Arguing back and forth about the PT capabilities of females is missing the point.
For combat arms units, my objection to allowing women in is the same as my objection to homosexuals: anytime the spectre of the ballistic impact of glistening genitalia enters the realm of small units, morale and discipline is adversely affected.
One may exalt the Israelis for what they've accomplished with regard to Equal Opportunity, but when is the last time the Israelis fielded a long-term expeditionary force?
In the close confines of a small unit that faces mortal combat day in and day out, I don't care what the aggregate number of pull-ups within the unit is. What I care about is the destructive force of x percentage of the unit getting a nut while y percentage remains celibate. This may not be egalitarian, this may not be fair, this may not conform to the equal rights for which we fight for the population at large. So?
If the purpose of combat arms is to field a cohesive, all-for-one-and-one-for-all unit, then sex--homo or hetero--needs to remain outside the domain of the unit. Anyone who thinks our society has evolved beyond such quaint notions as love, jealously, and vindictiveness is setting up the combat arms for an epic fail. Put Othello, Desdemona, and Iago in the same Infantry squad (or ODA) and see how that works out.