Then why do you use personal anecdotes constantly?Originally Posted by stephkyle7
If a woman can meet the physical requirements, I'm fine with her being in combat.Originally Posted by stephkyle7
But in every other instance where women have "broken down the barrier" eventually the physical standards get lowered because there are virtually no women who can meet the requirements.
Your argument is that there are rare genetic exceptions that creates women that are as strong and as fast as men. There really aren't. If a woman has as much upper body strength as a man, she is going to be really ****ing slow. Those women who do marathons and can beat you in a race, can't lift ****.
So, if there are some women out there that can meet the male requirements, they are the exception to the rule. The very small minority. Is including them in combat roles worth the inevitable reduction in the physical requirements for combat troops?