Women in Combat Arms

== Rebuttal == I will organize my rebuttal by responding to the titles of each section in Con's argument. "Introduction" - Here, Con highlights that men and women are biologically different. Con says "On average, males were stronger, more aggressive, etc..." I agree, and I said as much in my opening argument. But so what? I am not advocating that the average woman off the street go into combat arms, I am talking about above average women like SGT Leigh Hester or CPT Kristen Griest (first female Ranger graduate). These women proved they were just as physically tough and strong as their male peers. Once again, why should the exceptional women who CAN meet and exceed male standards be excluded from serving in roles for which they qualify? Con seems to imply that women are not as aggressive or lethal as males, but fails to explain why. I wonder if Con would be willing to explain why SGT Hester was not aggressive enough during the ambush in Iraq? "The Obvious" - Con says that women should be excluded because they can get pregnant. So, in a sense, Con is arguing that because something bad MIGHT happen within a group, that group should therefore be excluded outright. But the military does not adopt such a policy for virtually any other behavior. For example, far more military men (32.2%) abuse alcohol than military women (8.1%) [1]. This obviously makes military men more likely than women to commit alcohol related offenses such as DUIs and disorderly conduct. Would these risks therefore justify excluding men from combat service? Of course not. Instead, we hold individuals accountable for individual behavior. If you get a DUI, you are kicked out of the Army, and that's the end of it. The same can be applied to female pregnancies in the military. And, lest Con argue that it's different because males cannot possibly get pregnant, then let's apply this logic to prostate cancer. Only male soldiers can get prostate cancer, so should men be excluded from combat because of this risk? Of course not. If a male soldier is diagnosed, he is simply removed to receive treatment and his unit continues to function just fine. The same would (and does) happen for pregnant soldiers. "The Dynamic" - Con argues that sexual tension will create a debilitating distraction within male dominated infantry units. The implication here is that men and women cannot possibly work together because of....well, sex and stuff. But this argument has been disproven over and over with each new integration step. People said military culture would be destroyed by integrating black and white soldiers, and then by letting women into West Point, and then by allowing openly gay soldiers, and then by letting women into Ranger School, etc.... And each time, the prediction failed. Most recently, the three female Ranger School grads were subject to over 100 days of the most animalistic living conditions the military can offer - zero privacy, changing in the open, defecating into slit trenches, sleeping outside surrounded by young, aggressive men, etc... what happened? Nothing. No one was raped, no sexual harassment cases developed, and no one complained. Everyone just did their job. Of course, unfortunate instances do occur, but they are the exception rather than the rule and they apply to all demographics. Sometimes gay or minority soldiers are assaulted or harassed. Does this mean all of them should be excluded too? Surely not. The bottom line is that this "distraction" argument sounds like a compelling theory, but it continues to be disproven in practice. "Passed the Bar, but..." - Con implies that even if a woman does pass the standard, she could only do it once or twice before inevitably being injured. I would simply point once again to CPT Kristen Griest, who not only passed multiple phases of Ranger School back to back, but has now returned (only months later) to compete in the annual Best Ranger Competition - one of the most grueling fitness tests in the Army. How many times does she need to pass the standard before she is accepted? "Cautionary Tale" - Con implies that even if the standards start high, they inevitably will drop to accommodate women. However, Con has no proof this will happen. The only evidence Con sites is an opinion paper. Once again, Con cannot cite actual proof or practice, only theory. [1] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...