Gender Selection: Ethical Minefield or Personal Choice?

Gender Selection:  Ethical Minefield or Personal Choice? 

IVF is already an intensely personal, medical, and emotionally demanding process. Couples investing so much in their family arguably should have the right to make one additional choice—the sex of their child.

Example: Many parents have told me they just want a “chance at balance” after repeated IVF cycles. They aren’t trying to play God—they just want some control after months of needles, scans, and heartbreak.

What people say:

• “I’ve done everything else the doctors told me to—why can’t I have this choice?”

• “I just want a little say in this one aspect of my family.”

My opinion: You already have limited control over the IVF journey. Denying gender selection feels like society telling parents: “You’ve suffered enough, but this one choice isn’t yours.”

Family Balancing

Some parents desire gender selection not out of bias, but for “family balance.”

Example: Imagine a couple who already has three girls. They long for a boy—not because they value boys more, but because they want a different dynamic in the family.

What people say:

• “We just want a balanced family. It’s not about valuing one gender—it’s about harmony.”

• “After miscarriages and failed cycles, it would be emotionally devastating to lose yet another chance.”

My opinion: This is a valid, human desire. IVF is exhausting, expensive, and emotionally draining. If gender selection can ease that psychological burden without harming anyone, why deny it?

Emotional Relief and Healing

Infertility is an emotional minefield. Every IVF cycle brings hope, fear, disappointment, and grief. For some parents, gender selection is a form of emotional closure or reassurance.

Example: In international surrogacy, some countries allow gender selection. For my twins, I knew the sex from the start. That knowledge allowed me to emotionally prepare and bond during an otherwise stressful, unpredictable journey.

What people say:

• “Knowing the gender helped me envision our life as a family, especially after multiple losses.”

• “It gave me one small thing I could control in a journey that felt uncontrollable.”

My opinion: This is deeply human. IVF is already emotionally taxing. Gender selection can provide hope, not harm.

Arguments Against Legal Gender Selection

Ethical Concerns

Critics warn that choosing a child’s gender for preference could reinforce gender stereotypes or societal bias.

Example: In some cultures, boys are preferred. Opponents fear that legalising gender selection could create imbalance or perpetuate sexism.

What people say:

• “It’s dangerous to let parents choose—they might devalue one gender.”

• “This could reinforce cultural inequality.”

Counterpoint / My perspective: In IVF, this is about personal family choice, not societal engineering. The decision happens in a controlled, private context. Most couples are choosing for balance, not discrimination.

Slippery Slope: From Gender to Traits

If gender selection is allowed, some worry about “designer babies.” Height, eye color, intelligence—where does it stop?

Example: Bioethicists warn that even gender selection could normalise choosing embryos for traits, turning reproduction into a consumerist process.

What people say:

• “Today it’s gender, tomorrow it’s eye color and intelligence.”

• “We’re heading into a morally dangerous territory.”

Counterpoint / My perspective: That’s a slippery slope argument, but it assumes all parents would take it too far. Gender selection for balance is not the same as trait selection—ethical lines can be drawn.

Social and Cultural Consequences

Even small numbers of gender selection could theoretically skew ratios or reinforce social pressure to justify choices.

Example: Some opponents worry about societal impact if many families prefer one gender.

What people say:

• “Even a few parents making this choice affects the culture.”

• “It could normalize gender preference and create social imbalance.”

Counterpoint / My perspective: In countries where gender selection is legal, the numbers are low and tightly regulated. The personal emotional relief outweighs hypothetical societal effects, especially in countries with small IVF populations.

Equity and Access

IVF is already expensive. Gender selection would likely only be available to those who can afford it, raising fairness concerns.

What people say:

• “It’s elitist—only rich people get to choose.”

Counterpoint / My perspective: IVF itself is expensive, so this inequity already exists. Denying gender selection doesn’t solve inequality—it just adds to emotional frustration for couples who can already pay for IVF abroad.

Where This Leaves Us

Globally, many countries already allow gender selection under strict regulation. For example: some private clinics in the US, Mexico, or parts of Europe allow it, while still respecting ethical frameworks. In surrogacy, the same applies: although Australian law governs the arrangement, some international surrogacy agencies permit choosing the sex. That was my experience with my twins—I knew their sex from the start, which made a profoundly emotional difference in my journey.

Gender selection sits at the intersection of:

• Autonomy: the right to make deeply personal family decisions

• Ethics: avoiding harm and societal bias

• Emotion: healing, hope, and psychological relief

For couples navigating infertility, the argument isn’t about sexism or control—it’s about having one small choice in a journey that is otherwise overwhelming, unpredictable, and often devastating.

My personal opinion

In my view, gender selection should be a legal, regulated option for IVF parents, because it is a deeply personal decision that carries emotional significance without harming anyone. Denying it feels like society telling parents: “You’ve endured enough, but this one choice isn’t yours.”

Of course, it’s important to acknowledge the valid concerns around gender selection.

Ethical questions, cultural biases, and the potential for misuse cannot be ignored.

But with careful regulation, gender selection could be offered responsibly, balancing individual autonomy with ethical accountability, and allowing parents to make deeply personal decisions without causing harm to society.

 ❤️Linda