according to dogma (the movie), angels don't have a gender (or the fun bits). from there we can extrapolate and say the divine is agendered, rendering a divine birth by default agendered.
a devout person can say a divine birth doesn't obey the laws of man or conventional biology, making the question irrelevant.
a cynic can say that since jesus never expressed gender disphoria, nobody knows or should care because it's erasing what he did say (some pretty ok groundrules for the most part) in favor of what he didn't say.
a troll could say mary was intersexed so it could go either way (xy or xx).
an anti-theist could say jesus never existed, rendering the point moot.
my view? a combination of the first three, but mostly that the second. despite the fact that jesus is both divine and human in equal parts in one body according to the myaphisitist doctrine
(pre-council of chalcedon in 451 ad), it's a bit more complicated than that since, christologically speaking, the orthodox church (and later, the catholic church) adopted the dyophisite school of thought.
basically, it means that jesus is indisociably divine and human, both parts being so thoroughly mixed as to be indisociable.
really, to get a clear answer, you'd better trawl wikipedia's portal of christology (the study of the nature of god and by extension jesus) and make up your own mind. please keep in mind this has been a touchy subject since the church's creation, basically. but yeah, the answer will change based on your faith, dogma, and upbringing.
basically, coptics, armenians, and a few other sects of eastern orthodoxy follow miaphysitist doctrine, whereas the orthodox and catholics are dyophisite.
tl;dr: who knows for sure? the argument's two thousand years old.