First one quick aside, Wikipedia tends to fare very poorly when we get into contemporary issues or issues involving social matters. And that is certainly in play here. The "Historical Accounts" features such amazing information as the story of a pregnant woman grabbing a sword and scaring away an attacking force, while topless of course. The "Historical Existence" section is literally nothing but stating that there are two scholars that argued they existed, and one scholar that argued that they did not exist.

The main point is again that we have hundreds of years of activity from a civilization that heavily interacted with numerous other civilizations. And the written word had long since been developed and spread. If female fighters played any meaningful role whatsoever, you would not be here trying to debate it using obscure bits of low quality evidence - it would be as self evident as vikings being male. They would have regularly participated in battles, been regularly observed (and noted) by other cultures and so on. But instead you're left to cite tales of a pregnant woman scaring off an attacking force bare breasted, or reference "physical evidence" like 'there was a female skeleton inside a grave that had weapons!'

To be clear, why do you think vikings were men? I needn't provide you with some obscure tale of a man buried in a grave or whatever. These battles were regularly recounted, vikings were regularly interacted with, and the entire civilization is reasonably well recorded. And there's no real ambiguity. Any ambiguity is in us taking isolated incidents and trying to extrapolate them upwards while ignoring the other 99.99999% of evidence.