Women in combat arms jobs

While reading today's Albuquerque Journal, I came across an article by a syndicated columnist that was full of manipulative language, heavy bias, and questionable scientific "facts" that unfortunately reminded me of some of the people we've been reading about lately.
The article was Jonah Goldberg's "Can female soldiers fight the fight?" in which he questioned the recent decision to allow women in combat arms jobs. In it, he says,

"It is a common habit of many liberals and self-avowed centrists to preen about how they don't deny science and evolution the way conservatives do. Ironically, on this issue, it is the opponents of women in combat invoking the scientific data that confirm a fairly obvious evolutionary fact: Men and women are different. For instance, at their physical peak, "the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male," notes Mackubin Thomas Owens in a powerfully empirical article in the Weekly Standard."

Nobody can deny that men and women are physically built differently. That is indeed a "fairly obvious evolutionary fact." But that statement doesn't make the example that follows a fact as well. Who is the "average woman" Owens refers to? How old is she? Is this "average woman" a soldier, a civilian, active, or sedentary? What does it mean to be at her "physical peak?" Is the "50-year-old male" an athlete, a veteran, overweight, a modern American? How is "aerobic capacity" defined and measured? I tried looking for the original source of this data, with no luck. There is nothing solid or informative about this statement. The only thing it does is produce images in the readers' heads of what they personally think an average woman's abilities are, what they think a 50-year-old man's abilities are, with an equal sign in the middle and the reader's biases warmed up for the rest of the article, that describes neither average women nor 50-year-old men.

The data for the "average woman" shouldn't matter anyway. For one thing, you don't need insane physical strength to shoot, fly, or otherwise fight in dangerous areas. Women are already doing these jobs unofficially. Secondly, you don't find "average" in Navy SEALs, Special Forces, etc. The "average woman," regardless of age, occupation, or anything else, couldn't meet the physical requirements for Special Ops, Navy SEALs, etc. today. Neither could most men. That's the point of being elite. And yes, it will always physically be harder for women to reach that level, but to say that average women are as fit as middle-aged men as justification for excluding them from the very opportunity is outlandish.

I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue; there absolutely are. But as long as the physical requirements for combat arms jobs are the same for men and women, the physical differences between men and women shouldn't matter. If a 5'5" and 120-pound soldier can't physically handle the job, then restrict them from it based on lack of ability, regardless of whether that soldier is a male or female. But putting aside all the other logical fallacies and clear political biases in his single paragraph, Goldberg's proof for women's innate, unconquerable, and universal physical incapabilities reminded me of all the scientists in Mismeasure of Man who also used irrelevant or questionable data with short-sighted interpretation to prove a point.

Goldberg's article: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/29/opinion/la-oe-goldberg-women-in-combat-20130129
Owens' article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/coed-combat-units_697822.html?page=1