LGBTQ Fascists, again...

[carpedm9587]

Just as I'll leave your perspectives to you...

Seer, you don't even begin to grasp my perspectives, as far as I can see. You still have not correctly reflected back any argument I have made. Instead, you reword it into a position I do not have, and then vigorously attack it. That is the very definition of a "strawman." The quota system is a good case in point. I have never advocated for quota systems, nor will I ever. They are anathema to me, which is why I have long been against "affirmative action."

But it doesn't stop you and Dio from cheerfully attacking my "quota system" position, which means you are attacking a position I don't have. Why you find this useful is beyond me.

[seer]

I would have thought this was clear, but I will attempt to explain. "As implemented" means, "as it was actually done." I can see a number of flaws that require correction. Most notably, the flaw of compromising the test to begin with. If the test was likewise "eased" for older males, the result would be that people without the skills/capabilities to serve in combat roles would be admitted, again compromising combat readiness.

You do know that in Army boot camp physical requirements for women are already lower than for men? The same in the Marine Corps.

t was also a flaw to provide women with equipment designed for men, which was almost certainly going to increase failures.

Oh please, perhaps it had to to with the weight itself. If you are speaking of back packs. And I suspect all those things have been taken into consideration over the last 6 years or so. The one thing you can't change is biology.

Correction: the women who passed the modified/simplified test are six times more injury prone using equipment designed for men. You have absolutely no data for the results if a) all are taking the same test, and b) women who pass the test are given equipment suitable to their different physiology, rather than equipment designed for men.

Where is you evidence that the equipment wasn't suitable to women. Can you give an example? And what changes would help?

I have to admit that talking with you and Dio is a challenge. Rather than respond to what I am actually saying, you regularly twist it into a straw man position and then vigorously attack it, resulting in arguments that are wide of the mark of what I am actually saying. It seems a bit foolish to me. And I have to admit to some chuckles when I am told that I am "dedicated to quota systems" when my position is actually exactly the opposite. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do. I trust the rest of the readers can see the arguments for what they are, even if you two cannot.

Good grief man, I was mostly working off your link.

[carpedm9587]

You do know that in Army boot camp physical requirements for women are already lower than for men? The same in the Marine Corps.

I believe I have now said, multiple times, that this is/was a flaw in the implementation and needs to be corrected. Tests/requirements should be role-based, not person-based. You suit the test to the role - not to the person applying for the role.

Oh please, perhaps it had to to with the weight itself. If you are speaking of back packs. And I suspect all those things have been taken into consideration over the last 6 years or so. The one thing you can't change is biology.

No article has said that it was solely a weight issue. Most describe suitability to female physiology (e.g. wider hips, breast, etc.). If it were a weight issue, the appropriate testing would screen out females OR males who could not lift the weight as a condition of admittance. Changing the weight requirements ensures you have people who cannot lift the required equipment and sets them up to fail.

Where is you evidence that the equipment wasn't suitable to women. Can you give an example? And what changes would help?

Read the ENTIRE article I previously listed. It's all in there - from a source sympathetic to "your side."

Examples include equipment that does not allow for the broader hips of a female, or fit suitably around her breasts. The result has been increased pelvic stress fractures and back issues related to trying to take pressure off the breasts. You cannot give a fighter equipment designed for a different physiology and expect consistently good results.

Good grief man, I was mostly working off your link.

...and focusing on things that had nothing to do with the argument I have been putting forward. I put the link there for one reason: to refute the claim that NO WOMAN had ever passed the unified physical, which is down in one specific section under "Gender Neutral Fiasco." The rest of the article has nothing to do with my argument - never has.

Let me phrase it for you as simply as I can:

1. I believe in merit/skill-based hiring.
2. I do not believe it is just to deny someone access to a job they have proven (through testing) that they can do on the basis of sex alone.
3. I will add that it is incumbent on the hirer to ensure that the person has the proper tools they need to succeed at the job.

As far as I can tell, you and Dio do not. You would deny a female who has passed a rigorous, role-based, unified test service in a combat position for no other reason than she has a vagina and breasts. That is, as I have noted, the very definition of sexism. It is not a position I support or find just. I also believe that the military FAILED in 2) and 3), which is likely why they got such bad results.

[seer]

I believe I have now said, multiple times, that this is/was a flaw in the implementation and needs to be corrected. Tests/requirements should be role-based, not person-based. You suit the test to the role - not to the person applying for the role.

But the Ranger school was role based and the two women who passed only did so because the number were fudged. I suspect is would be the same for advanced infantry training.

No article has said that it was solely a weight issue. Most describe suitability to female physiology (e.g. wider hips, breast, etc.). If it were a weight issue, the appropriate testing would screen out females OR males who could not lift the weight as a condition of admittance.

Again where is you evidence that female physiology wasn't taken into consideration. And what exactly would help? You keep suggesting that there is a better way.

Read the ENTIRE article I previously listed. It's all in there - from a source sympathetic to "your side."

I did, like 4 times now. Obviously you didn't.

And focusing on things that had nothing to do with the argument I have been putting forward. I put the link there for one reason: to refute the claim that NO WOMAN had ever passed the unified physical, which is down in one specific section under "Gender Neutral Fiasco." The rest of the article has nothing to do with my argument - never has.

Let me phrase it for you as simply as I can:

1. I believe in merit/skill-based hiring.
2. I do not believe it is just to deny someone access to a job they have proven (through testing) that they can do on the basis of sex alone.

As far as I can tell, you and Dio do not. You would deny a female who has passed a rigorous, role-based, unified test service in a combat position for no other reason than she has a vagina and breasts. That is, as I have noted, the very definition of sexism. It is not a position I support or find just.

Again, you do know that even in boot camp physical requirements are lowered for women. You understand that don't you - women get a break from the get go. Should we bring those standards up to the men's?

[carpedm9587]

But the Ranger school was role based and the two women who passed only did so because the number were fudged. I suspect is would be the same for advanced infantry training.

My god, Seer, it is hard for me to believe that you are this dense. You seemed to me to be a reasonably smart man when I met you. I am beginning to wonder if this is all just a game and I'm falling for it. I will try one more time:

If the test was adjusted in any way because of the person applying, then it is not "role-based" - it is "applicant-based." That is the problem. A strictly role-based test would not change on the basis of the person applying. THIS WAS ONE OF THE MISTAKES THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Again where is you evidence that female physiology wasn't taken into consideration. And what exactly would help? You keep suggesting that there is a better way.

Read the article. You asked me for my source - THAT IS MY SOURCE. There are several like it online. And I chose that one because it was from a source sympathetic to your view. Why you continually ask questions I have already answered is beyond me.

I did, like 4 times now. Obviously you didn't.

You are mistaken. But there is nothing I can do about it. I cannot force you to understand something you seem to consistently misunderstand, intentionally or not.

Again, you do know that even in boot camp physical requirements are lowered for women. You understand that don't you - women get a break from the get go. Should we bring those standards up to the men's?

I think with this response, I am done. That you can even ASK the last question means you have not read or not understood anything I've posted. You either are incapable of understanding what I write, or unwilling to. I'm not sure which. I do know that further exchanges are pointless. Feel free to have the last word. Anything further I might say is pointless.

[seer]

My god, Seer, it is hard for me to believe that you are this dense. You seemed to me to be a reasonably smart man when I met you. I am beginning to wonder if this is all just a game and I'm falling for it. I will try one more time:

Did you read the Marine Corps study that was linked. Biology is the main driver, whether you like it or not.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...an-summary.pdf

 Combat Effectiveness

o Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69%
of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews.
Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.
o Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated
squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-
served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-
served weapons and ammunition.

o Lethality:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-
integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual
weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the
probability of hit & near miss with the M4.
o Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit
percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%,
M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.
o All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more
hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with
the exception of M2 accuracy.
o All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a
noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating
obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male
Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular
assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there
were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated
groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine
fireman's carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who "evacuated"
the casualty)



Health and Welfare of Marines

In addition to performance, evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to males
performing the same tactical tasks was noted. The well documented comparative disadvantage in
upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed
to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures.Research from various U.S. and
allied military studies reveal that the two primary factors associated with success in the task of
movement under load are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max. Findings from the
physiological assessment of GCEITF males and females conducted by the University of Pittsburgh’s
Neuromuscular Research Laboratory include:
oBody composition: Males averaged 178 lbs, with 20% body fat: females averaged 142 lbs, with
24% body fat
oAnaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25thpercentile
overlaps with the bottom 25thpercentile for males
oAnaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10thpercentile
overlaps with the bottom 50thpercentile of males
oAerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10thpercentile
overlaps with bottom 50thpercentile of males
oWithin the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level
training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts
27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared
to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load.
oDuring the GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5% for females, compared
to 18.8% for males
Of the 21 time-loss injuries incurred by female Marines, 19 were lower extremity
injuries and 16 occurred during a movement under load task

[carpedm9587]

Did you read the Marine Corps study that was linked. Biology is the main driver, whether you like it or not.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documen...an-summary.pdf

 Combat Effectiveness

o Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69%
of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews.
Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.
o Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated
squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-
served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-
served weapons and ammunition.

o Lethality:
All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-
integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual
weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the
probability of hit & near miss with the M4.
o Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit
percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%,
M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.
o All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more
hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with
the exception of M2 accuracy.
o All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a
noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating
obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male
Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular
assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there
were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated
groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine
fireman's carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who "evacuated"
the casualty)



Health and Welfare of Marines

In addition to performance, evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to males
performing the same tactical tasks was noted. The well documented comparative disadvantage in
upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed
to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures.Research from various U.S. and
allied military studies reveal that the two primary factors associated with success in the task of
movement under load are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max. Findings from the
physiological assessment of GCEITF males and females conducted by the University of Pittsburgh’s
Neuromuscular Research Laboratory include:
oBody composition: Males averaged 178 lbs, with 20% body fat: females averaged 142 lbs, with
24% body fat
oAnaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25thpercentile
overlaps with the bottom 25thpercentile for males
oAnaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10thpercentile
overlaps with the bottom 50thpercentile of males
oAerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10thpercentile
overlaps with bottom 50thpercentile of males
oWithin the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level
training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts
27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared
to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load.
oDuring the GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5% for females, compared
to 18.8% for males
Of the 21 time-loss injuries incurred by female Marines, 19 were lower extremity
injuries and 16 occurred during a movement under load task

I must be a glutton for punishment, but I am going to give this one more try, on the off chance that you aren't being intentionally obtuse and playing with me.

I am going to start by conceding a point you (apparently) have been wanting me to concede: that all tests were either simplified for females or the numbers fudged afterwards to grant them access to the role. Let's consider that a given.

If that is true, then your entire argument collapses because you have no data that refutes my position. My position is that testing needs to be role-based (i.e., adequately rigorous for the role being considered and the same for everyone applying). If this condition is not met, then people got into the program who were not suited to the program - corrupting the data subsequently gathered.

If it is further true, as is indicated by the reporting, that women were not provided with equipment suited to their biology, your data is further corrupted because it does not reflect the conditions I have been arguing for.

So you can post study after study after study, and NONE of them would apply, because they test the results of a flawed system and do not test the conditions for which I am advocating:

1) A single, role-based test that is the same for all applicants and not "fudged" thereafter.
2) Soldiers provided with equipment designed for their particular biology.

Your "studies" cannot explain the CAUSE of the statistics they cite, or prove which of these is the cause:

a) Women are biologically not suited to combat
b) Women who are not suited to combat were granted entry to the program
c) Women who are suited to combat were not provided with proper equipment for the role

I repeat (yet again): a system which excludes a person on the basis of SEX and not the basis of SKILL/CAPABILITY is inherently sexist and unjust. If the case can be made that one sex is biologically incapable of a function (e.g., men serving as surrogate mothers), then role exclusion is obvious; they cannot do the job. Otherwise, anyone with the skills and capabilities to perform a job should have the opportunity to serve. And note: that is NOT a quota system because it does not advocate for "target numbers," (another error made in implementation).

You appear to be arguing that "being female" is cause for rejection, regardless of skill or capability. That is a sexist and unjust position to take.

[seer]

If that is true, then your entire argument collapses because you have no data that refutes my position. My position is that testing needs to be role-based (i.e., adequately rigorous for the role being considered and the same for everyone applying). If this condition is not met, then people got into the program who were not suited to the program - corrupting the data subsequently gathered.

Let's see is we agree - physical requirements should not be lowed, especially for combat units, even if no women ever pass.

[carpedm9587]

Let's see is we agree - physical requirements should not be lowed, especially for combat units, even if no women ever pass.

It is virtually impossible for me to believe you do not know my answer to this question. I'm beginning to believe you are game playing.

My requirements for an equal-opportunity military:

1) A single, role-based test that is the same for all applicants and not "fudged" thereafter and which adequately tests for the skills /capabilities necessary to the role.
2) Soldiers provided with equipment designed for their particular biology.

Assuming these, no female should be denied the opportunity to serve is she passes 1) and is provided with 2).

[seer]

I'm going to let me previous posts stand. If you don't know my answer to this at this point, repeating it yet again will serve no purpose.

If you agree then what is the problem? No one is stopping women from trying.

[carpedm9587]

If you agree then what is the problem? No one is stopping women from trying.

Unbelievable. Did you even READ your own posts? Do you think my responses might have something to do with your repeated assertions, "females have no business in combat?"

I think, Seer, that you have successfully baited me, and I have persisted well beyond the point of reason. More the fool I. And since this seems to be your methodology for engaging in pretty much any discussion, I think I'll let you respond as you wish to things I post, and leave them unresponded-to going forward. Discussion with you is pointless because you're not really in it to discuss and explore concepts. You're just in it to bait and troll. I have better things to do with my time.

[seer]

Unbelievable. Did you even READ your own posts? Do you think my responses might have something to do with your repeated assertions, "females have no business in combat?"

Yes, because they are not qualified. There is no way to include women with out lowering standards. Never mind the problem with fraternization, that can rip units apart. See Carp, I experienced this first hand in the fire service. The physical standards were lowered to accommodate women - and the woman were useless on the fire line...And you leftists will lower the standards for the sake of diversity, you always do. Readiness is secondary.

[eider]

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.

Just a guess, but I don't think you'll get an answer from him.

[eider]

Idiot, I'm speaking of the school board, and yes they are fascist - trying to force their beliefs on children.

Please seer, please! Just try to understand that you are the idiot.

You also support teachers who force your various beliefs on all children, you do you know.

Think about it .......take some time.

[Starlight]

Please seer, please! Just try to understand that you are the idiot.

Unfortunately, the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents idiots realizing they're idiots. The intelligence needed to make an accurate assessment of their own intelligence, is precisely the same intelligence they are lacking.