Not really: it is noteworthy in the historical context.

I'm probably just being obtuse, but I fail to see how one justifies either "false" or lack of "equivalency"?

Hath not a gal eyes? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as their brother is? If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you expend them, do they not die?

(eg Lyudmila Pavlichenko's ~1'500 sister snipers who died fighting Nazis)

20 million vs a couple of thousand is not worth mentioning. At that point you should start mentioning the hundreds of sub Saharan Africans that fought with the Soviets.

The difference is that soviet women served in combat units, including as decorated air aces.

Yes, in small numbers* compared to their brothers, but according to https://americansoldierww2.org/topics/women-and-gender the ~500 female US war deaths were not in action on front lines.

* I'm having trouble finding OOB for the combat units, but they would face a division by 0 were one to compare to US female combat units.

The sub Saharans from Comintern also fought in combat roles, what’s your point?