Thursday, August 14, 2008

Ancient Chinese Secret? Gender Prediction.

My post today is inspired by my friend DY, who gave birth to a baby girl yesterday evening (congrats!). While I was convinced that she was going to have another son, I should have known better, because the Ancient Chinese Lunar Calendar Gender Predictor indicated it would be a girl (just as it knew that her first child would be a boy).

This thing has NOT BEEN WRONG for any of my friends. It is insane!?! Even one of my friends who was told by her doctor--after more than one ultrasound--that she was having a girl, had a boy... just like the Chinese method predicted.

I am becoming obsessed with this little tool because I have yet to find someone it hasn't been accurate for. A lot of people apparently check this graph online and say that it has been wrong for them. But I have learned that since that chart does not tell women how to figure out their LUNAR age, that it's about as useful as flipping a coin.

So... I'm curious, for any of you moms out there (or dads who happen to know all of the needed statistics... was this gender prediction tool right for you? You HAVE to know your date of conception, though... and for those of you who are trying to put in a friend's info... the conception month isn't always simply 9 months before the baby was born.

Let me know if it was right for you/others you know (remember, only use the link above, not the chart) so that I can continue my not-so-scientific experiment. And yes, of course ALL babies, no matter the gender, are wonderful, and I'm not by any means advocating that people should try for one sex or the other, but I am really spooked by how right-on this prediction method has been for everyone I know.

And by the way, the story behind this whole thing is that supposedly, thousands of years ago, there was a Chinese scientist who created a gender prediction chart based on the Chinese lunar calendar. It was found in a royal tomb about 700 years ago... and now has made its way to the Internet. If I had talked to four people and only half of them said it worked for them, I would've dropped my curiosity. But I've talked to a lot more people than that and it continues to prove itself to be accurate.

If that scientist were alive today, he'd be rich!

- e


Scott said...

Chalk up another victory for the ACLCGP. It was right for us.

Mel said...

This prediction method was incorrect for us. Our son was conceived via IVF so I am positive of the exact time of his conception. Maybe the ancient Chinese scientist didn't think to account for any differences caused by 1980s reproductive technology!

Erika (aka "e") said...

Scott and Melanie - Thanks for replying... very interesting. On the site I linked to, there was a poll and about 30% of the people said it didn't work for them... so who knows if they conceived via other methods or whatnot.

We'll see if anyone else replies!

- e

Anonymous said...

I just checked and it didn't work for me and we conceived naturally. I even checked the day before and after in case I was a day out.

Interesting theory though!

Erika (aka "e") said...

Anon - I'm almost glad to hear it didn't work for a few of you... it was getting too freaky! Plus, I had the hunch that it couldn't be 100% right or it would be much more mainstream...

- e

Anonymous said...


Here is something that DOES work ... in a manner of speaking.

Check out

Which is a glorious way to waste time and see the naming fads come and go. Click on the cursor and start typing letters to see the graphs (and/or select male/female).

Good ways to see names you haven't thought of ... or names to avoid because of saturation.

Fun and addictive.

The Other E

Erika (aka "e") said...

The Other E - Yes, I have actually seen that baby name thing before, I love it! Very cool.

- e

Anonymous said...

How timely is this post!! For fun I used the chart after we conceived and it said girl. But we had our ultrasound yesterday and our baby is clearly a boy!

Rima said...

Hi e -

I've been reading for a while, started with "Long Live Locke" and moved on over to "according to e" not too long ago. Here's my two cents - both my girls were conceived naturally, and I'm pretty positive about the dates - I put in all the info and both came up boys! Sorry, put us in the "didn't work" column.

Keep up the blogging - I'll keep reading!

Anonymous said...

I have two daughters - the chart was 50% correct. I even checked the entire week around what I think was the conception date just to be sure.

Yup, 50% correct for my 2 daughters.

Amy said...

And what people also know is the conception month needs to be translated into "lunar conception month". For example June 2008 was the 5th lunar month not 6th. This is by far the best web site since it tells you exactly how to calculate everything

Amy said...

Also most people don't know you have to figure out the LUNAR MONTH you concieved. example: June 2008 was the 5th lunar month. So most of these charts online are wrong. This one is a good one though:

as well as this one: