Part 2

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 unnatural 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.