Since women aren't in infantry now these would be assertions without merit. Guesses at best.
Okay, so first, it was that women weren't equal to men. Now, it's that women aren't there, competing, so their assertions (even though they are coming from men who have done the job) are baseless...to you.
Somehow, I find their opinions more compelling than yours. Have you been in combat? By what is your opinion distinguishable as that of an expert?
It is an inherent issue that distinguishes men from women and getting pregnant while deployed is a problem.
Already addressed. Norplant them, for god's sake, since you're so concerned.
No they're not. These folks undergo training to the extent that by the time they are battle ready they are in peak shape, peak condition.
Says you. Other posters on the board who've actually served in combat have noted that there are men in the infantry who aren't particularly physically suited for the job.
Which opinion to choose?
There are not plenty of 21 year old women who are as strong as 21 year old men when both sexes are presenting in peak condition. There just aren't.
Again, more slowly, this time. They are not required to be EQUAL. They are required to perform the job responsibilities. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
How long will you persist in creating false arguments?
There may be exceptionally small men and exceptionally big women but these would be the exceptions, the rarities. In general, when you take men and women of the same age in peak condition there simply are not going to be PLENTY of women who have more upper body strength than men. So just saying it doesn't make it true.
Do you think that repeating the same, debunked argument will make it more true?
Perhaps when the job is a 9-5 well defined role. However being sent out with a unit on an actual battle mission is quite different. The job changes with a beat of the heart, the individual strength of any single member could immediately make the difference between life and death. If one person needs to have all the weight of their gear as well as being able to carry the entire weight of another person with all their gear and this becomes a problem because you have weaker women in the unit that is UNACCEPTABLE.
How is it more unacceptable than having men who may not be at the same level of all their peers? Do you believe that all men in the infantry are equal, physically?
When talking about whether or not women should be allowed to serve in infantry discussing the biological facts regarding the differences in upper body strength is NOT a logical fallacy simply because you like tossing that phrase around.
NO. It's a logical fallacy because you've shifted the grounds of discussion.
1. Male posters here have posited that they have served with females that they believe could perform the physical demands of the role.
2. They pointed out that some smaller males might be perceived as having difficulties, but that didn't stop them from making excellent soldiers.
Nowhere has the argument been that women must be or are biologically equal to men. That's your hangup. They just have to be equal to the demands of the job.
Further, are you now planning to eliminate all 35 year old and older men from combat since they may be out-performed by some 21 year old infantrymen? You realize, right, that the military already has differing physical standards for men and older men?
