society. Science 1968;161:1107–1112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vines G. The hidden cost of sex selection. New Scientist of May 1, 1993;12–13

  35. Stoppard M. Should you get to choose your child's sex? Mirror of March 22, 2005

  36. Jha P, Kumar R, Vasa P, Dhingra N, Thiruchelvam D, Moineddin R. Low male-to-female sex ratio of children born in India: national survey of 1,1 million households. The Lancet Online 2006; DOI:10.1016/SO140-6763(06)67930-0

  37. Sheth SS. Missing female births in India. The Lancet Online 2006; DOI: 10.1016/SO140-6763(06)67931-2

  38. Kusum. The use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for sex selection: the Indian scene. Bioethics 1993;7:149–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hudson V, Den Boer A. Bare branches: the security implications of Asia's surplus male population. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  40. Benagiano G, Bianchi P. Sex preselection: an aid to couples or a threat to humanity? Hum Reprod 1999;14:868–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Dahl E. No country is an island: a comment of the House of Commons’ report ‘Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law’. Reproductive BioMed Online 2005;11:10–11

    Google Scholar 

  42. Serour GI. Transculural issues in gender selection. Int Congress Ser 2004;1266:21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dickens BM, Serour GI, Cook RJ, QIU RZ. Sex selection: treating different cases differently. Int J Obstet Gynecol 2005;90:171–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Dahl E, Beutel B, Brosig B, Hinsch K-D. Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons: a representative survey from Germany. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2231–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dahl E, Hinsch K-D, Beutel M, Brosig B. Preconception sex selection for non-medical reasons: a representative survey from the United Kingdom. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2238–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dahl E, Gupta RS, Beutel M, Stöbel-Richter Y, Brosig B, Tinneberg H-R, Jain T. Preconception sex selection demand and preferences in the United States. Fertil Steril 2006;85:468–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Williamson NE. Sons or daughters: a cross-cultural survey of parental preferences. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  48. Westoff CF, Rindfuss RR. Sex preselection in the United States: some implications. Science 1974;184:633–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Brosig B, Dahl E, Beutel M, Tinneberg H-R, Jain T, Grüssner S. Gender preferences and demand for sex selection: a survey among pregnant women in Germany. Prenatal Diagnosis 2006 (manuscript under review)

  50. Steinbacher R, Gilroy FD. Preference for sex of child among primiparous women. J Psychol 1985;119:141–47

    Google Scholar 

  51. Statham H, Green J, Snowdon C, France-Dawson M. Choice of baby's sex. The Lancet 1993;341:564–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Westoff CF, Potter RG, Sagi P. The third child: a study in the prediction of fertility. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1963

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sloane DM, Lee CF. Sex of previous children and intentions for further births in the United State, 1965–1976. Demography 1983;20:353–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Yamaguchi K, Ferguson LR. The stopping and spacing of childbirths and their birth-history predictors: rational choice theory and event-history analysis. Am Sociol Rev 1995;60:272–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hank C, Kohler H-P. Gender preferences for children in Europe: empirical results from 17 countries. Demogr Res 2000;2:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pollard MS, Morgan SP. Emerging parental gender indifference? Sex composition of children and the third birth. Am Sociol Rev 2002;67:600–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Liu P, Rose GA. Social aspects of >800 couples coming forward for gender selection of their children. Hum Reprod 1995;10:968–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Khatamee MA, Leinberger-Sica A, Matos P, Weseley AC. Sex selection in New York City: who chooses which sex and why? Int J Fertility 1989;34:353–54

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Beermink JF, Dmowski WP, Ericsson RJ. Sex preselection through albumin separation of sperm. Fertil Steril 1993;59:382–86

    Google Scholar 

  60. Fugger EF, Black SH, Keyvanfar K, Schulman JD. Births of normal daughters after MicroSort sperm separation and intrauterine insemination, in-vitro fertilization, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;13:2367–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Dahl E, Hinsch K-D, Brosig, Beutel M. Attitudes towards preconception sex selection: a representative survey from Germany. Reprod BioMed Online 2004;9:600–03

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Krones T, Schlüter E, Manolopoulos K, Bock K, Tinneberg H-R, Koch MC, Lindner M, Hoffmann GF, Mayatepek E, Huels G, Neuwohner E, El Ansari S, Wissner T, Richter G. Public, expert and patients’ opinions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Reprod BioMed Online 2004;10:116–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Meister U, Finck C, Stöbel-Richter Y, Schmutzer G, Brähler E. Knowledge and attitudes towards preimplantation genetic diagnosis in Germany. Hum Reprod 2005;20:231–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Gynaecology and Obstetrics, University of Giessen, Klinikstr. 32, D-35392, Giessen, Germany

    E. Dahl, S. Grüssner & H.-R. Tinneberg

  2. Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Giessen, Germany, Giessen, Germany

    B. Brosig

  3. Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Mainz, Germany, Mainz, Germany

    M. Beutel

  4. Department of Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Germany, Leipzig, Germany

    Y. Stöbel-Richter & Elmar Brähler

Authors
  1. E. Dahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Beutel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Brosig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Grüssner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Y. Stöbel-Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H.-R. Tinneberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elmar Brähler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Dahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dahl, E., Beutel, M., Brosig, B. et al. Social sex selection and the balance of the sexes: Empirical evidence from Germany, the UK, and the US. J Assist Reprod Genet 23, 311–318 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-006-9064-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-006-9064-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation