If that were the case, then even fewer females would get into the military, simply because females don't have the same amount of physical strength based on their genetics. There have been dozens of studies that have looked at the physical capabilities of both men and women, and men are statistically stronger. Sure, there are exceptions to that, but the general trend supports that men are stronger. Having the same scale to judge both by would only limit the number of females allowed into the military. Its like Albert Einstein was once quoted, "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing its stupid."
Not that I don't support females in the military, I just think that there are different roles that both men and women could fill based on their physical capabilities. For example, Navy Seals are some of the toughest people in the military, and becoming one requires intense training going through both physical and mental strength. If a women could pass the physical and mental tests to become part of the Seals, then fine. But that will still statistically be a predominantly male branch of the military as men genetically are stronger. However, women's brains are wired differently to be better at multitasking then men's, and other parts of the military would suit that sort of thing better. Like an Apache pilot for example, which I read in a book once to be compared to, "Playing a grandmaster chess player while on a roller coaster with one hand and playing a video game with the other." (Not an exact quote, I can quite remember it)
I'm not saying that a woman or man should be shunted into a particular position based on their sex, but I do believe that the military should use all of the strengths and weaknesses available, including those of their personnel.