You may not believe that women shouldn't be allowed to serve but the previous article you linked sure did present something correlating to that opinion. They decided to reference a supposed fact that mixed gender units have a poorer combat record than those of all-male units, without linking any evidence I might add.
You're right many women don't meet the requirements to be at the highest levels of the armed forces, but neither do many men. How many of us here could be a Navy Seal? I know I certainly couldn't be one. Maybe we ought to start encouraging those brave enough to want to protect our societies rather than constantly put them down. The article makes an obvious attempt to say that women perform worse than men in combat situations (even if it does not state it explicitly), which obviously will be true in some cases just as it will not be in others.
The second article that you linked might be one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever seen. It could have been written by a TD reddit user. If women weren't capable of being in their units then they wouldn't have passed their training, the article even admits that officials have said this and yet it still goes on to accuse the American military of being some social justice warrior institution.
Furthermore, the article even makes a crass statement about the fact that women are promoted more than men, stating that it's obvious gender bias without any actual evidence that this is true.
I'm not saying that all women are up to the task. There is a higher female failure rate than men in regards to training. But that doesn't mean such heavy generalisations should be placed on women in the armed forces. I'm sure I could find many examples of exemplary female soldiers with a simple google search. The articles you have both linked carry a heavy bias.