Gee, this is so far down in the cblf stack now that it may get lost. Anyways, Cat, let's see.

We all happily agree that we are created male or female in the IMAGE of God, and I don't think it would be wrong to add androgynous to the list, since there are a lot of births like that (even though surgeons then do sex assignment these days.) The question is what that IMAGE is of. The natural aspect of the human body includes all sorts of things that are clearly evolved in an animalistic way to suit certain habitat needs: we are clearly evolved from fructivores, with our mostly flat teeth, three-cone colour vision, brachiating arms and so on. God doesn't need breasts to supply milk to her young, nor a penis to shoot semen up against the force of gravity, nor even sexual function, such as sperm or egg production, to ensure that the next generation (there can't be one) will have a new combination of genes that will mask mutations and resist parasites. There is no need for a nose to sniff molecules and filter air, no need for a mouth to take in food and release sounds, no need to localize God's all-seeing perception into little focusing lenses set on either side of a face, distinctively featured for individual recognition. God doesn't even need a beard and moustache to indicate biological male maturity in the apish manner; Michaelangelo could have saved some white paint.

So the IMAGE of God is something spiritual that stands outside our jungly evolved nature. We aspire to approach that image, not a biological mask from Nature.