sometimes "that's a penis!" really isn't up for debate: see U+130BA: EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH D053. anachronistic thinking is an ever-lurking danger, though, which

sometimes "that's a penis!" really isn't up for debate: see U+130BA: EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH D053. anachronistic thinking is an ever-lurking danger, though, which is why i'm not amazingly confident in this interpretation, but brought it up out of curiosity. We do know that body-part substitutions were at least in literary use in the ancient near east, so it's not totally implausible: you can fairly confidently swap foot/thigh for genitalia in ancient hebrew texts, when contextually appropriate.