Before I get in to the second installment, I’d like to respond to one response in irony. It is clear to me that no matter how well I prove my point (which is not at all what I intend to do, I will merely disprove your damaging theory) those who bought in to the “island” theory will never let go of it or be convinced otherwise. I understand that there is nothing I can do about it. But I will state my position for those who are open minded.
AZ: Let’s take for granted that you are correct about there being 4% more boys born than girls. I don’t have that information, so I will accept yours at face value for now. Do you think that this is anything but a short-term phenomena? I guarantee you it is not. This year maybe 4% more boys; next year or in 10 years it will balance out to 50/50 ratio of boys and girls. Let me make 2 points to show you why your information is meaningless:
1) 4% is a very minor divergence (known in statistics as white noise). 52% male and 48% female births every year would over time cause a problem, but one year’s extra girls will be countered by another year’s extra boys. And you think that this small deviation explains BOTH the chassidish girl shortage AND the mainstream boy shortage? Talk about being blinded by your own theories! Trust me that if you aggregate a population pool of 10 years you will get back to 50/50. Except, that…..
2) Male mortality is higher than female mortality. This is also (or should I just say “this is”) documented fact. Like it or not people do die, at all ages. And at younger ages the male deaths are more than 4% higher than female deaths. So in terms of living population, given a 50/50 birth ratio there are always more females on the planet than males. Given a 52/48 ratio it will take time for females to catch up, but they will by age 20.