Talk:Gender taxonomy

Unnamed section
The Gender Taxonomy page starts off at the chromosomal level (at its simplest, assumes XX is female and XY is male). However, conditions exist, such as SRY gene translocation which would be considered to be at a lower "genetic" level rather than a "chromosomal" one. Philip Norton (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender taxonomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160302160316/http://anthro.palomar.edu:80/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm to http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual orientation
Sexual orientation should be removed as an aspect of gender taxonomy. They are completely separate things. The "gendered sexuality taxonomy" section should also be removed, as it is describing a sexuality taxonomy not a gender taxonomy. Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I removed it 153.90.19.247 (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Czello Would you like to discuss why you reverted removing the section? The removal was suggested 5 years ago and has not been objected to, and the section also has not been changed at all in the intervening 5 years except to add the phrase "biological differences in gender remains unequivocally binary."
 * The introduction of this article appears to suggest that 'gender taxonomy' is mostly related to Intersex issues, which is the subject of many other wikipedia articles. That is a completely separate topic from Sexual orientation. In fact, the WP:NPOV-violating phrase "biological differences in gender remains unequivocally binary." is explicitly stating that intersex issues don't exist, contradicting the article's introduction and the far more nuanced existing articles about the Gender binary.
 * The table is formatted in a way that is incredibly difficult to read (it took me a good 5 minutes to even figure out how to read it), so in case it isn't clear, it's only purpose is to map what the user who created the table (and presumably the author of the only reference for the section) think relationships involving trans people should be called to what society actually calls them (e.g. the author thinks that a trans man dating a cis women should be called a 'lesbian' relationship, but society would call that a 'straight' relationship). This table serves no purpose in an article that is supposed to be about intersex issues, or on wikipedia at all.
 * I suppose the WP:NPOV sentence and table could be removed on their own, but doing that would leave essentially nothing in this section, and what is left would still have nothing to do with the introduction. The content of the section is all covered much better in several other articles, such as Sexual Orientation and Attraction to transgender people. The articles on Sexual orientation and Gender Identity already address the issue of confusing the two topics.
 * As I said lower down on the talk page, there is also a separate issue that I think the entire article should be deleted because there does not appear to be much evidence that the term 'Gender taxonomy' is now or ever has been broadly used to refer to a significant field of scientific research. I can find other mentions of the term on google, but they have nothing to do with the content of the references cited in this article. However this section should be removed from the article regardless of whether or not the article as a whole can be salvaged. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Error on my part, I'll self-revert. — Czello (music) 13:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Many issues
Two of the sources are like over 30 years old.

Also the third source never even stated or implied there was a taxonomy. So I believe this article should be deleted .CycoMa (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually never mind on me proposed deletion. But, anyway reading the sources of the article. I do thing this article is full of original research.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 67.164.18.219 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did you change your mind on deleting this article? The section on sexual orientation, has nothing to do with the introductory paragraph on gender and the source for that section is unrelated to the source for the first section.
 * If you remove that section, you are left with an introduction is mainly just a callout to 2 specific researcher's careers. Both of those researchers already have their own far more extensive articles already, and neither mentions their work on 'gender taxonomy'. They also did not write the paper that is the only citation in that section; in fact, neither of them wrote any of that paper's references, and as far as I can tell neither has ever even written any paper that cites the paper.
 * A pubmed search says that the cited article is the only article ever published to have used the phrase 'gender taxonomy' or 'gender taxonomies' in the abstract. Suggesting its WP:NOTE as a research field is too low to merit its own article.
 * To the extent this article has any nontrivial content at all, it is all already covered in the article on Gender. So I cannot see any compelling purpose for this article. Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've never seen or heard this phrase ("gender taxonomy") used in this context before and my attempts to turn up more results are turning up nothing. The article as-is seems pretty meaningless and pointless, and I can't figure out what would even flesh it out that isn't already better covered in numerous other articles. I think it should be deleted. Angelicarraignment (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)