
Destined to be a boy mom? New study suggests baby's sex isn't always random
Clouthier, 39, of Almonte, Ont., grew up with an older brother, and wanted the same experience for the large family she was planning with her husband. And when their next child was also a boy, well, even better. Best buds close in age, she thought, and two big brothers for their brood of future children.
But then their third child was a boy. And their fourth. Today, Clouthier's boys are ages 13, 12, 10 and four — and she says she's not planning to have any more children. But if she did?
"I'm sure it would be a boy," she said with a laugh.
There just might be some truth to that, according to a new study that suggests a child's sex at birth might not be entirely random.
The study, published July 18 in the journal Science Advances, examined the maternal and genetic factors that influence the sex of offspring after several of the co-authors observed examples of friends, colleagues and family members who had produced either all boys or all girls, which, they say, raised questions about chance.
Researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health examined a dataset of 58,007 U.S. women with two or more singleton live births and found that "each family may have a unique probability of male or female births," they wrote in the study.
"The data suggested that there may be families that are more likely than not to have only girls, [and] families that are more likely than not to have only boys," Dr. Jorge Chavarro, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology and one of the authors of the study, told CBC News.
'A weighted coin'
Specifically, mothers with three or more children were more likely to have either all boys or all girls, which challenges the traditional view that the probability is "random and independent," or that you have a 50-50 chance of having a boy or a girl each pregnancy, the authors wrote.
They calculated that, in families with three boys, the probability of having another boy was 61 per cent, and in families with three girls, the probability of having another girl was 58 per cent.
"Akin to flipping a weighted coin with roughly a 60-40 probability," Chavarro explained.
The study suggests that there are subtle biological or genetic influences at play, rather than pure chance, which is what we know to be true of most things in life, said Dr. Sebastian Hobson, the head of labour and delivery at Mount Sinai hospital in Toronto and a maternal fetal medicine specialist.
Hobson, who is also the chair of obstetrics for the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and who was not involved in the study, noted that the Harvard study is large and methodologically rigorous, but as with any study, the results should be interpreted with caution.
The observed effects are small, he said, don't determine cause and effect, and the large population was predominantly white and U.S.-based, so can't be generalized globally. They also didn't gather any information about the biological fathers, he added.
"Biology can nudge these probabilities slightly, but predicting a child's sex remains highly uncertain," Hobson said.
"I think this is a great study, but it's not the be all and end all of sex determination."
WATCH | Is gentle parenting too rough on parents?
Why more parents are ditching the gentle approach
5 months ago
'Lose the birth lottery'
Previous studies have found that parents are more likely to have a third child if their first two are the same sex, often in hopes the third child will be the opposite. And you only have to spend some time at school pickups, playgrounds and community pools to see that, well, it doesn't always work out that way.
One recent study in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics refers to those who have three boys or three girls as parents who "lose the birth lottery."
"If I got paid $1 for every time someone said, 'Are you going to try for a girl?' I'd be a millionaire," said Krystyna Recoskie, 48, also of Almonte, Ont., and a friend of Clouthier's. She has three boys, ages 15, 13 and 11.
"For a while, it made me feel like I had failed. Like it was bad. How ridiculous is that?" she added. "I am blessed. I am complete."
In the Harvard study, the researchers found that two-child families were actually more likely to be opposite sexes, or boy-girl, which they suggested implies that "couples are more inclined to stop reproducing when a balanced sex was reached."
As for why some mothers were more likely to give birth to all-boys or all-girls, the authors suggested some women are at high risk of producing offspring of a specific sex due to factors affecting sperm survival. As well, procreation behaviour can be strongly influenced by the sex of previous children, they added.
In addition, the authors found that older maternal age at first birth could be a risk factor for repeatedly giving birth to children of only one sex. This may be due to biological changes in the body, they said, like shorter follicular phase and lower vaginal pH.
'Four boys, poor you'
Other studies have explored the idea of gender disappointment, or the feeling of sadness a parent may experience when their child's sex doesn't match with what they'd hoped for, and suggest it's more prevalent than we may think.
"Gender disappointment in Western cultures is mostly related to the desire for 'gender balance' in the family — having a child of each gender to experience being a mother to sons as well as daughters," notes a 2023 study in the BJPsych Bulletin journal.
Clouthier says she's never been disappointed about having four boys, and any negativity she experiences comes from other people. In a lot of ways, it's easier to have four kids all the same sex, she explained, between the hand-me-downs and gear they already have on hand. Birthday party themes can also overlap.
And yes, it can get loud, and rough, and there are kid-sized holes in the drywall, but she notes her boys are also sweet, sensitive and cuddly.
"I still get comments all time time, where people say, 'Four boys, poor you,'" Clouthier said.
And I'll say, 'Yeah, lucky me!'"
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Winnipeg Free Press
30 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'


CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
The U.S. just killed mRNA vaccine funding — what now?
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has cancelled $500 million in funding for the development of mNRA vaccine technology. For The National, CBC's Heather Hiscox asks infectious disease specialist Dr. Allison McGeer and health researcher Bradley Wouters to break down what kind of impact this could have on fighting disease in Canada and around the world.


CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
Wilfrid Laurier University football coach marks blood donation milestone
Zach Scotto posed for a photo while making his 60th blood donation on Aug. 6, 2025. (Krista Simpson/CTV News) A Wilfrid Laurier University football coach is marking a milestone by making his 60th blood donation. Zach Scotto, the offensive line coach for the Golden Hawks, has been donating since he was 17-years-old in a gesture that's become a way to honour his late mother. Scotto was just six-years-old when his mother Loraine was diagnosed with leukemia. 'It's a cancer that affects the blood,' he said. 'I can remember a lot of stories about needing blood or that kind of thing. And I remember having my blood checked, my family's blood checked, and seeing the vials on the counter and things like that.' His mother died about two years after her diagnosis, when Scotto was eight. Scotto said he initially began to donate blood when the opportunity was presented at his high school, with students offered shuttle rides to the clinic. 'Originally it was, 'Hey, I can get out of school and hang with my friends and have some snacks and that's cool,' he told CTV News. 'But it slowly developed as a really simple way to honour my mom and continue that connection to try and help other people that might be in her situation.' Scotto emphasizes that for those eligible to donate, it's a simple and straightforward process that brings a lot of meaning and happens in a friendly environment. 'You're going to have a great conversation, and you get to see smiling aces. And not only are you potentially saving somebody's life, you're having an enjoyable experience for yourself as well.' After making the big donation on Wednesday, Scotto said he'll keep going. 'Getting to 60 is awesome and I'm going to keep building that up and continuing to donate.'