Scripture makes it clear that women may go into battle:
Judges 4, verses 4 - 10
4 "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.
6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the LORD God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?
7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.
8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.
9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.
10 And Barak called Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh; and he went up with ten thousand men at his feet: and Deborah went up with him."
So, women battle are NOT an abomination. God says so.
The warrior woman is traditional in some societies.
The guy used a portion of Deuteronomy that says women wearing mens clothing is an abomination to justify his stance that women shouldn't be in combat. One only wonders what he would think about a woman warrior in a dress. If one starts with a preconceived position one can usually find justification.
Verse 9:
9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.
Barak was dishonored because he wouldn't go to battle unless Deborah came with him. So maybe women in combat isn't an abomination, but it's certainly a dishonor.
Is it OK for me to take two sisters as my wives, as Jacob did -- and is it also OK for me to conceive children by two of my household servants?
Oh, speaking of slavery, that was OK in the Bible, too. So can we keep humans as chattel?
Are we to stone adulterers? And, in the event of a natural disaster, would you say it is OK for my daughters to get me drunk and seduce me, so they they can conceive children, as Lot's daughters did after the destruction of Sodom?
Beyond such absurdities -- exposing the absurdity of your reasoning -- why do you take a clearly EXCEPTIONAL case and seek to make it the rule? I mean, during a desperate manpower shortage in World War II (an exceptional circumstance), female pilots were used to transport airplanes from factory to airfield. But this exception did not overthrow the rule.
You arg engaged in bad logic, but of a type very common nowadays. I was once in a discussion of homosexuality when someone brought up the question of people born with ambiguous genitalia (hermaphrodites), as if the existence of a few thousand freaks of nature somehow affects how normal men and women should behave. I suppose it must be something in our contemporary culture -- we don't like rules or roles, and thus naturally think up every possible exception whenever someone suggests that, for instance, WAR IS A MAN'S JOB, which it most certainly is.