Women in Combat Arms (2)

For this round I've decided to triple down!On Equal Standards"there is no reason to believe that elite females cannot pass elite standards."But there is reason to believe that they cannot excel pass elite men. Pro has acknowledged this himself, "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." Pro says, this is not the argument. But if the point of elite standards is to recruit the best and most capable soldiers in the first place, why then are giving up a male spot to Special Forces Selection to the obviously less qualified female candidate? It makes no military sense to give up these limited spots to females (and suffer the costs of having weaker units) when men clearly have more fighting potential. "Does Con seriously believe there are no women who can run 2 miles in under 13 minutes?"Not too many. And the fastest runners are in fact men. Again, my point is men make the best soldiers, and I only want the best."not everyone in combat service is elite."Everyone in Tier 1 Special Forces is elite. If not, then you have convinced us that we should definitely consider raising the standards."Because of this fact, there is a range of abilities that are deemed sufficient for service."Not for special forces. They're only after specific qualified individuals with unique talents & skill sets who can pass and exceed high standards."Therefore, it follows that females don't have to be the best."Yes they do. Only elite females have a remote chance of competing against men in athletic competition, and the three women who passed Ranger school were in fact the best the female kind had to offer. Unfortunately however, men still scored disproportionately higher and are biologically proven to be more capable soldiers."See if she can meet the standard, then decide."Not the point. The soldiers who are exceeding the standards are men, and its more soldiers like them that we should recruit for our elite units.On women competence in combat"'Courage and valor' is not the same thing as combat proficiency." Really?"Yes really. Otherwise suicide bombers, berserkers, and religious fanatics would make the best infantry soldiers.But here you go. It took amazing guts for this young girl to become a Marine, but attitude only gets you so far:"I'm talking about the elite exceptions - why should a woman who passes Ranger School be blocked from the infantry when most MEN don't even pass Ranger School?!"Because:1) Women make men perform worse:https://www.washingtonpost.com...2) Women will take MOS selection spots away from male candidates though quotas:http://www.marinecorpstimes.com...3) Women integration is proven to negatively effects unit cohesion and forces soldiers to undergo "unconscious bias training":http://www.military.com...4) A woman can get pregnant, and will therefore risk becoming out of shape, leaving the service, and forfeiting the taxpayer's investment:https://bpb.opendns.com...5) Admitting women risks politicizing the military and lowering standards for all (as what happened at West Point)."well, only 3 women have passed Ranger School, but most won't..." (paraphrase). So what?" It means that women have not proved combat proficiency comparable to men. If women were equally as capable as men, then they would graduate in equal numbers and score just as high. On Unit Cohesion"[Sexual Assault] is not a reason for exclusion. Again, individuals are responsible for individual actions."Not in the military. In the military, commanders are responsible for individual actions, and they have a duty to ensure that their units are free of any distractions and safety issues that could impede on mission objectives - including harassment & sexual assault.But as it stands, our infantry forces are now being forced to undergo mandatory "unconscious bias training," because integrating women has proven to be one the most efficient methods of reducing unit morale: 2/3 male marines and 1/3 women marines do not trust women in infantry combat:http://www.military.com...85% of the Special Force community also, does not trust women in combat:http://cdn.defenseone.com... And yet, despite all the talk that these statistics are undeserved, why then are women are admitted into the military on lower fitness scores then men, and still not at all eligible for the draft? On gender equality "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." And yet "the trend" has always been that men are always going to be best physical athletes. Men hold the great majority of Olympic records, and have the records for the most mass, agility, and bone density. There will never be a female basketball player who will ever dunk a basketball on Lebron James, pitch faster than Nolan Ryan, or run faster than Usain Bolt. There will also never be an unathletic fat person (for all the talks of unfair discrimination) allowed into the military.Men and women, therefore, are obviously in different leagues, and this great society "trend" Pro talks about ultimately ends with biology. The bottom line: Pro wins the moral argument, but not the military one. Our discussion for including women into combat and infantry roles has largely been driven by society calls for improving political equality, rather than maintaining military effectiveness. Pro has admitted this himself, "discriminating based on gender justice is unjust," and yet neither Pro nor the DoD has ever proved how incorporating women into our ground combat units constitutes as an effective force multiplier or even maintains combat effectiveness. It is not enough for the advocates of women soldiers to point to a very capable minority and say "see?" without understanding anything more than the PT test. All this time research and studies have shown that men make better soldiers, and that including women into mixed units actually harms unit performance, safety, cohesion, and risks lowering standards. Women have no outstanding combat records to speak of, and if anything else, should not be included into elite units. And while I do sympathize with Pro here, it is not totally unreasonable or unjust to say that military needs trump our needs for gender equality. **Special thanks to Pro for hosting this debate. And thank you for your service.