Talk:Sex ratio

message: I'm not happy with this, so I'm going to change it.  It appears you may be coming from a geography background whereas I'm coming from biology.
A permille number is not a ratio.  a ratio should be 1:1 or 0.96:1.00 or something.
: Yes, User:Hemanshu Hemanshu said that Sex Ratio is counted in different ways... clarification is needed. But, AFAIK, it is expressed just in number here in India. Example: 953 - which means 953:1000. The important thing to note is: it's not expressed as percentage; but counted for 1000. Your modification sounds bit odd for me as I never heard this. BTW, I'm not from geography. --Rrjanbiah 05:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, just do it yourself. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: From the article: ...socially-monogamous species such as humans... I think this is misleading, monogamy may be a Western ideal but is not universal.  From the article on polygamy: "According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry."  Swans may be a better example of a monogamous species. 80.73.222.245 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monogamy

message: It appears to be common practice in Wikipedia to report country-level population statistics from the CIA World Factbook.  The CIA does not create these data nor, for the most part, evaluate or correct them.  It gets them from the UN's collections or from US Census Bureau reports. I've written a note on the "map" of sex ratios that's included in this article to point out that the map doesn't give a reference year; in fact it doesn't even cite the year of the CIA World Factbook edition.  Of course, assuming, say, that the 2005 Factbook is used still doesn't tell us the year to which the sex ratio data refer.  Certainly not 2005, since there is a lag between the collection of data and their reporting to UN agencies.  Furthermore, data from different countries reported in the Factbook may refer to different years, so that country-to-country comparisons should be made cautiously.  I also pointed out that the figure for China (112) in the latest Factbook is out of date, perhaps by 10 years; I suspect the data for many other countries are also out of date by quite a few years.  In the case of sex ratios, which may undergo rapid change from year to year, reporting the date and recognizing that there may be trends in the data are very important.  This is an issue not just for sex ratios but for many of the statistics (economic, population, etc.) reported in the Factbook. As it stands, the map in this article is undocumented as to the date of publication of the source used or the date of the underlying demogrpaphic data that is being summarized.Mack2 00:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for Demographic Statistics

message: In addition to the criticism above, I believe the map is misleading. The typical male female ratio at birth is say 1.05 and since women tend to live longer, it decreases in time. This far outweighs any but a very huge imbalance and therefore the map effectively only gives an indication of the age of a country's population.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.81.209 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove Map

message: I just did a quick search for references supporting the unreferenced claim that sperm bearing the Y chromosome swim faster than those bearing the X chromosome.  I wasn't able to find any such references, and furthermore, I found this page suggesting that the idea is nothing but an "old wives' tale":
If anyone has more time / knowledge to apply to this issue, I would flag it as a high priority for improving this article.
Amber Kerr 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim about motility of X and Y sperm

message: I will be busy, so I do not have enough time to do this, but if anyone is brave enough, could someone please put the list of countries in alphabetical order? Thank you --Robin63 09:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?? Sorting by numbers has its advantages, and if a person is looking for a specific country they can search with their browser. Mathmo Talk 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country sex ratios 

message: I think there should be an article about the "Bare Branches" effect experiences in some Asian contries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.248.161.207 (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bare Branches 

message: at Evolutionary theory of sex--Filll 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need editing assistance

message: I have removed the following section.
:Negative feedback is responsible for increased boy’s birth rates during war-times and also in harems. It realizes, through different levels of sexual activity, differential gamete aging and elimination and amount of pollen in plants. The concept was proposed by V. Geodakian in 1965 and confirmed using many plant, animal species and also on humans.K.V. Geodakian and V.A. Geodakian (1998)
"Sex Ratio (M/F) Adjusts Genotypical Evolutionary Plasticity (EP) Of a Population, Sinistrality/Dextrality (S/D)—Its Behavioral EP". 'The 14th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. Abstracts July 26-August l, 145.''
I am removing it for a few reasons. First of all, it's a fairly fringe theory which does not appear to have had a significant impact on the field and including it here gives it undue weight. Secondly, the author of the paragraph is Mr Geodakian's son and as such is in an odd position to include this material. Last but not least it is too poorly written to be understandable. I should note that any study of the sex ratio in harems would appear suspect to most scientists since the data is utterly unreliable and does not take into account the strong possibility of selective infanticide. It also seems clear that no experiment on plants or animal species will be of any help to explain the increased birth rate of boys in war-times or in harems and, as far as I know, there is no solid study even establishing such an imbalance in war-times. Pascal.Tesson 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative feedback 

message: I believe that the first map on this page is incorrectly colored.  If you look at the table on the page for the countries of Pakistan, Syria, Bangladesh, and Libya you'll see that they have a higher male/female sex ratio (>1.0).  But on the map all four countries are colored blue, indicating they have lower male/female ratio (<1.0).
There may be other countries that have this problem but I only noticed some of the larger ones because they stand out.  Can someone please update/correct the main map for this page? Ender qa 15:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First map is incorrectly colored

message: The article cites a human sex ratio of 105 then gives an evolutionary argument that the sex ratio must be 1:1.  What's up with that?  How can the ratio in fact be 105 (NB. that's 105 without counting sex-selective abortion).  Emmazunz84 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "approximately equal" and 105/100 is in fact approximately equal to 1...  However, the 105:100 ratio at birth seems to be adjusted so that the number of males and females of breeding age will be more closely equal than if there were a 100:100 ratio at birth. AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 105:100

message: I have just removed the following:Gender imbalance may result in the threat of social unrest, especially in the case of an excess of young males unable to find a spouse.Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia's Surplus Male Population, Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer (2004)
This was removed previously for lacking a cite. Now it has a partial cite. Is that a book, newspaper article, undergrad essay, chat room posting, comic book, ... or what? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a book which received rather extensive media coverage in 2004 (as you could have easily discovered in about three seconds of Google searching). AnonMoos (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your citation is still incomplete. "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used....Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers." WP:CITE#FULL - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, my various skills and talents do not really extend to being able to easily coerce bibliographic information into a pre-specified rigid narrow format.  If you consider it extremely important that the relevant bibliographical information be coerced into a pre-specified precise and exact technical format, then you should be able to do so based on information which is findable in about three seconds of Google searching. AnonMoos (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page numbers for your cite are not available via google. To be clear here, you are asking me to say where you found it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, Dude -- the sentence in question is a reasonable summary of the main thesis of the whole entire book (as you could have rather easily ascertained with about three seconds of Google searching.  If you want a page reference, it would be "passim".  I fail to see what all this flailing around on your part has accomplished or was intended to accomplish. AnonMoos (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social unrest 

message: If nobody has any strenuous objections, I will move some of this material in this article to human sex ratio which should then be a less confusing subarticle.
Please don't panic.  All species where there are sexes have sex ratios, not only humans (anthropology).  To concentrate on humans is anthropocentric, and I would say that anthropocentricism is not NPOV.  There is a lot of very interesting theoretical and experimental work on sex ratios in non-human species. --I am not a dog (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I have made human sex ratio.  The next stage will be to remove information from this article, so it can be about sex ratios generally.  That no doubt will cause some upset, so I shall leave it for tomorrow. I am not a dog (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now I have removed material from here (don't say I didn't warn you).  It is still a bit disjointed but hopefully it is less so and thus can be tidied. I am not a dog (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: [[human sex ratio]] 

message: Nothing is said in the article about hermaphrodites. Which sex do they belong to? What percentage of society do they constitute?66.65.129.159 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings up the question of how sex ratios are determined. Is it based on a visual examination of genitalia or on a DNA/SRS test? Pendragon39 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It's presumably determined by birth registration records.  I strongly doubt that the number of visbly-intersexed people at birth is enough to significantly affect overall sex-ratio statistics. AnonMoos (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermaphrodites 

message: This article is clearly wrong about the at birth sex ratio of 210 girls to 100 boys given that that would mean that pretty soon there will be double the number of women as men in the world or that most girls die very quickly after birth. I checked its reputed source the cia world fact book: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html and it clearly does not say that. I could not find where it has global statistics on sex ratio but given that it lists most countries as having something like a ration of 1.05 male births to female births I do not see how a ration of 210 to 100 in the opposite direction globally could be possible. I have never edited wikipedia before and do not know where to find the actual global statistic so I am not going to change it but clearly someone with the proper information should or it should be deleted. It is clearly some form of vandalism or a huge typo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.97.117 (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism?? 

message: Anyone know whats up with this block? I tried editing it so that it appears as whoever wrote it intended, but it appears that there is a lot of german in there as well. I'm not sure what to do with it so i didn't edit it, but would urge someone who knows more to do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.234.80 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of Sex Ratio 

message: Help required with Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex: the article of apparently fringe theory is based almost exclusively on primary sources and edited by a people with strong connection to the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex

message: All maps with the color black representing water are missing South Sudan's independency from Sudan, and shows it as a part of Sudan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by מנחם ברמן (talk • contribs) 16:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The absent of South Sudan 

message: What are the importance of sex ratio 154.72.160.84 (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How many guys to every girl, or vice versa. AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's its meaning, the definition of the phrase. About its importance: sex ratios may be totally unimportant to some people, interesting or even paramount to others. Cultures where boys are preferred to girls obviously show a preference for sex ratios greater than 1 in (at least) their family, while (as mentioned in the text) farmers prefer the sex ratio of their livestock to be low, but not too low: you need cows to produce calfs and milk, hens to lay eggs, while one bull can service many cows, one rooster many hens: IOW, you need at least one full male, and as may females as you can get and feed. Anthropologists and biologists, OTOH, would probably become worried if the sex ratio wandered far enough from 1.0 in all or part of their field of study to make reproduction problematic (i.e., in mathematical terms, if the absolute value of its logarithm became too high): obviously, a sex ratio tending toward zero (females only, log r → –∞) or toward infinity (males only, log r → +∞) would make it extremely difficult bordering on impossible to find a sex partner, and I'm not so much talking about sex-for-pleasure here, as about sex-for-offspring. — Tonymec (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex ratio