“There is no way of knowing for sure that Jesus did not have one of the intersex conditions which would give him a body which appeared externally to be unremarkably male, but which might nonetheless have had some “hidden” female physical features.”
Crucifiction was meant to humiliate and teach others a lesson on what will happen if you defy Rome. I have read that people were crucifies naked to make it even more humiliating. I would imagine someone would have noticed if Jesus were not a male.
From Wikipedia:” writings by Seneca the Younger suggest that victims were crucified completely nude.” This tells me what kind of research she must have done...or didn’t do.
In the Roman Empire, as a general rule that was correct. However, I recently heard a presentation on the crucifixion by a Biblical scholar (Orthodox, unlike this ninny), and she stated that in Judea, as a concession to Jewish laws regarding modesty, the victims were clothed in loin cloths. So Jesus did appear on the cross exactly as traditionally depicted. It was Jewish modesty, not later Christian prudery that depicted Christ wearing a loin cloth.
That said, we can be certain that Christ was fully man, in all aspects. The Bible and Christian teaching are clear that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. Not the only begotten son-daughter, or the only "thing."
This is some sort of gnostic heresy, positing Christ as somehow not fully human. Nothing new under the Sun.
It’s worth mentioning that Jews were crucified wearing loin cloths.
They rioted for the right not to be crucified naked: and the Romans capitulated. I can’t remember which Roman historian recorded this but it’s out there somewhere.