Not all of the males got a second try. The trainers and evaluators had to ask the question with all "can this person pass if given a re eval?" The pressure was on from above so the trainers had to cover themselves to ten decimal places when failing a female. Unless they were idiots they knew that they would probably have to justify their final decisions well above usual channels.
From my experience in the Air Force and comparing notes after that most of us saw a 80 to 90% failure rate for females in positions that required day to day heavy lifting.
No argument on anything you said. Usually a re-cycle is due to an injury or something that is correctable. If there are other factors — mental, emotional or a major physical limitation — you wouldn’t expect the training cadre to recommend a do-over.
And yeah, nobody is allowing the military to consider the economic side of the argument: ie. the relative washout rates. Do I want to train 100 female officers to find 2 or 3 who actually can do the job? IOW’s a 97% failure rate in training is a huge waste of resources.
In the real world, the actual failure rate won’t be that bad because the vast majority of female officers won’t select that kind of training if there is a real possibility that they won’t succeed. But the failure rate will still be ridiculously high unless the re-jigger the standards.
Not all of the males got a second try.