Replies

It is not only the fact that women usually cannot match male casual and peak output strength, nor that men generally have a longer reach.
There is also the fact that men tend to be more decisive in a linear objective solution scenario than are women.
There is also the simple fact of bone density - since men generally weigh more and are stronger and are pumped full of testosterone, our bones are denser - they have to be to sustain the forces our mass and muscle exert on our frames. That means that a backhand or punch that might merely annoy a man will usually damage a woman's bones.
There is also the simple fact of mass. Case in point: I am exceedingly strong for my weight, but I only weigh 150 lbs. Simple newtonian mechanics governs physical labor and combat. There are many things that I am not capable of doing as easily as a man who out-masses me by 30-50 lbs, simply because the principle of "equal and opposite reaction" effects my lesser mass more than their greater mass. Physics does not bow to PC.
I have known a few effective women fighters.
They were effective because they did not try to fight as men do, but used their female characteristics to advantage (dexterity, flexibility, greater per-pound leg strength, lower center of mass, and a certain female viciousness which most men cannot imagine let alone match). However, only a few, and even they could not stand against an equally trained man of the same mass, let alone a heavier one.
Reality trumps pipe dreams.
I wish the feminazis would buy a clue.