I was listening to a radio debate about this yesterday, and while some very good points were made, there were also some very silly things put forward to 'demonstrate' why ladies are the equal of men (in an infantry role)
While any of us can think of pros and cons to fit the for or against scenarios it seems that some vary obvious points are being avoided by the government or pro campaigners.
I heard during the debate that women have to pass the SAME tests as men but that they carry less weight during the tests!
It was repeatedly mentioned that women have done superbly in theatres such as Afghanistan, and while this is very true, it's also been nothing like all out war and so the women involved haven't had to do the full on stuff for weeks at a time. An infantry unit needs to be effective in all its roles and not just some of them. Of course it has to be said that lots of males wouldn't hack full on infantry life in combat either.
It seems the government want to keep the tests just as hard, but want to make them easier for women to pass IMHO. They say more appropriate for both sexes, but the men are already passing the tests. One situation was that instead of carrying injured soldiers as part of a test they may be able to drag them as it is fairer for women. I know the Americans like this idea, but I'm not sure that dragging someone over rocky ground, through a river, through a window or over a wall is really a good idea.
The UK is also broke so I'm not sure how much extra it will cost to house a four man squad if one happened to be a female and two four man rooms needed to be paid for and heated instead of one for a small detachment.
I also wonder at what point a woman would be: removed from combat, unable to carry a heavy load, fire weapons etc once pregnant. This is more relevant in an infantry role than a support role. Medics, clerks, signallers etc can all be replaced but it would be a bit odd for a female para to be trained in a specialist role for several months only to not be able to lead her section/company on an op due to being pregnant. It would be coverable but may mean that another person is needed as a stand in just in case. This is a bit different to a normal injury IMHO as the loss of the person would be predictable in advance, but would be on a time frame.
Those are just a few things floating around in my mind and I really don't know how succesful women in the infantry would be for effectiveness. What I do know is that the fact they have been very succesful in recent conflict has no bearing at all on full on combat or a Falklands type situation with very little support or logistics.