I think I could agree with this guy fairly well

This is a good summary of my position on all the sex and gender chatter going on, except that I really don’t care at all what sex an imaginary god might have.

I’m a bit more flexible than he is on the question of biological sex, though. It’s more than just a small number of people on the saddle of a bimodal distribution, I think there are multiple parameters that define our sex that allow people to possess aspects of both male and female sex.


  1. Reginald Selkirk says

    The snippets from the person whose argument he is addressing are pretty brief, but I get the impression he is basing his arguments on the English language Bible. If one takes a look at the original Hebrew text of Genesis, one must deal with the Yahweh – Elohim issue, where Elohim is plural.

  2. bcw bcw says

    So sex and gender is just another one of those multiverse movies, so god here would be wearing tights and his underwear on the outside.

  3. hemidactylus says

    @2 Reginald Selkirk
    Is anyone seeing the cheetah spotted pitbull ad on this Yahoo News link? I’ve seen brindle but that’s different. I can’t help wondering why an overly muscular pitbull would have cheetah spots and distracts me from the cop chasing a raccoon with a jar on its head. The pitbull looks like a cryptozooid of some sort. Maybe Bigfoot’s pet?

    Isn’t God(s) a trinity? That’s at least a step removed from binary. Or is Mary added too making four beings? I haven’t seen the OP video because the spotted pitbull ad has distracted me so greatly.

  4. Tethys says


    I can’t help wondering why an overly muscular pitbull would have cheetah spots…

    Because his Florida woman owner is a ‘pet stylist’ who paints her dogs. He is a very good boy! 12/10

  5. hemidactylus says

    After watching the video I wonder what the less theistic “ground of being” god would be or an aloof deistic god. Why not transcend gender AND sexual categories? The Abramic god seems patriarchal male, but Jesus was produced from Mary as a parthenogenic product hence some feminine leaning as clone if her. He hung out with twelve dudes a lot so what’s his/her sexual orientation? What sex or gender is the Holy Spirit? And Mary herself if added to the Godhead (why not?) adds feminine elements and thus some fluidity.

    I recall the Gnostic Sophia being feminine. Maybeva transfeminine aspect. But ground of being or deistic divinity need not be binary at all. They could be entirely neutral in sex or gender.

    I’m an atheist so not a theologist in these transcendent matters.

  6. StevoR says

    FWIW. This might shed a new – old – light on the question here :


    Of course later re-interpretaions and artistic versions including those based on Da Vinci’s boyfriend have subsequently altered the popular conceptions of the man (?) in question. Imagine if they could somehow get The Yeshua of Nazareth’s DNA and it turned out he was trans AFAB?

    FWIW I vaguely recall another study based on the only mention of his appearence in the Bible noted Jesus was apparent;ly pretty ugly or atleats not a handsome or overly good-looking individual.. Apologies if these were mentioned in that clip. haven’t yet seen will watch later.

  7. robro says

    Reginald Selkirk @ #1 — And a number of other names ascribed to god in the Hebrew bible, including Adonai, various versions of Yaweh, El and several forms of El, and Attiyq Youm (“Ancient of Days”). So many versions of the names of god that it’s almost like a polytheistic syncretic pantheon of gods. There are some other gods named in the Bible such Baal and Asherah. David (the beloved) is probably a demi-god name and Solomon is the god of wisdom.

    hemidactylus @ 6 — “…Jesus was produced from Mary as a parthenogenic product” For some strange reason I was mulling this very subject yesterday. According to my dictionary parthenogenesis means “reproduction from an ovum without fertilization, especially as a normal process in some invertebrates and lower plants”. However, the story of the conception of Jesus seems to suggest that there was fertilization by God (whatever his/her name or gender in the moment). So, perhaps conception by god is parthenogenesis, or not.

  8. Paul Davidson says

    Dan McClellan is one of the good guys. A very sharp scholar despite his Mormon background.

  9. says

    Reginald: THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD! Or so I’m told via a bumper-sticker I once saw. I guess the original-language books God inspired were crap, so God had to want until the English language was created and then inspire someone else to translate them into the RIGHT language…?

  10. says

    The idea that the Christian deity, an all powerful, all knowing god, whatever “god” means, could be restricted to one, two, or any finite number of sexes is a darling little idea worthy of patting your four-year old on the head and telling them that they’ll know better someday, if you actually believe any of that crap in the bible.

  11. imback says

    I think there are multiple parameters that define our sex that allow people to possess aspects of both male and female sex.

    I accept that but surely don’t know the full scope of it. Could someone point me to a reliable and hopefully brief article/reference that describes these multiple parameters that define our sex, how they might interact, whether they are genetic or epigenetic or something else, how they are expressed in the body, and how common they are? Thanks very much in advance.

  12. Reginald Selkirk says

    @8: My favorite Biblical name of God is in Exodus 34:14 – “Jealous”

  13. anat says

    Reginald Selkirk @1:

    There are several words that are plural in Hebrew but not (in common use) English: sky (shamaim), water (maim), furniture (modern Hebrew, rahitim).

  14. Nemo says

    God having any sex or gender only makes sense in the context of His being part of a broader, reproducing population of gods and goddesses. Which of course would be consistent with “Elohim”, etc.

  15. birgerjohansson says

    The original El/Yahweh indeed had a spouse; Asherah.

    As Judaism moved from monolatrism to true monoteism the references to the older versions of Judaism were mostly purged from the scriptures, but fragment remains and are giving researchers plenty of work reconstructing the older faiths.
    I recommend “The Memoirs of God” by Mark S. Smith, but it has been out of print for long and used copies are not cheap.
    Also the title “Did God Have a Wife” about folk religion in the old Palestine.

  16. birgerjohansson says

    El/Yahweh is floating around in hyperspace like a lantern fish, the big one a female with tiny male fish physically attached to her forming a single unit.

  17. birgerjohansson says

    Maybe gods have their genes in a triple helix and need three genders?

  18. John Morales says

    Well, a monotheistic deity has no need for sex, there being no other gods with which to nookie.

    I grant that a wanking monotheistic deity could be sexed, because how else to have a wank? ;)

  19. moonslicer says

    @ #23 John Morales
    “By the ontological argument, God is the greatest Wanker.”

    One point that I was going to mention, but which I’ve refrained from doing up to now because after all it is a bit childish. But since we’re getting to this point, why not?

    Back in post #16, dstatton raised the question, Does God have a penis? That reminded me of the long-ago days when a friend of mine was into Native American oral literature. As I recall, he had the Viking Portable Something-or-Other (one of their better titles). There was one recurrent character, whose name I can’t recall, but he was the archetypal Trickster. You never knew what he was going to get up to next.

    E.g., one day he was strolling along by the lake, when on the other side he spied a very attractive young woman, whereupon he extended his penis and sent it speeding across the water and finally penetrated her. Talk about going to great lengths to rape a woman.

    So, yeah, it seems to me, God (if he’s male) must have a penis, which he can extend from the heavens all the way down to Earth, since after all, whatever any Trickster can do God can do better. And the rest is history.

  20. John Morales says

    moonslicer, :)


    “A rabbi and a priest went for a walk in the park, and strolled by a large lake.

    Suddenly the rabbi said: “Let’s go in and do some ‘baptism’, the water looks really clear!”
    “But we don’t have swimsuits” the priest told him.
    “So what?” replied the rabbi, “Let’s go into the water as God created us.”

    The priest thought for a moment and then agreed with him. They took off their clothes, laid them on a piece of grass at the edge of the lake and went in for a short dip. After a few minutes they left the lake and walked back towards the place where they had put the clothes.

    Suddenly the two noticed a small group of people staring right at them.

    Embarrassed, the priest tried to cover his shame with his hands. He looked to the side and discovered that the rabbi was covering his face with his hands. “What are you doing?!?” hissed the priest, “cover your privates!”
    “I don’t know how it goes in YOUR congregation.” Said the Rabbi, “but my people recognize me by my face!””

    (Oldie but a goodie; my copypasta source here is https://www.ba-bamail.com/jokes/religion-jokes/?jokeid=1111)

  21. StevoR says

    @7. See :


    Which notes :

    But a new book by British historian Professor Joan Taylor titled What Did Jesus Look Like? explores the controversial theory that the Nazarene was less than blessed in the looks department and may have even been disfigured.

    Professor Taylor, of King’s College London, studied historical documents dating back to Christ’s lifetime and concluded that the lack of descriptions of his face in the Bible compared to other figures such as Moses and David — whose looks are celebrated — spoke volumes.

    In fact, the only physical description of Christ before his crucifixion is a line in the Book of Isaiah which reads: “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.”

    Plus :

    A review of What Did Jesus Look Like? published by the Daily Beast on March 11 noted: “Taylor actually thinks that the silence about Jesus’ looks says something about his appearance.

    “She points out that certain Biblical figures, like Moses and David, were described in ancient literature in terms that gestured to their good looks and attractiveness. But the evangelists provide no such indications for Jesus. ..(snip) .. He concluded that Jesus looked a lot like every other man of the times because the Bible states that just before the crucifixion, Judas Iscariot had to point Jesus out to his soldiers because they could not tell him apart from his disciples.

    That article also notes work injuries likely meant Jesus could well have been disfigured or scarred and his life outdoors with extra sun exposure meant he probly looked older than his actual age.

    @16. dstatton : “Does god have a penis?”

    As usual it depends onthe specific doctrines of the specific and mutually incompatible and vehemenelty often violetly disgareeing Christian sub-groups and cults. The Mormons for instance :

    Mormonism teaches that God is made of flesh and bone, meaning God has a penis and is able to engage in sexual intercourse. Moreover, while it not articulated in any standard works, Mormon authorities have taught that Mary could be and was impregnated with Jesus through physical sex with God.

    Source : https://beliefmap.org/mormonism/mormonism-teaches-god-and-mary-sexually-produced-jesus

    Which if Jesus is the same individual as God and Mary was his literal biological mother means, well, I’ll let Samuel L Jackson say it.. WARNING : Violence, gore, gendered slurs.

    There’s another page fromthatite that notes Mormons also think -or thought -that God has sex with actual wives in Heaven and has kids with them that way too..

  22. rietpluim says

    If Jesus can be God and man at once, I don’t see why He can’t be woman and man at once.

  23. evodevo says

    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them
    So, male and female is his image? But his pronoun is “his”? So many questions here…

  24. Owlmirror says

    Mormonism teaches that God is made of flesh and bone, meaning God has a penis and is able to engage in sexual intercourse. Moreover, while it not articulated in any standard works, Mormon authorities have taught that Mary could be and was impregnated with Jesus through physical sex with God.

    Huh. Well, there goes the philosophical argument that I had in mind. That is, if God is truly the transcendent creator of all things, the God is not made of matter; is not in any way physical, and therefore has no DNA and no genitalia. DNA and genitalia are creations, not philosophically necessary things. Therefore, God’s “gender” has nothing to do with any physical traits. If God’s gender has nothing to do with physical traits, why should human gender always follow from physical traits? Why not have gender concepts that are disassociated from physical traits?

    And I think some religious people would actually be OK with that argument, and with others, that God is nonbinary.

    But it looks like Mormons said “Fuckit, we’re going with a fully anthropomorphic God.” Hm.

  25. Owlmirror says

    So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them
    So, male and female is his image? But his pronoun is “his”? So many questions here…

    It’s worth pointing out that Hebrew only has masculine and feminine genders; there’s no way to easily speak or write of a neuter/neutral or nonbinary gender, or of something that transcends gender. I recall reading that Israeli transfolk/nonbinary persons try to bypass this linguistic restriction by alternating gender references; deliberately mixing female and male grammar. I don’t know how well that gets the point across.

    There’s an oddity in the gender of Hebrew grammar when talking about body parts: Those body parts that only exist as a singular thing are grammatically masculine (head, nose, mouth, tongue, neck, throat, chest, stomach), but those that exist as duals or plurals are feminine (eyes, ears, teeth, lips, hair, breasts, arms, hands, fingers, legs/feet). So the penis, vagina, vulva, and womb should all be masculine, and the testicles and ovaries should be feminine (or at least, it would be that way if the language were consistent — I just looked up [morfix.co.il, he.wiktionary.org] the anatomical terms, and it looks like “vuvla” (פּוֹת היא) is feminine, while “testicles” (אֶשֶׁךְ הוא) are masculine, after all. But “vagina” and “womb” are indeed masculine as well.)

  26. Owlmirror says

    @#32: I swear I originally wrote “vulva” correctly . . .

    Getting back to the Bible — I have repeatedly pointed out that if the very image of God contains male and female both simultaneously, then God must indeed be nonbinary, and human nonbinary and transfolk are closer to the image of God than mere binary cisfolk. I watched the video, and no-one brought up Genesis 1:26-27. Why am I the only one to think of this?

  27. jack lecou says

    This is a little late but might be of interest to some here:

    Saw an interview over the weekend (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbLcPyjC7gE) with Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

    It sounds like her book “God: An Anatomy” has at least a couple of chapter’s with pretty graphic descriptions of Yahweh’s naughty bits. I hadn’t realized, but the guy was originally some kind of male fertility god in the ancient Levantine pantheon, so they were in fact very notable and impressive naughty bits. Probably only one kind though, which is rather boring.