Lots of good human-logic stuff there in your post, Kate. And human logic goes right along with what you said. But we are dealing with God-logic, which is entirely different. God-logic says things like "The entirely innocent One will suffer and die for the sins of all the guilty". That ain't logical in human terms - but it apparently is in God-logic.
If Jesus is entirely God, as well as entirely a male human, how can God NOT have male nature?
That question comes from Trinity theology, which recognises no quality one Person of the Trinity has that is not held by the others. In other words, that all the Persons are of ONE Substance, or nature. That's more God-logic, and hard for us to grasp in our human logics; we can only accept in faith.
God also has female nature (see Genesis 1:27
). Since he created both men and women in his own image, his image must be both male and female. This might not make human-logic sense, but that is what he says about himself. Again, something hard for us to grasp; it too can only be accepted in faith.
As to that Jesus appeared as a man instead of as a woman because a woman woudn't have been accepted, the last time I heard that argument was from an Episcopal priest. She also tried to convince us that the Bible was NOT God's inspired word, but just the ramblings of biased men. That turned out to be the official doctrine of the Episcopal Church, which they had changed on me while I wasn't looking. I was Episcopal 53 years before I discovered their apostasies and left to join with the Catholic Church.
It's amazing sometimes how blind we can be to what is happening around us!
So it is that your argument is used by deviant theologians - which leads me to suspect and fear it. The argument also appears to contradict the scriptures which I've cited. The second reason is much more important than the first.
But I'm listening. Really. If what you say doesn't contradict Scripture and the ancient teachings of the Church, then you could be right.
In faith, Dave
Wise men still seek him.