Women should just train harder

“The average women is not as strong as the average man, even if they were able to pass the bare minimum fitness tests. The average fitness for the whole unit is therefore lowered. ”

I’d strongly encourage you to take a statistics course.

The “average woman” is not being admitted. The woman who is able to meet the requirement is.

I did exactly the same training... lived together, trained together, ate together, worked together, cleaned together, polished together, ironed together, got tested together... clearly you haven’t ever been in the military lol. It’s not like I had a bucketload of extra time to put MORE effort in lol. In fact, I had less, because the wims had to provide a babysitting service as well.

The only thing we weren’t allowed to do together was serve on the front line. Because vaginas. (Or really, because penises.)

Lol he clearly has no clue about how biology works.

"WokeBro 2 believes transwomen "often" have testosterone levels below that of"cis women" 

This is an assertion that can be tested and verified - and, until he does, it can not be accepted as part of a discussion. His belief is not sufficient."

• HAHAHAHA This is of course not true at all but is a line i see repeated constantly by random TRA s on twitter. It's not true. he'll just have seen another random say it and he repeat it to try to win the argument. He has no idea what he's talking about. Repeat a lie often enough and people believe it.

@Bowlofbabelfish
I wasn't trying to explore radfem objectives, nor am I disagreeing with you. However, using radfem's current strategy it would seem you'll have to get past Hannah Mouncey and Co. first before those objectives are achieved.

@Mamaryllis

The exact number of physical tests, or your colleagues eventual resignation to having you amongst them, is irrelevant. Unless taking more than one physical test eventually put you on a par with the physical abilities of the average male in your unit?

Did you just... train harder?

Women could train all day and all night, and they will still be beaten by blokes who work half as hard. Because biology

Meh. Bugger off wonderfluid. Even the guys in my unit knew I was just as capable as them once they got past their internal misogyny. Interesting that you can’t
Your naïveté that discussion about ‘standards’ implies one baseline test instead of months of constant testing to meet a standard tells me you know diddly squat and aren’t really worth detailing the thread for. Nice try though.

wonderfluid

You misunderstand what radical feminism wants. It’s not primarily aimed at equality. It’s aimed at liberation.

We don’t want to be equal within the patriarchy. We want to take the patriarchy down

The 'dgd' comment in the above post was Coyoacan's.

Mamaryllis
"That’s not at all the same thing as saying ‘feminists believe women are as fast and strong as men’. It’s saying that some women are as capable of doing x job as some men are. And I speak as a 5’2” ex female officer that was frequently accused of cheating by the men in basic training because I was faster and stronger than some of my male peers. Women often have greater pain resilience and ability to withstand different pressures. We are all different.

Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles? Of course. Anyone that meets the standard should be allowed to. Why would you disagree with that?"

The average women is not as strong as the average man, even if they were able to pass the bare minimum fitness tests. The average fitness for the whole unit is therefore lowered. Unless there is an exceptional reason as to why a woman should be allowed in to that particular role then their addition to the unit, on average, will not improve it.

Mamaryllis
"
That was because ‘the wives and girlfriends wouldn’t like it’ though. At least it was harder to claim I wasn’t as good I suppose."

If you could keep up with the average member of the team then no, I wouldn't.

"So, WonderFluid, because some feminist(s) some time said that women would be as good as men at front-line combat and they aren't, my dgd shouldn't have a chance at competing in athletics?

Totally fair of course."

No one is stopping your 'dgd' competing in athletics.

DereksSexyPyjamas
"Can I suggest that we not let this get sidetracked into being about front-line combat? It’s a false equivalence, and really quite irrelevant to the subject of women in sport."

Not winning a sports medal because of the 'rights' of low-T trans women on the field of play however is wholly unacceptable because it's unfair and someone might get injured. However some members of this forum seem to think impairing the fitness, and therefore increasing the risk of death, within a combat unit is acceptable because it's their right as they've passed a bare-minimum physical test.

If you can't appreciate the hypocrisy of these two viewpoints being held by the same person, i.e. stating that physical reality is being denied (trans women in sport) and in the same breath, denying it (bio' women in combat roles), then you can't ask for the comparison to stop being made

It goes to the heart of why the OP encountered the sarcastic comment that inspired this thread.

women are always saying they can do anything a man can so we should just train harder.

I know someone who takes that line. 'Well, you wanted equality didn't you?'

It's surely a coincidence that his other political views are extremely right-wing.

Every time I see or hear a man say this, I can only assume the following: these men must really, really hate their mothers, sisters, daughters and all the other women in their families.

women are always saying they can do anything a man can so we should just train harder.

I know someone who takes that line. 'Well, you wanted equality didn't you?'

It's surely a coincidence that his other political views are extremely right-wing.

Can I suggest that we not let this get sidetracked into being about front-line combat? It’s a false equivalence, and really quite irrelevant to the subject of women in sport.

Interestingly, the army has just redesigned their combat fitness tests - because they realised that a lot of the old tests were simply grunt physical strength and bore little to no resemblance to what you'd actually be expected to do on an actual battlefield.

This is what I find interesting - it's like, the original tests were written to test that a person met a standard set with reference to average/trained men - not with reference to what the role requires.

For instance, I remember doing those assault classes on activity holiday at school - all the girls went under the cargo nets like whippets, but had trouble climbing the walls, the boys the exact opposite - simply because of height.

I realise that's a trivial example, but I see this in other areas - if a test is designed for the average man, of course the average woman is going to find it harder - she's 1/5th shorter for a start. The question is, is that 10' wall a reasonable requirement.

Next we’ll be told that women should just try harder to grow tall and then we wouldn’t be shorter (on average) than men.

I should have said 'the majority of females'

OP perhaps ask your friend, when women are being attacked by men why don't they just run away faster or fight back harder....

Oh, to live in a world where females were physically equal or superior to males.

So, WonderFluid, because some feminist(s) some time said that women would be as good as men at front-line combat and they aren't, my dgd shouldn't have a chance at competing in athletics?

Totally fair of course.

That was because ‘the wives and girlfriends wouldn’t like it’ though. At least it was harder to claim I wasn’t as good I suppose.

wonderfluid, your point is incorrect. Feminists do not claim that ‘women’ should be able to serve in combat infantry roles. They believe that anyone capable of reaching the required standards should be able to serve in combat infantry roles. Why would you wish to disallow that? (Other than the old chestnut that the men would want to protect the women which would affect group cohesion and endanger the unit blah blah sexist waffle.

That’s not at all the same thing as saying ‘feminists believe women are as fast and strong as men’. It’s saying that some women are as capable of doing x job as some men are. And I speak as a 5’2” ex female officer that was frequently accused of cheating by the men in basic training because I was faster and stronger than some of my male peers. Women often have greater pain resilience and ability to withstand different pressures. We are all different.

Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles? Of course. Anyone that meets the standard should be allowed to. Why would you disagree with that?

The responses to the combat question are, so far, typically rich in nonsense. Frontline combat isn't a computer game. A drone isn't going to carry your kit for you, or dig a trench, or haul your wounded fucking mate to safety under fire ASAP. Nor is it a place to expend significant resources accommodating one or two individuals out of every hundred, because you've read a gender studies book that says it should.

Time for a reality check:

www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/how-the-army-must-reshape-after-chilcot/

Competition is a test of skill and an end in itself, not a means of obliterating your enemy in order to impose your will upon them.

That might be true of someone who lives in a robust mental bubble, disconnected from their peers. Suffice to say most sports people don't think like that even if they're being polite about it.

Okay, for trans sports women maybe it is about obliteratingbthe enemy...

The women in combat analogy only works if both sides agree to slug it out with armies of Amazon warriors and one side sneaks in a few men evoked out in Womder Woman drag.

Combat isn’t competition. The point is to use every advantage you have to defeat the opposition, whether it be fielding Ninja assassins in invisibility cloaks, or napalming farmers armed only with pointy sticks.

Competition is a test of skill and an end in itself, not a means of obliterating your enemy in order to impose your will upon them.

Interestingly, the army has just redesigned their combat fitness tests - because they realised that a lot of the old tests were simply grunt physical strength and bore little to no resemblance to what you'd actually be expected to do on an actual battlefield.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/21/gender-neutral-fitness-tests-soldiers-enemy-does-not-discriminate/

(Apologies - it's behind a pay wall.)

And the other thing to remember is that armies tend not to fight one another in hand-to-hand combat any more... they have stuff like guns, and artillery, and drones, and shit loads of tech. Being stronger than the other guy is no longer the main thing at issue, and hasn't been for, oh, well over a century.

There are physical differences between men and and women that affect what they can physically achieve,

This does not mean that their brains are different. It does not mean that wome are inferior.

As a feminist, I would like the later and the former respected. Simultaneoulsy, Gosh that’s a lot to ask for.

It does mean that in some situations you might expect far fewer women to make the grade. Arm to arm combat for example. If a woman makes the grade they should not be excluded because they are a woman . But it should be based on making the grade. Not on their sex.