Women should not be allowed to serve in Infantry

Conclusion: I believe I have fairly and effectively rebutted the majority, if not the entirety, of Pro's reasons for the claim that Women should not serve in Combat-infantry roles in the military. Personal Hygiene: not an issue; possibility of embarrassment and/or 'sexual harassment' does not qualify a blanket ban on women who do wish to serve in this position, no matter how justified such an argument may appear. At best, this particular example qualifies the claim that training for such a position should cover this aspect of warfare. Physical capacity: Again, this is effectively a non-issue; standards are not arbitrarily being dropped or waived due to the gender of the applicant for such a role in the military. Women who do not meet physical standards for such a position will be unable to be employed in a combat role, and women who are unable to keep this standard as part of their ongoing level of personal fitness will obviously not be able to continue working in such a position if they fall below what is required of them. As I have already stated, even if most women won't be able to meet physical requirements for such a position, it is still arbitrary and unfair to exclude those who do meet the requirements from joining purely due to their gender. Mental effectiveness: Nobody is ever 'ready' for combat; military training is two-thirds devoted to bringing one out of a civilian mindset and actually preparing them for the harsh realities of warfare and combat, mentally, emotionally and psychologically. This is a basic aspect of what military training actually is, and women will obviously be required to undergo this exact same training in order to actually qualify for such a position. Women are not 'immune' to this training, and as stated any who are unable to meet minimum standards will obviously not be able to be employed in such a position; again, this simply does not qualify a blanket ban on those women who do meet those standards. Human anatomy: Of course, female anatomy differs from male anatomy; you have not shown how female anatomy precludes their involvement in harsh physical activity, up to and including actual military combat. You have not shown how male anatomy is actually 'suited for combat', as you effectively claimed in the first round, or how potential male ability to engage an enemy or endure physical hardship is inherently greater than potential female ability. One case of a woman 'breaking down' after physical stress does not a good argument for banning females from this particular 'type' of stress make. Cost effectiveness: While I acknowledge that the cost of training a female sufficiently to be employed in a combat position, against the benefits such a soldier may provide, is higher than that of the average male in the same situation; this does not mean that it is genuinely 'too expensive' to train females and 'get your money's worth' back out of them in service. Indeed, this was only indirectly part of your argument, and unless you can show that training female soldiers for combat is prohibitively expensive for the benefits it provides, which you have not done, then this point is not in your favor. Selective service: I have repeatedly shown how this point is simply not applicable to the matter at hand, as well as how hypocritical such a double-standard is when discussion of 'rights' is involved, and how the issue is a violation of rights completely irregardless of gender. This point is not in your favor, and never was; there should not be 'selective service' at all, as it is inherently a violation of rights, yet even if there was it would be hypocritical, sexist and offensive to both genders to apply a double standard to women with regards to this issue. You might think applying a double-standard 'protects' women's rights; I don't, and I believe such an argument is reprehensible, and good indicator of lack of understanding of what 'women's rights' actually are; the exact same as 'men's rights'. As well, your talk of other positions being available, while a good one, does nothing to further your argument. Some women may still very well wish to become involved in active, ground based, face-to-face (or 400 meters apart) combat, and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in any 'other' military positions she may be able to be employed in. Assuming she meets physical standards for such a position, denying her access to it, purely on grounds of her gender and with no regard for her actual physical fitness or suitability for the position, really is nothing more than sexism. And your 'air/drone-warfare' example, while certainly interesting, again doesn't further your argument; this actually seems to be a blatant contradiction of your earlier arguments and examples of just how grueling combat-jobs are, and how physically fit one must be to be employed in such a role. In fact, this almost seems to hurt your argument more than it helps. Indeed, this has nothing to do with 'necessary'; a women wants to be employed in a combat position, and meets the physical standards for that position, and will from all appearances perform quite proficiently in such a role. A blanket ban that prevents her from being employed in this role, due to her gender, is again sexist, unfair and nonsensical, given that by meeting the physical standards she has proved that she is the '1 in 100' capable of being an effective infantryman.