Textbooks and reproduction-- why they gotta embellish?

One of my classes has several unofficial textbooks on reserve in our science library. Since the teacher refuses to assign an official text, our class of 70 or so ends up scrambling for five different books (one copy of each) because his lecture slides are far too content-heavy to parse. Last night I began studying the tome on reproductive biochemistry and flipped to a chapter on endocrinology. The hormone response element for testosterone was shaded in blue; that for estrogen in pink. HORMONE RESPONSE ELEMENTS ARE JUST PIECES OF DNA WHY WOULD YOU EVEN BOTHER. Then I flipped to another chapter, which utilized some interesting language. See, spermatogonia exist in an environment dominated by testosterone. Estrogen, on the other hand, nurtures maturing germ cells and maintains suitable conditions for fertilization until The One True Sperm penetrates a woman's egg. Really, guys? Really? Testosterone molecules run around in assless chaps rounding up them swimmers while Mommy Estrogen tends to the Follicle Nursery? I'm surprised because I don't really encounter this kind of language in other areas of endocrinology/physiology. A hormone facilitates something. Or triggers a reaction, or exhibits a negative-feedback control on some function.

And there was yet more waxing poetic about the "extraordinary" sperm count of the average male in comparison to the comparatively paltry number of female eggs. Is it really that "amazing" that men produce a lot of sperm? It doesn't cost much biologically, and so much of it wanders into the wrong tube, never makes it to an egg or just randomly dies or goes wonky or ends up on my breasts. Sperm is cheap stuff to make. Eggs, not so much. You know, because an egg forms the first freaking cell of the conceptus and contributes a lot more than DNA.

Oh, and one sperm can't easily penetrate an egg by itself, so that whole "perfect union" thing is fairy tale bullshit. Just because it's easier for people to apply preconceived gender roles to reproduction doesn't mean it's scientifically accurate.

I am also officially tired of this "menstruation as failure" concept. Most women my age are quite happy to menstruate regularly when faced with the alternative. Wait, I can hear it now. "BUT EVOLUSHON SEZ FOR YOU TO MAKE TEH BABEEZ!!!" Well, then let's talk about the vast quantity of sperm that fail to fertilize eggs. But we don't. Because the male system is about production, and the female's is about a little bit of production followed by lifelong degeneration ending in OLDNESS (=menopause). The message is that women have shorter shelf lives than men, full-stop. Maybe because we're the ones who carry the conceptus to term and give birth, while technically all a man invests (strictly evolutionarily speaking, I loves my dad too) is a strategic squirt? Nope, let's not go there. Men= better.

There has to be a way to approach this subject in a scientifically accurate and objective manner without letting gender norms pervade the way we write and speak about reproduction in science classes. I'm not advocating trying to revise the science. But damn. If this is what I'm seeing in college, how are biology classes in grade school teaching our girls and boys to see their own (and each other's) bodies?

All this said, I've always preferred studying the male reproductive system. Mostly because I enjoy the term "seminiferous tubules." And I like boys. Even their insides are cute! :) But really, I wonder about the authors of these textbooks sometimes. Sexual frustration much?

For those interested in some reading, here's a thought-provoking bit from a book that tackles sexist language in science texts. And an essay on the sometimes paternalistic and woman-free jargon of reproductive technology.

UPDATE: Follow-up post on the same subject here. Yes, this is getting on my nerves.