Scuentists discovered a Utah family that has been having twice as many boys as girls for seven generations. It is the first clear evidence that humans might have ‘selfish genes’ that distort the sex ratio of offspring from roughly 50:50.

73 points by MistWeaver80 6 hours ago on reddit | 11 comments

Izawwlgood | 6 hours ago

Grimaces in sex linked disorders.

It might also be weird that Nature is posting this given it comes from a non-peer reviewed pre-print!

They write " Because Y-chromosomes exclusively carry genes required for male fertility and sex determination, and other sources of bias such as viability differences are unlikely to explain the observed pattern" which is grossly, GROSSLY inaccurate.

Weird.

tinysprinkles | 4 hours ago

After I ran into an article published by a faang that doesn’t share their proper methodology or any tech created for reproduction or advancement of the topic, I recognise that Nature is just one more cash grab journal. :/

VVynn | 5 hours ago

This doesn’t prove much of anything. Of 89 individuals, 60 were male. 29 were female. If it were purely random, you’d expect this or an even greater disparity to happen about one in 1,498 times. Rare, but not “scientific discovery” rare. They claim to have looked at 26,000 paternal lineages to find this one example.

cgw3737 | 4 hours ago

"The seventh son of the seventh son of the seventh son of the seventh son"

Candid_Koala_3602 | 4 hours ago

Weird that I’m reading Dawkins’ book right now and I see this.

fjbdhdhrdy47972 | an hour ago

> first clear evidence

I could've sworn I was taught about how fetal mortality rates differ between males and females due to genetic disorders with skewed sex ratios in undergrad

Cthulhus-Tailor | 2 hours ago

Great, so now even my genes are being accused of misogyny.

brokenalarm | an hour ago

Is it not true that guys with longer dicks are more likely to have boys because male sperm are faster but not as strong/enduring as female sperm? I don’t know where I read that, if it was a textbook or the internet. But if that was true, then it’s easy to imagine a family with a ‘long dick’ gene having more boys than girls, not sure if that’s really what those scientists were trying to prove though.

Most_Chemist8233 | 4 hours ago

If you ejalucate before having sex isnt it more likely to be boys, and if you havent ejaculated in a few days before having sex its more likely to be girls? Since the x sperm is longer living, but y sperm is faster initially? So if you want a girl you want the fast moving y sperm to get older, so you should hold off on jacking it between sessions. If youre having sex every single day, then the y sperm have an advantage. There's probably other things that influence like ph balance etc.

forever_erratic | 3 hours ago

Lol what

Most_Chemist8233 | 3 hours ago

I do not claim to be an expert, I just have read a lot about the vulnerability of y sperm, shedding dna. Maybe it has more to do with timing of the release of the ovum. But y sperm dont live as long as the x sperm, so there are likely environmental and behavioral factors that have lead to more boys being born in this particular family.

"The prolonged survival of X spermatozoa under stressful conditions might lead to shifts in the ratio of male-to-female births." https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/32/6/1183/3739770

"Y sperm: are faster but survive for less time in the female genital tract.  X sperm: are slower, but they are more resistant and therefore survive longer" https://www.veritasint.com/blog/en/the-probability-of-having-a-boy-or-a-girl-according-to-genetics/