“Expansive God.” (Source: Art for God’s Sake)
On Patheos, Deborah W. Dykes questions the use of masculine pronouns when referring to God, and the implications this has for young girls:
Questioning the use of male pronouns to refer to God is unimaginable for some people. Male language about God so permeates our thinking and our conversation we don’t even hear or recognize it.
Obviously, none of us sets out to harm our children, anyone’s children. But, harm them we do.
Today, most of us do not intend to preserve a religion that excludes women and girls. In fact, many of us are horrified at such an idea. But when we perpetuate images and language that identify God with “male,” we are in fact, as Joan Chittister, OSB, tells us, excluding 50 percent of the human population.
Sikhs believe that God is a nameless, formless and genderless entity. Yet, we often also speak of God in the masculine form as well, not realizing how this affects girls and women.
Read more at Patheos.
americanturban.com 
Pingback: The role of the religious in ending violence against women | American Turban
Its because speaking of the creator as ‘it’ especially in English doesn’t sound right… we use ‘it’ to mean inanimate objects. That leaves he or she but a formless creator is neither since the ONE creator which is everything would need no gender which implies duality. We maybe should just say the creator or waheguru and not use he or him at all…