I know it bothers minorities -- and I understand why, since I am a "minority" on HN (woman, nearly 50yo, writer with only minor coding skills, etc) -- but most people who aren't part of that particular minority say "exclusionary" things mostly out of ignorance, not as some kind of dog-whistle fuck-you policy to specifically keep X people out.
Op is downvoted not because they have correctly identified transphobia and HN is full of bigots (although it is) but because OP has leapt to an unsupported assumption. There is nothing transphobic about the submitted link.
Edit: also, as far as I can tell op only got one or two downvotes, and so if they are being heavily downvoted they're also being up voted too.
Ask a trans-person if they identify as male or female and they will usually tell you what they identify as now.
They choice of "female" is possibly for the aliteration with "founder". There's nothing strange about that word choice.
Gender is what you identify as, you either identify as man or woman.
Now it is clear that PG and company aren't transphobic, but by giving in to the first demand for more representation of "minorities" (as if asians, immigrants and indians weren't minorities and weren't already statistically over representated) they have given the SJW a finger and when you give the devil a finger...
Personally I am going to get some popcorn and watch this drama unfold.
Personally, I use both woman and female completely the same, and sometimes it means women and trans-women (e.g. when I see someone who looks typically female), but mostly it means born women only (e.g. when I say I'm attracted to women).
But of course, not everyone uses the same words with the same meaning. There's no need to assume bad faith.
Without a difference in meaning, why have different words? It seems preposterous to extend the English language just to play scrabble.
For example, in this case "Female Founders Conference" is the exact equivalence of "Founders Conference of people who are women."