Nineteenth-century popular fascination with scientific knowledge and discoveries (Russett 5) amply bears out Thomas Laqueur's contention in Making Sex that empirical discoveries in science often are interpreted only as further support for accepted ideas. Regardless of the factual accuracy of Victorian theories of disease transmission or of heredity, for instance, the theories themselves could influence larger concepts of human society and personality. The “sudden acquisition of much physical knowledge” that Walter Bagehot claimed as one of Victorian England's chief distinctions (quoted in Gay, Education, 52) provided a way to naturalize a wide range of prescriptive notions. As scholars grow increasingly interested in the ways in which ideology subtly structures both “practical” knowledge and the literary texts that draw upon that knowledge, the works of formerly neglected writers such as Charles Kingsley become increasingly accepted as subjects for serious consideration. In his combination of moral earnestness and scientific enthusiasm, his eagerness to find moral significance in natural patterns, Kingsley represents some of the major tendencies in Victorian culture.

The “factual” basis on which Kingsley founded his concern for the maintenance of distinct gender roles was not only scientific, but specifically hygienic. Relying on a model of scientific impartiality and certainty, Kingsley praises the “valuable light” of objective knowledge, and declares that “enough, and more than enough, is known already” to preserve personal health (“Science of Health” 30).