That doesn't mean that ALL WOMEN are weaker than the average man.

Statistics lean heavily in the favor of males that this will be the case 9 times out of 10. If there are men weaker than women then chances are that they won't apply for roles in the military, police or fire services.

So, a pretty pointless argument.

Just because a 100 men are physically stronger than a woman does not entitle them to a job, that she is more qualified for all round.

Are you implying that men couldn't do everything a woman could? Yeah, no, that's misandry. Besides, I'm talking about combat roles -- which men are definitely going to be more suited for than women ever will.

There's a reason the physical assessments exist, to choose the best, within both genders.

The problem is that there's hundreds of men that is just as qualified as the woman and is physically stronger, faster and durable than she is. So, there's really no reason to pick the woman outside of diversity quotas.

If you think that women should be taken out of physically demanding jobs (as a traditional man's role) then shouldn't men be removed from jobs traditionally invovling women and their stereotypical capabilities?

No, because men are capable of doing these things. Women are not capable of being as physically strong as peak level males let alone average level males without the assistance of testosterone.

Just because something is biologically true for an average human, doesn't mean it is applicable to everyone on a large scale.

You're trying to hush up the reality here. It is absolutely applicable on a large scale because the only ones that will apply for those roles are physically strong men and the ones that aren't will be turned away.

Meaning that you're left with a pool that consists of physically fit males. So, you can't argue this point at all. It is utterly ridiculous.