Why does calling God a woman sound more outrageous than calling God a man? For thousands of years, we’ve said it without questioning it: The Father, the Lord, the Almighty. We assigned a masculine identity to the supposed creator of existence, reflected in Matthew 6:9. But look at the biology of human reproduction and the answer gets uncomfortable fast. If God is responsible for life, why assign that responsibility to a male when bringing human life into the world is overwhelmingly feminine? Who decided God was a man in the first place?
I have believed for many years that God, if such a being exists, is female. Because of biology, every human being who ever lived developed inside a woman. Every king, scientist, philosopher, pope, rabbi, imam, and religious authority owes his existence to the female reproductive system. Yet somehow, the ultimate creator is male? Human embryos begin with sexually undifferentiated reproductive structures. In typical male development, the SRY gene activates a pathway involving SOX9, initiating testicular formation. Female development involves WNT4 and RSPO1. Both sexes develop reproductive anatomy from common embryonic structures, indicating no universal masculine starting point, no biological throne reserved for men.
In every mammal, the female gives birth or lays the eggs. According to the American Society of Mammalogists, there are 6,791 living mammal species, and approximately 99.9 percent give birth to live young, with the egg-laying monotremes being the exception. From elephants to whales to human beings, the continuation of mammalian life depends upon female reproductive biology. Even egg-laying mammals produce eggs through females, who nurse their young. Males contribute to reproduction, but females carry and deliver the next generation. And yet, humanity imagined the ultimate creator as male. Why? Nature certainly did not hand us that conclusion. Mammalian reproduction does not scientifically establish the sex of a supernatural creator. But what biological argument establishes the creator as masculine? Where is it?
The Catholic Catechism itself states God is neither man nor woman. Well, isn’t that interesting? If God has no sex, why insist upon Father? Why the masculine language, the masculine imagery, the masculine authority? Even Genesis 1:26-27 says humanity was made in God’s image, male and female. If both sexes reflect the creator, why does only one get to name it? Explain the logic in that. Islam arrives at the same place. The Quran refers to Allah with the masculine pronoun huwa, yet declares that “nothing is like unto Him”, and Islamic scholars teach that Allah transcends gender. Two of the world’s largest religions agree God is not male, and both still default to masculine language. If the creator transcends sex, calling God a woman should be no more outrageous than calling God a man. The tradition is not evidence of biological truth.
And here is where this becomes more than an argument about biology. Humanity has spent thousands of years treating women as subordinate, denying them authority, and treating them as property and second-class citizens, even today globally that still goes on in many regions of the world. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports women and girls account for roughly 60 percent of detected trafficking victims worldwide. The World Health Organization estimates approximately 840 million women have experienced intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence. UNICEF reports approximately one in five young women worldwide was married before 18. Little girls, children who should be worrying about school, friends, and growing up, instead of being forced into marriages they never chose. Thousands of years of religion, philosophy, and civilization, and we are still exploiting women and girls. What is this species proud of? Treating women like crap globally?
Instead of spending the next 10,000 years repeating the same disgrace, perhaps humanity should reconsider the image of the creator itself. Imagine a world where God is understood as a woman, where trafficking or degrading a woman is not merely an offense against humanity, but a direct insult to God herself. How uncomfortable would that make people who insist women belong beneath men? Would changing God’s image automatically end abuse? Of course not. But why should the next generation inherit every assumption of the last one? How many centuries are we going to keep defending traditions while children pay the price?
This is not about making men and women fight each other. Neither sex is inherently superior, we are one species, we need each other. Science cannot prove God is a woman, and it certainly has not proved God is a man. My argument is that humanity assigned the creator a masculine identity without biological evidence, then treated that identity as beyond question. Perhaps we should stop ignoring the sex whose biology sustains developing human life.
Every man who has ever claimed to understand the creator first depended upon a woman for his existence. Every religious authority who has declared what women should be, what they should wear, or where they belong owes his very existence to one. Perhaps it is time humanity stopped treating the feminine as subordinate to the divine and started asking whether the feminine was our closest biological truth to the divine all of this time. God is not a man. God is a woman. Creation of life is that of a woman, not a man.
BIO: Michael Aaron Cody is an independent theorist published in Physics Essays, Journal of Modern Physics, European Physical Journal Plus (Springer Nature), FPIF, Small Wars Journal, and RealClearScience. His work spans physics and defense policy. Find him on X at https://x.com/MichaelCody.
Discover more from Feminism and Religion
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
