Since the service lifted the final ban on women in direct-combat units in 2016, more than 600 women have joined infantry and armor units, but women who do step up still face discrimination and, at the extreme, sexual assault from their fellow soldiers.
We separate boys and girls starting at about age 12-13 in sports. There's a reason for that.
Some branches have successfully integrated for many years, including medical and Military Police, but combat arms are a different animal. Think most high school, college, pro and Olympic athletes. We separate them for many reasons based on gender. The very best female athletes can out perform most men, but they excel in a segregated environment.
Biological, social, psychological forces are at play, as well as physical differences that far from being ignored, should be paid very close attention to.
Ours is a profession where failure is not acceptable. Losing on the battlefield has monumental consequences that social experiments could never justify.
There are too many KNOWN factors that tell us integrated combat arms is not the best situation. The highest value cannot be "opportunity" or "fairness." The enemy does not care what our motives are, only that we are defeated. If it is easier to defeat integrated rather than segregated combat arms units the enemy will target these integrated combat arms units and then exploit our weakness in that regard.
Segregated combat arms units, male and female, will tend to meet performance standards at a higher rate, and will out perform their integrated unit counterparts every time is my prediction.
Pretending the genders are not attracted to each other biologically is a huge mistake, and could cost lives on the battlefield. It complicates something that is not complicated.
Men and women compete separately in athletics. Think about why that is and then you will have your answer to the integrated combat arms question. Snuffy Smith could get this one right.