According to the military, the military will not need to lower its physical standards as it opens direct combat jobs to women.<quoted text>
Target shooting, home defense and military operations are not the same. This was all covered in earlier post, which I assumed you missed. This is rather obvious, but I will go over a bit since you asked:
Yes, having a gun is a great equalizer when it comes to women vs. men (or young adult males vs. the elderly, the lame, the sick or the female). That's rather obvious. If someone is breaking into a young woman's apartment intent on rape or murder, she's almost always better off with a firearm, assuming a rudimentary understanding of its use and due caution. The IDEAL outcome is no shots fired, but rather the presence of an armed victim causes the perp to flee. War is quite different.
Target shooting is a sport. There's no intent to kill anything. Normally small caliber arms are used such as a .22. It has noting to do with this discussion, other than to note that women, with training, can perform it as well as any similarly-trained man. War is not target shooting.
Military operations are another thing entirely. Only very rarely is anything done alone or even in small groups. It's a team effort from beginning to end. Anyone who can't keep up with the standards drags the team down. That applies to EVERYTHING, not just to putting bullets on a target. Yes, marksmanship is important. But the ability to carry large numbers of supplies (bullets, med gear, water, food, comm, etc) and keep up with the others is probably more important. Warfare is more about logistics and maneuver than anything else.
The woman front-line combat soldier will be, on average, 60% of what you get for the same training & equipping cost of a man. The assets she brings to the unit are not her's alone. They're everybody's. If by bad luck she's shot dead in the first few minutes, her kit only gives the unit 300 rounds (vs. 500). Why? Because she couldn't carry the full load. If she falls behind on a march or a run for cover during an attack, she slows down the entire unit. If she can't fill 1000 lbs of sandbags in 1/2 hour, the next mortar attack may have a devastating affect. If she can't dig a trench quickly, same thing.
It's an easy (amateur) mistake to assume that marksmanship is all there is to military operations, especially front-line ground combat. That is simply not true. Much more time is devoted to physical conditioning, unit tactics, communications, movement and other skills than to weapons firing. A valuable skill? No doubt. But most definitely NOT the only factor. Not even close. If it was, they'd spend most of the time at the firing range. But they don't. That's because the military has carefully analyzed this and have apportionend training time & resources to match their utility in actual combat.
Ever since the industrial revolution the ratio of support troops to front-line combat troops has increased. I don't know the numbers for today's armies, but let's say it's 10-1. The leave plenty of jobs for women in the support field. Bringing them to the front lines is a foolish as deliberately selecting under-size, slow and more easily fatigued men for that job. This is all about fulfilling some liberal's notion of reality and has NOTHING to do with actual ground combat.
So regardless of gender, all individuals must be able to carry large numbers of supplies, carry 500 rounds, fill 1000 lbs of sandbags in 1/2 hour, etc