SEX-DETERMINATION.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—If there has been a good deal of stir in the newspapers recently over my claim that the sex of a child can be deter- mined in advance, it is because my claims made quite clearly and definitely were the very first of their kind. No such state- ment emanating from the wife of a public man, who personally has much to lose and little to gain by any so-called notoriety, can be calmly brushed aside as beneath contempt, or as the exploded "superstitions of old midwives."
May I, therefore, be allowed to reply, as briefly as possible, to the criticism of my claim which Mr. Huxley has addressed to you (Spectator, August 2nd)? He suggests that my state- ments are :—(1) That "sex is determined by the state of the ovum." (2) That sex—male or female alternatively—is dependent on the period and, therefore, a matter "of simple arithmetic." I would point out that such a scheme hardly comes into my method of pre-determination, and that there are many conditions necessary to effect the above that have not been touched on in any article appearing about may work, and that it would be fairer to await my book and study the arguments it contains before affirming that my beliefs can have no foundation.
He goes on to say :—" It would be very remarkable if man were wholly different from other mammals in his method of sex-determination." It most certainly would be ; but my contention is that man is not different, and, as regards the lower animals, which have many young of both sexes at birth, that though there may be more difficulty in their sex-pre- determination, there is none that would not be eventually overcome.
It is quite true that statistics only acquire cogency as the number of cases mount up, and that "if a tossed penny came down tails five or ten times it would not mean much." But when the same penny comes down tails one hundred, or even a thousand times, then in Mr. Huxley's words "it' would mean something." It was not until I had tested my theory, not only to my own satisfaction, but also to that of- skilled friends, that I dared come out into the open in my, attempt to help womankind.
After completely demolishing what he supposes to be my theory, my critic looks around for some constructive 'contribii- tion to the problem, and, for this purpose, he falls back on • Mendelism. I have read much of the deeply interesting
literature on this subject, and have the greatest admiration for the research and discoveries of the authors. But, after consideration of their work, I am all the more confident in my opposition to Mr. Huxley's statement that "sex is not primarily determined by anything in the ovum or in the female at all, but by the existence of two kinds of cells in the male."
I clearly insist—and this forms a salient part of m3i theory --that the sex of all offsprings depends on the female alone, and that man produces the fertilizing element that causes the starting of a new life—which consists in the union of sperm with ovum. I have collected statistics that show conclusively that certain women, mated to several different men, can produce offspring of one sex only, whereas, any given man, mated with several women, can have children of either sex, according to the ability of the individual woman.
Mr. Huxley goes on to state the results on work carried out by microscopists and Mendelians—that, for instance, the essential organs of heredity are the so-called chromosones. But he admits that the precise method by which the presence of an extra X chromosone determines femaleness is not yet understood, and "that—exceptionally—other agencies may override the chromosones' authority." It is my opinion that the " exceptions " will prove to become the rule. Again, Mr. Huxley adds, rather less positively, "it may well prove that particular conditions of the ovum may sometimes help to override the normal machinery." I fancy there may be much of this " overriding " to be expected in the future !
In conclusion, the inference that I draw from his article is that Mr. Huxley can throw little fresh practical light on this hitherto obscure subject ; that most of the chromosone theory is in its infancy, and based on pure surmise ; that mankind may possibly benefit from these researches in fifty years' time, and that Mr. Huxley, brilliant critic as he is, has failed, like all others before him, to give us any simple and practical recipe for satisfying the needs of the present generation.
It is impossible for me in a letter to elaborate my theory in detail, for which I must refer those who are interested to my forthcoming book. But I may say that what I offer to woman is the definite power of choosing the sex of her child, according to certain times, and to the condition of the ovaries, on which everything may depend. No one before me has ever mooted the possibilities provided by the nature and workings of the left ovary as distinct from those of the right. And it seems to me hardly possible that any of my predecessors, or contemporaries in this sphere, can have devoted quite so much of their time and single-minded effort to this one subject. I am convinced, too, that not one of them could have had the opportunities I have enjoyed of collecting such variety and quantity of direct clinical evidence upon which to form and support their theories. Being a mere woman may have militated against my efficiency in: the eyes of some eminent biologists, but it may also have afforded me certain unique, opportunities and quite peculiar advantages. If Mr. Huxley is a great authority on a great many subjects— as I know him to be—I can only, after a long life's study, claim to be a specialist in one !--I am, Sir, &c.,
CICELY ERSKINE.
Previous page
