First, it's important to note that none of those links are scientific papers. They are articles that interpret and draw conclusions from different studies. Essentially, it's like the editorial page in the newspaper making commentary about current events in the news—not the news itself. These always make the biggest headlines whenever it's something counter-intuitive or sensational.

If you look at the source data, you'll find that, yes—it's true that there are chromosomal variations in some tiny percentage of people or abnormal development of sex organs. The underlying science observes these phenomena, but it doesn't therefore say that the male/female binary is invalid.

These articles are therefore opinions about language—a human construct—not nature. Words are useful tools to get a handle on a concept, but we lose detail as complex issues need to be generalized to be easily reasoned about. For comparison, a few years ago it was of vital importance to determine whether Pluto can be called a planet anymore. In that debate they laid out a set of criteria to definitively argue "yes" or "no" with binary precision, even though the objects we call planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, or other bodies can vary along a continuous spectrum. The astronomical criteria included things like "is it spherical" and "does it clear its orbit of debris" that were able to definitively put it into one of the named categories.

If you compare this astronomy debate to the current effort at redefining sex, it is anti-scientific: it tries to dismiss any criteria for classification, even though the evidence for binary sex has been obvious since long before the scientific method. There is only one question that needs to be asked. And we know it's the right one because it's universal to all animals, even those that haven't yet invented postmodern critical theory.

The question is: does this individual contribute sperm, or an egg?

Based on this we can even say counter-intuitive things like that the male of the seahorse gestates. We can even account for different chromosomes of other animals, so you can forget about XXY and all that stuff being a factor.

It's much simpler than we make it out to be, but that's not to say there aren't some strange things in the margins. Biology is messy, and I think another part of the problem is resistance to words like "normal" or "anomaly". Considered with a scientific eye, when you have over 99% of something that fits categorization, it's perfectly correct to call that normal—especially when the other <1% is a wild mix of "other" that can't easily be classified.

One could therefore say that homosexuality is not normal since it's a small minority. In a purely clinical sense, maybe that's true: heterosexual bonding is the vast majority and the only way we reproduce. That would be fine, but we need to stay away from the trap that "normal" is good and "abnormal" are freaks to be shunned: that's a social value judgment, though, not science. (I would actually consider homosexuality a normal category—since we can enumerate all the bond pairings that leaves no "other".)

When a child is born with undeveloped genitals, or the wrong genitals for her gonads, that is an outlier or an anomaly. Again, no value judgment. I don't think less of anyone because of such a condition, just like I don't think less of someone born with a sixth finger, or try to claim we all have 5.002 fingers on each hand.