Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Is there only two sex?
Executive summary
Scientific and scholarly reporting shows that many researchers describe human biological sex as more complex than a strict two-category binary: genetics, hormones, gonads, and secondary characteristics often cluster bimodally but overlap, and medical conditions (intersex or differences in sex development) demonstrate that not everyone fits neatly into “male” or “female” [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, some commentators and organizations argue for a functional or legal binary—pointing to rarity of intersex conditions or the practical need for two categories in policy—so the debate mixes biology, law and social values [4] [5] [6].
1. What scientists mean when they say “not strictly binary”
Biological sex is composed of many measurable traits—chromosomes, gonads, hormones, external genitalia, gamete production, and cell-level sex differences—and these traits do not always line up so that every person falls unambiguously into one of two categories; several peer-reviewed perspectives argue that sex is better described as bimodal (two peaks with overlap) rather than a discrete binary with no overlap [1] [2] [7]. Scientific reviews and articles emphasize that while most people cluster at two ends of distributions, variation exists at multiple levels of biology and some individuals have combinations of traits that do not fit standard binary assignment [1] [2].
2. Intersex / DSD and why it matters to the question
Medical literature and reporting note the existence of differences in sex development (DSD, often colloquially called “intersex”) where chromosomes, gonads or genitalia don’t match typical male or female patterns; proponents of the “non-binary” biological view use these cases to show that a simple two-box model is incomplete [1] [2]. Critics accept that such conditions exist but emphasize their relative rarity and argue that rarity does not necessarily invalidate the practical usefulness of two categories for many purposes—this is a key point in policy and public debate [4] [8].
3. The bimodal framing and competing readings
Several science communicators and scholars state the consensus among many experts: sex in humans is bimodal, meaning there are two common clusters (roughly male and female) but overlapping distributions for many sex-related traits, so sex is not strictly binary in a mathematical sense [7]. Opposing voices and some commentators defend a functional binary—arguing that for reproduction, sports, or legal classification, two categories are meaningful—illustrating that what counts as “binary” depends on the question being asked [5] [8].
4. Law, policy and social practice complicate the picture
Governments and institutions sometimes adopt strict binary categories for administrative reasons; recent federal and institutional changes have at times removed non-binary options from forms or emphasized “male/female” designations, which shows the legal and bureaucratic dimensions of the dispute and that policy can diverge from some scientific nuance [6] [3]. Conversely, other jurisdictions and institutions recognize non-binary gender markers, reflecting competing social and political priorities [3].
5. Social-psychological dynamics and resistance to change
Research in social psychology documents entrenched beliefs in a gender/sex binary and shows that identity factors, need for cognitive closure, and ideological motives help explain resistance to non-binary recognition; scholars caution that debates are shaped by power and status dynamics as well as scientific arguments [9] [10]. Media and political framing often polarize the question—presenting it as either settled science or culture-war flashpoint—so assessing claims requires separating empirical findings from advocacy and policy aims [11].
6. How to interpret the disagreement in public discussions
When someone asks “Are there only two sexes?” available scientific literature establishes that biological sex is usually categorized into two common types but that biology includes exceptions and overlapping traits; whether one treats sex as strictly binary depends on whether the goal is biological description, legal classification, social policy, or practical administration [2] [1]. Debates therefore combine empirical claims (about developmental biology and prevalence of DSD) with normative choices about how institutions should categorize people [5] [6].
7. Limitations and what current reporting does not say
Available sources collectively discuss the biological complexity, social debate, and policy responses, but they do not provide a single numerical prevalence that resolves how many people are intersex across all definitions—reporting varies and definitions matter—so exact population figures and universal legal prescriptions are not established in this set of sources [1] [2] [4]. For precise prevalence numbers or to evaluate particular policy proposals, consult primary epidemiological studies and the specific legal texts referenced in policy briefs (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: major scientific and medical commentators argue that human sex is not strictly binary in a pure, non‑overlapping sense because of biological variation and intersex conditions, while other commentators and many policies treat sex as effectively binary for particular social, legal or administrative purposes; the disagreement is as much about definitions and practical aims as it is about raw biology [7] [2] [6].