That's not what I'm arguing at all and it's disingenuous to frame the argument that way.
If they want the requirement to be an effective soldier is to be able to toss a pack of a certain weight to the top of a wall, then make it a training requirement and I'm sure suddenly lots of women would be able to do it.
By framing this discussion as men are stronger than women, you're technically right, but it's a meaningless measure.
The actual question is, can trained women be strong enough? That's what they were trying to simulate but they cheated and stacked the deck against the women. And your statement is meaningless against that measure.
And the other disingenuous part of the 'tests' is that was every man in a squad able to carry a wounded man? Or did the squads just tend to volunteer the strongest person each time which by the laws of average, because men are on average stronger than women, would tend to be a man? So it's another massaged statistic.