Question: To best of my knowledge, God has no definite gender, i.e., he's neither male nor female. Still, Jesus, God the Son, assumed a male form during his ministry. Why is that? Clearly, God the Son could have also assumed a female form, or even a genderless form. Given that, why God the Son choose to represent him as a male?

Answer: 
So St. Thomas Aquinas approached this question in the summa asking if Christ is two persons or one:

> 
> Now some placed two supposita in Christ, and one Person, which, in their opinion, would seem to be the suppositum completed with its final completion. Hence, since they placed two supposita in Christ, they said that God is two, in the neuter. But because they asserted one Person, they said that Christ is one, in the masculine, for the neuter gender signifies something unformed and imperfect, whereas the masculine signifies something formed and perfect. on the other hand, the Nestorians, who asserted two Persons in Christ, said that Christ is two not only in the neuter, but also in the masculine. But since we maintain one person and one suppositum in Christ, as is clear from [III:2:3](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article2), it follows that we say that Christ is one not merely in the masculine, but also in the neuter.
> 
> 
> 

> 
> <https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4017.htm>
> 
> 
> 

He says that the genderless is something unformed and therefore imperfect, but the masculine represented something "formed and perfect". This is in reference to a man with a physical body, not beings without bodies. If you've ever seen Kevin Smith's Dogma (which I don't recommend in the least), you'll know that a genderless physical conception of an angel in the form of a man is pretty odd looking and God wouldn't come to earth to be odd looking.
Everything that God created exhibits His character and attributes as a concrete analogy. This includes that relationships within the trinity and relationship between God and His creation. An analogy is not the same as the thing to which it refers. Only certain features of that analog or the context in which it operates are salient. The rest are incidental. When studying the parables of Jesus, for example, early Christians found fanciful connections between the minutest details of the stories and doctrine.

Thus we have the idea of a father, the defining actions of a father, the relationship of a father to a son and son to a father, and our creation by God as an analog to His existence. Not everything about us (such as the mechanics of sexuality) is a representation of God - but some of it is. There is something fatherlike about God and the Bible reinforces that relentlessly. There is something sonlike about Jesus, and in his case even moreso since he took on flesh.

Our society is massively confused about what Gender is. Given that situation, since we cannot properly define gender for ourselves as creatures, how can we say that God either has or does not have a gender?