Sorry to be cryptic -- I didn't mean to be.
Here are my own views:
The Bible tells us that God is spirit, and that God precedes all creation. Apart from the Incarnation, God does not have a physical body that is part of the creation.
Maleness and femaleness are properties of organisms that produce offspring through sexual reproduction. God does not produce offspring in this way, and thus is neither male or female.
Masculinity and femininity are traits that the males and females of a species -- let's limit ourselves to humans, for simplicity -- that male and female humans have. The definitions are a bit fuzzy, and very culture-dependent, but it's something like: masculine traits are the ones that men have more often than women, and feminine traits are the ones that women have more often than men. We haven't yet precisely quantified "more often than" -- is a trait masculine iff all men have it and no women have it, or do we just require many men to have it and few women to have it, and then what do we do with the outliers? But it's something in that ballpark. Masculinity and femininity are descriptions of the psychology and assigned societal expectations of male and female humans. And again, God is not a human; God does not have a human biological body and is not a member of human society.
I do not accept that God has self-identified as male or masculine, because I do not accept that God has self-identified as human (again, apart from the Incarnation).
I do not accept that Jesus identified God as male or masculine, because I do not accept that Jesus identified God the Father as a human being.
I do see metaphors of many kinds being used in the Bible, by Jesus and by others, to describe God. Metaphors are useful, and they are limited. God is like a refiner's fire (Malachi 3), for example. This tells us that God purifies us, removing our clutter and our sin. But the image can't be pushed too far; it doesn't mean that God is physically hot. God is like a father: God is a being more powerful than us, who also cares deeply for us. But it pushes the metaphor too far if we see God's fatherhood as including maleness.
As for the analogies, they seem self-evidently false to me, but I'll give it a go. Men and women are both created beings. In the first and third analogies (holy:created and deity:humanity), men and women are both firmly on the "created" and "humanity" side of things. As for the second analogy, some ancient and medieval people did see human reproduction as planting the male seed in the female garden, with all the genetic information coming from the male side, but we've known that to be false for quite some years now. Both men and women are on the "seed" side of that analogy.
The tl;dr is that I truly don't see how "masculine" and "feminine" are defined without referring to human biology and psychology. The Bible is emphatic that God is not a human being.