# A speculation on postwar baby genders

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-speculation-on-postwar-baby-genders/567674>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [January 15, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-speculation-on-postwar-baby-genders/567674 "2011-01-15T02:55:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-speculation-on-postwar-baby-genders/567674/1 "2011-01-15T02:55:59Z")

</div>

Comment on [Are more male babies born after wars?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2973/are-more-male-babies-born-after-wars)

Just a wild-ass theory I thought of. I think we can safely assume that if there is a gender bias among babies, it must be a genetic trait. And I think it’s easily arguable that some of the traits we’d associate with being a soldier have some genetic basis. For example, people with bad eyesight or flat feet or asthma don’t get drafted to serve.

Now suppose these “non-warrior” genes are associated with a “male-baby-preference” gene. What happens when a big war starts? The men with warrior genes get selected to go off to fight (and maybe not return). The men with the non-warrior genes stay home - and these men have a genetic preference for fathering male babies. So the ratio of male babies being born increases.