SEX DETERMINATION
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—In your issue of May 9th an article entitled " Medical Sociology " deals with my book, Sex at Choice, in a manner: requiring some slight adjustment on my part as to the state, meats it contains. For instance, my critic says that " nothing! in the substance of this theory tallies with what is already. known of the determination of sex." This is a point on which I differ, as, apart from Mendelists, many modern biologists') ideas and writings tend to endorse what I have endeavoured to f make clear.
Take, for instance, that lucid and well-substantiated work!
by Mr. Burnley Dawson, Sex Causation (1909) ; his defence of, the world-old theory of sides, male and female, forms a sub- stantial background to some of my theories and supports( much of my experience. It is safe to say that such a book! is every bit as useful to the progress of sex determination asi The Mechanism and Physiology of Sex Determination, byi Richard Goldschmidt.
Then, again, your correspondent avers that " the state-i ment " of my theory is not quite clear." I would point out) that my book was written for women, from their point of view,. and for their immediate use, and, judging from the numbers of missives received from my readers, not one so far has failed to: perceive, in spite of what my critic says to the contrary, thati the left lateral decubitus may be adopted when the left ovary only is operative and the right-sided position where the right ovary is active—and that this is a mere accessory, or sub- sidiary aid, to my formula and no more.
Your critic suggests that I have " not sufficiently taken into account the study of gameto genesis, which so deeply concerns. the Mendelians." My answer is that the science of Mendelism, on the contrary, has always interested me very deeply. I. recognize abundantly that it is doing great work within its own sphere, and, in embracing eugenics, is striving valiantly' towards a betterment of humanity. But when Mendelians assume a role of authority on the question of sex pre-deter- mination, I am convinced that they are usurping powers• beyond their domain—powers to which, because of an entirely false assumption, they can never hope to attain. The very' essence of their theory, based on the sex-begetting virtue of the determining male, by reason of its duplex gametes, is anti- predetermining, and can never be of any practical value or help to womankind in her maternal endeavours.
• My critic admits that `-` it is extremely probable that the
laws which are found to apply to the determination of sex in 'the higher animals will apply to ourselves." But it is because of these laws applying to all animals and mankind that I, realizing their perfect simplicity, have employed the means of their application for practical use both for women and the breeding of animals of the sex required. And it is because of this universal law that we question the assertion that, although a 'female bird is responsible for sex-begetting, a male lion, e.g., is the sole factor in det"rmining the sex of his offspring.
In answer to the many obvious difficulties confronting the ',Mendelian sex-predeterminist, my critic suggests that possibly before very " many years are past, we may be able, perhaps by the adjustment of vitamins and mineral salts in the parental diet (!) to determine the sex of the forthcoming gamete." And ltere we have it in a nutshell—the admission of helplessness, !for now and the near future, to offer women of to-day any promise of definite and practical results in their longing for the power to choose the sex they desire for the children they must tbear. My critic is forced to fall back on the out-worn diet ;theory, and to pin his colours to the broken-down mast of L. Schenk's suggestion as enunciated in his massive work, fDetermination of Sex (1897)—theories widely disseminated and too often tried and found wanting to need further discussion.
Perhaps it would be well to remind my critic that to women, !who belong essentially to the practical side of humanity, an ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory, and that whilst the Mendelian brotherhood can " still only grope from point to point," thousands of mothers arc reaching out to the fruits that I have dared, in all humility, to place within their reach, :realizing, as I do myself, that the " greatest truths arc the simplest."—I am, Sir, &c., CICELY ERSKINE. 7 Eecleston Square, S.W. 1.
Previous page
