No, this is gobbledygook nonsense, biologically.

There is a very highly conserved biological process involving mutual repression, an entire separate chromosome with a special genetic factor to signal the binary differentiation, specific feedback loops to lock in the choice to one of two options.

Sex is absolutely binary in regulation and in normal development. If "binary" is going to have any meaning whatsoever in biology, this has got to be an example of it.

Things do sometimes turn out differently. Things always can go differently in biology--it's complicated and built out of unreliable components. The question is, therefore, is being "in between" common? Or are the two divergent outcomes overwhelmingly common with a scattering of other things?

It turns out that, with biological (morphological) sex, it is the latter. Hence, binary. (Binary with caveats. There are always caveats in biology.)

Fortunately, in an enlightened society we can recognize that our fundamental humanity transcends the difference between male and female morphology. And if it transcends that, why shouldn't it also transcend any differences in morphological development, or neural development regarding sexual orientation or gender disposition, or whatever else?