Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP raises an interesting question about whether fertility drs have explored or noticed anecdotally differences in children conceived with technology.

OP here Thank you!!! I am asking if your doctor is talking about this- is anyone studying this? I am an older mother, i did take treatments, my child is not gay, I am not equating anything with anything. I have read that the medication to prevent miscarriage is high doses of hormones. How could this not affect a baby- it is being given to affect the pregnancy.

Because you have the hormone in a natural pregnancy. It's not necessarily a high dosage. You take it because you didn't ovulate and your body won't naturally produce progesterone because you didn't ovulate. Once the placenta has formed at 10-12 weeks you no longer have to take progesterone because your body is back to producing it naturally as a result of the placenta.

Is it true that high levels of estrogen are given to prevent miscarriage? Could these high levels cause the male fetus brain to develop differently from one not being given the high dose of estrogen?

No it isn't a high level. It's the amount you should normally have.

Anonymous wrote:
Is it true that high levels of estrogen are given to prevent miscarriage? Could these high levels cause the male fetus brain to develop differently from one not being given the high dose of estrogen?

no. you are totally making stuff up without even bothering to research it. replacement doses of *progesterone* are given to women whose bodies aren't producing it naturally, for up to 12 weeks until the placenta takes over and produces progesterone itself. women aren't taking high doses of estrogen during a pregnancy. They are only taking the hormone their body would otherwise to produce to sustain an embryo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP raises an interesting question about whether fertility drs have explored or noticed anecdotally differences in children conceived with technology.

OP here Thank you!!! I am asking if your doctor is talking about this- is anyone studying this? I am an older mother, i did take treatments, my child is not gay, I am not equating anything with anything. I have read that the medication to prevent miscarriage is high doses of hormones. How could this not affect a baby- it is being given to affect the pregnancy.

Because you have the hormone in a natural pregnancy. It's not necessarily a high dosage. You take it because you didn't ovulate and your body won't naturally produce progesterone because you didn't ovulate. Once the placenta has formed at 10-12 weeks you no longer have to take progesterone because your body is back to producing it naturally as a result of the placenta.

Is it true that high levels of estrogen are given to prevent miscarriage? Could these high levels cause the male fetus brain to develop differently from one not being given the high dose of estrogen?

OP, private school + older moms = wealthy people.
They have means and desire to insulate their non-straight children from the public schools and put them in a more gentle environment. That's all there is to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP raises an interesting question about whether fertility drs have explored or noticed anecdotally differences in children conceived with technology.

OP here Thank you!!! I am asking if your doctor is talking about this- is anyone studying this? I am an older mother, i did take treatments, my child is not gay, I am not equating anything with anything. I have read that the medication to prevent miscarriage is high doses of hormones. How could this not affect a baby- it is being given to affect the pregnancy.

Because you have the hormone in a natural pregnancy. It's not necessarily a high dosage. You take it because you didn't ovulate and your body won't naturally produce progesterone because you didn't ovulate. Once the placenta has formed at 10-12 weeks you no longer have to take progesterone because your body is back to producing it naturally as a result of the placenta.

Anonymous wrote:I think the OP raises an interesting question about whether fertility drs have explored or noticed anecdotally differences in children conceived with technology.

OP here Thank you!!! I am asking if your doctor is talking about this- is anyone studying this? I am an older mother, i did take treatments, my child is not gay, I am not equating anything with anything. I have read that the medication to prevent miscarriage is high doses of hormones. How could this not affect a baby- it is being given to affect the pregnancy.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I made a similar error in causation about 4 years ago when I began working in an affluent school with many students with LD and ASD. Nearly all the mothers were older and there were many IVF twins and at least one set of triplets in each grade. I ignorantly thought it must be the fertility treatments, including (and I am deeply ashamed of this thought now), the idea that lower quality embryos had survived that without medical intervention wouldn't have implanted or would have spontaneously aborted. Luckily, I had a friend set me straight before I embarrassed myself or hurt someone's feelings. These kids were at my school because their parents could afford both AR and a school that met their children's SN. The AR didn't cause their SN. It didn't cause the kids at your school being LGBTQ.
Going through AR is tough enough, don't freak parents out that they've saddled their kids with a more difficult row to hoe in life.

Actually, doesn't research now show that advanced paternal age causes an increase in problens like autism and aspergers?

So your theory was close to being correct.

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be this ongoing myth that women who have received fertility treatment take drugs and hormones throughout the pregnancy. Aside from progesterone, which is in the system of every pregnant woman anyway, I don't think the women use any drugs once they are pregnant, except for prescribed vitamins.

True
I'm the 22:31 PP. After my FET, I took progesterone and estrogen through the first ten weeks of pregnancy, until the placenta was developed and functioning. That's it. From the time I was released by my RE at 8 weeks, my pregnancy was handled by a midwife, and I was treated like every other pregnant woman.
That's pretty much the standard for IVF pregnancies. Unless there is an underlying condition that may contribute to a more fragile pregnancy, or the pregnancy consists of multiples, there's no evidence-based need for any special treatment/medications/whatever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21094885/

This has nothing whatsoever to do with fertility treatments.

+1
Why is this abstract even linked here? Testosterone is not an IF/IVF treatment!
OP, you do realize that not all women over the age of 35 required infertility treatments to become pregnant, correct? Not even most of them.

I have a 5 month old DD who is the result of IVF/FET. Yes, I am mid-30s, but the medical condition that resulted in my need to do IVF to conceive isn't AMA, it's PCOS. Which I've had since a teenager. If I'd tried to conceive straight out of college, I likely would have encountered the same issues. In my years of pursuing infertility treatments, I met plenty of women in their 20s who were infertile. Infertility isn't limited to the "older" crowd, and most "older" moms you encounter probably didn't need infertility treatment. This assumption you have that, because the parents of these children are older, they must be the product of infertility treatments which affected their gender identities or sexual preference...that's a reach.

There seems to be this ongoing myth that women who have received fertility treatment take drugs and hormones throughout the pregnancy. Aside from progesterone, which is in the system of every pregnant woman anyway, I don't think the women use any drugs once they are pregnant, except for prescribed vitamins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are substituting correlation with causation.

My husband and I are 40. We both can't remember any kid in our high school class who was gay, much less bi or trans. (We do know from Facebook that some of those kids did turn out to be gay, bi, and even one person was trans and now lives as a woman.) In contrast, DH's little sister is 17 years younger. When she was in high school, many kids were out and lots more were experimenting, even if they ultimately were heterosexual. It's not fertility drugs that changed kids. It's the culture of acceptance for sexual and gender identity that has changed and kids are reacting to it by being open about their feelings.

I am not substituting causation for correlation. I am noticing correlation and asking about causation. You are also noticing correlation, and attributing causation. Where is what you have posited proved? Its a nice hypothesis, and I am offering another hypothesis.Isn't it possible that if your only child is gay, and you are too old to have another one, you would be much more likely to be accepting and supportive.
You and the sister fit in perfectly to the age demographic. In 1975 hardly anyone was taking fertility drugs- the first "test tube" baby was barely born.
By the 1990s there were fertility clinics everywhere.
I am for acceptance. That isn't the issue here.

This is kind of OT but fertility drugs & test tube babies are not one in the same. The first test tube baby was born in 1978 but my mom used fertility drugs to conceive my sister in 1974.

That was probably Clomid which has been in use since the early '60s. Clomid tricks the pituitary gland into over-stimulating the ovaries to produce more eggs. It is not a hormone. By the time conception occurs, the drug has left the system.