OK, so you want to draw a sharp distinction between events and choices that are "in the game" and events and choices that are "not in the game". I can see that this could work, as long as the pre-set "flavour" events merely give reason for other in-game assumptions. Having the Hindenberg crash, for example, explains why military and cargo airships are not a thing in the game; making them (at least for cargo) if the crash doesn't happen would be plausible but not essential - a near miss might be scare enough to have the same effect. But where do you stop with this being able to constrain the player's decisions?
There were (two) women aces; they flew for the USSR (see
here and
here).
In Britain, where unlike Earhart Amy Johnson had survived the '30s, women* flew combat aircraft more or less throughout the UK involvement in the war** - they flew aircraft delivery missions in combat zones but not combat missions. (*: Including 27 female American volunteers; **: From January 1940).
The US, somewhat belatedly, formed the WASPs which were, unlike in the UK version, actually trained as AAF pilots. A House bill to militarise the WASPs was narrowly defeated in June 1944.
In Germany, in many ways a bastion of male martial monopoly, women flew as test pilots, one of the most hazardous jobs of all!
Had Earhart survived what was to be her last flight, I can well see her seeking out opportunities to fly in combat and show that women had value in that role - and I am sure that, had she done so, she would have proved her point. Social protectionism was broken down in many areas due to the exigencies of a global and existential war; the idea that the monopoly on combat flying for men could not have been broken outside of the Soviet Union is mere historical determinism. If a few events had gone differently - perhaps including Earhart completing her record-breaking flight - then that taboo, too, might have been toppled.
