I always found it odd that men and women race different distances in cross country, but because I prefer shorter courses anyway I didn't actually care that much about it when I was competing. To me it's more perplexing than offensive. Assuming basic fitness, longer distances are not really "harder" because you run them at a slower pace, and for the inverse reason shorter races aren't really "easier". Much of the perceived difficulty of a race distance comes from how naturally suited you are to it and how well you've prepared for it. Both men and women already race 10ks on the track, by the way; it's only in cross country where you find this difference in distance.

If there is a move to equalize distances, I would rather see men move down to 6k or have men and women meet in the middle at 8k, rather than have women move up 10k. Even though longer distances aren't objectively harder they do take more of a toll on the body (not just the races themselves but the higher training volume that goes into preparing for them), which increases injury risk and necessitates longer recovery time between races. That's just my preference, though. There could be benefits in to moving women up to 10k, like better fitness come track season for those women who race track 10ks, and better preparation for post-collegiate running for those athletes who go on to race marathons.