> You are dealing with a society that's ridiculously good at not having daughters. A practice perfected for decades.
I agree. I just doubt the "not illegal, not unethical" explanations.
> If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon.
No, this is precisely the kind of "family planning" that mathematically won't be able to affect the expected gender ratio at all. The ratios are skewed in India, but that's definitely caused by something else. Is it the conception of male children being more likely? No, probably not, we have very good evidence that about 51% of children are conceived male. So it's caused by something else. Selective abortions would be my best guess, but that's not "not illegal, not unethical".
>>I just doubt the "not illegal, not unethical" explanations.
They are not killing or aborting anything. They are opting to not have kids. Another section can opt to not even have a single kid, or not even marry. None of this illegal, or unethical. It's not exactly a crime for opting to not have kids, or refusing to marry.
>>Is it the conception of male children being more likely?
Yes. Because it's being carefully done so. On the very larger view of things, birth of a boy vs girl appears random(Or by your admission slightly skewed towards boys) if left to nature alone(that is precisely equal percentages). But on individual couple level, very clearly some couples only have boys, and some only have girls. Some have 1 boy and 1 girl. Some have 2 boys and a girl, and some 2 girls and a boy. This is for 1 - 3 kids per couple(The avg Indian family). The ones that are only likely to have girls, or more than one girl, are now opting to not have anymore after the very first one. The couples who now have 2 - 3 boys will struggle to find brides.
Your argument about randomness doesn't hold at the individual level. And the balance that needs to arise at a larger level doesn't work if the rules of impartiality are not adhered equally by each participating couple.
>>we have very good evidence that about 51% of children are conceived male.
That is if you leave nature to take its own course, of course.
I agree. I just doubt the "not illegal, not unethical" explanations.
> If you have families where 3 boys are born in a series, and a family on the other hand stops at the first daughter. Or a family that has 2 boys + 1 girl - Compared to a family having just one girl. Do this for a billion people, and you will the see things start going real bad soon.
No, this is precisely the kind of "family planning" that mathematically won't be able to affect the expected gender ratio at all. The ratios are skewed in India, but that's definitely caused by something else. Is it the conception of male children being more likely? No, probably not, we have very good evidence that about 51% of children are conceived male. So it's caused by something else. Selective abortions would be my best guess, but that's not "not illegal, not unethical".