+1
Well, yeah, it's a work of art. It should speak for itself and be open to interpretation (instead of just being mindlessly shrugged off as "pure sci-fi entertainment" for not being quite so blatant about its messaging), so of course I'm going to think the guy who wrote a main character that goes from ordinary waitress to musclebound badass over the course of two movies is going to have some interest in female empowerment. He doesn't have to spell it out for it to be readily observable as part of the films' overall theme (especially since it ties in neatly with the established conflict between human compassion and robotic malevolence). It's not like it gives me much reason to think that that's not at least part of what it's about, especially when it lays it on really thick at times anyway (e.g. Sarah Connor chewing out Miles Dyson) and how other sequels like Rise of the Machines and Genisys still rely heavily on competent female characters. As such, I can't blame them for leaning into it with Dark Fate - unlike Ghostbusters, this isn't a hard turn for the franchise so much as it is a continuation of what's come before.
Also, I thought it was part of the accepted absurdity of the franchise that Arnold would actually make for a terrible "secret" Terminator because he's a huge guy, barely talks, has a robotic Austrian monotone, and behaves antisocially towards everyone he meets. Robert Patrick at least manages to come across as a normal human being to the point where they tried to play him being the new Terminator as a plot twist because he was too good at being human (and it doesn't matter if he's 6'2" in real life, the movie still frames him as being a smaller and more average-looking guy that Arnold) so there's nothing inherently wrong with having the Terminators be a different race or gender. Besides, if it was a matter of having a problem with this particular guy being an unconvincing Terminator then you didn't need to bring up race in the first place, yet here we are.