LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[carpedm9587]

Bull crap, these are combat roles...

Injury rates for enlisted women in infantry training were two-to-six times higher than for men. And on the Marines’ tough Infantry Officer Course (IOC) at Quantico, VA, only two out of more than thirty female officers passed – after adjustments were made in scoring requirements.

now we know that the first two women to graduate from Ranger school received special treatment and concessions to ensure their highly publicized success

interviewed confidential first-hand sources who revealed that the female trainees were forgiven major errors that would have caused men to be dropped from the course.

read the rest…

[seer]

read the rest…

Like the conclusion?

Women in Combat vs. Readiness

Four years after the grand women in the infantry experiment began, the Trump Administration should reexamine ideological goals and consider taking up the challenge stated by James Hasson in his book Stand Down:

“The time to roll back the misguided Obama-era “reforms” to the military is now . . . President Trump, as Washington pundits love to say, is a ‘disruptive’ president, one willing to buck trends, reject conventional thinking, and make controversial changes.” [28]

Constructive change will require new presidential orders to high-level officials, including Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley. Leadership is especially needed because General Milley, in his previous role as Chief of Staff of the Army, was responsible for implementation of deeply flawed social policies during the Obama Administration.

Dual-track problems with physical inequality and sexual misconduct are not getting any better. Instead of doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, all military officials should drop the “gender diversity” agenda and restore sound priorities that put mission readiness and combat lethality first.

Carp you don't know what you are talking about. Not only weren't you in the military, I doubt that you have any real contact with those who presently serve in combat roles. It is no place for women.

[carpedm9587]

Like the conclusion?




Carp you don't know what you are talking about. Not only weren't you in the military, I doubt that you have any real contact with those who presently serve in combat roles. It is no place for women.

No…the part where they cite the statistics for women failing the unmodified tests. They are less than 100%, ergo some women passed. That’s the point.

Let’s just cut to the chase.

My position: anyone should serve in any military position if they have the skills/capability for that position.

Your position: anyone should serve in any military position if they have the skills/capability, except women in combat roles.

I prefer my position and find yours sexist. It doesn’t appear to matter to you if they have the skills/capabilities, because they are women they should not serve.

[Diogenes]

No…the part where they cite the statistics for women failing the unmodified tests. They are less than 100%, ergo some women passed. That’s the point.

Let’s just cut to the chase.

My position: anyone should serve in any military position if they have the skills/capability for that position.

Your position: anyone should serve in any military position if they have the skills/capability, except women in combat roles.

I prefer my position and find yours sexist. It doesn’t appear to matter to you if they have the skills/capabilities, because they are women they should not serve.

Something known for almost a decade:

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...an-mixed-units


It's nice though that in your "let's cut to the chase", you include the ideological pejorative of "sexist".

[carpedm9587]

Something known for almost a decade:

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units


https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...an-mixed-units


It's nice though that in your "let's cut to the chase", you include the ideological pejorative of "sexist".

It’s the very definition of sexist. You would deny someone the opportunity to serve in a role for whIch they have the skills/capabilities on the basis of their sex alone. If you don’t want to have your positions labeled sexist, then don’t hold sexist positions.

Sorry…I am on my phone and thought I was responding to Seer. The point stands, however.

You are correct about me in the military, but not about knowing people in combat roles.

[Diogenes]

It’s the very definition of sexist. You would deny someone the opportunity to serve in a role for whIch they have the skills/capabilities on the basis of their sex alone. If you don’t want to have your positions labeled sexist, then don’t hold sexist positions.

You're ideologically committed to not see that, in general, women are less capable than men physically. You're not going to recognize physical requirements as part of the skills/capabilities. You're not going to see that any unit is only as strong as its weakest link, especially in combat. You're ideologically committed to reputation destruction of those who disagree with you.


Men and women are not biologically equal. Sexual dimorphism is a reality. It is not merely a matter "they are a woman", but rather "women are biologically less capable". The Marine Corps study found that in anaerobic power, the TOP 25th percentile of women overlapped with the BOTTOM 25th percentile of men. In both anaerobic and aerobic capacities, the TOP 10th percentile of women overlapped with the BOTTOM 50th percentile of men.

[seer]

No…the part where they cite the statistics for women failing the unmodified tests. They are less than 100%, ergo some women passed. That’s the point.

Good grief Carp, are you dense? It wasn't an unmodified test, it was the New Army Combat Fitness Test, modified to make it easier for women. It was all part of the Obama Administration's push for a “gender-free” military. And even there only a minority passed. Women could not pass the old Army fitness test or the Marine Corps fitness test. Never mind the fact that women are up to six times more likely to be injured, which is bad for combat readiness.

[carpedm9587]

You're ideologically committed to not see that, in general, women are less capable than men physically. You're not going to recognize physical requirements as part of the skills/capabilities. You're not going to see that any unit is only as strong as its weakest link, especially in combat. You're ideologically committed to reputation destruction of those who disagree with you.


Men and women are not biologically equal. Sexual dimorphism is a reality. It is not merely a matter "they are a woman", but rather "women are biologically less capable". The Marine Corps study found that in anaerobic power, the TOP 25th percentile of women overlapped with the BOTTOM 25th percentile of men. In both anaerobic and aerobic capacities, the TOP 10th percentile of women overlapped with the BOTTOM 50th percentile of men.

None of this makes one iota of difference to the general philosophy. It doesn’t matter how many women do or do not qualify, or how many men are stronger than women. The point is to have a test that determines skill/capability, and ANY person who can pass that test and has the skills for the job should be permitted to do the job. Your philosophy has women excluded simply because they are women. Mine permits ANYONE with the required skills to do the job.

In other words, you would deny a strong, fast, capable women with adequate skills to serve in combat the opportunity to serve because she has breasts and a vagina. That is the very definition of sexism.

[Diogenes]

Your philosophy has women excluded simply because they are women.

False.

[carpedm9587]

Good grief Carp, are you dense? It wasn't an unmodified test, it was the New Army Combat Fitness Test, modified to make it easier for women. It was all part of the Obama Administration's push for a “gender-free” military. And even there only a minority passed. Women could not pass the old Army fitness test or the Marine Corps fitness test. Never mind the fact that women are up to six times more likely to be injured, which is bad for combat readiness.

I’ve reread the article, twice now. That’s NOT what it says. And it frankly wouldn’t change a thing even if it was. If the test was dumbed down, it shouldn’t have been. The task/role is what it is, regardless of who fills it. The point is to create a test designed around the POSITION, not the person. Then anyone who can pass it should be allowed to serve.

Otherwise, it is an exercise in sexism.

[carpedm9587]

False.

Then you agree with my statement, “anyone who can pass a test designed to identify people with the skills/capabilities to serve in a combat role should be allowed to serve in that role, regardless of their sex.”

Correct?

[Diogenes]

Then you agree with my statement, “anyone who can pass a test designed to identify people with the skills/capabilities to serve in a combat role should be allowed to serve in that role, regardless of their sex.”

Correct?

Combat roles are about the unit, not the individual. It's demonstrable that the best women are on par with lower ranking men. Because of these differences in capabilities, all male units are superior at combat effectiveness. Having two different grading scales means women are not passing the same test. There are also biological realities are co-ed units that would reduce combat effectiveness during deployment. The goal of any combat troop is combat readiness and women lack that capability. It's not sexism to point out sexual dimorphism in humans. Being a women as a class is not a disqualifier but rather biological realities of the impact of sexual dimorphism on capabilities.

You care more about diversity quotas, I care more about defeating enemies. We're not the same.

It's always strange that atheists typically typically depict themselves as the champions in science and then just yeet science when it's inconvenient.

[carpedm9587]

Combat roles are about the unit, not the individual. It's demonstrable that the best women are on par with lower ranking men. Because of these differences in capabilities, all male units are superior at combat effectiveness. Having two different grading scales means women are not passing the same test. There are also biological realities are co-ed units that would reduce combat effectiveness during deployment. The goal of any combat troop is combat readiness and women lack that capability. It's not sexism to point out sexual dimorphism in humans. Being a women as a class is not a disqualifier but rather biological realities of the impact of sexual dimorphism on capabilities.

You care more about diversity quotas, I care more about defeating enemies. We're not the same.

It's always strange that atheists typically typically depict themselves as the champions in science and then just yeet science when it's inconvenient.

You are again adding (again) to what I said. So. Let’s just do a simple scenario:

1. The military creates a test designed to determine if the person taking it has the skills/capabilities to serve in a combat position. There is ONE test, and it is as rigorous as necessary to ensure the person taking it can successfully serve in that role.
2. A male takes it and passes it with flying colors.
3. A female takes it and passes it with flying colors.

QUESTION: Do you allow both to serve?

[eider]

The whole court did not weigh in, just three Justices. Whether the religious argument is a good legal one or not the point is the school district is still forcing this ideology on children.

So you don't really know what a fascist is, seer.

The three Judges involved are part of the judicial system, no more nor less.

When you stop calling all your enemies silly names then you'll look so much more reasonable.

[carpedm9587]

So you don't really know what a fascist is, seer.

The three Judges involved are part of the judicial system, no more nor less.

When you stop calling all your enemies silly names then you'll look so much more reasonable.

It would seem that the term “fascist” is being defined as, “anyone who says/does something that I don’t want them to and won’t stop when I tell them to.”

If not, perhaps Seer can tell us what definition he is using.