The Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) has released a statement challenging the recently adopted amendment to the Fundamental Law, which asserts that ‘human beings are either male or female.’ This statement was supported by 92% of the voting members of the Academy's Biological Sciences Department on Tuesday.

The motion was backed by 38 academics, who provided scientific arguments against the ‘gender-critical’ clause included in the Constitution by the ruling Fidesz party.

The statement cites that the assertion that ‘human beings are either male or female’ is inaccurate, much like saying ‘the human heart is on the left side,’ as the opposite can be true.

By declaring only two biological sexes without considering individual variations, it potentially marginalizes those who do not fit neatly into these categories, resulting in political and legal recognition issues, difficulties in accurate identification, issues with documentation, and systemic discrimination in areas such as education, healthcare, and employment.

In the amendment, which passed in April as part of the government’s broader constitutional revisions, it was established that ‘human beings are male or female.’ In an earlier draft of this amendment, there was an intention to include a biblical reference that stated, ‘the biological sex of a person is a biological attribute that, according to the order of creation, can either be male or female.’ However, the sequential wording was ultimately removed, although the definition of gender remained.

András Falus, a prominent geneticist and immunologist, previously criticized the amendment on air in April, stating, ‘biologically, scientifically, this statement is simply false.’ The Biological Sciences Department's statement echoes this sentiment, hence transforming it from a personal opinion to an institutional stance on the inclusion of a scientifically inaccurate statement in the Constitution.

In anticipation of this professional objection, government-friendly media outlets accused biologists of orchestrating a ‘political attack’ as part of a supposed campaign by Falus and others.

This claim arose despite evidence that the proposal for the statement did not originate with Falus, but rather with evolutionary biologist Eörs Szathmáry.

The finalized statement, while politically toned down compared to earlier drafts, maintains significant scientific claims.

The document emphasizes that humans cannot be exclusively classified as male or female due to intersex conditions, which result in intermediate characteristics that do not conform to traditional definitions of ‘male’ or ‘female.’ The statement notes, ‘a non-negligible proportion of people are born and/or develop with chromosomal or anatomical characteristics that lead to intersex traits,’ listing conditions such as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), Turner syndrome (XO), and hermaphroditism as examples.

While the academics refrained from quantifying the frequency of intersex conditions, they affirm that, ‘their existence is a medical and biological fact.’ They state that even the lowest estimates indicate millions of people globally who fall outside a binary classification.

Thus, the claim that humanity can be strictly divided into male or female categories does not hold, especially considering the existence of intersex traits and developmental differences.

The statement declares, ‘The distribution of sexes is dominantly binary, but there are individuals and transitional forms that do not fit into this categorization.

This is not necessarily a disorder, but rather a variation.

This is a factual medical and biological statement, which is why the assertion that “human beings are either male or female” is not scientifically sustainable.’

In addition to this significant statement, the MTA’s Biological Sciences Department also issued a joint position against a proposed amendment concerning forestry management that would expand clear-cutting allowances in protected and ecologically valuable forests.

The scientists asserted that clear-cutting should not be considered an ecologically sustainable management method, citing various studies demonstrating that such practices can create unfavorable site conditions, disrupt forest microclimates, reduce the climatic mitigating effects of wooded landscapes, adversely affect soil conditions, and alter forest ecosystems.

Many of these negative impacts can persist for centuries.