If I think about it, then given your argument, I can not argue that reffering to “balls” is not a symbol of a male chauvinist origions. But given the context and the use of that term in common dialogue, I somehow feel that you are trying to put a put a misogynistic connotation in a place where there’s none.
Consider this example : Flipping someone off is not at all a display of commendable behaviour and should be refrained from . At the same time when I flip someone off I’m not implying that I’m going to shove my finger up their ass like a penis.
We are delving into really dark waters by hitting below the belt , and by sending across hateful messages like the ones Trump himself propgates. But I find it hard to agree that there was an implied misogynistic connotation to the sculpture.
And I’m not really sure how your point about Clinton being the first ever nominee to be technically lacking male Anatomy even fits into the conversation. That point of yours seems forced at best.
That said, I’m open to changing my view ,and I would like it if anyone- through civil dialogue only- could shift my opinion.