I was going to let it go, but I can't resist.
First of all, I never said God was a 'he'. That's just a typical case of you and some others here habitually and dishonestly putting words in others' mouths to change the argument into something you can rant on so impotently. Rhetorically, that's called a strawman and if you couldn't create one you'd never be able to argue any of your usual insanity. I REFERRED to God as 'He', and then made it clear that it doesn't matter what you refer to Him as, since we don't really know the nature of Him. If we don't know His nature, how can we assign a gender to Him and therefor WHAT DOES IT MATTER how we refer to Him.
Then you stupidly mock me explaining
why the masculine is used to refer to God. You say my thinking is 'patriarchal' because that's the current buzzword that the woke virtue signalers are seeking to annihilate such that anyone who doesn't react negatively to patriarchy is some Neanderthal. But if you had the mental chops to do so, you'd ask yourself why so many things ARE patriarchal and why we continue, habitually, to use terms associated with patriarchy.
The answer is the same one I've already given. In most cultures, the leader is male because the family units are led by males. Why would that be? I'm going to let
@strummingram strain his brain and try to figure out why so many things associated with power are linguistically oriented toward masculinity and patriarchy, including the concept of God Almighty. It's obvious, but somehow I have the feeling he'll try to dance around it. I eagerly await his next strawman.
I never said God was a he because men are more powerful. I said we end up REFERRING to God traditionally as a he because men are more powerful. You condescend to tell me we think in language, but then you're too dense to realize that you end up arguing against yourself. Simply referring to something is not the same as understanding something. Unless you're a virtue-signaler in need of a molehill to die on, that is.