Sex Ratio & Female Foeticide: A Counter Point

After the census of 2001 in India, there has been a flurry of articles on sex ratio. Most newspaper readers there now know that the number of women per thousand men, have been falling and think that there is something awfully wrong. The falling sex ratio, radio and TV tell us, is because of abortion of female fetuses and they feel that sex determination tests should perhaps be banned.

This view raised by activists, is supported by demographers and scholars of repute. And a credulous and uncritical media has taken up promoting this view point. Yet a humble counter point needs to be raised. Because the whole argument seems motivated and self-assured if not irrational. And like bad news travels faster than good news, irrational viewpoints are adopted more easily. Vietnam and China are now being accused of practicing female foeticide. Looking at the changing sex ratio in Indonesia, there is a possibility that the country would be next in the firing line. Hence the need to raise this counterpoint on an international platform.

Firsly, if the missing 20 million girls (in India) were really selectively got rid of, as some people think, it would mean that about 40 to 60 million people in the country - the parents, the doctors, the nurses - have been directly or indirectly involved with it. In other words, on an average, 50 out of thousand people that you see in India would be party to female foeticide. This is indeed very difficult to believe.

Secondly, what is the reason for some districts in India showing the opposite trend of more females than males? If foeticide were responsible for the skewed sex ratio, one would be forced to argue that in the underpopulated tribal districts of India, people are practicing male foeticide! Media should then be asked to run a different campaign for these districts. Come on, now. Let us be reasonable.


One cannot deny that foeticide takes place in the country. Indeed, one should expect that nearly 50% of the abortions would involve female foetuses. But then, most of the abortions take place because of the mistake of unprotected sex. Female foeticide where the fetus is killed because it is female, is not the same as termination of unwanted pregnancies and is altogether different in its implications.

One does not also wish to disagree on the issue of female infanticide, negligence of the girl child, dowry deaths and other atrocities against women. But one could definitely suggest that all these are not really necessary or sufficient causes for the magnitude of fall in sex ratio.

The argument of female foeticide derives its conviction from stray case studies, social ethos and rituals. The only authentic data that we have is that the women per thousand men have been becoming lesser in the last few decades. The reasons given and the attribution of causes to this phenomenon are quite questionable since they belong to the realm of inferences and conjectures.

Are Skewed Sex Ratios Natural?

There has to be some reason other than female foeticide for the state of affairs because the decline in the sex ratio started much before sex determination tests became widely available in India.

Besides, it is not only in human beings that skewed sex ratios exist. Deer populations, which lead a pure vegetarian and simple lives far away from the qualified doctors show skewed sex ratio. And amphibians who would hesitate to go into sex determination clinics, also show skewed sex ratios.

It is well established now that a small change in ambient temperature can increase or decrease the number of females in some amphibian populations. It has also been seen that the density of population has an impact on sex ratio of mammals like deer. Thus it would seem that external conditions do have an impact on sex ratio even in higher animals.

You may insist that we are not animals and are only criminals, if you wish. You could quote that, as per general understanding, in humans, sex is genetically determined. And that, therefore, environmental factors have no control on sex ratio. But then, from hospital statistics it has been noted that the chances of conceiving girl children increases with ill health and stress to the mother. So it appears that there is more than what meets the eye.

There is definitely, a need to explore alternative explanations for the observed data of falling sex ratios.

One could start with basic questions: why males and females? What made a species to diverge into male and female sexes in the first place?

Simple budding and parthenogenesis (in which there is no need for a second sex, the male) were left behind in the evolution of complexity because of a simple reason. If you have the genes from both your father and mother, and if some of the genes of one or the other were defective, you could still manage. You might not even show the defect. So in the fight for survival, sexual reproduction has a distinct advantage over asexual modes.

Sexual reproduction also means some amount of mixing of the gene pools in every generation. So it makes the process of change and evolution of the species faster. But then, sexual dimorphism of the species into male and female, involves a huge amount of wasted energy, which goes into the creation of the redundancy of two sets of genes. So there was a need to choose between the two modes of reproduction. In fact, there are some species that adopt sexual reproduction only when the going gets tough. The choice for us, however, was made far too long back. And we are not that flexible any more, to chose to reproduce asexually, in a natural manner.

Once the sexes separate into distinct categories, the strategies of survival also bifurcate. The male has millions of sperms to spare every day. So a son has greater potential to spread one’s genes. The genes of the female are far too few to spare. With only one set of chromosomes per month, a daughter has much lesser genetic potential.

This is the basic difference between the survival of the genes of males and females of the species. And it has a major role to play in our sexual behaviour and ethics of our society.. The preference for male children is not merely due to our cultural imperatives. It has biological roots and is seen in even cultures where a son is not required to perform the last rites.

Just because one prefers sons do not mean that daughter has to be killed off. (In fact, when we look at the preference for grand children, we see that daughter’s children are more valued than son’s children. According to scientists, this also has a reason: you can be sure that your daughter’s children are hers but you can’t be that sure with your son’s children. According to the game theory approach to genetics, the investment would commiserate with the risk. And that is why emotional investment in daughters’ children is usually more than that in the son’s children – across cultures.) We need to look elsewhere for an explanation for the falling sex ratio.

Could Skewed Sex Ratios be Useful?

Sex of the child is determined by the sperm, which may have the X or the Y chromosome. Theoretically there would be equal number of sperms with Y and with X chromosomes. Yet, the outcome varies. This is because of the relative importance of males and females at different times. To understand this better let us do a classical thought experiment in Population Biology.

Consider two islands. In one island there are 100 males and one female. In the other, there are 100 females and one male. Fifty years from now, what could be the difference in their populations?

Obviously, the island with more females would have a lot of children and perhaps the population in the other, may even be wiped out.

The thought experiment teaches us that the value of the female increases when we need more children. When the socio-economic environment provides niches where more human beings can survive, ie. when there is a possibility of sustaining an increase in population, we will have to turn to women. In an overpopulated society, on the other hand, women lose their status, and become the second sex. They become less important.

For the sheer existence of the species, females are more important. Males are superficial and serve mainly as sperm donors. (There are many species where males die after copulation. The case of insects and spiders where the female eats up the male after copulation is an extreme one. The death of the male after the big bang is seen even amongst the marsupials.) The primary function of males is in mixing the genetic pool and aiding evolution. The role of support during child bearing and rearing, seen among humans and some other species, evolved later, to improve the chances of survival of the offspring.

The missing arm of the chromosome in the male genetic kit leads to a situation of more precarious existence of the male in humans. Male foetuses tend to abort more easily, the male child has to be taken to the clinic more, and as adults they fall prey to stress related diseases more easily. (Social activists however, tend to use the clinical data from paediatric clinics to prove negligence of the female child!)

If females are more important to the species, why are so many males around?

Larger number of males in an overpopulated scenario, has evolutionary advantage. The females now have a larger set of genes from which they could choose. This is called sexual selection (quite different from natural selection which is really a process of elimination rather than selection). This implies that a large number of males would be left without progeny.

Sexual selection leads to evolution of characteristics determined by the females of the species. The evolution of elaborate plumage, singing skills etc. in birds, are typical examples. We should, however, remember that sexual selection operates in human beings also. In an overpopulated system, instead of merely trying to increase the numbers, the species will try to improve the quality of population.

In human societies, there is also the influence of social selection. Look at the matrimonial columns of newspaper in India. Parents and relatives seem to play a major role in determining who will mate with whom, at times even overriding the choice by female. This gives the society some elbow-room to influence further evolution of our species. And again, the way in which nature provides us better choice is simple: higher number of males to chose from.

Sex ratio: Reason to rejoice?

One must also ask how a species can adjust its sex ratio.

Since females are more useful to ward off extinction of the species, when the mother is stressed, the signals sent by the hormonal status, selectively affects the sperms carrying X and Y chromosomes, leading to larger number of females. This is a part of the adaptive strategies of nature.

To explain the hospital records of births there is a hypothesis which says that the chances of conceiving male children are higher when the health of the mother is good. Thus perhaps, the greater number of males in India is an indication of better health of the mothers (and not because of the inherent criminality of our culture). We should also not be surprised by the drastic fall in sex ratio in the states like Punjab and Haryana which gave India the green revolution. Where else would you have the plentitude to support all the (rather superficial) males?

Thus the greater number of males in India gives us two reasons to rejoice. It is an indication of improving health of the women in the country. What should make us happier is that it will also make India a hotbed of human evolution (as per the values held by women and the society at large).

An interesting outcome from the skewed sex ratios of Punjab and Haryana is the Punjabisation of UK and Canada as well as Haryanisation of Bengal. If your son can’t get a girl, what else does can you do but look elsewhere? The gene pool is indeed spreading. And the percentage of genetic disorders will decrease. Important outcomes from a skewed sex ratio.

Sex Ratio as a Money spinner

If you still want to hold on to the misconceptions and misplaced concerns about the sex ratio in India, one could definitely understand the reasons. There is going to be money in this business. One could only wish that the money is spent in controlling the population rather than in campaigns against an insipid technology like sex determination.

Instead of barking up the wrong tree, the activists should focus on creating new ecological and economic niches where human beings can encroach and flourish. As we argued earlier, the filling of such new niches with population is the major priority for females. So under such situations, the female population would get its due importance and the sex ratio would automatically adjust itself.

But this would be difficult and perhaps undesirable, since the country is already overpopulated. The other method is to control and, if possible, reduce the population (while retaining the ecological and economic niches). This would also improve the status of women and sex ratio. In fact gender inequality could even swing the other way if population falls below certain levels.

In any case, it is clear that newspaper advertisements, TV and Radio spots etc. intended to improve the image of the girl child cannot, by themselves, significantly improve the condition of women or the sex ratio. Because the real issue is the density of population and what the ecology and economy can provide to support it. One does wish that the government wakes up to some scientific realities rather than be guided by emotional activists in this matter.

In short, sex ratio amongst humans, like in deer, is dependent on the density of population. Any alternative hypothesis should also explain why the sex ratio in some districts, lets say in the tribal belts of Madhya Pradesh and Chhathisgharh, (where the density of population is much less than those of Punjab and Haryana,) is much better. In fact it is skewed the other way: more females than males.

The availability of medical facilities is not a valid explanation for this phenomenon. Because that also depends on the density of population. Moreover, sex ratio was skewed even before the technology to test the sex of the foetus was available.

So like corruption, female foeticide cannot be wiped out by passing a legislation. Try to attack the root cause instead. By reducing population we would improve the status of women, reduce the biological and sociological discrimination against women. Including female foeticide.

Selected References:
The evolution of sex Science 281: pp 1979. 25th Sept 1998
P Mohanty- Heymadi et al., Temperature dependent sex determination in the salt water crocodile, Crocodylus porosus, Current Science 76 (5): 695-696 (1999)
(Eggs incuabted at 33 degrees C gave more Females, 34 degrees gave more males)
Deer destiny determined by density Nature 399 : 407 (1999)
Population density affects sex ratio variation Nature 399 : 459 (1999)
(Trivers-Willard hypothesis: In polygamous societies, mothers in good condition should produce more sons whereas mothers in poor condition produce daughters.)
http://www.sexratio.com/