Also, if you read the Parker decision, you'll find that the DC Circuit agrees that women were not included in "the people" and had no 4th amendment protection.
"While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
-- UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
(This U.S. Supreme Court holding was referenced in the Parker case.)
I think that you are reading this incorrectly: I DON'T read this decision as meaning that those who are "part of the national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community" doesn't include women. Blacks, in 1792, may have been different. BUT there is no way on Earth for you to convince me that in 1792 a non-propertied woman had no protections whatsoever under those Amendments referencing "the people."
I'll ask you again: Do you believe that a white woman who did not own property in 1792 could have legally been tortured by agents of the federal government? Note that this would clearly have not been legal to do to a property-owning, adult white male, under the terms of the 8th Amendment.
If you answer "yes" to that, you'll at least be consistent. You'll also be wrong, and prove yourself as such to everyone here. If you answer "no" to that, then your interpretation is wrong. Bottom line: YOU ARE WRONG.