I've been running dnd for a long time. The number of times I've asked a female player what class she'd like to play and she's answered "witch" is not insignificant. For a long while, this was solved pretty easily by just using Pathfinder, which I appreciated because it was a great excuse to run Pathfinder. Once 5e started taking over the RPG mindshare though, it was harder to convince people to set aside the 5e books they'd purchased and invest in a different system. Homebrew witch classes sometimes helped, but in the end I think the printed page wins out for its ease of access and availability during a game. For many players, it's just easier and more comfortable to play within the system than to tack on new stuff from outside. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Witch in D&D is a hugely under-valued and under-represented class, and Tales of the Valiant is about to fix that with its upcoming Player's Guide 2.
It might seem silly at first that we need yet-another-class just so the word "witch" can be written on blank line on a character sheet. After all, the concept of a witch isn't actually all that different from a wizard or sorcerer or warlock or druid. In fact, games like Warhammer very much use the terms witch and sorcerer interchangeably. It's just another word for a magic user.
Then again, the words wizard, sorcerer, warlock, and druid are also just words for a magic user, but they all have distinct classes. The thing about a roleplaying game is that it has the power to give definition to fantasy. Definition by, er, definition is not a generality. If you want a general impression of an RPG, then you'd stop reading after the obligatory "What is a roleplaying game?" section in the front of the book, and just generally play a game that felt like what had been described. You wouldn't look at monster stats, you'd just look at a picture of a monster and assume stuff about its attacks and abilities. Most roleplaying games are intentionally pedantic by design. Specificity is the building block of a simulated world.
Using any old magic user with "Hello! My class is witch" name badge on, just isn't enough to bring an actual witch into reality. A witch has nuance setting her apart from the warlock or sorcerer or wizard or druid, just as much as there's nuance separating a sorcerer from a warlock or a warlock from a wizard, and so on. There's classic iconography associated with the witch, and in fact there's so much legend surrounding witches that the subclasses almost write themselves. There's the historical witch serving as a healer and keeper of knowledge for her village, there's the classic halloween witch with the broomstick and black cat, the iconoclastic witch controlling dark forces from beyond the veil, the seer, the medium, and many many more archetypes.
Obviously I don't think the witch class is of interest only to female players, but I do think that there's a significant part of the player base who identify strongly with the witch archetype. I don't think any of the current 5e classes have been written specifically with any specific gender in mind, but I don think that because there is a strong association with witches and women that the witch is essentially one of the oldest "super heroes" built for humans who identify as women.
Pathfinder 2 already has the witch class, naturally. As far as I can recall, the 5e system never got one. Not in a book named after a witch, not in a book highlighting the dark domains of horror, or any other official expansion. The witch deserves to be a first-class class in Tales of the Valiant.
Heck, personally I'd have sacrificed either the sorcerer or warlock for a witch class, but there's no need for that now. Kobold Press is (at the time of writing) raising funds to finance a Players Guide 2 for Tales of the Valiant. If you're interested in getting the witch class, and you havve some spare GP, go help Kickstart the book! It's time to get one of the most famous and infamous female-specific fantasy legends into a Player's Guide.