The question of equal standards has to be considered from your physical fitness objective.
In the case of pilots, the goal is to have individuals with stamina, the ability to withstand G, the strength to operate the controls (not much in modern aircraft), and the ability to take care of themselves if shot down.
So it is not so important that a woman have the same strength as a man or be able to run as fast, which for a woman would be at higher level of fitness. Instead, experts have to set a bar for women which is testable, yet scores for an equivalent level of "fitness." For example, given that women are smaller and have less muscle density, does a woman who can run a 10 min mile have the same physical endurance as a man who can run an 8 min mile? (Or whatever the equivalent score is.) Do we expect that a woman who scores a 300 will be equally capable, physically, of operating an aircraft as a man who scores a 300? This is a difficult standard to measure.
Now, if we are talking infantry, or armor, that is another question. A woman would be expected to hump the same load, keep up with her squad on the march, be able (with one other) to pull someone out of a wreck or off the field, etc. This requires equal standards. (People love to argue that a woman couldn't pull a fellow soldier off the field alone... well, many guys couldn't either, esp when the casualty is much bigger. So this isn't a realistic expectation. But she should be able to carry one side of a litter, or drag one side of the body.) In these roles, there are objective, measurable, strength and speed requirements which have nothing to do with individual fitness and everything to do with job performance.
That said, there are women in combat right now, despite our laws against it, because of the nature of this war. I'm sure there are a lot of lessons being learned over there about what works and what doesn't, and if they can make it past the PC/PA screen, we might actually hear about them.
