Part 1

Chapter 13,774 wordsPublic domain

Sex at Choice

By Mrs. Monteith Erskine

With an Introduction by James Monteith Erskine M.P. for the St. George’s Division of Westminster

G. P. Putnam’s Sons New York & London The Knickerbocker Press 1925

Made in the United States of America

PREFACE

This book, written by a woman for women, is the result of twenty-five years’ continuous study of the causes of Sex-determination and of the most feasible method of controlling it. It represents also the work of a life-time devoted to investigation into every symptom or indication, however minute or apparently insignificant, manifested in the pregnancy of male offspring as distinct from that of female.

This research, mainly practical and clinical, was undertaken as a result of the close attention which, for some years, I had devoted to all matters connected with the health of young girls.

At an early age I came to realise the fundamental truth of the _alternate action of “sides.”_ I use this word advisedly, because in those days I knew no other. It goes without saying that this fact was brought to my notice solely by the physical disabilities from which many girls suffer, and by the nature of the treatment which brought them relief. But, over and above this, the recognition of this truth proved, in my case, to be the key to the ultimate conclusions upon which my whole theory is based.

The study of anatomy and physiology attracted me so deeply, whilst I was yet a schoolgirl at Geneva, that it led me to further pursuit along the lines of medical enquiry. It was about this time that, by the merest chance, certain works expounding theories on sex-causation of various biologists in France and Germany came under my notice, and these I read and studied with the keenest interest.

Here it may be well to answer the constantly repeated question, “What on earth possessed you, at such an early age, to take up a subject of a nature so peculiar or, at any rate, controversial?” It must be remembered that, in the evolution of a certain train of thought, the mind is very apt to be affected by an exceptional combination of circumstances. In my own case a keen sense of the wrong which I had suffered from the start, by being born a girl where a boy was desired, had led me to vague doubts and questionings in early childhood. All this, undoubtedly, helped to sow within me the seeds of a bitter dissatisfaction with prevailing conditions. I despised the slipshod methods of biological ignorance, and justified the saying, the truth of which has so often been proved before, that “All striving towards betterment is the fruit of discontent.”

The helplessness of women in respect of any power to determine the sex of their offspring I regarded as a gross injustice and as a palpable reflection on the progress of science; not for one moment did I regard it as really due to the haphazard working of Dame Nature in her least kindly moods.

Then it was that the idea filtered slowly through my brain that it might well be a woman who alone could solve the problem. Who but a woman could have the insight, born of personal experience, the patience, produced by the physical disability of her sex, the opportunity, offered by the sympathy of her fellows, or the will, created by a burning desire to help womankind, to undertake the task of unravelling the mystery?

And so I set to work to fathom the sex-theories hitherto advanced. Most of them I speedily discarded as entirely futile and incompatible with the rôle of woman as _the sole determining factor of the sexes_. For I realised that even as _ten lunar months_ are needed for the formation and perfection of the child before it is born, so also the mathematical relation of twenty-eight days or _one lunar month_ must be applied to the periods of fertilisation in the human species. Hence, in the scientific use of these twenty-eight days must lie the predominant part of the secret of pre-determination. It was at this point that the old question “_Before or After?_” became a matter of very special interest and a vital object of study.

Among competing theories there were, however, several which appeared to present material for speculation of some practical value and seemed worth testing in the light of my own observations. The results of such tests were methodically compiled in statistical form, having regard to the marked inclination of certain parents to procreate offspring of one or the other sex only. Examples were selected and added to, hundred by hundred, culled from many countries, and they represented in a marked degree distinct conditions appearing in the pregnancies of women according to the sex of the children they happened to bear.

The alternatives in connection with the time-honoured theory of “Lateral Decubitus,” which means the use of position to right or left as an assistance to sex-determination, were duly explored. And it must be borne in mind, as regards the belief of the right side being male and the left female, that this seems to have been widely accepted before any definite conclusions as to sex-theory were ever mooted. The words of the first Chapter of Genesis “Male and Female created He them,” appeared to have been applied to the right or left sides of woman ever since the days of Hippocrates. The evidence of tradition, at any rate, could be cited overwhelmingly in support of it.

Again the modern suggestion that “each organ works in shifts,” was another principle of equal significance, which impressed itself upon me in the early stages of my inquiries, and I soon came to some comprehension of the _alternate working of the ovaries_.

During this period of my life I can say that no single instance of future maternity, still less of imminent motherhood, was discussed in my hearing, in respect to the progress and result of which I did not collect data and information. Perhaps it was owing to my keen interest in the physical sufferings of women, and my exceptional devotion to the subject of the upbringing of infants, that I so easily gained the confidence of every mother I met. The intimate details then disclosed, in exchange for the genuine sympathy I evinced in their maladies, real or even imaginary, proved of immeasurable value in my researches. Every detail of gestation and parturition was faithfully recorded, and this collection of notes became of incalculable value in helping me to establish my conclusion.

I must not forget the debt I owe to certain medical friends, who, aware of my desire for knowledge, and thinking I wished to become, in course of time, a physician, were kind enough to help me to acquire such scientific learning as might prove useful to my career.

Then came marriage with its attendant responsibilities. Five children were born to me alive and healthy, and they proved to be, as I desired, one girl and four boys. I suffered no lack of varied experiences, and took every advantage offered by all those accidental occurrences and disabilities that few mothers of large families entirely escape. Every mishap, every trouble, became a step in the progress of my ever-widening investigation.

Eventually, as the result of much valuable and varied experience, I obtained a record of personal symptoms which might fairly claim to be unique. To these I added the data collected from other similar cases I had observed, my opportunities of observation having rapidly increased as I displayed, with greater assurance, the zeal that possessed me for more, and yet more, clinical experience and evidence. I think that an exceptionally intuitive and even hypersensitive temperament, combined with a capacity for patient plodding, helped me, as did also my complete freedom from all the restraint of a hide-bound tradition, which in so many cases hampers the outlook of the orthodox medical student.

It was in July, 1908, that, acting on the kindly advice of an eminent gynæcologist, I deposited with my bankers the actual formula which I had tested for the practical application of my theory, and which I had, in many cases, used to my own complete satisfaction. I took this step in order that I might prevent any doubt arising in later years over my claim of priority. But even then my formula was not as complete as I wished it to be. Since that time I have made good progress in many directions, and more especially in the problem of safe-guarding from female issue those women who are not entirely normal, in that the action of their left ovary does not correspond with the laws that hold for the absolutely healthy woman.

Since 1909, people from many countries have consulted me about their future offspring. Letters of acknowledgment and testimony to the efficacy of my plans have flowed in from every part of the world.

It has been objected by some that parts of my theory have the flavour of an “old wives’ tale.” There is, indeed, some truth in this. But I see nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that my experience has tallied with that of scores of observant old ladies in past generations. Our grandmothers lived so simply and so close to nature that they were admirably equipped for observation. They made full use of the opportunities offered them by the large families that they bore and reared, unaided and unaffected by the artificialities of civilisation. Then, as the years rolled by, the wisdom they had collected was passed on from mother to daughter, and to daughter-in-law, to survive triumphantly the passing ridicule hurled at them by cynics of all times.

But if there is in these fables much that deserves our consideration, there is also much that is entirely worthless, based on mere superstition or foolish surmise. Among these the _Diet_ theory, which boldly proposed to change the sex of the infant in embryo by administering special food to the mother, is conspicuous. Other suggestions there were which traced the sex of the offspring to the relative ages of husband and wife, their temperaments, or a comparison between the more robust health of one parent and the weaker constitution of the other; and of all these we may safely say that where six examples can be produced to prove any one of them, half-a-dozen are forthcoming to establish the contrary.

On the other hand, the hundreds of documents I have received, and the mass of evidence, direct and indirect, I have collected, go far to place the theory of the action of the ovaries beyond question, while the very prevalent belief in _Lateral Decubitus_ strengthened my hand considerably in making the deductions necessary to elaborate and consolidate my own theory.

And here I must touch on the far more important question of the exact periods within the 28 days of the “Lunar month” which are of such vital importance to sex-determination. I have received a vast amount of testimony on this score, and in every case it has supported the contention I have so long advanced. The conception of males would offer, to many biologists, no difficult problem. There has been little dispute as regards the times when the male ovum is capable of fertilisation. But the stumbling block has always been the question of girl-conception, and this I maintain, is due solely to ignorance of the workings of the left ovary, as distinct from that of the right.

Some writers assert that “after the 15th day of the lunar month no conception can take place.” Then how can one account for the thousands of infants conceived in the week preceding the period—a fact so easily proved, beyond all doubt? Others again suggest the use of “early fertilisation for females” and “late fertilisation for males,” on the principle used by many breeders for cows in their first or second “heat.”

But this is precisely where I am at variance with all preconceived ideas and hitherto more or less accepted suggestions, for I maintain that woman stands apart and is unique in the exercise of her creative functions.

In 1907 A. Pohlmann published a treatise on “the heredity of the upright position and some of its disadvantages.” From the woman’s point of view one of the greatest of these is perhaps the freak working of the left ovary. It is frequently argued that if one sex-law holds good for all other mammiferous animals, why not for woman also?

The answer is fourfold, and can hardly escape the notice of those who stop to consider the actual nature of woman’s habits and to compare them with those of the quadrupeds:

1. Woman enjoys the “disadvantages” of the upright position, which throws infinitely more strain on the genital organs than there would be, were she to live on all fours.

2. No analogy exists between her menstrual characteristics and those of animals, her courses differing in substance and quantity from the corresponding condition in quadrupeds.

3. Woman alone refrains naturally from all sexual co-habitation at these times.

4. Ovulation and menstruation, though interdependent to a great degree, are in no way simultaneous as with animals; on the contrary, the further removed from the actual courses the healthier the impregnation of the ovum.

The flagrant contradictions prevailing among the “Before and After” theorists have also done their share for many years in baffling those biologists who have pursued their enquiry into the domain of pre-determination. It was the solution of this problem that I long ago made my goal, _and it is upon this rock that my whole theory is built_.

Another point which gave me much trouble, was the apparent anomaly of children of one or the other sex being born when either or both ovaries had been removed. This seemingly unaccountable event was widely discussed some generations ago, but insufficient evidence was produced to convince sceptics who contented themselves with a superficial survey of the problem. Now, for my own satisfaction, and that of all inquirers, I can safely vouch for the fact that, after the removal of one ovary, the ensuing children are, in all but the most exceptional cases, of the sex belonging to the remaining organ. And for every two or three cases supporting such an exception I have collected a hundred proving the rule.

Regarding the question of the increased activity of the one ovary following the disability of the other, I may state that the study of this momentous truth, and the collection of corroborative data, has been not the least interesting part of my work. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out that no doctor could possibly have had such opportunities as I have had of examining, from the _one standpoint of sex-determination_, hundreds and thousands of varied cases. Among these are women who have:

1. Been childless.

2. Had female issue only.

3. Had male issue only.

4. Had twins of the same sex.

5. Had twins of mixed sex.

Not a day passes without some fresh corroboration of the theory I here maintain reaching me. Had I ever, among all this mass of confirmation, received a single atom of conflicting evidence, it might have made me doubtful of myself. But on the contrary, the letters which for many years past, I have been continually receiving, while they often gave me food for thought, have inspired my work and spurred me on to fresh efforts.

I have realised that the limitation of families is largely the result of powerlessness to choose the sex of the offspring. The doubtful methods used in “Birth Control” have no place in my scheme, and I refuse to believe that Nature intended married life to be made _un_natural by so-called “preventives.” Is it wholly absurd to believe that self-restraint in men is not unattainable, and that the exercise of self-control in conjugal life is altogether unnatural?

But, because I know so much of women’s lives, and believe implicitly in the good that is implanted in the human heart, I am convinced that none of the dire consequences foretold as the result of sex-determination will ever happen. There will be no social chaos, such as has been darkly hinted, following on a birth-rate of nothing but boys, no mothers refusing to have girls or remaining sterile if they cannot bear boys. My own evidence goes to show that out of every hundred women who long for children quite 30 per cent. want nothing but girls, and 20 per cent. more are indifferent as to the sex of the longed-for child. All they want is to achieve motherhood under the most desirable and propitious conditions for infant and parents alike.

It is with all sincerity that I say that, from the very beginning of my studies, the sole object of my work has been to help women to avoid those special sorrows and humiliations which so often fall to their lot and to secure for them the privilege of choosing the sex of their offspring.

This book would be incomplete were I not to express my grateful thanks for the kindly advice and sympathetic encouragement which I have continuously received for the past twenty years from many members of the medical profession. I would especially mention Sir Maurice Abbot-Anderson, M.B., B.S., M.V.O., etc.; Major James Taylor (of Keith), M.D., T.D., D.L., etc.; Edwin A. Neatby, Esq., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S.; W. Ward Anderson, Esq., M.B., Ch.B. (Edin.); F. W. Lee, Esq., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.; and the late Dr. John Harley, formerly of Harley Street, London.

CICELY ERSKINE.

7 ECCLESTON SQUARE, LONDON, S.W. 1.

INTRODUCTION

BY JAMES MONTEITH ERSKINE, M.P.

It requires considerable courage on the part of my wife, and not a little on my own, to face the publicity which a subject-matter of so delicate a nature as is contained in this work necessarily involves. Although the main essentials of the theory dealt with here were formulated over twenty years ago, it is only now that the progressive spirit of the age, in contrast with the prudishness of the last generation, has rendered it possible and desirable that mankind should have the full advantage of the knowledge of natural processes here disclosed.

Another more private and personal reason for withholding publication so long was the fact that our five children were young at the time, and it was obviously undesirable to ventilate this subject while their educational careers were in progress.

These impediments exist no longer, and the enormous power for good that must accrue to every potential mother possessing this knowledge far outweighs any possible disadvantages resulting from publicity. The author looks for her reward in the immeasurable benefit that others will derive from her unflagging inquiry and research.

The generous and self-sacrificing assistance that my wife has invariably afforded me throughout my public career renders insignificant by comparison, but none the less a mere act of gratitude, any contribution I have been able to make by way of encouragement in this, her life’s work.

J. M. E.

January, 1925.

CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE v

INTRODUCTION xxiii

I.—SEX DETERMINATION 3

II.—THE EUGENIC POINT OF VIEW 11

III.—THE SELECTION OF THE FIT 20

IV.—THE MOTHERS’ RESPONSIBILITY 25

V.—PREMATURES 37

VI.—THE SUPERFLUOUS FEMALE 51

VII.—STERILITY 65

VIII.—SEX-CAUSATION 77

IX.—FOR A BOY 86

X.—THE “BLANK WEEK” 97

XI.—FOR A GIRL 106

XII.—THE FREAK OVARY 111

XIII.—LATERAL DECUBITUS 120

XIV.—SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS: AFTER-EFFECTS 131

XV.—SIDE-THEORY 141

XVI.—TWINS OF MIXED SEXES 152

XVII.—“BEFORE OR AFTER” 163

XVIII.—THE LENGTH OF GESTATION 173

APPENDIX 183

SEX AT CHOICE

SEX DETERMINATION

“Sex is the central problem of life.”—HAVELOCK ELLIS.

In reviewing the long and unenlightened past, one is tempted to ask whether Woman was not in league with the god of mystery to hide one of Nature’s simple laws from the knowledge and comprehension of man. Between woman and the possibility of instructive observation and the outward visible signs of its expression, there has seemed to exist an impenetrable barrier, so formidable as to baulk successfully every effort of the biologist. No doubt the educational system of bygone times contributed to the difficulties under which scientists laboured in dealing with the problems of sex. It was practically impossible for maid or matron to allow her thoughts or conversation to stray from the beaten track without subjecting herself to severe reproof from Mrs. Grundy. A source of information was thus suppressed, for women as well as men have as much right to use their own understanding in judging of truth as they have to use their own eyes to see their way.

Now girls are allowed to learn, and encouraged to think, and women allowed to speak and encouraged to act. Thus we are at last approaching an explanation of the determination of sex, because, depending on woman, and on woman alone, it can be solved only with her assistance. “Life,” says Professor Lester Ward, “begins as female. Life is feminine. In the woman is the ‘creative centre.’ That everything proceeds from the egg, the ‘vital focus,’ is the verdict of Biology.”[1] In the ovum an egg alone is the germinal spot, the dawn of the future life. The theory that the sex of a child is fixed before the ovum is fertilised has now become an absolute certainty as a result of thousands of successful tests which have established it. The male, according to science, is not a sex-determining begetter: he is simply and only a fertilising agent.

It is not necessary here to give a complete list of all the theories for sex determination that have from time to time been advanced. One by one, without ceremony, we can conscientiously demolish them, thus clearing the ground of useless impedimenta and narrowing down the difficulties to be overcome. Many of these theories were based on experiments and observations made on rats, bees, tadpoles, ferns, and even sponges. Then again the health, age, environment, habits, and diet of parents were successively advanced, apparently on the principle that any peg is good enough to hang a hat on.

Perhaps Schenk’s[2] theory beats the record for extravagance, though it gained at one time many adherents. According to his curious doctrine, sex is determined during the months of pregnancy or well after conception has taken place. Surely as wild a proposition as endeavouring to grow a rose from a poppy seed by cultivating the soil in which it is planted.