I still am bothered by the new title. If it's really so wrong to say it's improbable, we should pick something descriptive like "disproportionately". It's not sexist to describe what a trope actually is -- what even is "fundamentally female" supposed to mean? What is sexist is trope names and descriptions that assume their subjects are male when such an assumption isn't justified, of which there are several (on TV Tropes, anyway; maybe they've all been fixed here, but I doubt it). Also, I still believe there's at least some justification for creating Improbably Male Cast -- one example of that is R. A. Lafferty's works, in which it's hard to justify the almost complete absence of female characters. Is a disproportionately (and, yes, improbably) female cast somehow more noteworthy than a disproportionately male cast (which would also be quite improbable in some settings, which we would have to limit the examples to)? If so, why? Less popular? In any case, changing the name doesn't change the fact that we have a page for this and not its spear counterpart, hence it doesn't make it any less sexist; it just makes it more obscure.