So your argument, then, is that I should ignore that these women, by taking up arms in such a sexist time, are, in fact, exceptional and trailblazing, instead reducing them to genderless ‘partisans’, thereby implicitly reducing and obscuring the role of women in pre-21st century warfare as countless writers and observers have before me, taking the opportunity to reinforce patriarchal illusions of force and power in historical movements?
Female as an adjective is commonly accepted usage for human beings. Female as a noun is generally considered dehumanizing, or at least very clinical.
If it had been men in the picture would you have added “three male Soviet partisans” as a caption? No, you wouldn’t.
The truth is it’s dehumanizing no matter the use except if you’re talking about biology and it’s not used equally when talking about men vs women.
So your argument, then, is that I should ignore that these women, by taking up arms in such a sexist time, are, in fact, exceptional and trailblazing, instead reducing them to genderless ‘partisans’, thereby implicitly reducing and obscuring the role of women in pre-21st century warfare as countless writers and observers have before me, taking the opportunity to reinforce patriarchal illusions of force and power in historical movements?
No.
Or maybe you could have used the word “women” but guess that’s too hard…