Are there more then 2 genders
Executive summary
Contemporary scientific and scholarly reporting distinguishes sex (biological attributes) from gender (socially and personally constructed roles and identities) and shows that while biological sex is often treated as binary, both intersex realities and gender scholarship challenge strict two-category models; many scientists, NGOs and cultural studies frame gender as a spectrum or plurality rather than only two fixed categories [1] [2] [3]. Opposing perspectives insist on a strictly two-sex/two-gender framework grounded in biology and moral arguments, a view advanced by some organizations and commentators but contested by peer-reviewed literature and international institutions that document intersex variation and diverse gender systems [4] [5] [6].
1. How the question is framed: sex versus gender
The most frequent confusion is a conflation of sex and gender: sex refers to biological characteristics such as chromosomes, hormones and anatomy, whereas gender refers to socially created roles, behaviors and identity, a distinction emphasized by mainstream summaries and psychology commentary [1] [7]. When people say “only two genders,” they often mean two biological sexes; when scholars say gender is plural, they typically mean identities and roles that can vary across cultures and individuals — a crucial semantic split that shapes the debate [7] [2].
2. What biology actually shows about “two sexes”
Biology does not map neatly onto a strict binary for every person: scientific and institutional reporting highlights intersex variations and developmental complexity that make simple male/female classification imprecise in a minority of cases, with some estimates (United Nations cited) placing intersex prevalence around 1.7% of the population and some nations legally recognizing a third sex category [3]. Scientific commentaries argue that multiple biological markers (chromosomes, gonads, hormones, genitalia) can vary independently, producing a spectrum of sex characteristics rather than a perfect binary, a point discussed in reviews and CNRS reporting [5] [6].
3. Why many experts say there are “more than two” genders
Scholars and clinicians who study gender identity emphasize that gender is culturally mediated and experientially diverse: gender can be non-binary, fluid, or culturally specific (for example, hijra or muxe), and lists of named identities circulate in medical and community resources—some sources catalog dozens (even 72) of contemporary identity terms—supporting the view that gender plurality exists in practice and discourse [2] [8] [9]. Psychology and philosophy pieces caution that trying to enumerate genders as a fixed count misses the point: gender may be better understood as a spectrum and a social language that evolves over time [7] [10].
4. The counterarguments and their basis
Conservative and religious commentators argue that science supports only two sexes and thus only two genders, treating intersex conditions as anomalies and locating gender solely in biology rather than psychology or culture; organizations like Answers in Genesis explicitly assert a two-sex model and reject gender identities as non-biological feelings [4] [11]. These positions often carry implicit political or moral agendas—defending traditional social norms or contesting policy changes—and sometimes selectively cite biological facts while disputing the interpretive framework that separates sex from gender [4].
5. What can be said with confidence and where reporting is limited
It is supportable that sex and gender are distinct concepts and that biological variation (including intersex) complicates a strict binary [1] [5] [3]; it is also documented that many cultures recognize non-binary or third genders historically and legally [2] [3]. What cannot be settled by the provided sources is a single “correct” numeric count of genders—some sources list dozens or argue for effectively infinite variation, while philosophers warn counting misses the conceptual point—so claiming a precise number (e.g., exactly 2 or exactly 72) oversimplifies both science and lived experience [8] [7] [6].