I found Segal's emphasis of sexuality apart from reproduction to be quite refreshing. Many other scientists have and will inevitably argue that sex, in evolutionary terms, exists solely for the purpose of procreation. While talk of physical attraction being a result of evolutionary fitness of potential offspring currently pervades scientific literature, Segal explains how one organ, the clitoris, exemplifies a biological mechanism of sex with no intention of reproduction. The clitoris, while providing sexual pleasure to the female, is not associated whatsoever with fertilization, gestation, or lactation. While I knew this fact before, I somehow never connected it with the idea that womens' sexual experiences can be biologically separate from reproduction. While medicine tends to focus on the penis and vagina, the clitoris has an essential role in female sexuality that is often deemphasized.

Contrarily, Londa Schiebinger in "Taxonomy for Human Beings" describes taxonomist Carolus Linnaeus as stressing the importance of the breast in his development of the class Mammalia. The breast is obviously associated with procreation, as it provides young with life-sustaining milk. At first glance, I thought it rather progressive of Linnaeus to choose a name that glorifies the link that women provide between generations. I also found it admirable in terms of the public health reforms occurring at that time. Even today, women are often encouraged to breast-feed their children until the latter are two years old. After further reading, however, I realized that Linnaeus's selectivity was meant to emphasize the domestic nature of womens' lives more than their biological power. Rather than recognizing women as the important link between generations, this use of Mammalia implies to me that women are simply the unimportant workers, easily discarded and forgotten.