Women in Combat Arms (2)

Thank you Con. == Rebuttal == Notice that almost all of Con's points contain qualifiers such as "generally," "most," "traditionally," and "average." Such language renders Con's argument irrelevant, because I am not talking about the average, general population of women. I am talking about above average - the women with exceptional strength and toughness, as I made very clear in Round 2. So, let's go through Con's argument line by line: 1) "Men are generally physically superior to women..." - I agree. But I'm not talking about general trends. I'm talking about exceptional individuals who prove they can exceed the standard. When soldiers are measured on individual merit, it's undeniable that some females will prove physically superior to some males. To believe otherwise would be extremely naive. 2) "Most males are overwhelming[ly] stronger than their female counterparts" - Again, I agree. This does not hurt my argument. See above. 3) "Elite female athletes are barely stronger than your average males" - EXACTLY! So why shouldn't that elite female be allowed to join the ranks of fighting men? If there is at least one single "average" male currently serving in the infantry, why shouldn't an elite female also be allowed to serve? Being barely stronger is still stronger, so wouldn't this be an improvement? 4) "Male bodies are generally less prone to injury..." Ok, perhaps that is "generally" true. But there are always exceptions. There are female athletes out there who are less injury prone than males. What about them? Once again, for Con's argument to work, he would have to show that not a single female in the human species has more endurance, muscle mass, and bone density than a male soldier. That would be an absurd claim. 5) "Men can't become pregnant. Mixed units can cause distractions." The concern of pregnancy is at base a concern about physical conditions that can take a soldier out of the fight. It's true, if a female soldier becomes pregnant overseas, she is immediately sent home and can no longer do her job. BUT - this concern applies to every demographic of soldier - male, female, white, black, gay, straight. Only male soldiers can get prostate cancer- should this exclude them? A black soldier might distract a white soldier - should this exclude blacks? A gay infantryman may be sexually attracted to another infantryman - should this exclude him? It's special pleading so say a female should be excluded because of the potential for pregnancy, but all other demographics are acceptable. A better policy is to simply hold individuals accountable for individual choices. If you choose to drink and drive and get a DUI, the army kicks you out. Yes, this hurts unit readiness, especially if that soldier was in a leadership role, but the organization moves on and continues to function just fine. It's ridiculous to think that removing a pregnant female from a unit would destroy unit cohesion and effectiveness. Soldiers are removed from units all the time, and the military continues to do its job. The "mixed units cause distractions" argument is extremely weak. Every demographic has the potential to cause "distraction." I'm sure black soldiers were a huge distraction to all-white units in the 1950s. Females caused huge distractions at West Point when it became co-ed in the late 1970s. Gay soldiers undoubtedly cause distraction and discomfort to very culturally conservative soldiers. And yet, none of these cases of "distraction" were enough to justify continued segregation and exclusion. In fact, the military is undoubtedly stronger because of the diversification of its ranks. The potential for distraction has never been enough to justify discrimination, and it should not be in this case either. 6) "Men and women are perceived & treated differently" - I fail to see the relevance here. Every type of person is perceived differently. Officers are treated differently than enlisted soldiers. Marines are perceived differently than sailors. Fighter pilots are perceived differently than supply clerks. This is not a justification for exclusion. If anything, the difference in perception of men and women probably stems from the fact that women aren't allowed to serve in these roles. Once they integrate, that will help change the perception significantly. 7) "The mililtary has traditinally been an all male endeavor..." - again, no relevance here. Before 1950, the military was traditionally a racially segregated endeavor. Before 1980, West Point was traditionally an all male endeavor, and before 1877, an all white male endeavor. Before 2011, the US Military was an all heterosexual endeavor, etc.... All these "traditions" changed over time and the military was better for it. None of these integrations caused the military to self destruct. This one is no different. Contention #1 - Con claims integrating females will lead to lower standards, citing the infamous "Dempsey Rule." My question would simply be - why would standards need to lower if women are already meeting the current ones? To date, 3 women have passed all MALE standards for US Army Ranger School, and more are sure to follow. It seems then, that these tests are not too difficult for women, and so the Dempsey Rule is defunct. Con suggests quotas of women soldiers will develop, but that has so far not been the case. There are no quotas for how many gay, or black, or hispanic soldiers need to be in infantry units. There's no reason to believe there will be quotas for female soldiers either. Con's cited source talks about raw recruitment quotas for females (this is nothing new btw...), but that is not the same as imposing quotas on females specifically in combat arms. To date, zero female marines have passed the Marine Infantry Officer Course, and so there are currently zero female infantry officers. Doesn't appear to be any quota there... Con's argument here is speculative at best. Contention #2 - Don't run social experiments in the military. First, I would counter that it is not a social experiment if you merely say "here's the standard. It's the same for everyone. If you meet it, you're in. If you don't, you're out." That's all I'm advoacting. That's not a sinister feminist experiment, it's equality. Second, I once again point to history - black soldiers were first (officially) integrated into white units during the Korean War. Females first graduated West Point in 1980. Gay soldiers first served openly in 2011. All of these could have been considered "social experiments." But that didn't stop them from happening, in fact, it only made the military a stronger and more diverse force. Con says society isn't ready for women to fill male roles, wear male style clothing, or share restrooms. Has Con's head been in the sand over the past 10 years? Society is OVERWHELMINGLY advocating for gender equality, unisex restrooms, ending gender norms, etc... Contention #3 - unit cohesion. I have already discussed this. Just because 2/3 of male marines say they disapprove doesn't mean a thing. That's how our system has always worked - the military obeys civilian authority according to the Constitution. Even if the military disagrees, they are legally bound to obey policies and orders issued by civilian leaders (Congress, Secretary of Defense, President, etc...). That's the oath they take. #4 - standards should be raised. Con seems to believe the military is (or should be) filled with super-athlete Arnold Schwartzenegger types. That's not the case. Google search images of combat soldiers from any historical war. What do you see? They mostly look scrawny, thin, unimpressive. You don't have to be an Olympian to be an effective soldier, you have to be smart, and tough. There are certainly smart and tough females out there who can do the job. If the standard is too high, your military will be very small. The bottom line: Some men can't meet current standards. Some women can. Why then is gender the discriminator, rather than the standard itself?