National Review’s Kevin Williamson Comes Out Against Daughters, Misunderstands Science
One can only assume that NRO folks ran these scenarios and determined none of them were problems worthy of their attention. (Mmkay. Noted.) Unfortunately, Williamson also seems to have misunderstood the Trivers-Willard hypothesis.
The Trivers-Willard Hypothesis is an if/then statement. If the variance in male fitness is much higher than the variance in female fitness, then then mothers in good condition should invest in male offspring.
In other words, you have to assume a situation where any male offspring will someday either “cash in big” and produce a whole lot of offspring himself, or else be shut out, but female offspring will probably go on to crank out a predictable number of their own offspring every year.
In such a situation, mothers in good condition can afford to take the risk on male offspring, because they’re playing with the “house money” that nature has given them. Meanwhile, mothers in poor condition should favor female offspring, because in this scenario it’s daughters who are the “sure thing.”
Notice the common theme of “mothers”? That’s because the Trivers-Willard Hypothesis predicts something about (class? hands? anyone?) mothers. (Who often have fallopian tubes, and sometimes even have cardigans.)