Southeastastra, the point of the complaint is that Lush deliberately chose to use a young female performance actor because their aim was to draw parallels with abuse and exploitation of women. Firstly, they knew it would only gain sufficient attention with a female subject. And, their press statements clearly state that they wanted to convey that society "permits" abuse and exploitation of animals in a way that we wouldn't accept if it happened to a woman.
But, we ALL know that our society is quite happy to accept the widespread abuse and exploitation of women and girls. Just look at all the lionising of convicted rapist Ched Evans for starters.
It would have been equally unacceptable if the performance actor had been a person of colour of either sex, or a disabled person of either sex. It is true that both experience institutional abuse and exploitation, but pretending that society "cares" about their welfare and likewise should care about the welfare of animals is at best extreme naivity and at worst, patronising and insulting.
One can support animal rights, women's rights, racial equality, etc. at the same time. Imho, it's a dangerous mistake to start putting oppression into league tables of any kind, then arguing that things are so much worse for group x because they are just that little bit better for group y. That's what Lush have done. Bad, bad move.