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 17 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 17 of 18)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

tilised according to my rules. She wrote me later thus:
" I am going to have a baby. It was directly after my
monthly trouble. / followed your advice entirely, and this
is the result." " My little son was born quite hale and
hearty, a splendid specimen."

Here is a case of a patient getting her desired son by
fertilisation directly after the period I advised, although
she had been convinced that directly after led always to



a girl. It shows that post-menstrual fertilisation can give
either sex. She had had two girls by post-menstrual
fertilisation, and secured her boy also by post-menstrual
fertilisation, because the ovum of that period was, as I had
told her, a male one. I had correctly determined the sex
of her next child for her.

Mrs. R. V. had two boys. Insemination in both cases
took place only just after the period ceased. She then
had a girl, owing, she says, to " connection in the last two
weeks of her menstrual interval only " i.e. just before the
next period began.

This case shows two boys post-menstrual, and a girl

Mrs. S. C. B. had her children thus:

1. A boy, December 24, 1902; born on actual day expected.

2. A girl, August 18, 1905; expected on August 21.

" In both cases insemination took place immediately
after a period." " No precautions were taken just before
a period, but always after one, except when the second
child was wanted."

Here we see a child of each sex due to fertilisation after
a period, showing it is not the time of fertilisation which

Mrs. S. H. D. had one girl followed by four boys thus:

First child : Girl stillborn May 7, 1907. No other details obtainable.

Second child: Last seen period began July 15, stopped July 20,
1907. Only inseminations: July 21, 22, 23, 1907. Boy born April
30, 1908; expected April 27 to 29, 1908.

Third child: Last seen period began April 25, stopped May i,
1909. Inseminations: May 8 and May 30, 1909. Boy born Feb-
ruary 17, 1910; expected February 12, 1910.

Fourth child: Last seen period began May 23, stopped May 29,
1911. Inseminations: May 30 and June 4, 1911. Boy born
February 27, 1912 ; expected March 6tou, 1912.

Fifth child: Last period began February 24, stopped March i,
1914. Inseminations: March 2, 6, 9, 1914. Boy born December 9,
1914; expected December 7 to 14, 1914.

It is evident in No. 3 that the May 8 insemination fertilised
the ovum of the last period seen, because the next period
due (? May 23) did not appear, and on May 30 she was
already pregnant.


Tabulated the births come thus:

1. Girl, May 7, 1907.

Stillborn. |x

2. Boy, April 30, 1908. ~~

3. Boy, February 17, 1910 J

4. Boy, February 27, 1912.]

5. Boy, December 9, 1914.]

If April 30, the date of No. 2, had been a few days earlier
i.e. post-maturity he would still be right with No. 3, but
wrong with No. i; whereas if the birth is reckoned as a
May one (prematurity), it comes correct to No. i, but
wrong with No. 3. The case supports my theory fully, and
also shows that post-menstrual impregnation in this case
gave rise to four boys. I contend the time of fertilisation
is immaterial to sex production; it depends on what ovum
is then available.

I now give short details of some others of my actual

Mrs. L. C. : Last menstrual period stopped April 19, 1901. Coitus
April 25, 1901. Boy born January 21, 1902; expected January 24,

Mrs. R. : Last period stopped August 2, 1901. Coitus August 5,
1901. Boy born May 2, 1902; expected May 10, 1902.

Mrs. B. H.: Period stopped January 5, 1912. Coitus January 6,

1912. Boy born October 8, 1912; expected October 12, 1912.
Mrs. S. : Period stopped March 23, 1911. Coitus March 24, 1911.

Boy born December 25, 1911 ; expected December 28, 1911.

Mrs. B. : Last period stopped December 13, 1905. Coitus Decem-
ber 17, 1905. Girl born September 19, 1906; expected Septem-
ber 23, 1906.

Mrs. C. T. : Period stopped January 6, 1913. Coitus January n,

1913. Girl born October 10, 1913; expected October 9, 1913.
Mrs. C. C. : Period stopped April 25, 1908. Coitus April 26, 1908.

Girl born January 31, 1909. Child born exactly 280 days after.

Mrs. J.: Period stopped August 9, 1909. Coitus August n, 1909.
Girl born May 24, 1910 ; expected May 16, 1910.

The former four cases show boys born as a result of
fertilisation immediately after cessation of a period; the
second four cases show girls born under similar conditions.

Mrs. B. T. : Period stopped December 5, 1909. Coitus Decem-
ber 28, 1909. Girl born September TO, 1910; expected first week in
October. Period due January 1910 did not appear.


The above is a case of pre-menstrual fertilisation, so that
the shortly expected period viz. in January did not
appear. A girl was born.

Somewhat resembling the pre- and post-menstrual theory
of sex causation is the view originated by Thury of Geneva;
that sex was due to a difference in the " degree of ripeness "
of the ovum when fertilised.

It was supposed that if the ovum was imperfectly ripe
when fertilised a female resulted; if quite or fully ripe or
stale, a male was produced. Further, it was believed that
the ovum became more and more ripe as time elapsed be-
tween its leaving the ovary and its becoming fertilised
that is, as it travelled along the genital tract from the
ovary to the uterus so that an ovum fertilised just before
or a very short time after being shed (ovulation) was supposed
to lead always to a female; and fertilisation postponed
several days, till after the ovum had at least reached the
uterus, led always to a male.

That is, early fertilisation of the ovum led to females,
while late fertilisation led to males; hence one ovum was
supposed to be able to produce either males or females.

We have, however, no means of judging of the " ripeness "
of an ovum, and it is an assumption to allege that a lesser
or greater degree of ripeness (not the technical maturation)
is acquired by the ovum on its journey from ovary to
uterus. In fact, the " maturation " of the ovum takes
place chiefly in the Graafian follicle, before it is discharged

There are certainly no facts to show that an ovum is
ever shed from a Graafian follicle in the ovary until it is
sufficiently ripe for fertilisation, and the occurrence of
ovarian pregnancy proves this is so ; for the ovum is actually
fertilised while still in the Graafian follicle, and we have no
reason to believe such cases are necessarily always girls,
as they should be^if early fertilisation leads to females
always. On the other hand, in Chapter IX., p. 74, we
have three cases of ovarian pregnancy, two being males
and one female.

We know pretty well that, though the ovum may be
fertilised anywhere in the genital tract, from the Graafian


or ovarian follicle down to the lower end of the uterine
cavity, the most usual site of fertilisation is the outer or
expanded portion of the Fallopian tube i.e. the portion
nearest the ovary. And thus, not having travelled far
from the ovary to reach this part of the Fallopian tube, the
ovum should on this view be not " fully ripe," so that most,
if not all, tubal pregnancies should be females, which they
most certainly are not; as well as a goodly proportion of
all children, as the tube is believed to be the usual site for
fertilisation. Male children, on the other hand, would
arise only from the few ova which, escaping fertilisation in
the Fallopian tube, had become " fully ripe " or stale by
the time of their arrival in the uterine cavity, and, being
fertilised there, should give rise to males only. Boys would
therefore be in a great minority, but the simple fact that
everywhere more boys are always born than girls should
surely disprove this idea.

Schroder years ago collected a number of cases of preg-
nancy where the women knew the date of the last period,
and also the date of the only insemination. He found that
boys were conceived on an average 10 days after menstrua-
tion, and girls were conceived on an average 9! days after
menstruation i.e. practically an identical time. So these
cases disprove both Thury's hypothesis and the pre- and
post-menstruation idea.



FROM what has been shown in the former chapters it is
abundantly evident that the production of either sex at
will, must consist in avoiding any attempt at fertilisation
in the months during which an ovum is produced of the
sex which is not desired.

Hence to secure a different sex child to the child last
born, we must first find the ovulation month of the last
child i.e. the month during which the ovum shed was
fertilised, according to the rules laid down in the last

The sex being already known, we then reckon alternately
month by month and so find the months which correspond
in sex to the one which provided the last ovum; during
these months, therefore, no intercourse must take place.

If fertilisation then ensues, during one of the other
months, we shall certainly obtain a child of the opposite
sex to that last "born. By this plan I have been able to
secure to many members of the nobility and aristocracy,
etc., as well as to members of my own profession, that the
birth of a son and heir shall take place in some cases on
more than one occasion and from many of them I have
received letters of very grateful thanks.

I have also in other cases, where a girl was desired, in
like manner correctly determined that the sex of the next
child should be female as wished.

I have besides definite evidence that readers have bene-
fited by the book and correctly determined the sex of their
next child for themselves; though doubtless I have not
heard from some who, through want of appreciation of
some of the difficulties, have failed in their endeavour.



Much of the unhappiness in Royal and other houses is
due to a certain amount of ill-luck or misfortune in always
unintentionally catching the same sex ovulation.

The Empress of Russia can certainly claim to have
created the greatest, even international, interest as to the
sex of her coming children. It was always reported, and
never officially contradicted, that the Czarina, after con-
sulting the late Professor Schenk, had adopted his directions
with a view to ensure the birth of a son. Hopeless failure,
however, attended these efforts, and on two occasions at
least a daughter was born instead of the wished-for son, who
was eventually born two years after Professor Schenk's death.

Why the Czarina did have four daughters consecutively,
and at last a son, is because on four occasions a female
ovulation was unfortunately fertilised; and on three of
these occasions this could have been easily avoided by
calculating on my method the sex of the ovulation month.
The sex of the last three children was on each occasion
foretold correctly by me.

The Czarina has had five living children, thus :

Princess Olga, born November 15, 1895.
Princess Tatiana, born June 10, 1897.
Princess Marie, born June 26, 1899.
Princess Anastasia, born June 18, 1901.
Prince Alexis, born August 12, 1904.

The Czarina gave birth, then, to a girl (Princess Olga)
on November 15, 1895. Tracing back 280 days or 40 weeks,
we find that the ovulation fertilised took place in the first
week of February 1895; so, February 1895 being a female
ovulation, gave rise on November 15, 1895, to the birth of
a girl, Princess Olga.

The next child, a girl, Princess Tatiana, was born in June
1897. Now 40 weeks back make the ovulation in September
1896. As February 1895 was a female ovulation, February
1896 was a male ovulation; so March 1896 would be a
female, April a male, May a female, June a male, July a
female, August a male; and September 1896 was a female
ovulation, therefore a girl was born in June 1897.

The third child, Princess Marie, was born in June 1899,


that is, the same month two years later the sex, as I have
pointed out in the last chapter, being therefore the same.
The ovulation month would again be September of 1898,
and as September 1896 was a female ovulation, September
1897 would be a male, and September 1898 was the female
ovulation which led to the birth of Princess Marie.

Similarly, Princess Anastasia was born in the same month,
June, of 1901 i.e. two years after Princess Marie. Here
again the ovulation month would be September of 1900;
and as September 1898 was a female ovulation, September
1899 would be a male, and September 1900 a female; hence
Princess Anastasia was born.

The birth, then, of these three princesses successively
after the first is thus easily accounted for.

The long-wished-for heir, the Cesarewitch, was born in
August 1904. Tracing back, we find that the ovulation
month must have been November 1903. If, therefore,
September 1900 was a female ovulation period, and pro-
duced the Princess Anastasia, we know that September 1901
would be a male, September 1902 a female, and September
1903 a male ovulation period; therefore October 1903 would
be a female ovulation, and November 1903 was a male
ovulation, which being fertilised, the long-looked-for son
and heir was duly born in August 1904, his birth being by
this plan correctly foretold by me.

The details of the family of the Queen of Spain are most
interesting, and confirmatory also.

i. Boy, Prince of Asturias, born May 10, 1907. -,

2. Boy, Prince Jaime, born June 23, 1908. 4

3. Girl, Princess Beatrice, born June 22, 1909. J -^

4. Boy, premature and stillborn, May 21, 1910. J ~j R.

This child was expected in June 1910.
(See note.)

5. Girl, Princess Maria, born December 12, 191 1 . ~|

6. Boy, Prince Juan, born June 20, 1913- J -

7. Boy, Prince Gonzale, born October 24, 1914. J x

The Queen of Spain gave birth to a boy (Prince of Asturias)
on May 10, 1907. Tracing back 280 days, or 40 weeks,
we find the ovulation fertilised was in the first week of
August 1906, and, being a male, gave rise on May 10, 1907,
to the birth of a son, the Prince of Asturias.


The next child, a boy, Prince Jaime, was born June 23,
1908, and 40 weeks back makes the ovulation in September
1907. As August 1906 was a male ovulation, August 1907
was a female ovulation, so the next month, September
1907, would be the male ovulation, and therefrom a boy,
Prince Jaime, was born in June 1908.

Similarly, the next child, a girl, Princess Beatrice, being
born in the same month (June) of the next year means that
the September ovulation of the year following to that
which gave rise to Prince Jaime, being fertilised, a girl
resulted; for September 1907 being a male ovulation,
September 1908 would be a female, and the Princess was
born in June 1909.

The next child (No. 4) was prematurely born dead.
Here again the child was expected in June 1910, and had
he been born then would have likewise supported my
theory. His birth in May 1910, however, comes wrong
from the dates of Princess Beatrice, and, as pointed out
in the previous chapter, this premature and immature
birth so upset and interfered with the normal ovulation
rhythm that the next children also come wrong, Princess
Maria coming wrong from No. 4; and Princes Juan and
Gonzale coming wrong from Princess Maria and each other,
as well as from either Prince Jaime or Princess Beatrice.

The case furnishes a very good example, in the first
three children, of the accuracy of the theory, besides being
an example of how premature births upset the rhythm
and calculations for subsequent ones.

NOTE. On February i, 1910, a statement appeared in the London
newspapers that the accouchement of the Queen of Spain was ex-
pected in May 1910. On the strength of that statement I foretold
to many that the child would be a girl in May.

On May 16, 1910, there appeared an announcement from the
Madrid official journal that " Queen Victoria Eugenie's confinement
is expected in about a month's time." I therefore corrected my
prophecy to the child being a boy, if born in June 1910; as I should
have originally predicted had the month of birth been given as June.
Why the child was prematurely stillborn in May, so making my
prophecy and my theory look incorrect, I now propose to show.

At midnight on May 6, 1910, the Queen of Spain's uncle, King
Edward VII. died unexpectedly, and there can be little doubt that
the shock of this news, together with the hurried departure for


England of her mother, the Princess Henry of Battenberg, and
later of her husband, the King of Spain, leaving her quite alone
(for she had not even her English nurse near her), combined to
upset her and killed the child; for unexpected premature labour
pains set in on May 18, though we had only just read in the papers
of May 1 6 that labour was " expected in about a month's time."
The funeral of her uncle, King Edward VII., was on May 20, and she
was confined at 2.30 a.m., May 21, 1910, of a stillborn male child,
though " the accouchement had been normal, without complication,"
showing it was not the labour which had killed the child, but the
death of the child had induced the onset of labour.

The English nurse, who would most certainly have been in readi-
ness and waiting had the confinement been then expected, after
evidently being hurriedly sent for when the pains started, as re-
corded on May 18, " arrived on the night of the zoth " i.e., a few
hours only before the birth, in the early morning of May 21, 1910.

That this child (a boy) was prematurely born in May, though not
expected till June, is evident by

(a) The statement in the Madrid official journal that the confine-
ment was due about a month later than May 15-16 i.e., mid-June

(b) The fact that the child was stillborn though the labour was
normal and uncomplicated.

(c) The absence of her English nurse, who would certainly have
been sent for, and kept in Madrid in readiness, if the labour had
been expected when it took place. Her distance of living from her
case would have been a reason for having her at hand, as is done
by many ladies, a week or more before the expected date of con-

(d) It is probable that her mother and husband would not both
have left her had the confinement been due when it actually took

Taking these things into consideration, I have no hesitation in
saying that the Queen of Spain's fourth child, a male, stillborn
on May 21, 1910, was prematurely born, and was not really due till
June 1910. And so the case further supports my theory, and my
forecast was essentially correct viz., a female, if full time, in May,
and consequently a male in June.

We may possibly some day, by means of some modifica-
tion of the Rontgen or other rays, be able to actually see
an ovary ovulate. This should not sound so improbable
when we recall how impossible the location of swallowed
objects, bullets, and other foreign bodies, besides views of
fractured bones, would have been thought before the
discovery of the Rontgen rays.

Efforts are even now being made to show the action of


the heart in situ; and who can say that an ovary ovulating
will be an impossible view in the future ?

If this ever comes to pass, the solving of the problem
how a Royal house would be able to avoid the birth of a
princess when a prince was wanted, would be rendered
quite easy ; it would allow even the first child to be a boy
if so desired. Until the right or male ovary was seen to
ovulate, sexual congress would be prohibited; then, if
fertilisation followed, the desired prince would be born.
There are still many houses awaiting such an event with

Until such time, therefore, as we can see an ovary ovulate,
we must be content to work out, from the data of a previous
child's birth, which ovary is working during certain months.

This plan, I maintain, succeeds for births after the first;
but I am quite unable to determine the sex of the firstborn.

But this matters only slightly; it is only after the birth
of at least one child that the parents begin to wish for a
child of different sex. This, my plan now teaches them
how to achieve, though there are several pitfalls for the
amateur sex determinator.



Abernethy, 100.

Addinsell, A. W., 24, 26.

Adhesions, absorption of, 131.

render removal of ovary or '

tumour difficult or incomplete, i

73, 1 68.

Adverse cases, so-called, 157.
Ages, relative, of parents theory, 52.

disproved, 123.

Albertus Magnus, 54, 115.

Alecithal ova, 35.

Anabolism, 52.

Anaxagoras, 54.

Anderson, Wm., 108.

Andrews, H. Russell, 69, 71, 148,

Animals, offspring of, all one sex,

61, 62.

Artifacts, 31.
Avicenna, 54, 115.

Baldwin, 158, 161.

Ballantyne, J. W., 39, 42, 150, 151,

Z 57> I 59> 161, 163, 171.
Barker, Fordyce, 83.
Barnes, R.,9i.
Bate, G., 138.
Baudouin, 141, 144.
Beigel, 161.
Berner and Stieda, 53.
Bernutz and Goupil, 74.
Bertillon, 113.
Billroth, 178.
Birnbaum, 134, 152.
Birth-rate of boys and girls, 105,


BischofI, 90, 100.
Blacker, G. F., 154.
Bland-Sutton, Sir J., 21, 26, 51, 68,

86, 88, 91, 94, 126, 154, 162-166,


Blomfield, J. E., 151.
Bonamy and Beau, 109.
Bond, C. J., 150.
Boxall, R., 92.
Boyd, Mrs. Stanley, 73, 81, 131.

Boys, birth-rate of, 105, 171.

due to right- sided ova, 54.
to spermatozoa, 54.

- more than girls in sextuplets, 141.
in triplets, 139.

one, followed by several girls,

only in family, 128.

proportion of illegitimate, to
girls, 113.

proportion of stillborn, to girls,

several, followed by one girl, 130.

twin, no.

twin, more numerous than girl
twins, 133.

why more than girls, 105.
Braun, Von, 119.

Breasts alternately painful, 176.

abscesses of, 178.
Bryce, 38.
Burdach, 53.

Campbell, H., 106.

Canestrini, 52.

Carpenter, W. C., 61.

Castration, incomplete, of cockerels,

Children, all one sex, 127.

after unilateral ovario-
tomy, 76.

by different men, 58,


different sex by different wives
of one husband, 59, 60.

diseased, due to a diseased ovary
or ova, 146.

of alternate sex in one family,

of Czarina, 215.

of one sex only, diseased, 146.

monstrosities, 151.

sequences of, of same sex,. 128.
Churchill, 133.

Colour blindness, 153.

of hair identical in uniovular
twins, 136.




Conceptions, male exceed female,


multiple, 132.
Condamin, 166.
Cornual pregnancy, 84.
Corpora lutea in rabbits' ovaries,


in sows' ovaries, 137.

scars from, equal the number
of menstrual periods, 49, 50.

two in one ovary, 134, 153.
Corpus luteum, 19

after removal of both ovaries,

due to fibroids, 87.

in monotocous animals, 101.

in polytocous animals, 51,

in a tubal fringe, 167.

in tubal abortion, 88.
sign of previous ovulation, 20,


true, a sign of pregnancy, 86.

Cory, Robert, 23.

Cow, calves of a, all one sex, 62.

pregnant uterus of, 101.
Cripps, H., 92.

Croom, J. H., 158.

Cullingworth, C. J., 68, 70, 72, 87,

92, 164.

Cunningham, 8, 41.
Czarina's children, 215.

Dauber, J. H., 159-

Dawson, E. Rumley, 54, 63, 67, 131.

Death-rate in boys and girls, 106.

Decubitus and sex, 115.

Dermoids, 166.

Determination, the, of sex, 214.

Deutoplasm, 35.

Dix, W. R., 144.

Doncaster, L., 103, 201.

Doran, Alban, 29, 79, 93. *57> l62 .

164, 169.
Dorland, 118.
Double uterus, 83.
Drennan, T. G., 177.
Duncan, Wm., 68,
Dyball, B., 68.

Eden, T. W., 39, 167-

Ellis, Havelock, 55, 105, 153.

Emmett, T. A., 171.

Endometrium, 23.

Engel, 170.

Esquimaux, ovulation in, arrested

by cold, 29, 30.
Etchecoin, 140.
Evans, J. H., 152.
External migration of ovum, 90.
Extra-uterine pregnancies, 67.

Fallopian tubes, 1 1 .

function of, 12.

length, abnormal, of, 94,

lie on different levels, 6, 1 1 1 .

misplaced, 94.

mobility of, n, 93.

receptacles for semen, 44, in.

Family, normal, contains both sexed
children, 115.

Farre, 99.

Father does not cause sex, 47, 56.

Fertilisation, 38.

due to father only, 58.

in invertebrate, 40.

not observed in mankind, 39.

number of spermatozoa requisite
for human, 39.

pre- and post-menstrual, 208.

site of, 43, 95.
Fordyce Barker, 83.
Forecasting sex of unborn child, 1 8 1 .
Free-martin, 155.

Freureisz, 139.

Galabin, A. L., 87, 91, no, 126, 162,


Galen, 48, 54.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17

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 17 of 18)