Anonymous wrote:Whether or not kids get along is SO highly dependent on personality and not sex/gender or age gap.

I would go with the healthiest embryo and put this out of your mind.

Anonymous wrote:I want to do this but am worried of the risks of the PGT test needed to determine gender. Which clinic are you working with?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you’re wrong that girls are more likely to be close. And the larger gap of roommates would mean more time without having to share bc the older would go off to college sooner.

OP here. Good point about going off to college! I hadn’t thought of that.

Just to clarify, it’s not that I think girls are more likely to get along generally. I think that two kids 4 years apart are more likely to get along than two kids 5.5 years apart.

That doesn't fit with most families I know. I know lots of kids who are closest to their opposite sibling, or to siblings that are further apart in age. That's certainly true in both my family, and DH's family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to do this but am worried of the risks of the PGT test needed to determine gender. Which clinic are you working with?

OP here. We have to do PGT-A testing anyway because of my age, so that’s a non-issue for us. We’re at Shady Grove.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take whatever the good lord gives you. And you are grateful. And I'm not even religious.

(op, your "ideal" spacing comment was a little hard to take)

If you’re taking whatever the good lord gives you…that’s not IVF anyway!

This! Once you’re doing IVF anyway why are you not allowed to have any other benefits of technology?

Yeah, I don't understand all this hand-wringing re: "playing god" or whatever. According to this logic, any kind of medical intervention = "playing god." Especially IVF, which is used to prolong/promote fertility beyond the point "nature" has determined is ideal (not saying I agree with this characterization, obviously). And where PGT is involved, parents are already selecting for "healthy" embryos - not just those without life-threatening mutations. How is selecting for gender any different? Just like health/disability, sex is hugely consequential to how individuals experience the world.

Relatedly, I don't understand the view that it's only acceptable to choose when there's a sex-linked genetic condition. I have a boy who I love completely and I wouldn't change a single thing about, for instance, but I can think of plenty of perfectly valid, non-medical reasons one might prefer a girl. E.g., boys are nearly 4 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism and 3 times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. Historically and presently, women have been more likely to take on the burden of eldercare. Men are responsible for wildly disproportionate amounts of violence and aggression, and there's only so much parenting can overcome. Of course, there are plenty of challenges/potential downsides involved in raising girls as well. But it should be up to individual parents to weigh what matters most to them and make that decision.

Frankly, there aren't enough people doing IVF with PGT that allowing for selection will make a meaningful difference on a population level. And if we ever get to that point, banning sex selection isn't the answer. Instead, we should try to address the underlying reasons for the preference (e.g., in the case of girl-preference, some of the ones listed above).

On a personal note, I am a donor-conceived individual, which in my view is a WAY more ethically dubious practice (I say this without judgment towards those who pursue it - my judgment is reserved from the highly corrupt, unregulated, and profitable fertility industry). And yet, I almost never see comments (on these forums or in general) questioning that practice. In the donor conception context, recipient parents frequently select for race, height, hair color, intelligence, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I’d really like your thoughts. That was always what I thought - you get what you get! But now I’m in an odd place and I’m actually considering it. Need someone to talk me out of it or remind me why this is a bad idea (or maybe say in this situation maybe it’s not crazy to consider?)

I have two children, boy - 4.5 and girl - almost 3. We’ve had trouble conceiving a third child so we’re currently doing IVF.

We’ve missed the window on our preferred spacing, so if we get lucky and IVF works, our younger two will be almost 4 years (and definitely 4 school years) apart. We had been hoping for a 2-3 year gap, so watching that slip way has been really hard. This will definitely be our last child.

I never had a preference for the sex of my babies. But now, I do. I have a fairly strong preference for a girl. I just feel like this baby (if we are even lucky enough to have one!) will be so much younger than the others, at least both being girls maybe there will be more of a chance of bonding between the two younger kids. Plus two of our children will have to share a room. I’d much rather have two girls 4 years apart sharing a room than two boys 5.5 years apart sharing a room. That gap just seems CRAZY large to me.

We’re having to do IVF anyway, so all of a sudden I’m thinking, well, if we’re lucky enough to get a choice, why not pick? But I know a year ago I would have thought that was a bad idea.

Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you’re wrong that girls are more likely to be close. And the larger gap of roommates would mean more time without having to share bc the older would go off to college sooner.

OP here. Good point about going off to college! I hadn’t thought of that.

Just to clarify, it’s not that I think girls are more likely to get along generally. I think that two kids 4 years apart are more likely to get along than two kids 5.5 years apart.