Intersex Statistics

“The existence of intersex people proves sex is on a spectrum,” say the Gender Activists. Not true. The vast majority of people labeled by the activists as “intersex” are unambiguously either male or female.

Understanding Intersex Conditions in a Scientific Context

You might have come across statements suggesting that intersex individuals make up 1-2% of the population, equating their prevalence to that of red-haired individuals. This claim has been widely circulated by various human rights organizations, activists, and even some scientists. The primary intention behind this claim is twofold:

  • To normalize the existence of intersex individuals and promote societal acceptance. (good)
  • To challenge traditional understandings of biological sex and suggest that male and female categories are social constructs or exist on a spectrum. (bad)

Origins of the 1.7% Statistic

The 1.7% figure originated from Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology and gender studies. In her work, she aimed to challenge the idea that human sexual anatomy is strictly dimorphic, meaning that all humans fit neatly into male or female categories. To arrive at the 1.7% figure, she and her colleagues defined an intersex person as someone who deviates from the “Platonic ideal” of physical dimorphism at various levels, including chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal.

Critique of the 1.7% Statistic

However, this definition has been critiqued for being overly broad. Dr. Leonard Sax, a physician and psychologist, pointed out that many conditions included in the 1.7% statistic, such as Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome, are not considered intersex in a clinically relevant sense. In fact, the majority of the conditions that contribute to the 1.7% figure do not result in any sexual ambiguity.

For instance, late-onset adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH) makes up a significant portion of this statistic (1.515%). Individuals with LOCAH have typical male or female genitalia at birth that align with their sex chromosomes. Therefore, labeling LOCAH as an intersex condition doesn’t align with common clinical definitions.

From a clinician’s perspective, however, LOCAH is not an intersex condition. The genitalia of these babies are normal at birth, and consonant with their chromosomes: XY males have normal male genitalia, and XX females have normal female genitalia.

Dr. Leonard Sax

A More Precise Definition

When we define intersex conditions more narrowly, as conditions where chromosomal sex doesn’t align with phenotypic sex1Phenotypic sex refers to an individual’s sex as determined by their internal and external genitalia, expression of secondary sex characteristics, and behavior. It is the physical manifestation of sex, as opposed to genotypic sex, which refers to the genetic makeup of an individual. Phenotypic sex can be influenced by developmental processes, hormone treatment, and/or surgery. Source: or where the phenotype isn’t clearly male or female, the prevalence drops significantly. According to Dr. Sax, the true prevalence of intersex, when defined in this clinically relevant manner, is about 0.018%.

The Takeaway

While the prevalence of intersex conditions, as defined in a clinically relevant sense, is relatively low, it’s crucial to understand the rights and treatment of individuals should not be based on their prevalence within a population.

But to use the unfortunate circumstances of 0.018% of the population to justify the belief that “sex is on a spectrum” or that “there are more than two sexes” is clearly a gross mischaracterization of the Truth, scientific or metaphysical.

Pass this info to others. Please.

Click through for more information of the statistics.

Here is my take on DSD’s (Disorders of Sexual Development) which is what an Intersex person has, although not all DSD’s are Intersex.


The Church’s Task: Truth-Filled Love

Certain parts of the Western Church are grappling with the issue of gender identity. Even though labels are tricky, let’s call them the ‘progressive’ wing of the Church. After settling a lengthy same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, transgenderism is being accepted with relative ease and speed by the leaders of the same denominations. Many rank and file members, including whole congregations, have registered their disagreement by voting with their feet.

In the last two years over 6000 United Methodists Churches left the UMC denomination because of ‘progressive’ teachings and practices about same-sex unions and transgenderism.

There is of course a real difference between the two issues. Should a more orthodox Faith beckon, a same-sex union between two consenting adults can be undone. This is not the case with transgender individuals. Surgical alterations are irrevocable. Some functions of the original body are lost forever.

Alarmingly, Trans-Activists champion the idea of urging children to unearth their ‘genuine’ identities well before adolescence, affirming a path toward puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, if that’s what the adolescent explorer really, really really, wants.

You just read an unmitigated lie from this children’s book.

But while we can’t objectively measure feelings for the same sex, we can know a person’s biology. Except for a very, very few “intersex” cases, you’re born either male or female.

In fact, there are few things in life more empirically verifiable than mammalian dimorphism. Like all mammals we were born male or female. If someone thinks differently, it’s in their head, not in what doctors see. To alter the body of a questioning gender non-conforming person is to address the wrong part of their humanity.

Detransitioners courageously inform us that their treatments haven’t worked. Which stands to reason because Gender Dysphoria is not a physical disability, but a psychological condition.

The Church faces a pastoral challenge: how to reconcile subjective emotions with objective truths. Transgenderism goes against the whole council of Scripture and all of Church history, until about 15 days ago (slight exaggeration). In the name of love and acceptance, feelings are allowed to override facts in Church decisions.

But the Church’s role is to provide spiritual guidance not just validation.

Some transgender activists within the Church audaciously claim Jesus himself was transgender since he was born of a virgin. Other’s think Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 support transgenderism: “In Christ there is neither male nor female” they claim.

Some denominations have even ordained gender confused priests.

Which begs an obvious question.

How can someone unsure of their most basic created identity lead the Christian faithful? How?

All should be welcome to attend our Church services, and grow from that experience, but not all are welcome to become leaders.

The Church’s principles, while clear, are challenging to implement. While Christians are called to show compassion with an understanding heart, since all of us fall short of God’s intent for us, it doesn’t equate to endorsing actions that contradict biblical teachings. Gender dysphoria, like other challenges such as alcoholism or depression, requires understanding and support, not mere acceptance. We should embrace without affirming.

The pursuit of truth is paramount. Without it, love remains hollow. Addressing this issue with integrity might not win the Church any popularity contests today, but future generations might laud its commitment to unvarnished truths during these tumultuous times.


Defining Sex Precisely: Return To Normal

I just read an excellent article by Jay Richards: Why States Must Define Sex Precisely.

He argues for a return to the biological understanding of sex, rejecting the subjective notions of gender ideology. Also, he calls for precise legal definitions of sex that are rooted in biology and that can withstand the ideological pressures of the current age.

The once uncontested definitions of “male” and “female” are now under siege due to the growing influence of gender ideology. This ideology seeks to redefine sex in federal laws and regulations to include “gender identity,” a move that threatens to undermine all preexisting legal references to sex.

Among other things, this blog has pointed out that Title IX advancements in the area of Women’s Sport has been negatively impacted by this move.

Legal Matters

Richards criticizes the vague and general definitions of sex proposed by some state legislators, arguing that they fail to provide a clear distinction between males and females.

Vague legal definitions create openings for gender ideology to gain a toehold.

He highlights the need for precise definitions of sex in state law, citing the ongoing debate in Montana as an example.

As I have done on this blog, Richards criticizes the misuse of disorders of sexual development, often mislabeled as “intersex” conditions, to argue for the existence of more than two sexes or fluidity of sexes. He points out that these disorders occur in a minuscule percentage of the population and do not justify the claims of gender ideology.

The main way gender ideologues have confused the public is by falsely claiming that disorders of sexual development, often mislabeled “intersex” conditions, prove that there are more than two sexes—or that the sexes are somehow fluid or mere endpoints on a spectrum.

Rather these conditions are disorders…

For instance, we know that humans are bipeds—that they naturally have two legs. But if a child is born without one or both legs, do we conclude that the newborn isn’t human, is a member of another species, or is “interspecies”? Of course not. We recognize that the child suffers from some sort of disorder—some disruption in development involving, say, chromosomes or an event in utero. Note that we’re engaged in counterfactual reasoning. We infer that the newborn would have had two legs except for some event or abnormality that prevented this from happening.

The article concludes by advocating for precise definitions of sex that capture the central concept of biological sex, account for normal development and disorders, and accommodate different stages of development. For example:

A human female is, minimally, a member of the human species who, under normal development, produces relatively large, relatively immobile gametes—ova—at some point in her life cycle, and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of that gamete.

For the discussions ahead, legislative or otherwise, learn these arguments!

Companion Post


Sex Matters