While physiologically and biologically there is a lot of truth that was written; albeit not popular; I think the real question is: "Is it enough of a difference"?
Here's the simplest analogy I can think of.
I have a Corvette with a 427 cubic inch engine in it. You have a ford focus with a 122 cubic inch engine in it. My corvette has a bigger engine (Heart). The transmission can also help make it go faster than the Ford Focus. HOWEVER: We BOTH use our cars to travel on a 60 mph highway for 30 minutes each day to go to work. Does it really matter if my Corvette can go faster than your focus? I don't NEED my Corvette to go faster. Yes, it has more reserved energy available, but do I need it. If I NEEDED to pull a trailer or a boat, would that larger 427 engine in my corvette be MORE EFFICIENT than a 305 cui engine in a pickup truck that has a transmission and suspension better designed for pulling.
In other words: It doesn't matter if a man's physical and biologic capabilities are stronger/faster/etc... than a woman's, IF the additional capabilities aren't required. We need to separate "COMBAT" from "JOB or MISSION". A fighter pilot can be in "COMBAT", but you don't need to be 200 lbs, able to bench press 300 lbs, and run 1/4 mile in under 1 minute. However: A Navy Seal or Air Force PJ is ALSO combat and might need to be able to carry a 200+ lb person, they might need to be one of the fastest in running. Their physical requirements; and even emotional/psychological requirements might be such that a man would have an "Easier" chance of accomplishing such tasks.
But because we can't deal with "Averages"; and because each individual is unique and different; we need to simply state the requirements and standards for a particular JOB or MISSION; combat relevant or not; and allow those interested in such a job to "try" for it. If a job like a green beret, seal, etc... anticipates being able to climb a lot of ropes up and down buildings, bridges, etc... and the standard is set for doing 100 feet in "X" seconds: then that's the standard. If a person meets ALL the standards, then they should be allowed to perform in that job. And the job may require emotional/mental/psychological standards also. Applicants need to be tested in these also for acceptance and qualification.
Basically, we need to neutralize the gender requirement. HONESTLY LIST the requirements for a job. Physical, emotional, psychological, height, weight, strength, etc... List ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. And that is all you worry about. THEN: You have the "Pregnancy Theory". (NO, I'm not talking about a woman getting pregnant). Pregnancy theory means: DEFINITIVE YES OR NO!!! Which means.... YOU ARE.... OR YOU"RE NOT. Once the requirements/standards are set.... A person PASSES those standards, OR THEY DON'T. There is no "In between". Doesn't matter if they are male or female; gay or straight; black or white; tall or short; etc... They pass the standards or not. There are SO MANY DIFFERENT jobs/missions that are combat oriented; to say that a woman can't be in combat is simply ignorance. An individual woman might do real well in passing the standards to be a tank driver, but might fail at becoming a seal. An individual male might do well at becoming a PJ but fail at becoming a fighter pilot. COMBAT and the Jobs/Missions "Within that Combat role" are 2 totally different things. Simply create practical and other standards for jobs/missions/etc... and allow "INDIVIDUALS" to apply or attempt those jobs if they're interested in them. If they pass the standards/requirements, then they can perform in that job. If they can't, then they don't perform in that job.
I won't get into the whole "Emotional" side of the argument. e.g. woman captured; tortured; man's instinct to protect women; etc... Why? Because I've seen BOTH men and women in similar situations. I've seen BOTH men and women who handled the stress in the middle east and panama "under life threatening" situations BOTH handle them cool, calm, and collected; as well as panicked, emotional, crying. I don't believe that either gender has a market on their emotions. Our military and "war time" environment, is not the same today as it was during vietnam, korea, WWII/I. It's not even the same as the 80's when I remember Panama and Libya. Society might have an emotional opinion of a woman in combat, but the military shouldn't have an emotional opinion. Most military personnel couldn't care less. Just like with gays in the military. But in society, the american people will react different when a newspaper article says: "25 year old soldier died. He left behind a wife and 2 year old son....."; compared to: "25 year old soldier died. She was the mother of a 2 year old son". But that's society, and will be handled separately.
But for the military; it's quite simple. Establish honest, accurate, and meaningful standards and requirements for the jobs/career fields. Establish the physical, emotional, academic, psychological, etc... requirements. Then; allow ANYONE who wants to become that career field, apply. If they pass all the physical, emotional, academic, psychological, etc... requirements; then then can be in that job. I don't care about physical FITNESS. I care about PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES!!!! If they believe you need to be able to carry 200 lbs, then that's the requirement. If you have to be able to run 5 miles in "X" amount of time, then that's the requirement. Man or Woman.
Sorry for writing a novel, but there IS a difference between men and women. And SOMETIMES those difference are significant for what is trying to be accomplished. (e.g. I suck as Breast Feeding. "No pun intended"). Sometimes those differences are irrelevant. If the requirement is to travel 55mph for 30 minutes a day, on a straight and level road, then it doesn't matter if the Corvette with the 427 is 4X bigger than the ford focus. The ford focus can easily meet the standard. Same with people. You can lift 300 lbs; I can lift 200 lbs. But if our job only NEEDS us to lift 150 lbs; does it matter if you are stronger???? Nope!!!!
