I agree with this, though there's the inscription on the hammer about the "power of Thor", so "Thor" is a bit of a confusing mix of name / title. Also, does that mean we should call Captain America "Thor" since he was deemed worthy of wielding the hammer?The thing that annoys me is all the articles saying first female Thor...no Thor is his name as in Thor son of Odin you know the top chap in Asgard and all that, thus Thor being firstly a man and secondly its his freaking name, thus Jane Porter aka Natalie Portman is becoming the first female goddess of thunder or something, not Thor.
I think Antman And The Wasp did a good job at bringing in a female character as the role of a size-shifting pym particle shooting superhero. I was less convinced with Pepper Pots in an Iron Man suit in End Game, mainly because it took Tony Stark a lot of practice to get comfortable with the suit (some of my favorite scenes in original movie), whereas it's kinda implied that PP just jumps in the suit for the first time and can "dance" with the same grace as veteran Tony.
So back to my original critique - skinny mini Nat Portman has zero powers except her smarts, so the second she throws that hammer at someone, anyone with powers / strength can just flick her with their finger and off she goes (lol, that sounds dirty). Unless the hammer imparts supernatural strength into the wielder for the duration it's 'pledged' to them... Now had Lady Sif become the next Thor in title rather than name, then I don't think half of us would be disturbed by that. She's still out there somewhere, right?