Ernest Rumley Dawson.

The causation of sex in man; a new theory of sex based on clinical materials together with chapters on forecasting or predicting the sex of the unborn child and on the determination or production of either sex at will online

. (page 15 of 18)
Online LibraryErnest Rumley DawsonThe causation of sex in man; a new theory of sex based on clinical materials together with chapters on forecasting or predicting the sex of the unborn child and on the determination or production of either sex at will → online text (page 15 of 18)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ovulation; that is, instead of being of the normal 28-day
type, so that four weeks elapse between each ovulation,
the patient goes perhaps only 21 days or even 30 to 35
days.

Allowing 28 days or four weeks for the average menstrual
periodicity (the external sign that ovulation has occurred),
we get 13 ovulations during the 52 weeks of the year.
Of course, if it recur every 21 days, we get an increased
number of ovulations, if only every 30 days we can only
allow 12 ovulation periods, with a thirteenth every sixth
year.

All these peculiarities in different women have to be
allowed for when forecasting the sex ; but with the following
rules and examples the medical attendant of any pregnant
woman should be able with care to correctly foretell the
sex of the child with which she is pregnant, and further to
tell other women during which times to avoid getting preg-
nant if a certain sex child be desired.

This can roughly be done with the aid of the usual ob-
stetric tables, for, given the sex and the birthday of the
patient's last child, the ovulation month (and naturally the
sex of that ovum) can be readily found from the tables.
I have, however, found it more reliable to work it out by
means of the forty weeks' plan here given.

It is necessary to obtain from the patient the following
particulars before it is possible to forecast the sex of the
coming child:

1. How often do your menstrual periods occur ?

2. How many days does each usually last ?

3. Are they always quite regular ?

4. What was the date when your last child was born ?
(Year, month, and day must be known.)

5. Was the child a boy or girl ?

6. Was it born at or about the time expected, or before
or after its expected date ? If either, by how many days
or weeks ?



FORECASTING THE SEX OF COMING CHILD 183

7. How long did you suckle the child, if at all ?

8. When did the menstrual period reappear after the
confinement ?

9. Give the dates of all periods seen since the last child
was born.

10. When is the next period expected ?

11. Have there been any miscarriages since baby was
born ?

12. Give the dates of birth and sex of your other children.

A woman's normal period of gestation that is, her preg-
nancy lasts for 280 days, or ten months of four weeks
each that is, forty weeks of seven days, making 280 days
in all. The expression " nine months of pregnancy " should
be abandoned, because inaccurate.

Given therefore the child's birthday, we go backwards
forty weeks to find the ovulation month, or month in which
the ovum was fertilised which yielded the child. The sex
of this child being known, we then proceed alternately from
this ovulation month until we come down to the tenth
ovulation period prior to the expected month of birth of
the coming child, allowing an extra or thirteenth ovulation
between each December and January of the year following
if the actual period dates are not known.

We can therefore find the sex of the ovulation which has
just been fertilised and with which the patient is now
pregnant; so we are able to correctly foretell the sex of
the cotning child.

Because of the thirteen ovulations per annum, it follows
tjiat if the October ovulation of one year is fertilised the
next October ovulation will be of the opposite sex, because
of the odd or thirteenth month or ovulation period which
has to come between the two Octobers; so that if a patient
has a child in one month of one year and another child in
the same month of the next year, the sex would be the
opposite.

Examples of this are to be found in the family of her late
Majesty Queen Victoria, thus: first child, Princess Victoria,
the Princess Royal, born November 21, 1840; second child,
King Edward VII., born November 9, 1841; also in the
Duke of Edinburgh's family: first child a boy, born October



184 THE CAUSATION OF SEX

1874; second a girl, born October 1875; and again in the
Duke of Connaught's family: first child a girl, born January
1882; second a boy, born January 1883.

The following few instances are from actual cases in my
own practice (they do not exhaust my lists), thus:

Mrs. T. S. C. had a girl February 6, 1914, and a boy
February u, 1915.

Mrs. B. L. H. had a girl September 24, 1906, and a boy
September 2, 1907.

Mrs. W. had a girl May 12, 1909, and a boy May 26, 1910.

Mrs. F. A. had a girl December 7, 1905, and a boy
December 18, 1906.

Mrs. C. S. G. had a boy born July 2, 1899, and she had a
girl born July 4, 1900.

Mrs. T. P. C. had a boy born August 10, 1901, and she had
a girl born August 13, 1902.

Mrs. L. R. had a boy May 6, 1904, and a girl May 17, 1905.

Mrs. W. T. had a boy September 3, 1906, and a girl
September 7, 1907.

Mrs. K. P. had a boy August 24, 1907, and a girl
August 12, 1908.

Mrs. S. C. had a boy February 15, 1914, and a girl Feb-
ruary 25, 1915.

If instead of the next year it be the same month of the
next year but one, then the sexes will be the same, thus :

Mrs. S. P. had a boy September 1899, and she had a
second boy September '1901, because September 1900 would
have given a girl.

Mrs. N. L. had a boy February 21, 1897, and another
boy February 10, 1899 * f r February 1898 would have given
a girl.

Mrs. D. H. had a boy February 17, 1906, and another
boy February 27, 1908; for February 1907 would have given
a girl.

Mrs. B. had a boy December 20, 1901, and another boy
December 7, 1903; for December 1902 would have given
a girl.

Mrs. T. S. had a boy June 1901, and a second boy June
1903, because June 1902 would have given a girl



FORECASTING THE SEX OF COMING CHILD 185

Mrs. R. R. D. had a girl July 1895, and a second girl
July 1897, because July 1896 would have given a boy.

Mrs. M. B. had a girl May 9, 1892, and another girl
May 12, 1894; for May 1893 would have given a boy.

Mrs. B. L. had a girl June 24, 1900, and another girl
June 5, 1902; for June 1901 would have given a boy.
Later another girl, January 13, 1907, and still another girl
January 5, 1909; for January 1908 would have given a
boy.

Mrs. V. B. had a girl September 22, 1909, and another
girl September 14, 1911; for September 1910 would have
given a boy.

Mrs. B. R. S. had a girl December 13, 1907, and another
girl December 24, 1909; for December 1908 would have
given a boy.

If instead of being the same month two years running
the child is born the next month of the following year, the
sex will be the same, thus:

Mrs. C. R. R. had a girl May 5, 1901, and another girl
June 5, 1902, because May 1902 would have been a boy, so
the next month (June) gave the girl it was.

Mrs. F. B. had a girl April 22, 1906, and another girl
May 27, 1907; for April 1907 would have given a boy, so the
next month (May) gave the girl.

Mrs. L, G. had her family thus :

Girl, Ethel, January 20, 1888. ~| R
Girl, Florence, February 12, 1889.-]
Girl, Jessie, March 19, 1890.
Girl, Lily, July 6, 1892.

Note that the girls Florence and Jessie are each born
thirteen months after their predecessors, and so are the
same sex.

Mrs. R. L. had a girl May 9, 1897, and another girl
June n, 1898; for May 1898 would have given a boy, so
June gave the girl.

Mrs. T. R. S. had a boy February 3, 1906, and another
boy March 3, 1907; for February 1907 would have given
a girl, so March gave the boy.



i86 THE CAUSATION OF SEX

Mrs. B. T. had a boy September 9, 1898, and another
boy October 20, 1899. Here, as September 1899 would
have given a girl, October gave the male.

Mrs. S. A. B. had a boy November 4, 1908, and another
boy December 21, 1909; for November 1909 would have
given a girl, so the next month gave the boy.

Mrs. C. M. had a boy July 13, 1901, and another boy
August 22, 1902, because July 1902 would have given a
girl, so the next month (August) gave the boy.

Her third child, born August 17, 1905, was a girl, because
we have just seen August 1902 was a boy, so August 1903
would have been a girl, August 1904 would have been
a boy, and thus August 1905 was the girl i.e. three years
after the last boy.

Hence, if children are born in the same month an odd
number of years apart they are of opposite sex; if an even
number of years intervene they are of the same sex, thus :

Mrs. K. C. P. had twin boys on March 25, 1888, and four
years later to the actual day, viz. March 25, 1892, she was
again delivered of twin boys; so that because the births
occurred in the same month an even number of years after-
wards, she had the same sex children again. That she
would have twins could not of course be foretold. (See also
the examples in the case of the Empress of Russia's three
last daughters, detailed in Chapter XXVI. , p. 215.)

In the following cases the children were born in the same
month a varying number of years apart.

Mrs. W. A. had her children thus:

Alfred, May 6, 1895.

Arthur, August 24, 1896.

Louisa, April 18, 1898.

Alice, November 10, 1899.
rErnest, March 22, 1902.
-Edward, March 10, 1904.

Percy, April 19, 1905.

This case illustrates two points, the odd and the even
number of years of interval, between similar months,
giving the different and the same sex respectively.

Mrs. T. H. had a girl January 8, 1907, and a boy
January 13, 1910.



FORECASTING THE SEX OF COMING CHILD 187

Mrs. H. C. L. had a girl June 3, 1901, and a boy June 18,
1904.

Mrs. H. K. had a girl January 10, 1899, an d a boy on
January 17, 1906.

Mrs. T. H. W. had a boy August 15, 1904, and a girl
August 12, 1907.

Mrs. D. B. had a boy November 12, 1906, and a girl
November 8, 1909.

Mrs. N. F. had a boy November 17, 1903, and a girl
November 19, 1910.

Mrs. M. S. had a boy December 9, 1907, and a girl
December 19, 1912.

Mrs. S. C. had a boy February 15, 1914, and a girl on
February 25, 1915.

Mrs. P. K. had a girl June 19, 1903, and another girl
June 3, 1909.

Mrs. G. had a girl February 17, 1897, and another girl
February 8, 1901.

Mrs. H. B. had a girl January 12, 1891, and another girl
January 5, 1899.

Mrs. K. had a boy April 27, 1903, and another boy
April 4, 1907.

Mrs. H. L. had a boy September 2, 1897, and another
boy September 7, 1905.

Mrs. R. S. A. had a boy January 26, 1892, and another
boy January 21, 1898.

Mrs. J. H. had a boy February 17, 1906, and another
boy February 27, 1908.

We therefore get the general rule to proceed alternately
from the known date and month of a child's birth down
to the month the coming child is expected to be born in.
We can then foretell its sex, though this method is not
so invariably correct as is calculating from the ovulation
periods. Thus :

Mrs. K. M. had a girl May 1896, and a boy July 1897, for
May 1897 would have been a boy, June 1897 would have
been a girl, and so July 1897 was a boy.

Mrs. S. C. D. had a girl April 1902, and a boy October



188 THE CAUSATION OF SEX

1903; for April 1903 would have been a boy, May 1903
would have been a girl, June a boy, July a girl, August
a boy, September a girl; and so October was a boy.

Mrs. C. had a girl July 1900 and a boy November 19,
1905; for July 1901 would have been a boy, July 1902 a
girl, July 1903 a boy, July 1904 a girl, July 1905 a boy;
so August 1905 would be a girl, September 1905 a boy,
October 1905 a girl, and thus November 1905 was a boy.

Mrs. S. W. had a girl October 1896, and another girl
May 1901; for October 1897 would have been a boy, October

1898 a girl, October 1899 a boy, October 1900 a girl, October

1901 a boy; therefore if October 1901 would have been a
boy, September 1901 would have been a girl, August a
boy, July a girl, June a boy, and May 1901 a girl, which
it was.

Mrs. B. R. A. had a girl April 1886, and another girl
August 1888; for April 1887 would give a boy, April 1888
a girl. Therefore May would give a boy, June a girl, July
a boy, and August the girl it was.

Mrs. R. had a girl June 1888, and another girl November
1893 ; for June 1889 would give a boy, June 1890 a girl, June
1891 a boy, June 1892 a girl, and June 1893 a boy; so July
1893 would be a girl, August a boy, September a girl,
October a boy, and November 1893 a girl, which it was.

Mrs. M. B. had a boy April 1901, and a girl September
1903; for April 1902 would give a girl, April 1903 a boy,
May a girl, June a boy, July a girl, August a boy, September
a girl, which it was.

Mrs. G. P. H. had a boy February 1900, and a girl May
1902; for February 1901 would have been a girl, February

1902 a boy; so March would have been a girl, April would
have been a boy, and May was a girl.

Mrs. F. G. had a boy July 1898, a girl June 1902; for July

1899 would have been a girl, July 1900 a boy, July 1901
a girl, July 1902 a boy; therefore June 1902 gave a girl,
which it was.

Mrs. L. M. had a boy April 1899, and another boy February
1903; for April 1900 would have been a girl, April 1901 a



FORECASTING THE SEX OF COMING CHILD 189

boy, April 1902 a girl, April 1903 a boy. If therefore the
child was expected in February 1903, we know March 1903
would have been a girl, and February 1903 would give the
boy, which it was.

Mrs. W. L. had a boy August 1896, and another boy
November 1901 ; for August 1897 would give a girl, August
1898 a boy, August 1899 a girl, August 1900 a boy, and
August 1901, a girl; so September 1901 would be a boy,
October 1901 a girl, and November 1901 a boy, which it was.

Mrs. G. W. G. had a boy May 1901, and another boy
August 1904; for May 1902 would have been a girl, May
1903 a boy, May 1904 a girl, June 1904 a boy, July 1904 a
girl, and August a boy, which it was.

I have here given three examples of each kind of suc-
cession viz. girl followed by boy, girl by girl, boy followed
by girl, and lastly boy by boy to show that the order of
birth makes no difference to the plan.

In the following cases only eleven months elapsed between
the births, so the sexes will be the same, thus:

Mrs. R. B. had a boy April 13, 1908, and another boy
March 26, 1909; for April 1909 would have given a girl,
and so the preceding March gave a boy.

Mrs. S. R. had a boy February 9, 1914, and another boy
January 12, 1915; for February 1915 would have given
a girl, so the prior month gave a boy.

Mrs. I. had a boy April 9, 1909, and another boy
March 18, 1910; for April 1910 would have given a girl.

Mrs. L. H. had a boy March 10, 1899, and another boy
February 27, 1900; for March 1900 would have given a girl.

Mrs. R. H. had a girl February 20, 1914, and another girl
January 17, 1915; for February 1915 would have given
a boy, so January gave the girl.

Mrs. L. G. had a girl August 6, 1892, and another girl
July 8, 1893 ; for August 1893 would have given a boy, so
July gave the girl.

In the following cases the children were born on actually
the same date of the same month, a varying number of years
apart.



1 9 o THE CAUSATION OF SEX

Mrs. G. P. had a girl September 15, 1896, and a second girl
September 15, 1904.

Mrs. B. E. had a girl May 13, 1900, and a second girl
May 13, 1906.

Mrs. T. C. had a boy July 5, 1901, and a second boy
July 5, 1903.

Mrs. F. had a boy October 8, 1895, and a girl October 8,
1898.

Mrs. G. F. T. had a girl December 6, 1897, and a boy
December 6, 1898.

In these cases the patients had their children very closely
together thus :

Mrs. T. H. F. had a girl January 6, 1908, and a boy
December 31, 1908.

Even if we count December 31 as a January 1909 birth,
they come right to each other.

Mrs. H. H. B. had her children thus: A girl Novem-
ber 18, 1908, and a boy October 8, 1909 (prematurely). He
was definitely, to my knowledge, expected the first week
of November.

Mrs. T. W. had a girl October 16, 1911, and a boy August
20, 1912.



The following interesting cases, correctly foretold, show
that the birth of a premature, not fully developed child
must be taken as having occurred in the month in which it
was expected, and not in the month wherein birth actually
took place; thus:

Mrs. L. C. G., who expected on January 24, 1902, was
delivered on January 21 of a boy. On November 10 she
engaged me to attend her with her next, which she expected
the middle of February 1903. I foretold a boy. She was
delivered prematurely on January 21, 1903, of another boy,
so both children had the same birthday a year apart ! It
was a boy, because due in February; thus: January 1902
gave a boy, January 1903 should give a girl, and February
a boy, which the child was, though born prematurely and
not fully developed in January.

Mrs. B. T., who expected about the middle of March,



FORECASTING THE SEX OF COMING CHILD 191

was confined on March 23, 1904, of a girl; she expected
again May 25, 1906. I foretold a girl again. She was
prematurely confined on March 19, 1906, of twin girls. As
March 1904 was a girl, March 1905 would be a boy, and
JMarch 1906 a girl; so, too, April being a boy, May would
give the girl as foretold. Of course the twins were not
predicted. So, though born two months prematurely, and
properly being due in May, this forecast was actually
correct, as it would have been had the twins arrived in May.

TWINS AND SEX PREDICTION. The following cases of
twins show, that though twinning itself could not be fore-
told, yet in the case of boy and girl twins the sex of the
child which should properly have been born, had it been
a single birth, could and would have been correctly pre-
dicted.

Where the twin children are of the same sex, the prediction
is no more difficult than an ordinary single birth.

The following interesting cases contain in each family
a case of boy and girl or " pigeon-pair " twins. These
instances not only support my contentions, but also show
very clearly which ovary, anticipating its usual rhythm,
actually ovulated " out of its turn," and, owing to ovulating
synchronously with its fellow-ovary, led to two ova being
simultaneously provided, with the result that, both being
fertilised, boy and girl twins were born.

The cases form a convincing answer to the reviewer who
considered boy and girl twins were not explainable by
my theory.

Mrs. L. B. T. had her family thus:

Fred, December 20, 1902. ~i



_^ i

]J R

J J



Ethel, March 3, 1906. J

Gladys, June 4, 1907.

Winifred, October 13, 1909. -i ] R

Joy, April 14, 1915.

From this list, it will be seen that the birth of Richard
comes right or correct from Fred, and also with Ethel;
whereas Dorothy comes wrong from Fred, and wrong with



, January 21, 1009. -i

January 22, 1891. ^ -, ~~|

JTwins, October 15, 1893. J x 1



192 THE CAUSATION OF SEX

Ethel, who followed. It is plain, therefore, that Dorothy
was the interloper, and that the right ovary, which provided
Richard, was acting normally to time, and that the left
ovary, which provided Dorothy, acted " out of its turn,"
so that, the two ova being provided simultaneously, twins
resulted. The other children follow each other quite
correctly, as did Ethel from Fred.
Mrs. W. F. had her family thus:

Dorothy, January 21, 1889. -i

Blanche, January 22, 1891.

Edward,

Edith j

Herbert, December 4, 1895.

Alfred, October 15, 1897.

Ethel, July 22, 1901. ] R

In this case also it is the left ovary which has acted " out
of its turn " and supplied an ovum at the same time as the
right, so that pigeon-pair twins resulted.

It will be seen that Edward comes right from Blanche
and to Herbert whereas Edith comes wrong from Blanche
and to Herbert, Herbert comes correctly from Blanche,
as Alfred and Ethel also do from Herbert. The case shows
that Edward was the correct child to be born and not
Edith.

Mrs. F. S. had her large family thus:

John, February 3, 1875.

Richard, December 25, 1877.

Thomas, October 9, 1879.

James, June 5, 1881.

Jane, July 31, 1882.

Edward, November 12, 1884.

Elizabeth, December 2, 1886.

Charlotte, January 2, 1889.

Ellen, March 3, 1891. -i -j

f~* f*s**.-vr*r\ \ -J



Robert, Februarys, 1895. ] R

Louisa, January 2, 1897. -j



~1

Ix R

J ' -,



Charles, March 22, 1900.

In this case it is the right ovary which has acted " out of
turn," and, supplying a male ovum at the same time as
the left did a female, boy and girl twins resulted.



FORECASTING THE SEX OF COMING CHILD 193

The children all came correctly with each other except
the twin George, who comes wrong with Ellen and with
Robert; his companion twin Annie comes correctly from
Ellen and to Robert, as these two do to each other.

Note how Charlotte and Louisa, born on the same date
of same month, but years apart (January 2, 1889, to 1897)
come correctly to each other.

Jane, born July 31, however, is wrong; but if this be
counted as August as the menstrual month has not
thirty-one days ! all the children come right with each
other.

It is a case where the last day of the month should
properly rank as a day of the month following; it is not
possible to have thirteen ovulation periods analogous
to lunar months if they contain more than twenty-eight
days. This case of 14 children in 13 confinements all
coming correctly bears out the criticism of a reviewer, that
there was " remarkable concordance with expectation."

In the following cases of twins, being of the same sex,
they naturally are both correct, if one is, with the other
members of the family. The cases imply two ova from the
same ovary, in these cases from the left ovary, evidently.

Mrs. B. G. had her family thus:

r Fanny, January 31, 1894.
LLucy, January 20, 1897.
Frank, June 26, 1901.




Charles, January 16, 1906.
Amy, June i, 1908.
Alfred, June 7, 1911.

Note that all the births come correctly, and that January
and June account for six of the dates. Fanny comes wrong,
but January 31 should count as February 1894.

Mrs. P. B. had her family thus:



Lily, March 23, 1895.

Louise^ r^

vT. wins, Marci

Leopold, March 16, 1900.



>

, March 13, 1897. n

]*



194 THE CAUSATION OF SEX

Here all dates are correct, and all are in the month of
March.

Mrs. L. R. had her children thus :



j^w. y i -r; wms> December

3. Alice, January 9, 1900. "

4. Bertha, April 13, 1901.

The double ovulation by the one ovary (the left) has
not affected the dates of the subsequent children.

In these cases the right ovary has evidently supplied the
two ova at one time, hence twin boys resulted.
Mrs. T. H. B. had her family thus:

1. William, January 18, 1861.

2. Alice, January 2, 1862.

3. James, October 12, 1864.

4. Walter, June 9, 1866.

5. George, April 19, 1868. n

6. Arthur)^ ___..._ A __., .



7. Albert, . April 21. 1870.

8. Charles. June 23, 1872.

All the birth dates come correctly, and the sex of the
sixth confinement, but not the twinning, could have been
rightly foretold, as the eighth child also would have been.

Mrs. F. C. E. had her children thus:

i. Boy, September 30, 1908. -i
2 ' Bov ^ May 19, 1911- J X



3- Boyj 1

4. Boy, January 18, 1913.

This is an interesting case where September 30 must
rank as October; the birth date of the twin boys would
then be right, and could have been correctly foretold, as
would the fourth child from the date of the twins.

In the following cases an error in the month in which
the child was expected to be born led to my forecast being
wrong. Had the month been correctly told me by the
mother the prophecy would have been correct ; thus :

Mrs. W. H. had a girl born August 24, 1898. She ex-
pected to be confined, she said, the third week of July 1903.



FORECASTING THE SEX OF COMING CHILD 195

I therefore foretold^on April 15, 1903, that she would have
a girl in July 1903; instead she was delivered of a fully
developed boy at i a.m. on June 28. Had she told me to
expect in June, I should have of course correctly foretold
her a boy; thus: August 1898 gave a girl; August 1899 would
be a boy, August 1900 a girl, August 1901 a boy, August
1902 a girl, August 1903 a boy, hence July would give the
girl I foretold, while June 1903 would give the boy, which
was born.

Mrs. M. G. had a boy born May 19, 1902. She expected,
she said, to be confined in the middle of August 1903. I
therefore predicted she would have another boy. She was
delivered on July 27 of a fully grown girl. I should have
predicted a girl for July had that month been given to me ;
thus: May 1902 was a boy; May 1903 would be a girl, there-
fore June would give a boy, and July 1903 a girl, which it
was, the first four children having all been boys.

Therefore, from the experience of these and other cases, I
soon learned to prophesy like this: You will have a boy if
the child is born in August, and a girl if it be born fully
developed in July.

Thus Mrs. R. S. said she expected to be confined at the
end of August 1902; I, however, calculated the probable


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 17 18

Online LibraryErnest Rumley DawsonThe causation of sex in man; a new theory of sex based on clinical materials together with chapters on forecasting or predicting the sex of the unborn child and on the determination or production of either sex at will → online text (page 15 of 18)