Apologies for any poor formatting, I'm on my phone.

I think the problem is wider. You then write: "Luck is “like” a female, it isn’t actually one. This is because we understand more than past ages did about material causes, randomness and probability."

Your explanation of why the reader doesn't understand luck being a female but rather 'like a female' is insufficient. I get you're sticking with your argumentative line but there is another important point that, of course, anyone can be capricious. Certainly not just those who present feminine. Combine this with your quick use of 'a female' and the overall declarative tone of your piece and it comes off as if you're more sympathetic to the sexist tones of the analogy than you actually are.