Sherman123 said:
Other than anecdotal assertions is there any solid empirical evidence that individuals who meet the gender-neutral criteria shouldn't be allowed to serve according to their qualifications?
That's an interesting argument. "If we discount our experience, is there any evidence left"?
Well, it's worth noting that
female veterans report the same issues suggested above, not just
physical debilitation over time, but also
the inevitability of sexual relationships that destroy unit cohesion.
But if you are looking more for "the numbers", well:
Gender integrated combat units have “lower survivability,” a “reduced lethality rate” and reduced deployability.
Injury to female recruits skyrocket when they are required to perform the same training as men, causing women to become
8 times more likely to be medically discharged. ""
It is clear that there are differences in muscle physiology, bone architecture and body composition that interact to place women at a substantial disadvantage when training or working to the same output as males". Which, of course, is why
women in the military are already significantly more likely to suffer from musculoskeletal injuries, reducing unit readiness.
As a result,
substituting women for men in combat-collocated support units increases danger for everyone, while introducing a host of disciplinary and deployability problems that detract from unit cohesion, readiness, and morale.
And that, of course, is assuming they get there.
Non-Deployable rates for women are three to four times that of men and once they get there, women are
60% more likely to require medical treatment and
twice as likely to have to be medevac'd out, despite their current non-participation in infantry roles (which would cause those rates to increase).
The
US Army Study on Physical Requirements confirmed that "The Services... have expanded the military occupational specialties (MOS) open to women
purely as a part of the social concern for equality and have only paid lip service to combat readiness...
The Army’s own research indicates that the vast majority of women do not possess the lean mass necessary to meet the strength requirements for very heavy and heavy physical MOS’s."
Men
have denser bone structure, which allows them to take more weight and physical pounding. In combat they are
more immune to concussion and being knocked out (ie: more able to shrug off a blast and keep fighting). Men also have a higher
tolerance for pain and
faster reflexes, making them better able to initially engage the enemy and then continue engaging the enemy.
[Usual Response Here:
But What About The Israelis?]
Israeli commanders discovered that
mixed gender units underperformed in combat and took higher casualties, and so they pulled them off the front lines. The "Female infantry units" in the IDF perform comparable duties to our current Lioness program, and are part of a southern border guard with Egypt. They are no longer used as heavy infantry because Israel found out the hard way that it was a bad idea. Which it is.
