The second amendment is one of the few exceptions rather than the rule. It is difficult to argue for inclusion in "the people" who have the right to bear arms when excluded from selective service and from the definition of the unorganized militia.
By your logic women unaffiliated with service are excluded then. The unorganized militia, by US code, is (you can look up the code but this is pretty close) basically able bodied military age male citizens.
Throwing in all these constraint when the constitution clearly say "the people" without qualification which magically means basically everyone one place but not most everyone somewhere else seems kind of arbitrary to me, but then again the courts seem to have held up visitors aren't people so hey. This is why I'm not a lawyer because really such fuckery makes my brain melt. If I were the sole sitting justice of the supreme court I'd say the qualification is a person is one unit of people and thus they have the rights of the people. IMO if you're one of "the people" then when the constitution uses "the people" unqualified elsewhere that's you -- which by symmetry means if you can't own a gun you're not a person and have none of the other rights of the people.
State law in the state where I live defines the unorganized militia without regard to sex.
At least the 7th circuit agrees with you, (United States v. Meza-Rodriguez) even if there are other federal appeals circuits that don't. So this is something that will likely go to the Supreme Court eventually.
