No, although on the outset it might look like the Gender variable is only having an effect on the Females. The intercept term $B_0$ is affected by the introduction of the Gender variable.
Let us run a simple simulated experiment to explain what I mean
B0 = 10
B1 = 5
B2 = 3
Income = c(100000,80000,45000,60000,120000,140000,110000,55000,54000,53000,63000,74000)
Gender = c(rep(0,5),rep(1,7))
set.seed(101)
Balance = B0 + B1 * Income + B2 * Gender + rnorm(12)
Now, that we have some simulated data to work with, let us run a regression model with only Income as a variable and check the results
fit.lm1 <- lm(Balance ~ Income)
summary(fit.lm1)
Call:
lm(formula = Balance ~ Income)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-2.4020 -1.6617 0.6716 1.5320 2.1645
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.137e+01 1.548e+00 7.346e+00 2.47e-05 ***
Income 5.000e+00 1.825e-05 2.739e+05 < 2e-16 ***
Now, let us include the Gender variable and run this model again.
fit.lm2 <- lm(Balance ~ Income + Gender)
summary(fit.lm2)
Call:
lm(formula = Balance ~ Income + Gender)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-1.05399 -0.30172 -0.02495 0.37714 0.84589
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 9.254e+00 5.273e-01 1.755e+01 2.87e-08 ***
Income 5.000e+00 5.669e-06 8.820e+05 < 2e-16 ***
Gender 3.310e+00 3.398e-01 9.741e+00 4.45e-06 ***
You can now clearly see how the intercept term is effected by introduction of Gender variable.
In the first case, the model was estimated to be
$Balance = 11.37 + 5 * Income$ for everyone
While in the second case, the model became
$Balance = 9.25 + 5 * Income$ for Males and
$Balance = 12.56 + 5 * Income$ for Females
By introducing the Gender term the model intercept changed from 11.37 for everyone to 9.25 for Males and 12.56 for females, so it indeed has an affect both males and females. Hope that clarifies your question.