There is a group on X, originally it was blocked by the site but its context is opposing conscription in the UK for the Ukraine war. So it's not about the gendered nature of conscription because frankly if the UK does bring it back it will only be for men and they'll find a way to justify it. It's more in the tradition of the anti conscription league before WW1 set up by anarchists like Emma Goldman (that totally failed to stop conscription).

Personally I'm not opposed to it nor to its only applying to men. There are arguments for it but you almost never hear them from any politician and certainly not in a western country because they either cut into official narratives about gender equality or they adopt a "feminist" stance that is punitive towards males that could not be openly advocated by an elected official. For instance I've never seen a mainstream western politician say we have male only conscription to punish men for unequal representation in government or the gender pay gap (although individual activists, academics and journalists may say that)

What's fascinating about it is the way people have to twist themselves into knots to defend it whilst still supporting gender equality (for the paleo types who don't support gender equality it's not an issue but they usually don't have a voice except in spaces like Reddit, X etc. not anywhere "respectable"). It inevitably compounds the unfairness. There was a case brought before the EU Court in 2002 by a German man citing unfairness off the back of cases brought before the same court by women against their governments for discrimination in the military and the court found in favour of the applicants forcing Europe's militaries to open up all roles to women (the result is that you get young female DIs, who are of course volunteers, commanding commanding compelled males of the same age see: https://youtu.be/AKyvhGmbpYs?si=_2UmW147soHppEYb)). Moreover the court also found illegal any programs that assisted conscripted men after demobilization as being unfair to women because the women were not conscripted. The same court however found that male only military service was not unfair Case C-186/01 (Alexander Dory v Bundesrepublik Deutschland). Note in this regard the South Korean courts have also held the "military service bonus point system", that gave discharged conscripts advantage in public sector employment, as illegal because it discriminated against women who did not get get conscripted ("Militarism and Gender Conflict: the Shadow and Conscription in South Korean Society" Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung Asia, 18/11/2024).

BTW I would never advocate it for others since I never had to experience it myself.

According to data from the World Population Website that I reviewed in 2024 around 85 countries out of 179 have conscription and 21 conscript or register both males and females, though not necessarily on the same basis (for instance males may be required to serve longer periods or only males may be required to serve in combat roles or women might do community work). The majority of these countries that include both men and women in compulsory service are on the African continent. But getting further information is a bit murky. Only two countries in the world, Norway and Sweden (and soon Denmark), definitely conscript men and women on equal terms, at least officially, although more men than women are apparently selected. Usually partisans for this or that country will tell you no one is in reality forced. That everyone who goes is there because they want to be. Curious, then why have a system of conscription? It's like they tell you that 2/3 of the men who went to Vietnam from the US were volunteers. Technically true but no one "volunteers", or indeed makes any decision, in a vacuum. There are certain pressures getting you to "volunteer" and that is what these systems are designed to do: impose pressure.

Note that in most systems the whole cohort are not conscripted, it's usually a selection.

On whether opposing conscription including giving information on draft dodging is advocating an unlawful act, that may be true, but it may also be a legitimate form of political protest. A Swiss court has found that ADVOCATING young men refuse military service as a form of political protest in not illegal https://lenews.ch/2023/07/29/top-swiss-court-acquits-climate-activists-that-called-for-army-boycott/

Although obviously actually refusing service will still land you in jail.

As you can see I have looked into this in detail. It's not a popular subject and the usual positions supporting it, on the rare occasions that they are expressed, are fairly predictable falling into categories of paleo/right wing, "feminist", concerns about women's safety (legitimate but not necessarily an argument) and accounting/cost arguments or legal arguments (it's against the constitution). In finishing up I leave you with a somewhat controversial idea that I recently thought of when writing a short story and I put it into the mouth of a male character who had just been demobilized from compulsory army service. I suppose id put it in the paleo/ right wing category. I don't say I necessarily endorse it but I believe it would be persuasive with many people:

Most (heterosexual) women would expect their husband or boyfriend to stand up for them if they were physically threatened, say on the street or at home. Almost no man would expect his woman to physically defend him in return but they would certainly consider it their responsibility to protect their woman. If a man saw a woman being attacked on the street, even if he did not know her, there would be an expectation that he should if possible try to intervene and indeed many men would do so even at personal risk to themselves. If a man expects women to defend him from physical threats then what sort of man is he? Doesn’t the same apply in war? Most men would expect other men to do their bit to stand up and fight if the nation were threatened. A man failing to do so would usually be regarded as letting the team down. Perhaps even as a contemptible coward. They wouldn’t have the same expectation of women. That, of course, does not mean that women cannot be conscripted but for non combat roles, which is in fact what happens for instance in the Israeli army where women, despite being conscripted, only serve in combat if they volunteer to do so