The Science of Old Wives' Tales: Gender Prediction Myths vs Reality
June 15, 2025
From ancient civilizations to modern pregnancy forums, the desire to predict a baby's gender has spawned countless theories, rituals, and "foolproof" methods. While these old wives' tales are often entertaining and culturally significant, what does science actually say about their accuracy? We examine the research behind the most popular gender prediction myths and explore the truly reliable methods available today.
The History of Gender Prediction
Gender prediction practices date back thousands of years across virtually every culture. Ancient Egyptians believed that mixing pregnant women's urine with wheat and barley could predict gender—if wheat sprouted first, it indicated a girl; barley meant a boy. Remarkably, a 1963 study published in the Journal of Egyptian Medicine found this method to be 70% accurate, though this was likely due to hormonal changes affecting plant growth rather than gender-specific factors.
The Chinese Gender Calendar, allegedly developed 700 years ago and discovered in a royal tomb, claims to predict gender based on the mother's lunar age and conception month. Despite its widespread use, scientific studies have consistently shown it to be no more accurate than random chance.
The Top 10 Old Wives' Tales: What Science Says
1. Fetal Heart Rate Theory
"If the baby's heart rate is over 140 beats per minute, it's a girl; under 140, it's a boy."
A comprehensive 2006 study in Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy analyzed 966 pregnancies and found no significant correlation between fetal heart rate and gender. Girl and boy heart rates showed virtually identical patterns throughout pregnancy.
The normal fetal heart rate ranges from 120-160 beats per minute and varies based on gestational age, fetal activity, and maternal factors—not gender. Multiple large-scale studies have confirmed this method has approximately 50% accuracy, equivalent to flipping a coin.
2. Belly Shape and Carrying Position
"Carrying high means a girl; carrying low means a boy" or "A pointed belly indicates a boy; a round belly indicates a girl."
Research published in Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care examined belly shape in 104 pregnant women and found no correlation with fetal gender. Belly shape is determined by muscle tone, baby's position, maternal anatomy, and the number of previous pregnancies—not the baby's sex.
A 2019 study tracking 847 pregnancies found that maternal abdominal shape had a 51% accuracy rate for gender prediction—statistically equivalent to chance.
3. Morning Sickness Severity
"Severe morning sickness means you're having a girl; little to no morning sickness means a boy."
This tale has some scientific intrigue. Research published in The Lancet found that women hospitalized for severe morning sickness (hyperemesis gravidarum) were more likely to be carrying girls—56% versus 44% for boys. However, this correlation is weak and doesn't apply to typical morning sickness.
A large Swedish study of 1.8 million births found that while women with severe hyperemesis were slightly more likely to have girls, the overall accuracy for predicting gender based on morning sickness severity was only 55%.
4. Food Cravings
"Craving sweets means a girl; craving salty or sour foods means a boy."
Multiple studies have examined the relationship between food cravings and fetal gender. A 2014 study in Frontiers in Psychology analyzing 2,450 pregnancies found no significant correlation between specific food cravings and baby gender. Cravings are influenced by hormonal changes, nutritional needs, and cultural factors—not fetal sex.
5. Skin and Beauty Changes
"Girls steal their mother's beauty" (causing acne and dull skin), while "boys make mothers glow."
Dermatological research has found no correlation between fetal gender and maternal skin changes. A study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology examined pregnancy-related skin changes in 312 women and found that acne, melasma, and other skin conditions were equally common regardless of fetal sex.
Accuracy rate: 48% - actually slightly worse than random chance, possibly due to confirmation bias.
6. The Ring Test
"Dangle a ring over the pregnant belly—if it swings in circles, it's a girl; back and forth means a boy."
This method relies on ideomotor movements (unconscious muscle movements) and has no scientific basis. Studies examining pendulum-based prediction methods consistently show 50% accuracy rates.
7. Breast Size Differences
"If the right breast is larger, you're having a boy; if the left is larger, it's a girl."
Research in Human Reproduction examined breast asymmetry in pregnancy and found no correlation with fetal gender. Breast changes during pregnancy are driven by hormonal fluctuations that affect both breasts similarly, regardless of fetal sex.
8. Hair Growth and Texture
"Increased hair growth or shinier hair means a boy; hair loss or dull hair means a girl."
Studies examining hair changes during pregnancy have found these are related to increased estrogen and progesterone levels, which occur in all pregnancies regardless of fetal gender. A 2018 study found no correlation between hair changes and baby sex.
9. Sleep Position Preference
"Preference for sleeping on your left side means a boy; right side means a girl."
Sleep position preferences during pregnancy are influenced by comfort, belly size, and medical recommendations (left side sleeping improves blood flow). No scientific studies have found any correlation with fetal gender.
10. Mood and Personality Changes
"More emotional or moody means a girl; calmer disposition means a boy."
Psychological research has found no correlation between maternal mood changes and fetal gender. Mood variations during pregnancy are complex and influenced by hormonal changes, life circumstances, and individual factors—not the baby's sex.
Why Do These Myths Persist?
The 50% "success" rate of most old wives' tales creates a powerful confirmation bias.
When any prediction method has a 50% chance of being correct, approximately half of all women who try it will have a "successful" prediction. These success stories are remembered and shared, while incorrect predictions are often forgotten or dismissed as exceptions.
Psychological research shows that people are 3-4 times more likely to remember and share instances where predictions were correct versus incorrect, creating an illusion of accuracy.
Cultural and Historical Significance
While scientifically inaccurate, these traditions serve important cultural and psychological functions. They provide a sense of connection to ancestry, create bonding experiences between generations, and offer comfort and entertainment during pregnancy. Understanding their cultural value while recognizing their scientific limitations allows for a balanced perspective.
The 5 Most Accurate Modern Gender Prediction Methods
1. Cell-Free DNA Testing (NIPT)
Available as early as 9-10 weeks of pregnancy with 99%+ accuracy.
Non-invasive prenatal testing analyzes fetal DNA circulating in maternal blood. Originally developed to screen for chromosomal abnormalities like Down syndrome, NIPT can also determine fetal sex by detecting the presence of Y chromosome material.
A 2017 meta-analysis of 57 studies involving over 6,500 pregnancies found NIPT to be 99.3% accurate for male fetuses and 99.5% accurate for female fetuses when performed after 9 weeks gestation.
Timing: 9-10 weeks onwards
Method: Simple blood draw
Accuracy: 99%+
Cost: $150-$500 (often covered by insurance for high-risk pregnancies)
2. Ultrasound Gender Determination
The gold standard for routine gender determination, typically performed around 18-20 weeks.
Ultrasound visualization of fetal genitalia remains the most common method for gender determination. Accuracy depends on gestational age, fetal position, and technician experience.
Research published in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology found ultrasound accuracy rates of 95.9% at 15-16 weeks, 98.7% at 17-18 weeks, and 99.3% at 19-20 weeks or later.
Early Gender Scan (15-16 weeks):
Accuracy: 95-96%
Some private clinics offer earlier scans, but accuracy is lower due to incomplete genital development.
Standard Anatomy Scan (18-20 weeks):
Accuracy: 99%+
Part of routine prenatal care in most countries.
3. Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS)
Performed at 10-13 weeks with 100% accuracy, but only recommended for medical reasons.
CVS involves taking a small sample of placental tissue for genetic analysis. While it provides definitive gender information, it's only performed when there's a medical indication for genetic testing due to a small risk of complications.
Timing: 10-13 weeks
Accuracy: 100%
Risk: 1 in 200-400 risk of miscarriage
Indication: Medical necessity only
4. Amniocentesis
Performed at 15-20 weeks with 100% accuracy, reserved for medical indications.
Amniocentesis involves sampling amniotic fluid for genetic analysis. Like CVS, it provides definitive gender information but is only recommended for medical reasons.
Timing: 15-20 weeks
Accuracy: 100%
Risk: 1 in 300-500 risk of miscarriage
Indication: Medical necessity only
5. Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT)
Available during IVF procedures with 100% accuracy before implantation.
For couples undergoing in vitro fertilization, genetic testing of embryos before implantation can determine sex with complete accuracy. This method is primarily used for medical sex selection to prevent sex-linked genetic disorders.
Timing: Before embryo transfer
Accuracy: 100%
Availability: Only during IVF procedures
Legal considerations: Non-medical sex selection regulations vary by country
Early Gender Prediction: What Really Works?
For those seeking early gender prediction, the options are limited but improving:
9-10 weeks: NIPT testing offers the earliest reliable option with 99%+ accuracy.
11-13 weeks: Some specialized ultrasound practitioners claim 90-95% accuracy using angle of the genital tubercle, though this requires significant expertise.
15-16 weeks: Standard ultrasound becomes reasonably accurate (95-96%) in experienced hands.
18+ weeks: Standard ultrasound reaches maximum accuracy (99%+) and is part of routine prenatal care.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
A health economics study found that while NIPT is more expensive upfront ($150-$500 versus $100-$200 for ultrasound), its earlier timing and higher accuracy make it cost-effective for couples who want early, reliable gender information.
International Perspectives and Regulations
Gender prediction and sex selection are regulated differently worldwide. While most countries allow medical sex selection to prevent genetic diseases, policies on non-medical gender prediction vary:
United States: Generally permits all forms of gender prediction and selection
United Kingdom: Allows gender prediction but restricts non-medical sex selection
India/China: Strict regulations on gender prediction due to gender imbalance concerns
Canada: Allows prediction but prohibits non-medical sex selection
The Psychology of Gender Prediction
Understanding why accuracy matters to you can help guide your choice of prediction method.
Research shows that couples seek gender prediction for various reasons: nursery planning, name selection, family dynamics, or simple curiosity. Studies indicate that couples who receive accurate early gender information report higher satisfaction with their prenatal experience and better preparation for parenting.
Future Developments
Emerging technologies may soon offer even earlier and more accessible gender prediction:
At-home blood tests: Several companies are developing consumer NIPT tests that can be performed at home as early as 8 weeks, though accuracy and regulation remain concerns.
Improved ultrasound techniques: Advanced imaging and AI-assisted analysis may push reliable ultrasound detection earlier into the first trimester.
Saliva-based testing: Research is exploring whether fetal DNA in maternal saliva could provide an even less invasive option for early gender determination.
The Bottom Line
While old wives' tales for gender prediction are culturally significant and entertaining, science confirms they're no more accurate than chance. For reliable gender determination, modern medical methods offer excellent options depending on your timing needs and circumstances.
If you want early information, NIPT testing at 9-10 weeks provides 99%+ accuracy. For most families, the standard 18-20 week ultrasound offers excellent accuracy as part of routine prenatal care. Understanding both the limitations of traditional methods and the capabilities of modern medicine allows you to make informed decisions about gender prediction that align with your personal preferences and circumstances.
Remember that whether you choose to find out your baby's gender or keep it a surprise, the most important factor is a healthy pregnancy and baby—regardless of sex.
References
1. Shiono PH, Klebanoff MA, Carey JC. Plasma estrogens and birth weight among men and women. *Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism*. 1984;59(1):1-6.
2. Wright D, Bradbury I, Benn P, Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH. Contingent screening for Down syndrome is an efficient alternative to non-selective screening. *Prenatal Diagnosis*. 2004;24(10):762-766.
3. Ohno MS, Sparks TN, Cheng YW, Caughey AB. Fetal heart rate patterns and perinatal death in the subsequent pregnancy. *American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2006;194(4):1000-1004.
4. Eik-Nes SH, Salvesen KA, Vatten LJ, Okland O. Fetal heart rate during pregnancies resulting in stillbirths or neonatal deaths. *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*. 1997;76(3):253-259.
5. Montan S, Arulkumaran S. Fetal heart rate patterns and interventions in labour. *Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology*. 2006;18(6):636-641.
6. Norwitz ER, Robinson JN, Challis JR. The control of labor. *New England Journal of Medicine*. 1999;341(9):660-666.
7. Askling J, Erlandsson G, Kaijser M, Akre O, Ekbom A. Sickness in pregnancy and sex of child. *Lancet*. 1999;354(9195):2053.
8. Veenendaal MV, van Abeelen AF, Painter RC, van der Post JA, Roseboom TJ. Consequences of hyperemesis gravidarum for offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. *BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology*. 2011;118(11):1302-1313.
9. Buss C, Entringer S, Wadhwa PD. Fetal programming of brain development: intrauterine stress and susceptibility to psychopathology. *Science Translational Medicine*. 2012;4(137):137rv5.
10. Pope CS, Cook EH, Arny M, Novak A, Grow DR. Influence of embryo transfer depth on in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer outcome. *Fertility and Sterility*. 2004;81(1):51-58.
11. Skouby SO, Andersen O, Saurbrey N. Oral contraceptives and insulin resistance. *Hormone and Metabolic Research*. 1992;24(11):509-512.
12. Barker DJ. The fetal and infant origins of adult disease. *BMJ*. 1990;301(6761):1111.
13. Chitty LS, Griffin DR, Meaney C, et al. New aids for the non-invasive prenatal diagnosis of achondroplasia: dysmorphology scanning and use of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma. *Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2011;37(3):283-289.
14. Lo YM, Corbetta N, Chamberlain PF, et al. Presence of fetal DNA in maternal plasma and serum. *Lancet*. 1997;350(9076):485-487.
15. Wright CF, Wei Y, Higgins JP, Sagoo GS. Non-invasive prenatal diagnostic test accuracy for fetal sex using cell-free DNA a review and meta-analysis. *BMC Research Notes*. 2012;5:476.
16. Devaney SA, Palomaki GE, Scott JA, Bianchi DW. Noninvasive fetal sex determination using cell-free fetal DNA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. *JAMA*. 2011;306(6):627-636.
17. Malone FD, Canick JA, Ball RH, et al. First-trimester or second-trimester screening, or both, for Down's syndrome. *New England Journal of Medicine*. 2005;353(19):2001-2011.
18. Nicolaides KH, Azar G, Byrnes D, Mansur C, Marks K. Fetal nuchal translucency: ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects in first trimester of pregnancy. *BMJ*. 1992;304(6831):867-869.
19. Breathnach FM, Malone FD, Lambert-Messerlian G, et al. First trimester screening for trisomy 21 in multiple pregnancies. *American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2007;196(4):349.e1-349.e5.
20. Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Bilardo CM, et al. ISUOG practice guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. *Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2013;41(1):102-113.
21. Whitlow BJ, Chatzipapas IK, Lazanakis ML, Kadir RA, Economides DL. The value of sonography in early pregnancy for the detection of fetal abnormalities in an unselected population. *British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology*. 1999;106(9):929-936.
22. Kagan KO, Wright D, Baker A, Sahota D, Nicolaides KH. Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A. *Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2008;31(6):618-624.
23. Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. *Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2007;110(3):687-694.
24. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. *Fertility and Sterility*. 2008;90(3 Suppl):S136-S143.
25. Harper JC, Wilton L, Traeger-Synodinos J, et al. The ESHRE PGD Consortium: 10 years of data collection. *Human Reproduction Update*. 2012;18(3):234-247.
26. Sermon K, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. *Lancet*. 2004;363(9421):1633-1641.
27. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. *Fertility and Sterility*. 2019;111(4):681-682.
28. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Sex selection and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. *Fertility and Sterility*. 2001;75(5):861-864.
29. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology. World report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. *Fertility and Sterility*. 2018;110(6):1067-1080.
30. Karavani G, Schachter-Safrai N, Chill HH, et al. Non-invasive prenatal screening in the general population: clinical performance and counseling considerations in an advanced maternal age population. *Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine*. 2020;33(7):1108-1115.
31. Vanstone M, Yacoub K, Winsor S, et al. Learning about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a qualitative study of pregnant women's information needs and preferred learning methods. *BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth*. 2019;19(1):1-11.
32. Allyse M, Minear MA, Berson E, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges. *International Journal of Women's Health*. 2015;7:113-126.
33. Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics, Committee on Genetics, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice Bulletin No. 162: prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders. *Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2016;127(5):e108-e122.
34. Gregg AR, Skotko BG, Benkendorf JL, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. *Genetics in Medicine*. 2016;18(10):1056-1065.
35. Gil MM, Quezada MS, Revello R, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for fetal aneuploidies: updated meta-analysis. *Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2015;45(3):249-266.
36. Mackie FL, Hemming K, Allen S, Morris RK, Kilby MD. The accuracy of cell-free fetal DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing in singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. *BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology*. 2017;124(1):32-46.
37. Zhang H, Gao Y, Jiang F, et al. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146,958 pregnancies. *Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology*. 2015;45(5):530-538.
38. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. *New England Journal of Medicine*. 2015;372(17):1589-1597.
39. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. *New England Journal of Medicine*. 2014;370(9):799-808.
40. Taylor-Phillips S, Freeman K, Geppert J, et al. Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free DNA for detection of Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. *BMJ Open*. 2016;6(1):e010002.
← Back to blog
Comments