Here are some questions that occurred to me from these two pieces:
1. How do the examples of descriptive language Martin provides stand up in comparison to what you remember or don't remember from your health education? Did you experience similar language and metaphor?
2. What do you think the purpose is for scientific writers to describe the egg and sperm with such personifying language?
3. Martin ends her article with the words, "Waking such metaphors up, by making ourselves more aware of their implications, is one way of robbing them of their power to naturalize our social conventions about gender (40)." Do you agree? Does our discussion help prevent the naturalization of gender conventions? If so, by how much?
4. How are the arguments made by Martin and Wilchins similar? How are they different?
5. Why is it, as Wilchins claims, that people are far more interested in our sexual differences rather than our similarities?
6. How could the process of fertilization be described so that the role of the egg is not portrayed as lesser while still using compelling language? Is it even possible to keep the story interesting while removing the gender roles?
7. After reading these arguments, have your viewpoints on the meaning of sex changed? If, as Wichins wrote on page 93, "The two sexes... were invented as a new foundation for gender," do we need sex as a separate idea from gender?