If sex is irrelevant, why are conscripts usually men and boys?

[CornflakeMum]

Looking for a genuine intellectual discussion about this. Historically it seems obvious that the reasons are
a) men/young men (boys) are bigger, stronger
b) women are smaller, less strong and more likely to be responsible for caring & looking after children/ elderly parents

BUT
In the world we now live in surely male conscription is sexist and raises all sorts of issues:

• should young women be conscripted too?
• should transwomen be conscripted?
• should transmen be accepted as conscripts?
• could a man identify as trans to avoid conscription?
• in same sex couples with children should one partner care and one be conscripted?

Conscription in the UK ended in 1960 and at that time there were so many things women were not allowed to do, like open their own bank account without man to countersign, hold a mortgage without a man to countersign (if at all!), they had to give up work when they got married or at least when they got pregnant.

Now that women in theory have equality with men, even in the armed forces ( when I was in you had to leave if you had a baby and you were chucked out if they found you were gay) then if conscription were to be brought back, I'm sure it would be both men and women who were conscripted.

But I understand a fighting force is better and more efficient if it is made up of volunteers, not conscripts, so it's highly unlikely conscription would happen again.

I read a discussion about this recently on Reddit (sure we all know the demographics on there) and my opinion is that IF conscription had to happen, then they'd have to conscript both sexes however we can't deny biological reality. It would be far better to put women to use as drivers / logistics / nurses etc than on the front line actually fighting.

It's my opinion that (in general) men have certain physical and psychological traits that make them better suited to frontline warfare.

But I don't actually agree with conscription. One volunteer is probably worth twenty of them.

They still have different fitness tests for men and women though.

Of course women are already conscripted around the world eg Israel, Sweden Norway. And have served willingly on frontlines for decades. it’s just a biological reality though that men are naturally more expendable in a crisis, ie we don’t need so many of them to perpetuate our species.

It's an interesting question. I worked under a sergent when I was in who felt strongly that in a kind of total war scenario it didn't make logical sense to conscript women because they were more essential for social resilience. You could kill off lots of men and society would be fine but women were a different story as they could only have so many children to repopulate. And while that sort of scenario was unlikely, at least at the time, he felt it still informed people's instinctual responses.

Female and male bodies have evolved to do very different things and I don't think it's helpful, this narrative pushed by some (including superhero movies) that we're interchangeable, including on a battlefield.

In four countries, Israel, the Netherlands , Sweden and Norway, both sexes are conscripted for the army. In the Netherlands the conscription is then suspended indefinitely as we don't conscript anyone at the moment. But every 18 year old gets that letter.

And imo that is as it should be. Tasks can be allocated based on the sex you are as sex differences matter, but it is right both sexes are called.

@Ylfa

Of course women are already conscripted around the world eg Israel, Sweden Norway. And have served willingly on frontlines for decades. it’s just a biological reality though that men are naturally more expendable in a crisis, ie we don’t need so many of them to perpetuate our species.

I was listening to something the other day, but can't remember what, and it made this point. That if you lose a load of women to war, then you lose the next generation. Men in terms of perpetuation of the human species are more expendable.

In Western nations if conscription for men came in, we would see a massive boom in trans-identified individuals overnight.

The Occupational Exemptions in the Equality Act have this information regarding the armed forces -

'Armed forces:paragraph 4

Effect

797.This paragraph allows women and transsexual people to be excluded from service in the armed forces if this is a proportionate way to ensure the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.

798.It also exempts the armed forces from the work provisions of the Act relating to disability and age.

Background

799.This paragraph replicates the effects of exemptions for the armed forces in previous legislation, but narrows the scope of the former combat effectiveness exception so that this applies only to direct discrimination in relation to recruitment and access to training, promotion and transfer opportunities.

Example

• Only ground close-combat roles requiring Service personnel to deliberately close with and kill the enemy face-to-face are confined to men. Women and transsexual people are, therefore, currently excluded from the Royal Marines General Service, the Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps, the Infantry and the Royal Air Force Regiment only.'

Taken from - www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1

Though how 'the combat effectiveness of the armed forces' is measured, I'm not sure.

I was thinking about this the other day. Although I understand the arguments why women, especially those with young children, shouldn't go off to fight, I feel as a feminist that we can never make a claim to equality if only males can be conscripted. It feeds the men's rights narrative as it is so blatantly unfair.

I don't want to make this specifically about what's happening in Ukraine, but obviously those events have raised this question for me. Not least because of the 'all men aged 18-60' thing. For me that would be all my family (DH & 2 sons) .

I remember going through Tel Aviv airport and being shocked to see young 20 year old women patroling with massive guns!

Thought this was interesting, although it's US, not UK - 'Should women be eligible for US military draft?'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52274164.amp

Interesting points made above about women and social resilence and differences in bodies.

@Masdintle

Conscription in the UK ended in 1960 and at that time there were so many things women were not allowed to do, like open their own bank account without man to countersign, hold a mortgage without a man to countersign (if at all!), they had to give up work when they got married or at least when they got pregnant.

Now that women in theory have equality with men, even in the armed forces ( when I was in you had to leave if you had a baby and you were chucked out if they found you were gay) then if conscription were to be brought back, I'm sure it would be both men and women who were conscripted.

But I understand a fighting force is better and more efficient if it is made up of volunteers, not conscripts, so it's highly unlikely conscription would happen again.

Quite a few trans people have history in the armed forces and where possible continue to serve after transition. Where countries have national service and being LGBT is not illegal, gender identity is not a reason to be excluded and often transitioning is supported financially / medically. It depends how modern and progressive a society is.

Perhaps it would eventually come down to someone’s physical fitness, strength and size.

So perhaps exclude those caring for dependents, working in essential occupations, too old, too young etc.

Then your role in a conscripted force would come down to “fit for purpose. Ie some women would have the physical size and strength for frontline duties.

I read once that if we could go back in time a few hundred years ago, we would be surprised at how many adult women would be pregnant. With child and mother mortality many women spent most of their fertile years continuously pregnant. That may account for why women were never involved in front line duties. Also, I suppose that that for motivation and morale of the men, having their families at home, gave them something to fight for.

Interestingly, Israel has been reducing the amount of time that young people have to spend in military service, and the govt seems to be in favour of continuing to reduce it. Mainly it seems because it is cheaper, and because military forces are more effective if made up of volunteers rather than possibly unwilling/unenthusiastic conscripts.

Certainly the conscripts in the Russian army seem more open to demoralisation and disaffection, and they make up about 30% of their armed forces.

@CornflakeMum

I remember going through Tel Aviv airport and being shocked to see young 20 year old women patroling with massive guns!

I think that's partly the issue: at the moment equipment is designed for the strength, size and stamina of a default Western male body.

@Phobiaphobic

I was thinking about this the other day. Although I understand the arguments why women, especially those with young children, shouldn't go off to fight, I feel as a feminist that we can never make a claim to equality if only males can be conscripted. It feeds the men's rights narrative as it is so blatantly unfair.

Some might say it's blatantly unfair that only females get pregnant and risk their health and indeed their lives giving birth. Multiple times in many cases. But such is life and i think women more than pull their weight.

But it must be a choice, so anyone who meets the requirements and passes the tests can serve if they want but no one group is forced to. Everyone gets called up or nobody does.

@Floisme Sorry, I think that's a silly argument. I don't think you can seriously compare the risks of childbirth in modern times with the risk of fighting on the front line.

If we want equality of the sexes, then we can't single out one sex as being the ones that have to risk their lives to save their country.

I was terrific at dismantling (masdintling) my sub machine gun - the fastest in the troop. I was an excellent shot with a rifle. Really good at my job too. Couldn't run as fast as the men and I couldn't carry as much weight but I could carry all my own kit and was a fully trained and valuable soldier. Periods were a nuisance out on exercise but the Pill sorted that. No wars when I served but there would have never been a question of my fighting on the front line, the women were non combat troops only then. Don't think women can't do it because we're smaller and less strong.

[quote Phobiaphobic]@Floisme Sorry, I think that's a silly argument. I don't think you can seriously compare the risks of childbirth in modern times with the risk of fighting on the front line.

If we want equality of the sexes, then we can't single out one sex as being the ones that have to risk their lives to save their country.[/quote]
Of course you can compare them. I gave birth in the west and had a narrow escape and I've had health issues ever since. If you talk to mothers, you'll find my situation is depressingly normal. Every woman who gives birth takes a risk with her health and her life.

If women were conscripted, do we think we'd see fewer crimes of rape and sexual exploitation by armed forces? I'm thinking of the many, many cases where supposed peacekeeping forces have been found to be either raping local women, paying children for sex, or trading food for sex. Does this behaviour happen more because the troops are overwhelmingly male and so generates a culture where this is accepted?

In the past it was made very difficult for women to live independently and thereby avoid pregnancy and childbirth, and pregnancy and childbirth were far more dangerous than enlisting in the army. Women faced risk in other ways.

This war is really testing what happens when current ideologies are placed in a crucible of reality. Does civilians being rebranded as 'human shields' show that it really is important that words have universally understood meanings? Is free-speech a far-right dogwhistle when using the words 'war' or 'inavasion' can now lead to a jail sentence in Russia? Will Ukrainian men be allowed to self-identify themselves across the border or will we discover that everyone stops pretending that biological sex is a mysterious entity once tanks are being pointed at them?