This is a broad topic, but I'll try to answer to the best of my ability: I don't believe that people disputed or dismissed the capabilities of these women, but while some may see it as proof of what women are capable of, many might've seen it as an exception to the rule.

It is difficult to know what people think today, much less what was in the minds of people throughout history. We can only make informed speculations.

In a similar vein, how can racists make exceptions, i.e. some people hate a whole group of people but make exceptions for a few (their one friend, an athlete in their team, a celebrity they like or find attractive - "oh, him/her? s/he's different"). It's not logical, but is racism/sexism without exception logical?

Having that said, you could easily have people that fight and go to jail for women's suffrage who believe that women cannot govern. You could have someone fight and die willingly for their queen who would still dismiss his daughter's wishes to study.

A few of the examples you listed are of monarchs. While this is not universal and not throughout time, but in many places people saw monarchs as special, sometimes it went as far as seeing them as Gods, sometimes they were chosen by God. In that sense a queen, to the common people, was more monarch than female.

A special woman chosen by God to be on the throne would not be seen as "proof" that women can govern on a regional or city level.

Equality, or inequality, is a complex thing. There were (and still are) inequalities towards women in so many different levels - from inheritance, right to work, right to work in certain fields, right to vote, right to run for office, right to higher education, right to equal pay, etc. The reasoning and justifications behind these are not identical and may sometimes appear paradoxical, for example, places where women can vote but can't run for office, or can take a job but can't earn as much as a man in the same position, or can work in her father's profession/trade, but other women cannot.

As I said before, inequality is a complex issue and manifests itself on many levels. They stem from a variety of of perceptions and misconceptions of women, not just that "women are inferior to men." For example, you'd have to look into why some places did not allow women to testify in court on serious crimes. The justification behind that is not the same as the one preventing women from joining the army or going to university. A society can have a female monarch and still dismiss women's testimony in court.

Societies had to deal with the misconceptions on every level - having a female monarch or a female in power would not necessarily change people's attitudes across society on every level - having Thatcher as PM and Elizabeth II does not mean that women had equal pay as men in all fields in the UK, or that glass ceilings did not exist, even without the idolization of rulers.

Examples of great women as proof or evidence did not shatter deeply ingrained beliefs and attitudes of people. It does not work like a supreme court ruling changing everything and having all sorts of implications. I'd say it took a ton of good examples than a few great examples to change attitudes. So a woman working in her father's trade (an exception made to help people get help from their offspring) would be a bigger step in letting women having equal rights to employment than having a female monarch. It might be daughters only, but with time the man could hire his daughters-in-law or nieces and it would trickle from there.

The legal rights of women and attitudes towards women are two separate things (although the former may stem from the latter). Women throughout history had less rights than men and sometimes, only in rare exceptions did they have somewhat similar rights to men (for example, in some periods/places, women cannot inherit land, but there was an exception for women who have no brothers) It is through gaining these exceptions to begin with and stretching and expanding them that certain societies reached legal equality, and less so by society changing its attitude after having a female monarch or seeing a few examples of great women at the very highest level of society.