For better or worse gender is the first step in creating "designer babies". In our lifetime it may still not be possible to manipulate babies genes to select our desired characteristics but I think and have read that they will be able to let parents choose wither to give birth to babies who are predetermined to be gay/deaf/ with down syndromes or other non life threatening characteristics.

the_librarian wrote:While the intention is good, concealing the gender for up to 30 weeks doesn't target the underlying cause of the problem. Many policies are ineffective because they are quick solutions. They aim for superficial changes and quick results by treating people like children, that is by taking away their choice by preventing access to information or service. It's not changing the moral values of people who see nothing wrong with terminating pregnancy based on gender.

Values are more likely to be changed by behaviour changes, not the other way around.

rickettyrabbit wrote:

the_librarian wrote:While the intention is good, concealing the gender for up to 30 weeks doesn't target the underlying cause of the problem. Many policies are ineffective because they are quick solutions. They aim for superficial changes and quick results by treating people like children, that is by taking away their choice by preventing access to information or service. It's not changing the moral values of people who see nothing wrong with terminating pregnancy based on gender.

Values are more likely to be changed by behaviour changes, not the other way around.

Not saying that you're wrong because there may be new studies out there saying just that. Some people if they behave a certain way long enough, their habits become their thoughts. But more traditionally, advocacy campaigns have always relied on the link of knowledge to attitude and practices. They find such strong correlation (before and after implementation) that programs usually target knowledge in order to promote behavior change. Of course values are harder to teach and especially so late in life.

Evidence based policy making looks at the potential success of the solution partly on what will motivate people to support and follow, among other things the prevailing culture and values of the target population. What is the perceived benefit? People also generally respond better to incentives and increased awareness than to restrictions.

the_librarian wrote:

rickettyrabbit wrote:

the_librarian wrote:While the intention is good, concealing the gender for up to 30 weeks doesn't target the underlying cause of the problem. Many policies are ineffective because they are quick solutions. They aim for superficial changes and quick results by treating people like children, that is by taking away their choice by preventing access to information or service. It's not changing the moral values of people who see nothing wrong with terminating pregnancy based on gender.

Values are more likely to be changed by behaviour changes, not the other way around.

Not saying that you're wrong because there may be new studies out there saying just that. Some people if they behave a certain way long enough, their habits become their thoughts. But more traditionally, advocacy campaigns have always relied on the link of knowledge to attitude and practices. They find such strong correlation (before and after implementation) that programs usually target knowledge in order to promote behavior change. Of course values are harder to teach and especially so late in life.

Evidence based policy making looks at the potential success of the solution partly on what will motivate people to support and follow, among other things the prevailing culture and values of the target population. What is the perceived benefit? People also generally respond better to incentives and increased awareness than to restrictions.

Well-established values are very difficult to change.

But the research I reviewed (~20 years old) showed that people's attitudes were changed more easily by getting them involved in new behaviours than behaviour is changed by trying to change their attitudes.

It's more complex than this, because there are different pieces of research that identify factors other than these two. But it's very difficult to get people to change values. It's a lot easier when they undergo education, behaviour change, and have strong social reinforcement.

anter wrote:Is it only an Asian preference.
I have a daughter but her father wanted a son/sons because he's a cattle rancher. He claimed, at the time of her birth, that girls grow up and leave while he thought that male children would stay on the land. There is a little truth to this but the trend on the past twenty years is for all children to leave farming families and go to the city. And that is in the West.

The Asian families in Canada are not restricted to the one child policy so why are they aborting females if they plan to have more than one child?

One of your points Caisghost about low socio economic families wanting males and middle and higher wanting girls, or not caring either way. There was some theory, maybe based on research, claimed the ends of the social (economic/education) spectrum finding it hardest to find mates, are-lowest socio economic males and the higher more well educated females. They are hardly likely to marry because females, in this instance, will not consider those males a good match.

Sorry for the delay; I've been out of the country.

Hmm, I think I may have phrased this poorly. IIRC, the SES breakdown was in non-Asian Western communities, specifically in the U.S. and Canada. And you're right: lower-income non-Asian families do have a slight preference for boys. (I forget why, but your explanation sounds pretty accurate.) I also think that you're right about marriage trends in the non-Asian Western community, but I'm not sure Western parents think about that when they go through PGD. "Autism" is definitely the watch word.

In Asian-American and Asian communities, patients absolutely do seem to consider marriage prospects. However, it leads to a different pattern of sex selection than it does in the West. In the West, most upper-middle class and middle class parents seem to have a slight preference for girls. The slight preference becomes huge if you only look at patients undergoing fertility treatment. In India, it's high SES individuals who initially prefer boys, and the preference radiates out to other social classes from there in a way that largely depends on what state you're in and what ethnic/religious background you come from. In China, we know there is a relationship. We think it's similar to India's, but it's still being researched. In both countries, it's still unclear the extent to which it's economic and the extent to which it's cultural (e.g., "I want to be a rich person, so I'll do what rich people do!"). The expansion to NA really, really strengthens the cultural case.