My opinion is that "female-friendly fields" is (or should be) "software engineering". Thus "lets see them set up a special fund or something for female-friendly fields" reduces to the current state of the program.
Well, generally following the redirects is actually somewhat redundant. The idea of GSB is that URLs that lead to bad things would all be identified and added to the database.
Customising attacks for a given site specifically adds complexity and cost to the attack, which is really the aim for all of this sort of work. Everything you can do to drive up the cost of the attack makes you a less inviting target.
It would be a mistake to think that usb4ugc (or tools like it) would protect everyone all the time. It's never a replacement for vigilance and education on the user-side, just a useful extra line of defense.
The privacy risk for GSB in general is that you are sharing URLs with a (trusted) third party. That's most acute with the REST API, but most implementations (including gsb4ugc) cache a local copy of the lookup tables and so don't actually send URLs to Google. There is still a very occasional need to send a link to Google for validation, but in the server-side case the only context Google has for the request is the IP address of the server, which minimizes privacy risks as much as possible.
This may be just me, but I won't use GoDaddy because of their advertising. Their "sex sells" approach seems geared to re-inforce the "boys-only club" view of tech.