The right of parents to choose the sex/gender of their babies may be seen as acceptable or unacceptable mostly depending on culture and personal beliefs. Some may consider the power to choose the sex of a baby outrageous because it would encourage sexism. A survey conducted by Green et al. (2003) showed that British citizens had little or no preference for their children’s genders and most would not use technology to choose the gender if they were given the opportunity. Dahl’s (2003) article also finds similar survey results and supports the right of parents to choose the sex of their prospective children. Dahl counters the idea that this freedom of selection would be an issue in Western countries like the US because the surveys showing very little data on clear gender preference are interpreted as evidence that gender selection is not popular enough to cause a major threat to male to female ratios (2013). In addition, other reasons for why people opt for gender selection is for family balancing (McGowan et al., 2013). Parents in countries where infant male preference is not recognized believe they should be able to choose their child’s sex in order to have even numbers of males and females in their families. They are willing to choose a boy or a girl and they do not believe they are encouraging sexism. A group of parents advocated for their right to choose the gender of their babies as the right to privacy in reproductive decision-making and family forming (McGowan et al., 2013).

There are some that do not support parent’s choice to choose the sex of their child unless there is a health issue involved. In the article Sex preselection: an aid to couples or a threat to humanity? the authors argue that gender selection should be very limited and only used in order to avoid genetic defects, etc (Benagiano & Bianchi, 1999). The problems they list gender selection will contribute to include the increased bias against female children, imbalance in the female to male ratio worldwide, and discrimination. In countries such as China and South Korea, male to female ratios have grown due to female infanticide or selective abortion. The spread of acceptance of gender selection is said to increase the male to female ratio, which could lead to women inequality and pose a threat to women’s rights (Benagiano & Bianchi, 1999). Other problems that are predicted among places with a surplus of men include increased violence rates, female kidnapping, rape, and sex trafficking (Sharma, 2008). While some countries are affected more by others by the right to select the sex of a child, polyandry, underage marriages, bride trafficking, and cultural devaluation of women are big issues that come as a result of this practice (Sharma, 2008).

I think that parents should not be able to choose the gender of their babies unless there is a medical/health issue associated with gender. The fact that over 100 million women have been vanished from the world through preselection of sex, abortions, or infanticide is disturbing (Sharma, 2008). I think that countries like the US have come a long way when it comes to women’s rights and equality and that allowing gender selection for the sake of having a boy is not justified. I understand that it must be looked at differently in places like India where women put a financial burden on their families when they wed or are not able to acquire certain financial goods, etc (Dahl, 2003). While sex selection may not be such a problem in Western countries, Eastern countries with strong gender preference are traveling to have procedures done to have ensure the birth of male children and therefore furthering the problem in their home countries. I believe that Sharma’s article makes a good point by identifying the possible consequences of having too many men: increase of violence towards women or violence in general (war) (Sharma, 2008). While a good point was made in McGowan et al.’s article of using gender selection as a method of family balancing, it is evident that many will not use the technology available for the same reason (2013).

Benagiano, G., & Bianchi, P. (1999). Sex preselection: an aid to couples or a threat to humanity? Human Reproduction, 14(4), 868-870.

Dahl, E. (2003). Procreative liberty: the case for preconception sex selection. Reproductive Biomedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited), 7(4), 380-384.

Green, A., Wray, C., & Baluch, B. (1993). On choosing a baby’s sex: what the future generation thinks, a preliminary survey. Psychological Reports, 73(1), 169-170.

McGowan, M. L., & Sharp, R. R. (2013). Justice in the Context of Family Balancing. Science, Technology & Human Values, 38(2), 271-293.

Sharma, M. (2008). Twenty-first century Pink or Blue: How Sex Selection
Technology Facilitates Gendercide And What We Can Do About It. Family
Court Review, 46(1), 198-215.

There are many different theories being studies about the causes or origins of sexual orientation. Some evidence supports the theories that sexual orientation is influenced by biological factors while other studies suggest that it is influenced by culture or other environmental factors. This topic is an ongoing controversy and research is still being conducted to determine the cause of sexual orientation. In his article, Wilkerson argues that sexual orientation is partly constituted by choice (2009). Wilkerson explains that sexual desire and sexual identity are two distinct things and that one influences the other based on how we interpret the desire. Sexual desire becomes sexual orientation only after a series of conscious interpretations of those desires that lead us to choose sexual orientation (Wilkerson, 2009). A study conducted by Scott L. Hershberger researched the influence of heredity on sexual orientation among a sample of both male and female twins (1997). This study used a large sample in which over 1000 responses were recorded. Monozygotic, fraternal, and opposite-sex twins were asked questions about their sexual orientation and of their sibling over time. The parameters estimated included influence of multiple genes affecting phenotype, shared rearing environmental effects, and non-shared environmental effects. The study concluded that there was no significant evidence showing that there are different genes affecting the sexual orientation of both men and women although homosexual and heterosexual attraction, behavior and self-identification were found to be more heritable in women than in men (Hershberger, 1997).

In contrast, a compilation of studies in the article Male Homosexuality: Nature or Culture? revealed that there are strong anatomical, genetic, and hormonal correlations to sexual orientation (Jannini et al., 2010). Post examination of homosexual male brains showed that there were size differences in various structures of the hypothalamus compared to those of heterosexual men. Also, another study concluded that “both gay men and heterosexual women display a brain activation pattern distinct from that of heterosexual men” (Jannini et al., p.3246, 2010). This is an interesting fact although it is an assumption regarding the cause of sexual orientation. Another study by Yan et al. studies the influence of neurotransmitter 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and the role of central serotonergic neurons on sexual preference in male mice (2011). The results showed that mice who lacked 5-HT did not show a clear sexual preference compared to the wild-type, which preferred females over males (Yan et al., 2011). When the lacking mice were injected with 5-HT, they also preferred females over males. In addition, mice lacking central serotonergic neurons did not show a sexual preference compared to wild-type mice who had these neurons and preferred female mice (Yan et al, 2011). This study can be generalized to other mammals and can be compared to hormonal influences on sexual orientation of humans.

In conclusion, there seems to be stronger evidence showing that sexual orientation is caused by biological factors. I think that the anatomical differences between homosexual vs. heterosexual men is one of the strongest pieces of evidence (Jannini et al., 2010). Although the validity of using anatomical differences as evidence for sexual orientation can be questioned, there seems to be consensus of this finding in more than one study. Information of biological factors influencing sexual orientation was widely available and supporting evidence was presented through different factors. It was much more difficult to find empirical data supporting the idea that environmental factors are the only determinants of sexual orientation. Hershberger’s study was useful but it had many limitations such as the sample being collected non-randomly and only from Minnesota.

References

Hershberger, S. L. (1997). A Twin Registry Study of Male and Female Sexual
Orientation. Journal Of Sex Research, 34(2), 212-222.

Jannini, E. A., Blanchard, R., Camperio-Ciani, A., & Bancroft, J. (2010). Male
Homosexuality: Nature or Culture?. Journal Of Sexual Medicine, 7(10), 3245-
3253. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02024.x

Wilkerson, W. S. (2009). Is It a Choice? Sexual Orientation as Interpretation. Journal
Of Social Philosophy, 40(1), 97-116. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01440.x

Yan, L., Yun’ai, J., Yunxia, S., Ji-Young, K., Zhou-Feng, C., & Yi, R. (2011). Molecular
regulation of sexual preference revealed by genetic studies of 5-HT in the
brains of male mice. Nature, 472(7341), 95-99. doi:10.1038/nature09822

testing