I presume "women hate being female" is said with such universality and confidence here because "being female" is meant here as "engaging in the psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another." But, given politics is about self-negation, from a Marxist point of view, it can be said that there is nothing inherently problematic about this, depending on our particular reading of this psychic operation, or, at least, depending on the context in which it occurs. The key phrase, after, all is, "desires of another." Again, who is "another" and what do they "desire"? Is this even possible to answer ahead of time? etc. That being said, there is a sense in which it is true that "femaleness" understood this way would at least be universally regarded with a sense of ambivalence.

In addition to that quibble, the answer "because everyone already does" is not a very convincing answer to me. Sure, the value of doing this is understandable insofar as this definition of "femaleness" aids a (self-)critique internal to patriarchy itself, but if the condition also can be posited as something which outlasts and is independent of patriarchy and particular configurations of gender in cultural history and geography, it is not satisfying that it be called "femaleness" simply for that reason. There must be some particular process or operation which is responsible for the particularized pole onto which the universal theme of "femaleness" has bodily written itself. What allowed an otherwise universal psychic operation or ontological condition to become constructed as an asymmetric bodily experience or intuition?