The reason it seems weird is because the tests are designed for men, for roles intended for men. This is easier if we talk about police and firefighters but I'm gonna stick with military because it's ostensibly the hardest to justify.

When you have a war to fight, you build your strategy around the tools you have available. The Marines are a perfect example of this: their warfighting doctrine basically rests upon a tool chest consisting of a relatively limited collection of hard-wearing tech and a bunch of guys who can lift heavy things and run a long way. They built their doctrine this way for two basic reasons: 1. Tradition and history and 2. Up until recently putting women in the field wasn't really done (for a host of reasons that made sense if you were only really able to manage your roles in society with a very broad brush).

Given this, it is not surprising that with a set of tactics that works better as you improve your ability to run long distances and lift heavy things, putting women in the mix doesn't work so well - square peg, round hole.

People have made the mistake however of generalising this to women in combat in general. This is a mistake. It is perfectly possible to re-engineer your tactics to emphasise a different set of factors for success - accuracy, low bodyweight and small size (more per vehicle, easier insertion into zone), greater cooperation and lower rates of incarceration, improved ability to work with local populace ... the list goes on and on, and it's only getting more important as the nature of war and the technology we use to fight it changes. People like to laugh about how much a single Marine has to be able to pull to get their buddy out of a fire zone, but that's only because their buddy is a big heavy male. In the same space you could fit two females carrying a much lighter female, and they'd do the distance in half the time and be a much harder target.

So in a sense, the Marines are right to do what they've done - their doctrine derives its main advantages from strength and endurance, and so they test on those. But in another way they're wrong: when they fail to bring other body types into the mix - fit, determined humans - they lose the opportunity to diversify their tactics and thus limit their options on battlefields which are rarely won by brute strength anymore.