I have almost got to the point I have difficulty even posting about it anymore, because it is clear that facts do not matter here. It is being pushed ahead by people who don't have the faintest idea of what real combat is. I have never been in combat (thankfully) but I have read enough to understand that it isn't any of the things that people pushing for women in combat think it is. Their idea of real combat is based on two visions they have:
Personnel sitting in an air conditioned room monitoring screens and pushing buttons, or a 130 lb woman kicking the butts of multiple men in a hand to hand combat, as seen in Hollywood.
The truth is that real combat is more like Edson's Ridge on Guadalcanal or Chosin in Korea. The entire engagement can hinge on the ability of one fighting hole to hold their ground in hand-to-hand combat. And every account I have seen indicates combat was, for many men, the most physically (and mentally) draining thing they had done in their entire lives.
Combat has nothing to do with providing equal opportunity. It has everything to do with surviving and winning, which are blind to things like sex, gender identity, race, or income level.
It has everything to do with preparation, training, equipment, mental preparedness, and physical preparedness, not always in that direct order.
And combat cares not at all that you have a 50-50 distribution of men and women, or that the portion of men contains a number of men who are not in great shape, or that a portion of the women are superbly fit.
All combat knows is that an average very fit woman would be unlikely to win a direct physical fight with an average man who is far less fit than she is. We wouldn't get points for putting women in combat, giving them an "equal opportunity". We would get dead women (and men, as a result) and lost engagements.
This graph below illustrates the salient points, that are not in question, and come from medical sources who have demonstrated a willingness to portray women as the physical equals of men. The hatched red area is the area the tells the story:
This has nothing to do with respect for women, which is how the people pushing for women in combat will take issue with.
It has everything to do with the logistics of supplying/mandating gender specific items and behaviors/processes, unit cohesion, mission capability, and at the fundamental level, the AVERAGE strength of a given combatant.
When one small thing can make the difference in actual combat between victory and defeat, we would stack our own table against ourselves by insisting on women in combat roles.