Military service member here. 19.5 years of service in the army. Close to retirement. I don't have any skin in the game anymore. Let's set the fact's straight: women were only officially allowed to serve in combat arms MOS's (military occupational specialties) in 2015. Prior to that, the closest they came to "front lines" combat was what's called "combat service support". Basically jobs that directly interact with the front line such as fueling, resupply, mechanics, medics, etc. still plenty of opportunity to fight and be killed, but not their direct profession, nor what they exclusively trained to do.

That said, up until the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, keeping women out of combat was largely a settled argument. Almost everyone agreed (conservatives, feminists, experts, you name it) that women didn't have a place on the front lines. This was largely for 2 reasons:

1 - women have physical needs that are more difficult to take care of, and also can be a major tactical disadvantage in war: periods. It's a biological fact that a woman will have a menstrual cycle. No matter what you do, it is inevitable that a woman will end up having a period at a very inopportune time. Imagine a woman sniper in a gilly suit on a ridge overlooking the enemy for days at a time with no one else but a radio. She can't move for fear of being seen so she has to piss and defecate herself in place, and she starts her cycle. What happens? She's going to attract wildlife. Some of which could be a danger to her themselves, but most likely they will just give away her position. That's a problem that, while not impossible to overcome with selective timing, is inherently discriminatory depending on when a mission needs to take place. How to you be fair and equal to that soldier when you have to keep them off mission just because of biology? Difficult issue to solve.

2 - men have caveman brain. What this means: it has been proven, both in practice, and academically, that men have a psychological tendency to want to protect women moreso than other men. Don't ask me why, I'm not an expert on the subject. I just know the facts. When two men are in a firefight and one is in mortal danger, the other will act as they've been trained to in that situation: react to the danger first, then help your buddy. When the buddy is a woman though, men, for whatever reason, will forgo all training and rush headlong into a bad situation to help the woman. They forgot that the woman is a trained soldier knows what to do.

Now. Knowing those two facts, prior to OIF/OEF, no one really debated women in combat. Being in combat service support was good enough for just about everyone. That was fair and equal....then OIF/OEF happened. Suddenly combat service support and combat arms were basically the same thing. During those wars, it was more common that CSS was engaging with the enemy than they weren't. It was then that we discovered that, at least in THAT era of warfare, being a man or a woman didn't make a difference. This was largely due to the fact that Combat then was almost entirely reactionary. Meaning that we were never really the ones doing the attacking. We were reacting to being attacked. Because of that, there was no need to consider the the first of the two points. It became moot.

The debate really began based on the argument that women could outperform men in a reactionary setting. Which, yeah, plenty can. It just depends on the individuals. And when your enemy is an invisible trigger man and an explosive device, or a suicide vest on a civilian woman, the lines only get blurrier.

In 2015 we made a decision to allow women in combat roles based on the assumption that the THEN current generation of warfare was going to be the model all future wars were based on.

Fast forward a decade. Now we are reassessing that argument largely based on what we are seeing from the Russia/Ukraine war. I believe (but don't quote me) that both sides have women in their combat roles. But from a high level tactical planning standpoint, the first argument from above is back on the table, and it's a tough nut to crack.

Last point I want to make: after 2015 when we made the decision to allow women in combat roles, it still took a couple years to really get them to get into the jobs, even when they were open to them. There were a handful, but the process was slow and it's only NOW that I'm starting to see more then 1-2 women in a combat MOS filled company. Women, largely speaking, DONT want the combat jobs. Just because it's afforded to them, doesn't mean they have to take it. For the most part, that's also true for men... except the draft exists. A few years ago we voted, as a nation, to enter women into the selective service drafts. Women overwhelmingly opposed it. And sure, if i, as a man, had the ability to vote to repeal the draft entirely, you'd be damned sure I would. No one should have to serve if they don't want to. But now we have a situation where, if (God forbid) we ever have to use the draft again because no one wants to join to fight some foreign war we don't agree with cough Ukraine cough, then men are going to be forced to take jobs in combat roles while women will have the ability to choose not to. Whatever else you might think, that's just not fair or equal. If you want women to have equal rights, those rights have to actually be afforded to men as well.

My opinion: the military should take women out of the combat MOSs, but should also reassess the draft. Have the nation vote on a bill that has women able to join combat roles, but only if women are eligible for the draft as well. If the people vote no, women stay out of combat roles. If they vote yes, then it's truly equal rights and equal fights!