Men are better than women in combat

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I haven't seen any evidence here that women shouldn't be allowed in combat, or that women are not capable of it. That's because there is no such thing as women. There are individuals who are male and individuals who are female, and some of each try to become soldiers. There are also different jobs within the military, which should have different minimum requirements, as has already been discussed. No one in their right mind would say that a woman should be held to different requirements than a male applying for the same job; that is sexism in the guise of "political correctness", and serves neither female nor male soldiers. If you speak to female athletes who apply for the jobs that are currently only open to male athletes (because, let's be honest, almost nobody here would qualify for those jobs either), they do not want the standards lowered, either. The two female Rangers are a case in point.

The entire OP and thread are about differential standards for male soldiers and female ones. And yes, that is harmful to the military and to the unit integration.

The rape argument is unworthy of discussion; it is no more to the point about their capacity to be equal members of a combat unit than it is to the point that racists didn't want black members in white units in the 1940s, when the military was ordered desegregated. It also ignores that men are commonly raped in the military, as well, and even though it's not at the same astounding rate that it occurs for women, the numbers are still shocking and significant. It speaks to a military culture that needs to change drastically, and that is all.

The reason I bring up the "there is no such thing as 'women' but only females who become soldiers" line is that you cannot describe individuals as comprising a general category, and then apply the average number to the individual, because it does not apply to that individual. To show why, let's ignore gender and violence for a moment, and talk about rocket science:

The average IQ of a person is 100, and 90% of the population is between 90-110 IQ. Only one out of ten people is outside that range, and since only half of those are above that range, only 5% of people have 110+. I have an IQ in the 150 range, so I might qualify to become an astrophysicist or engineer for NASA... but I would first have to pass a rigorous set of tests, including a huge amount of differential calculus and other mathematics, applied physics, chemistry, etc. Rightfully so! I know from personal experience that, smart as I am, I have enough difficulty with certain kinds of advanced mathematics (my brain is more "tuned" to verbal comprehension and pattern-seeking than to calculating) that I would be a poor fit for a job at NASA/JPL. But if I did somehow manage to take the exams and join the team at NASA, the very last thing that should matter is that I belong to a category (human beings) that, in general, is 95% incapable of even beginning to qualify for the basic requirements for that job. Of the remaining 5%, only about 20% of those really qualify, so about 1% of the population, and even among that 1% of the population, very few actually make it because the requirements are (rightfully) stringent.

Should I accomplish all those things, only to be told at the end that "in general", men are not qualified for that job, I would be horrified. If I found that I had been held to lower standards for entry because I belong to any particular sub-group (say, "those with penises") of humanity, I would be even more appalled. The same exact situation applies to women in combat. I would rather have Rhonda Rousey at my side in hand-to-hand combat than a copy of myself-- why? Because she could kick my ass, hands down, even though I am in great shape and have studied martial arts since I was five years old. Her vagina doesn't enter into this equation.