Biological types, including holotypes and reference genomes, are particular biological entities that represent an entire class of biological entities. This paper presents a feminist analysis of biological typing by asking whether we have reason to criticize the practices of selecting holotypes and reference genomes for being androcentric. I offer three distinct reasons why androcentrism can be objectionable: androcentric practices may inadequately account for traits or experiences of women/females, reinforce male/female dichotomies, or overgeneralize from particulars. I then evaluate whether the practices of selecting holotypes and genomes are objectionably androcentric in these three ways. These typing practices, especially as applied to the case of humans, are objectionably androcentric in some ways but not others. Whether a typing practice problematically ignores the traits or experiences of women depends on whether the typing practice involves non-accidentally taking the traits or experiences of male humans as typical, which, I argue, is true both in the case of holotypes and genomes. Neither holotypes nor genomes reinforce male/female dichotomies, although some features of these practices may appear to do so. Finally, both holotypes and genomes are criticizable for overgeneralizing from particulars, although this criticism does not depend on these practices being androcentric.

生物类型，包括正模和参考基因组，是代表一整类生物实体的特定生物实体。本文提出了对生物分型的女权主义分析，询问我们是否有理由批评以男性为中心选择正模和参考基因组的做法。我提出了男性中心主义令人反感的三个不同原因：男性中心主义做法可能不足以解释女性/女性的特征或经历，强化男性/女性二分法，或从细节中过度概括。然后，我评估选择正模和基因组的做法是否以这三种方式令人反感地以男性为中心。这些打字习惯，尤其是应用于人类的情况下，在某些方面是令人反感的以男性为中心，但在其他方面则不然。打字实践是否有问题地忽视了女性的特征或经历，取决于打字实践是否涉及非偶然地将男性人类的特征或经历视为典型，我认为，这对于正模和基因组来说都是如此。正模型和基因组都不会强化男性/女性二分法，尽管这些做法的某些特征可能看起来确实如此。最后，正型标本和基因组都因从细节中过度概括而受到批评，尽管这种批评并不依赖于这些实践以男性为中心。