We don't really know if they had a creator or not, but yeah. Still, fiction's full of examples of artificial intelligences developing emotions, so perhaps that happened with the gems too. Maybe we'll find out someday.

I'm sure that whatever they end up doing it'll be cool ^^. Was nice talking with you

I'm sure that whatever they end up doing it'll be cool ^^. Was nice talking with you

As Hazard Time pointed out, sex and gender are two different things: sex is biological; gender is a social construct. It's a bit grating to see the Steven Universe wiki list the Gems as genderless when they are in fact sexless -- at least by default. They clearly identify with the feminine gender, likely due to using the Diamonds (the Gem matriarchs) as their archetypes. The show has made it clear that the Gems have a strict hierarchy indicative of a developed, if stifled, social system; therefore, however it came about, Gems -- apart from Steven -- consider themselves female, if only an a social sense.

 

Peridot describes Gems as primarily designed for conquest, it's true, but I wonder if she's vastly oversimplifying their overall "purpose". From her perspective at the time, certain Gems were tasked with particular roles without any possibility of change. If we assume the Gems initially developed organically and were not artificially created, then we can at least deduce that they naturally possess a high level of tolerance in exchange for specialization. Although both their survivability and specializations have resulted in the Gems creating an intergalactic empire, it isn't necessarily indicative why Gems may exist in the first place. It would be like studying human development backwards by beginning with modern human society: you might conclude humans developed in order to conquer, reproduce, and exploit resources -- not unlike the Gems. Analyzing their current state can't tell us everything about their origins.

 

In short, to claim it's illogical for the Gems to have social constructs like gender assumes a great deal about them when our information remains limited. It's even unclear if they've made contact with other intelligent beings (apart from humans) in the universe. As for why they appear so aesthetically human, it's worth keeping in mind that humanity may have derived much of its aesthetics (i.e., clothing and architecture) from contact with Gems, not the other way around. We tend to load the deck by using terms like "humanoid" to describe their appearance, despite the fact the Gems were presumably humanoid prior to coming to Earth.

You said we don't understand the gems origins. That at one point they could have been organic. That they are such and advanced species they where able to shed their physical bodies in favor of one's composed of light. Making them virtually immortal. Assuming they had organic origins they could have also reproduced a sexually. There would be no definitive way to say they reproduced sexually.

But even if they reproduced sexually it doesn't necessarily mean male and female. They could have a third gender. But no matter which way you conceive they reproduced while they where still organic, it doesn't account for why they are all made to be female now. If they had organic origins and reproduced sexually then why aren't there male gems? Or even if they where asexual. That would make even less sense as to why they where female.

I don't like the idea of the gems being the ones who shaped humanities future. They use it to say "oh their wasn't a god! It was just these aliens that we used to worship!" That's so stupid and such a lazy answer. Besides if people did worship gems as gods then why wouldn't SU culture resemble that more? Wouldn't most of the world be a matriarchy? Wouldn't they live in a very class based society? They don't though. And as far as we know this is still a world where christianity exists. My point is that it's illogical to say we got aesthetics from these beings.

Then I suppose there's the even worse explanation. Human beings are either future gems or we created them in the future. Which is a paradox. It's like in Interstellar. Future humans created the worm hole. If they didn't then humanity would have died. But humanity had to of survivors in the first place in order to create the worm hole. But how did humanity survive in the first place without the wormhole? It's a paradox. It's be so disappointing if Steven Universe was just a paradox. It's so lazy and just raises more questions.

Then again there's always another alternative. Inorganic beings created inorganic beings. That's stupid. Because where did the inorganic beings that created these new inorganic beings come from? Who created the original inorganic beings? As far as science fiction is concerned saying god did it is lazy. It's a cop out. Besides why would a god create both a set of organic and inorganic sentient beings? Besides that it could what purpose would it serve?

Well that's it for now.