Whenever you bring up a valid analogy, feminists will be like:

Omg did you equate women with *insert object here that was mentioned as a passing word*? You objectifying monster!

Did you just say "female"? Omg you must be a woman hating incel!

Feminists don't realize that analogies aren't used because they equate a woman with an object that happened to be mentioned as a passing word, but because two scenarios might have similar circumstances. You can have the same circumstance as a non-living thing. It's like the "lock and key" analogy. It's basically arguing how like a master key which can open any lock, a promiscuous man can attract many women, but a lock that can be unlocked by any key is equivalent to a woman who will have sex with any man who pursues her instead of selecting the cream of her crop of options. Any woman can sleep around. It's not easy for men to sleep around unless he's a very attractive guy. I don't completely argue with the lock and key analogy, but it isn't equating women with locks, or equating men with keys. Ironically, they don't accuse men of being a lock. It's just a similar circumstance and metaphorical, not to reduce anyone to objects.

And the word female? We've all said that word from time to time, and most people have used words like male and female sometimes. And most people don't say "men and females", and if they do, it's probably unintentional.

But feminists use the word "body count" to describe number of partners. They view abortion bans as "controlling our bodies" instead of "taking away our ability to get an abortion". They call prostiution or onlyfans "selling our bodies". They describe refusing to have sex with men or choosing to have sex with them as "giving our body to them". Feminists always are the ones who really reduce women to bodies or objects.