Women should be removed from combat roles.

The numbers do not stay relative to each other. When interpreting this data, it is important to take into account the fact that these are all averages. There are some women who perform better than men. There are some who perform worse. The average may be generally lower than the physical average for men, but this does not mean that women accepted into the military would be physically inferior. They met the requirements, therefore they will perform on the same level as men.I am under the impression that men and women train and are recruited on the same level and by the same standards because this is what the Secretary of Defense tells us. In an article put out by the Department of Defense just last February, "And while 'suggestions' have been made to lower standards for female Marines to meet quotas, Mabus emphasized it’s 'an unacceptable notion' for every Marine, especially those women who choose to compete for those positions...Standards can never be lowered for any group or any job. Standards will evolve as threats evolve, but they will evolve for everyone equally...The Army’s high individual standards performance and professional conduct will continue to be based on requirements of the position and nothing else." Later in the article, the Secretary of the Navy says that (http://www.defense.gov...) This proves that your postulation that people are accepted by different standards based on their gender or by any other factors is inaccurate. As to your assumption that women do not train on the same level as men, this is also untrue. From the same article: "The Marine Corps also is ceasing its tradition as the only service branch that separates men and women in boot camp." When the integration process is fully carried out and finished, men and women will be trained and recruited on exactly the same level.You say that the statistics imply the relative physical prowess of men and women. To understand this statistic, let's assume that "1" is the least physically capable out of each gender and "5" is the most. This is a completely made-up demonstration simply to show why these statistics you cite are completely irrelevant. Bolded is the average for each gender. "M" stands for men and "W" stands for women.MW54 53 42 31 2 1Say that the underline is the cutoff for physical fitness to be accepted into the army. The average is at "3" for each gender. You'll notice that in the diagram, the average woman is a step lower than the average woman in terms of physical strength. Does this prove anything? No. It simply means that there will be more men than women accepted into the army. The women that are accepted will perform at the same level as the men accepted. I understand that my diagram is an oversimplification, but it helps to convey the concept pretty well. So although these statistics do have some relevance, they only mean that there may be more men than women accepted into these combat roles. It says nothing about the women performing relative to men. You say, "Women, relative to men, will always be less capable in regards to physical prowess (excluding the rare instances)." This is the thing--you can't exclude the rare instances! These rare instances are the people who get accepted into combat roles. Excluding them is simply a way to manipulate the facts to promote your own argument. It's misleading and inaccurate.Your scenario about the squad also proves nothing. You have given no actual evidence to prove that women in the military perform on a lower level than their male counterparts. Your statistics about the general populace means nothing other than the possibility that more men will be accepted than women.You say, "And again, I emphasize, women and men, even post-training, are not equal, because the armed forces have different standards for them both, the female standards being the lower." This would prove your argument true...but this inequality in standards that you say the military holds does not exist.As for your final argument--why couldn't they just send hygiene products with food shipments or the like? To suggest that you couldn't ship in a small and relatively inexpensive product along with other necessary shipments is absurd.I believe that I have now offered a rebuttal to every one of your points.Eagerly awaiting your responses!