Son preference, missing girls, sex selection: We may seek to label
these Chinese or Indian issues, but they exist here in America. And with
anti-choice crusaders desperate to destroy Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, America’s leading provider of affordable
reproductive health care for women, the purportedly spreading practice
of sex-selective abortion is back in the news. With the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) up for a vote in the House, it’s also back in full force on the legislative agenda.
The extent of sex-selective practices in the U.S. is hard to assess,
since it’s rarely something people will admit to doing. But we can take
an educated guess by observing alterations in expected sex ratios. If
nature has its way, women will likely give birth to 100 girls for every
102 to 106 boys. And among first-time parents in the U.S., that’s
exactly what we see.
However, as birth order rises, apparently so does selection – at
least, in certain ethnic groups. With U.S. 2000 Census data, researchers
investigating Korean, Chinese, and Indian communities found that, after
one girl, parents have as many as 1.17 boys per girl the second time.
With two girls at home, this goes up to 1.51 boys per girl for the third child. These skewed ratios aren’t present among other ethnic groups in America.
This intentional kid picking takes multiple forms. Now, we can know and thus select for sex as early as seven weeks into a pregnancy,
using a non-invasive blood test making big news in popular and
obstetric circles. Far more reliable than urine-based guesses from
Walgreen’s and far safer than other early use options, this new
technique is meant to minimize sex-linked diseases. But this product
enters a market where some parents-to-be pine not just for any healthy
baby; some want what they see as a particular kind.
Although alarmists cite an undocumented rise in abortion due to sex
selection, more and more the interest (and well-marketed new product
development) is on meddling before implantation. Techniques like sperm
sorting and IVF embryo selection are expensive. Even the most generous
insurance package doesn’t cover these procedures when not medically
necessary. Yet as of 2006, half of American fertility clinics
that offer embryo screening allow would-be parents some form of sex
selective add-ons...and the market is growing. Never mind that the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has come out harshly against non-medically necessary sex selection, and even the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has issued lukewarm cautions about it.
These clinics advertise
their sex-selective wares heavily in ethnic language media and enclaves
where Asian Americans reside. Offering would-be parents soft focus
images of white babies on pink and blue blankets, they couch their
practices in the affirming language of “family balancing.” Doesn’t that
sound much better than sexism, eugenics, or designer babies?
Some claim environmental motives. Citing opinion research that most
parents desire one of each sex in their offspring, they offer to do this
in the first two pregnancies and bring down the birth rate. Others say
their services minimize sex-selective abortions, because designing your
kid before pregnancy is better than during. A few argue that this is an
expression of reproductive freedom. And some proffer no reason for
breaking their own professional ethical guidelines – an unstated
affirmation that the customer is always right.
In practice, sex selection means more sons. In most cultures, there’s
a preference for male babies. Whether the motivation is economic
(because sons mean higher income potential), religious (because sons
perform sacred rites), social (because sons confer status), or a messy
mix of the above, son preference fuels the desire to take control of
formerly unalterable aspects of impending parenthood.
Obviously, sex preference is a problem. It requires adherence to the
fallacy that sons and daughters are biologically limited in what they
can do and who they can be. People lusting after a son hardly have a
hairdresser in mind. Likewise, the daughter dream is about playing
princess, not baseball. Moreover, desperately wanting a specific sex
requires us to believe in and thus perpetuate the notion of two genders.
Responses from our own surveys, individual interviews and focus
groups among Asian Americans indicate sex preference is alive in
America. While respondents generally didn’t have first-hand experience
with sex selection in the U.S., 96 percent felt that parents treat boys
and girls differently, with boys getting a way better deal. Sex
selection may be, to paraphrase one respondent, the operationalization
of son preference, but the preference came first and left unaddressed,
isn’t going anywhere.
However, before we go corralling this off as just a race or immigrant
issue, let's look at how the majority of Americans view this issue. A Gallup poll from
2011 found that, when asked if they could only have one child, American
men of all backgrounds responded that they'd want a boy by a margin of
49 percent to 22 percent, a finding fixed at this level since 1941, when
Gallup started asking. Women today report no preference. But still, 40 percent of Americans
overall think picking embryos to select for sex is an appropriate use
of genetic diagnosis technology. While the numbers attest most Americans
aren’t selecting for sex, throwing new early-detection tests along with
more and cheaper technology into society’s gender-based preferences and
myths – and we should expect to see increased selection.
Aside from the long list of ethical, social, and political problems
this poses – it’s a consequential challenge for reproductive rights
advocacy. Sex selection against girls is the religious right’s wet
dream. When opponents declare “abortion hurts women,” they could not
have dreamt of a better ‘we told you so.’
They’re riding this wave to new reasons to control women’s autonomy,
specifically to curtail reproductive decision-making for women of color.
In 2008, anti-choice groups pushed for legislation to ban sex-selective
abortions. Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced the “Susan B. Anthony and
Fredrick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” (PRENDA) to ban
sex-selective abortion and a new chimera he called “race-selective”
abortion. Legislators in Georgia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York have tried the same at the state
level. In 2010 and 2011, as those of us who support access to safe
abortion care looked on in horror, Oklahoma and Arizona both banned
In all cases, lawmakers pointed to the cultural attitudes and
practices of Chinese and Indians as evidence of what could befall us.
Data about sex ratio disparities in specific Asian countries became
proxy for sex selection amongst Asian Americans – never mind that the
latter group represents a huge range of origin countries and displays
sex ratios pretty much identical to the rest of Americans. Details like
math and geography need not interfere with a justification for passing
this legislation, even in states where few Asians reside.
The complications of race-specific attacks aside, the central
argument of the mainline reproductive rights movement has been that the
right to continue or terminate a pregnancy is a “choice.” An implicit,
and often times stated, contention that all choices women make about
their bodies and reproduction are private, to be made without state
But now, our slogans of individual rights, “my child my choice,” now
double as ad copy for the sex-selective clinics we find troubling. Even
if people use new technologies to select for girls, and evidence
suggests Caucasian women do, they apply the notion of “choice” to
germinate restrictive notions of gender. When we fought for autonomy,
this did not mean the right to engineer your own namesake or a
pinkalicious-shopping buddy. What it meant was a right for women to
define who they were and wanted to be in their own terms, on their own
Research shows that the language of “choice”
has left audiences cold. Studies in cognitive linguistics, psychology,
and even marketing contend this framework suggests action quickly
considered and of little consequence – hardly a rhetorical counterweight
to “life” or apt description of how most women undertake this decision.
But the concept of choice no longer fits either. Not only did we not
want government out when it comes to financial assistance to access the
procedure, we’re not vying for a mandate that says anything goes in the
world of parenting.
Sex selection forces us to take stock of what we believe and start
saying it. Here is our chance to leave behind the tired, consumer-led,
conversation. “My choice,” or even “my child,” never described our
community-supported ideals of child rearing. We must move from choice
and it’s inevitable path to “what kind of child do I want to have” to
the more meaningful question: “what kind of parent do I want to become?”
We need frank public discussion about parenting boys and girls and
the often-unconscious biases we all have about gender and children. This
is long over due but is only one element of the efforts required to
unseat the calcified ideas about sex and gender that permeates our
society, across all races and ethnic groups.
We must also defeat discriminatory laws like the one up for vote
today in the House. It is a bitter irony that regressive legislation
like PRENDA actually reinforces why it's disadvantageous to be a woman,
especially a woman of color. These kinds of policies are part of a
culture that makes sex selection a logical choice for women hoping to
keep daughters from a sexist, repressive world that seeks only to limit
who they are and what they are allowed to do.
Instead of curbing rights, our research specifically in South Asian
American communities suggests the way to un-do son preference is to
address old assumptions. This would require raising awareness about, and
also helping to hasten the dramatic changes underway in gender roles.
Girls and women are assuming many of the roles only men once played, and
men and boys can play and are now fulfilling many of the roles which
have been considered a woman's domain. In the South Asian Diaspora
community, for example, boys aren’t always staying around to take care
of aging parents, girls are increasingly staying attached to their
maternal families, and investment in girls’ education is paying off
richly. But to end son preference, old beliefs and practices, laws and
policies, need to catch up to the new reality, both in the United States
and in South Asia. Empowering families, communities, and societies to
root out biases and alter their own behaviors without shaming, blaming,
or curtailing the rights of women is our only real hope of tackling this
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
biotechnology and public policy issues. We believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.