What I don't understand looking at your list is what you are going for.
When you said you wanted to split gender by useful and un-useful, did you mean that you were going to use skilled-unskilled as basic gender categories, and then split each into useful and un-useful? Can someone skilled be un-useful? Can something that is not a person be called "unskilled"?
Just using useful/un-useful as your genders would seem simpler to me. It would give you two genders, and it should be easier to sort things that are not people into one of them than if you use skilled vs unskilled as basic categories.
no subject
When you said you wanted to split gender by useful and un-useful, did you mean that you were going to use skilled-unskilled as basic gender categories, and then split each into useful and un-useful? Can someone skilled be un-useful? Can something that is not a person be called "unskilled"?
Just using useful/un-useful as your genders would seem simpler to me. It would give you two genders, and it should be easier to sort things that are not people into one of them than if you use skilled vs unskilled as basic categories.