Correct, I agree with this. Set standards for what is required to do the job physically, without regard to sex, then stand by those standards.
Well, lets talk about this. As men and women are different, can we in actuality enforce the same standards? Do you think there would be no political pressure to push women into the ranks once these 'standards' are put in place?
Lets talk about Airborne School which I went through many, many years ago and is now fully itegrated.
The runs are supposed to be a sublime shuffle of 9 minute miles. However, every mandatory runs began at an absurdly differnet pace, that quickly washed out all or almost all the women and a few men. The women were retained because the pace was off, so .... back to the ranks. The men were sent packing. If these women were subsequently being sent to the same infantry units as the men?
There is also the case of Tennessee. She was just your typical 19 year old girl who quickly found herself on the short side of the standards. When she left, a dumb but horny 19 year old boy got himself washed out with her because he was in 'love' with her and had to be with her (until they got loaded up and sent, as failures, to very different places in the Army.)
That is the reality of men and women, young men and women, how make up the ranks of our Army. We are not talking about the female Harvard Valedictorian here.
Men and women are different, and they are treated different and even explicit standards exist they are not enforced equally. There exists inequality between the sexes, for that I apologize, but the infantry is not the tool to correct that inequality. The desired result is victory in battle, not removing societal peevishness.
I can't get into all female colleges, and yet I am able to live a happy and healthy life. Go figure.