Women in Combat Arms (2)

My conclusion will be short, since Con has merely tried to double down on his previous argument. Equal Standards: Con again assumes that even the most elite females will merely "pass the bar" and skate by on the minimum standards. We can agree that aspiring to the minimum standard is not ideal, but there is no reason to believe that elite females cannot pass elite standards. The maximum male score for a 2-mile run in the Army Physical Fitness Test is 13 minutes or less. Does Con seriously believe there are no women who can run 2 miles in under 13 minutes? We can even agree that the best, most capable warriors are men, and that elite females do not have more fighting potential than elite males. It doesn't matter. That's not the argument. Why? Because by the very definition of the word "elite," not everyone in combat service is elite. The combat arms of large nations consist of hundreds of thousands of people. This is obvious - you need a big army to attack or defend against a big opponent. Naturally, some of those many thousands will be better than others. Not everyone can be the fastest or strongest. Because of this fact, there is a range of abilities that are deemed sufficient for service. As long as you fall into that range, you are allowed to join. Therefore, it follows that females don't have to be the best - most men are not the best either, by definition. If they fall into that range of abilities the military deems sufficient to do the job, then how are they any different than the thousands (millions?) of male soldiers who moderately surpass the standard? Once again, this is special pleading. There is no reason to assume a woman is less qualified simply because she's a woman. See if she can meet the standard, then decide. Women proved competence in combat - Here, Con shockingly says "'Courage and valor' is not the same thing as combat proficiency." Really? If SGT Hester leading an assualt against an enemy ambush and killing 27 enemy is not combat proficiency, then I would love to know what is. These are EXACTLY the traits needed for a combat soldier. Then Con pivots back to generalizations - "well, only 3 women have passed Ranger School, but most won't..." (paraphrase). So what? Again, I'm not talking about the general female population. I'm talking about the elite exceptoins - why should a woman who passes Ranger School be blocked from the infantry when most MEN don't even pass Ranger School?! Sexual Assault - this is not a reason for exclusion. Again, individuals are responsible for individual actions. A woman is also far more likely to be raped by someone she knows - so should women avoid all acquaintances to eliminate this risk? If a man in an infantry unit is willing to sexually assault a woman, he doesn't deserve to wear the uniform anyway. It's not the woman's fault if a criminal is in her midst. Dempsey Rule - Con's response here is again, "because most women don't [meet the standard]." And again I will say, I'm not talking about most women, I'm talking about the elite few. They can, and they have met current male standards. Quotas: Even if quotas do exist (Con cited no sources), it doesn't mean standards will fall and soldiers will be less qualified. Standards have remained consistent, and women are already passing. Society and gender equality. Here Con writes: "my speculation is that society will declare that the military has a 'war on women.'" Exactly. Speculation. On the contrary, trends appear to be headed exactly where Con thinks they are not. True, females are not yet competing in male pro sports divisions, but they are trending there. Multiple girls compete on boys high school football and wrestling teams. The NFL just hired its first female coach last year. Women have broken into men's NASCAR and Golf. These are tiny steps, granted, but they show no signs of stopping. Indeed, an ESPN study concluded: "Dr. Cindy Chang, chief medical officer for the U.S. Olympic Committee, said studies have shown that men have greater upper-body strength than women, but added that studies that compare physical differences do so by comparing the averages. There are women who may be at the far end of the curve in areas such as leg strength, or have a body type that is beneficial for certain sports." [1] (emphasis mine). The bottom line: Women have proven they can meet extremely grueling, male-oriented standards reserved for elite forces (i.e., Ranger School). Many men have tried and failed to meet this exact same standard. Yet these men are still allowed to serve in combat, while the exceptional women are not. Once again, this means that gender is the standard, rather than the standard itself, which is unjust. *I did not respond to everything in the interest of brevity. Since Con chose to do the same last round, this should not count against either of us. Thanks again to Jingle_Bombs for a great debate!