What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?

What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Theology with regard to the following topic: Replacing male pronouns for God with gender-neutral terms: Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God; referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women. The alternative is to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother.

The answer of the Bible itself is that the Scriptures are the Spirit-breathed authoritative life-giving true word of the living and true God and that while the church may err, Scripture does not.

ALL Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

As a woman I do not take offence at the expression "the man of God" because I know full well it also embraces the woman of God. Note that ALL of the Bible is the inspired Word of God - not just some parts.

There is no basis for anybody to take exception to the language in the Bible. The following Scripture does not exclude women (or any person of a different race, colour or ethnicity):

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothedyourselves with Christ. Thereis neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:36-29).

Having finally found some information on the subject of feminist Christian theology, I submit this partial extract from an article that is worth consideration:

Feminist Hermeneutics: For all their differences, feminist theologians usually approach the text of Scripture with similar convictions about its interpretation that determine their understanding and application of the text. The articulation of this hermeneutic varies but usually includes: a hermeneutic of suspicion, a hermeneutic of retrieval, and a hermeneutic of reconstruction.

A hermeneutic of suspicion involves reading against the text rather than with it. Instead of uncritically accepting the inspiration, authority, inerrancy, and wisdom of the entire text of Scripture, a hermeneutic of suspicion assumes the male patriarchal/anti-women bias of Scripture (written by men for men), and critiques and deconstructs the text and/or the tradition of translation or interpretation associated with it. Not all Scripture is regarded as “the word of God,” and so there is a canon within the canon. Only that which conforms to feminist beliefs should be proclaimed in the church (cf. “hermeneutic of proclamation”).

A hermeneutic of retrieval seeks to recover and venerate the lost history of women in the Bible and the history of the church. It also involves remembering the suffering of women in Scripture, especially victims of violence and injustice (e.g., Hagar, Tamar, the unnamed concubine, and the daughter of Jephthah),3 and questioning the place of these accounts in Scripture and their continued use in the church (cf. ‘hermeneutic of remembrance’).

A hermeneutic of reconstruction seeks to revise traditional (male-dominated) approaches to the Bible and historic Christianity and replace them with women-centered approaches. In so doing, the Bible becomes a resource for the liberation of women, and feminist theory leads to changed praxis (cf. “hermeneutics of creative ritualization” or “actualization”).

In short, feminist theology is not a theoretical academic pursuit, but is a means to an end: namely, to bring far-reaching revolutionary changes to the lives of women, the church, and wider society.

Source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/feminist-theology/