General / Off-Topic Star Trek Day .... what a show!

[Robin of Spiritwood]

I liked DS9 a lot and I don't feel it trod on the principles laid out in ToS or TNG. Rather, it showed their limits. The heart of the Federation was still a paradise, and humanity, by and large, still held to it's high-minded principles. However, the Federation didn't hold sway everywhere, and when push came to shove, sometimes those principles were at odds with pragmatism.

The disposability of the Prime Directive goes back a long, long way
I had liked DS9 somewhat less than the ones with the ships. The idea of exploring space and the viewpoint of humanity's precarious existence as seen from afar had a lot of appeal.

If there's one thing it did well, it was the perspective. Star Trek was for me about that most of all.
Once astronauts see the planet from space, they often undergo a shift in their attitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect <--- well worth a look Elite Cmdrs.

The Federation concept is an outgrowth of this psychology, IMHO, which comes from an enlightenment not really available to humanity till we got to space.

It was transmitted to me as a child second hand in the 60's. From footage of actual missions, and from Trek. Once you see the whole planet as a small object, and your mind makes the jump that everything is in one place, one small place, the world shrinks from many fragmented things into one thing. How to explain it? It is a seismic shift in understanding, that makes racism/nationalism obsolete as a philosophy.

It's a testament to Roddenberry's vision that he had the concept down so early on. The next step of course, is placing the one small thing where it really is.

In August 2020 anthropologist Deana L. Weibel introduced the parallel term "ultraview effect," a subjective response of intense awe some astronauts have experienced viewing large "starfields" while in space, and discussed the impact of the overview effect and the ultraview effect on astronauts' religious beliefs.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vj_O4Kz2CY&t=2444s


So of course I play Elite. It is as close as I can get, other than driving at 100mph in the dark with all the windows down. Some people like Sam Harris do this with psychedelics.
It changes the brain's state somehow.

it makes me sad to read comments about people counting how many of what race is on TV, to help them decide if the show is good or too "woke" or whatever. They have entirely missed out on this, and are still doing anxious tribal transactions. Their world is still many things, many peoples, and the focus is only on the small.

 

[lysan]

Female UFC fighter beats the hell out of mugger with cardboard gun

UFC star Polyana Viana left a man with horrific facial injuries after he tried to rob her with a cardboard gun. The cowering thief even begged her to call the cops in fear of another beating after …

nypost.com

It's funny, you know even between men there is a difference, some "men" can barley pass the ordinary military requirements, muggers are mostly junkies not really something to highlight as a role model, take Tyson, an old dude, I bet he could take out any female MMA/Boxer at any age no matter what, and a lot of guys too, you can't compare someone who is trained with someone who barley can get by scarping the floor.

Why are many female athletics and rightfully so, rejecting competing with the "transgenders" because it's not fair.

 

[Morbad]

take Tyson, an old dude, I bet he could take out any female MMA/Boxer at any age no matter what

Difficult to test, and even if such an observation could be made it would be descriptive, not proscriptive...there would be nothing to suggest that being female, in and of it self, would prevent someone from beating a 54 year old Tyson, or even a 24 year old Tyson.

For example, the fastest known woman in the world in 1988 was faster than the fastest known man in the world in 1920, and the gaps between male and female performance have generally been slowly narrowing as female representation increases.

and a lot of guys too, you can't compare someone who is trained with someone who barley can get by scarping the floor.

That's a given. Pull people at random out of a crowd and you'll probably have to go through quite a few before you find someone that would be able to reliably best me in a fist fight, simply because I'm above average in size, fitness, and experience. I still wouldn't last a single round against most professional fighters in my weight class, and even at 54, Tyson could probably kill me in the time it took to stop the fight.

The spectrum of what's possible (assuming we limit ourselves to healthy/non-disabled individuals), with a given sex is far greater than the average difference between sexes. Which is one of the reasons why being accepting of an obviously fantastical feat of combat prowess when a man is engaged in it, but drawing the line at a woman being able to do something similar, strikes me as odd.

Why are many female athletics and rightfully so, rejecting competing with the "transgenders" because it's not fair.

Personally, I think segregating athletics (and almost anything else) by sex is as arbitrary and outdated as segregating them by ethnicity, skin color, or social class. There are more relevant attributes with which to base divisions on, if the goal is 'fairness' or encouraging meaningful competition, actual tested performance not the least among them.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Anyone can beat me up.

 

[sewerratuk]

Anyone can beat me up.

Whatever floats your boat.
I’m not going to judge your preferences

 

[Demascus]

Personally, I think segregating athletics (and almost anything else) by sex is as arbitrary and outdated as segregating them by ethnicity, skin color, or social class. There are more relevant attributes with which to base divisions on, if the goal is 'fairness' or encouraging meaningful competition, actual tested performance not the least among them.

So in the case of say: Females in the combat arms or infantry mos. Fine with that? All together then? no differences between the sexes?

 

[Morbad]

All together then?

Why not? Once rational (meaning the requirement has a demonstrable bearing on one's suitability for the task) physical, metal, and psychological requirements for any given form of service are set it makes little sense to exclude anyone that meets them.

The arguments for sex segregation of the armed forces are either based on completely unsubstantiated fallacies (such as the idea that women have special medical needs that would compromise their abilities as soldiers or their ability to be adequately treated/supported...usually based on some phobia of menstruation or the even more absurd idea that pregnancy is unavoidable), or make the assumption that male soldiers (who are expected to put their lives on the line, kill upon command, and entrusted with millions of dollars of training and equipment to facilitate this) cannot be expected to control themselves in the presence of the opposite sex (many don't, but that's a problem with immature boys and lax discipline). About the only vaguely rational pretext for sex-based exclusion that I can recall hearing is that new body armor patterns would be required to achieve a good fit, which would add a modest cost until economies of scale ramped up.

no differences between the sexes?

Quite a few differences between the sexes, but nothing that would justify exclusion from combat duties based on sex itself, once relevant service requirements were met.

 

[Kaocraft]

Regarding "wokeness", my problem is when writers choose to mock and belittle "straight white men" in order to lift up other groups. For example, the way the writers neutered Superman in the new Supergirl series. They didn't need to do this. If anything, making Supergirl a strong female by making her "competition" weak and dumb is counter-productive. I much rather have a strong female character who can stand her ground in the presence of a strong Superman, because that actually makes her come across as stronger. Even a fool can look wise when put in a group of other fools. Put that same person in a room full of wise men and women, and then you'll see what that person is made of.

Yeah it's like the writing standard for female empowerment in pop fiction never really evolved past the old "my husband is an idiot" style advertisements used to sell laundry detergent, car insurance, cell-phone plans, etc. It takes too much time, thought, and subtlety to convey why a character is interesting, competent, or powerful; much easier and faster to have every white man around her act like a moron so she comes across as superior by comparison.

 

[metatheurgist]

It's funny, you know even between men there is a difference, some "men" can barley pass the ordinary military requirements, muggers are mostly junkies not really something to highlight as a role model, take Tyson, an old dude, I bet he could take out any female MMA/Boxer at any age no matter what, and a lot of guys too, you can't compare someone who is trained with someone who barley can get by scarping the floor.

Why are many female athletics and rightfully so, rejecting competing with the "transgenders" because it's not fair.

But now you can say you know of a grown woman that can kick the crap out of a grown man. Feel that world expand.

 

[metatheurgist]

'He said he had meat in his pants': Brazilian 'Wonder Woman' MMA fighter takes down suspected FLASHER who waved GENITALS on street

Brazilian MMA fighter Maria Ribeiro unleashed her Wonder Woman alias by pinning down an alleged pervert until police arrived after spotting the "idiot" exposing himself near her home as she set off for a spot of family shopping.

www.rt.com

Might be something in the water in Brazil.

 

[Demascus]

Few things here:

(who are expected to put their lives on the line, kill upon command, and entrusted with millions of dollars of training and equipment to facilitate this)

A. A far as the US armed forces are concerned, Soliders/Marines do not "kill on command". There is something called "lawful and unlawful" orders and escalation of force. I suggest you look it up.

B. Vast majority of military service members are not trusted with "millions" of dollars of equipment. Senior NCOs, WOs and Officers generally. A few cases with enlisted with specialty fields.

The arguments for sex segregation of the armed forces are either based on completely unsubstantiated fallacies (such as the idea that women have special medical needs that would compromise their abilities as soldiers or their ability to be adequately treated/supported...usually based on some phobia of menstruation or the even more absurd idea that pregnancy is unavoidable), or make the assumption that male soldiers cannot be expected to control themselves in the presence of the opposite sex (many don't, but that's a problem with immature boys and lax discipline).

This boils down to a complete and what I can only assume is a "hollywood movie" understanding of how the military works. Let me educate you a bit:

There is a physical and mental standard that all must comply to in each different branch of service. There is a physical set of requirements for male and a different one for females.
See: USMC PFT
To put it bluntly: females have a greatly scaled down version compared to males. For example a Male 17-20yrs must complete 20 dead hang pull ups to rate 100 points, a female must only do 7. A male only able to do a minimum of 4 pull ups rates 40 points, female 1 at 60 points.
The reason behind this system is not that it is impossible for a female to meet those requirements, just a incredibly few would make the cut. This is just the standard physical fitness test, everyone from desk clerks to pilots. The "male-only" Combat Arms MOSs physical requirements are even higher.

Logistically re-organizing combat arms MOSs would be a nightmare. Barracks and living conditions are not structured for coed habitation. Again not worth the effort, time and money for the few that would make it. This has nothing to do with "cooties" or phobia of menstruation. The vast majority of females simply don't make the cut physically because they are biologically different.

What are the options then? Lower the requirements and get people killed or restructure everything for the handful that make it?

 

[Stigbob]

A. A far as the US armed forces are concerned, Soliders/Marines do not "kill on command". There is something called "lawful and unlawful" orders and escalation of force. I suggest you look it up.

Drone strikes, artillery and air strikes are all kill on command.

 

[Morbad]

A. A far as the US armed forces are concerned, Soliders/Marines do not "kill on command". There is something called "lawful and unlawful" orders and escalation of force. I suggest you look it up.

B. Vast majority of military service members are not trusted with "millions" of dollars of equipment. Senior NCOs, WOs and Officers generally. A few cases with enlisted with specialty fields.

A lawful order that would require me to do something that would likely result in the death of someone is exactly what I was talking about when I said "kill upon command".

Best estimates I've seen on the total cost to train and equip a recruit from basic to E-2 is on the order of a million dollars (depending on what expenses you roll into that, of course), even if they only go into combat carrying four figures of gear. That training is what makes a professional soldier and was explicitly included in my statement about what they are entrusted with.

Nitpicks aside, the point is that each soldier is a significant investment that comes with significant demands, duties, and responsibilities.

There is a physical and mental standard that all must comply to in each different branch of service. There is a physical set of requirements for male and a different one for females.

I'm aware.

To put it bluntly: females have a greatly scaled down version compared to males.

Which tells me that the requirements for males were either arbitrarily excessive, or that the requirements for females are arbitrarily low.

The reason behind this system is not that it is impossible for a female to meet those requirements, just a incredibly few would make the cut.

If those requirements are justified then it does a disservice to everyone to compromise them to meet a quota. Affirmative action to speed integration and overcome broad biases may be beneficial, even necessary, in some areas, but not where lives are likely to be on the line.

Having a lesser set of requirements for women makes it seem like they are being setup to fail, both by making possibly to dismiss those that pass the easier tests as second-class soldiers and obfuscating the abilities of those who could have met the more strenuous requirements.

Logistically re-organizing combat arms MOSs would be a nightmare. Barracks and living conditions are not structured for coed habitation.

This is precisely the sort of stuff I'm talking about. As someone who has cohabitated with women in all sorts of living conditions, your statement sounds like absolute lunacy to me. I can't even imagine what you could possibly be referring to about "barracks and living conditions not being structured for coed habitation". Men and women can eat the same foods, sleep in the same racks, excrete into the same latrines, use the same showers, etc and so forth.

Likewise, if the same requirements are being met, I'm not sure why there would be any need to reorganize MOSes.

This has nothing to do with "cooties"

That's exactly what it sounds like...largely fictitious excuses for excluding half of humanity from even the opportunity to prove themselves.

What are the options then? Lower the requirements and get people killed or restructure everything for the handful that make it?

The obvious option is to use the original requirements for everyone and not restructure a damn thing other than ordering some equipment in new sizes.

 

[Demascus]

A lawful order that would require me to do something that would likely result in the death of someone is exactly what I was talking about when I said "kill upon command".

Order to kill an armed enemy, yes but majority of circumstances fall on the individual to make the snap decision.
Order to open fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians just because its an "order", no.

Best estimates I've seen on the total cost to train and equip a recruit from basic to E-2 is on the order of a million dollars (depending on what expenses you roll into that, of course), even if they only go into combat carrying four figures of gear. That training is what makes a professional soldier and was explicitly included in my statement about what they are entrusted with.

From what source are you pulling these insane numbers from? Recruit to e-2 is like 40-50k maybe 70-80k for specialty MOSs. The "expensive" gear is already bought and paid for, recycled and re-issued repeatedly from soldier to soldier. What, you think new recruit, new rifle, new gear all out of the box? Training is done in bulk, cuts cost.

This is precisely the sort of stuff I'm talking about. As someone who has cohabitated with women in all sorts of living conditions, your statement sounds like absolute lunacy to me. I can't even imagine what you could possibly be referring to about "barracks and living conditions not being structured for coed habitation". Men and women can eat the same foods, sleep in the same racks, excrete into the same latrines, use the same showers, etc and so forth.

Combat arms and infantry barracks are very different from the rest of the military. Living conditions are very cramped, bathrooms have zero privacy. Showers, if there are any are often open room single spicket. There is no practical way to have any gender separation in most scenarios. Unless your naive enough to cram them together and think "if they are professional it wont matter" starship troopers style.

What works for you will not work for the vast majority.

That's exactly what it sounds like...largely fictitious excuses for excluding half of humanity from even the opportunity to prove themselves.

Already tested by the USMC in trails back in 2010 and continued in 2012. Marine female testing canidates failed en masse the 2010 trials. Politcal pressure followed to lower the overall standards so that everyone is "equal"
Fitness Report
In short female service member's injuries skyrocketed costing more money, more headaches bigger military buget requests.

In an ideal world, perfect scenario. Yes, I am all for equal treatment across the board. I would be happy to serve next to a female marine in the infantry. But in the real world, reality and practicality says "no, sorry"

 

[Morbad]

Order to kill an armed enemy, yes but majority of circumstances fall on the individual to make the snap decision.
Order to open fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians just because its an "order", no.

Opening fire on unarmed civilians or committing other war crimes wasn't what I had in mind.

Being entrusted to carry out entirely lawful orders, and given the power to do so, is a big responsibility; one I'd think would be more difficult than treating comrades-in-arms with respect, irrespective of their gender or other factors.

From what source are you pulling these insane numbers from? Recruit to e-2 is like 40-50k maybe 70-80k for specialty MOSs. The "expensive" gear is already bought and paid for, recycled and re-issued repeatedly from soldier to soldier. What, you think new recruit, new rifle, new gear all out of the box? Training is done in bulk, cuts cost.

No I don't think everyone gets shiny new gear and I realize that training is done in bulk. However, the total cost of training isn't represented in just a bill of materials consumed and the pay of recruits and their instructors. Everything from logistics, to base operating costs, to insurance and benefits, to tax exemptions, factors into the actual expenses of training a standing military. It's one of the reasons that PMC have become as prevalent as they are, they are often cheaper, or at least have true costs that are more easily displaced.

Combat arms and infantry barracks are very different from the rest of the military. Living conditions are very cramped, bathrooms have zero privacy. Showers, if there are any are often open room single spicket. There is no practical way to have any gender separation in most scenarios. Unless your naive enough to cram them together and think "if they are professional it wont matter" starship troopers style.

What works for you will not work for the vast majority.

Gender separation of living conditions isn't something I consider necessary or desirable, and privacy is evidently already expendable in combat barracks.

If I'd trust someone to be a soldier, then I'd trust them be crammed together with other genders as readily as they are with their own. There is certainly no biological reason why males and females cannot live and work together for protracted periods of time in very cramped, limited privacy, scenarios...much of humanity has been doing so as long as there have been humans.

What would work for me in this scenario is not a very big ask.

Already tested by the USMC in trails back in 2010 and continued in 2012. Marine female testing canidates failed en masse the 2010 trials. Politcal pressure followed to lower the overall standards so that everyone is "equal"
Fitness Report
In short female service member's injuries skyrocketed costing more money, more headaches bigger military buget requests.

The author of your article argues that unequal physical capabilities and sexual misconduct are justifications to exclude women from infantry combat roles. I don't buy it, but not because I doubt the observations cited.

Part of the point of fitness assessments should be to cull those likely to be injured by the demands of service. If these requirements were serving their purpose there wouldn't be concerns of "unequal physical capabilities", because who ever made it through would meet the physical demands of the job.

Sexual misconduct isn't something that should be excusable for a soldier, under any circumstances, toward anyone, let alone their fellow soldiers. Allowing such behavior to slide, or blaming it on the mere presence of the victims, smacks of ancient puritanical tropes that would be comical if the matter were less serious.

Much of the article reads like past arguments used to exclude women from voting or deny equal opportunity to any number of groups. It's positively dripping with sexism that goes far above and beyond any rational argument for the positions held.

Anyway, I digress. There may never be as many women well suited for infantry combat as there are men, but to exclude the ones who are, or who could be, on such statistical over-generalizations serves no purpose other than to enshrine prejudice and irrationality.

In an ideal world, perfect scenario. Yes, I am all for equal treatment across the board. I would be happy to serve next to a female marine in the infantry. But in the real world, reality and practicality says "no, sorry".

A lot of people, consciously or not, are allowing their own personal biases to justify things in the name of 'reality and practicality' when all they are really doing is looking for a pretext to defend tradition. Of course prejudices are reality until they are sufficiently challenged.

I suppose this is what those new quotas are for...push the ideal hard enough for long enough it'll become real. This is hard to follow through with until the end, and risky too; the illusion of victory may be accepted before the battle is really won.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Some people are "wired", and cannot be reasoned with.

 

[Demascus]

Gender separation of living conditions isn't something I consider necessary or desirable, and privacy is evidently already expendable in combat barracks.

If I'd trust someone to be a soldier, then I'd trust them be crammed together with other genders as readily as they are with their own. There is certainly no biological reason why males and females cannot live and work together for protracted periods of time in very cramped, limited privacy, scenarios...much of humanity has been doing so as long as there have been humans.

What would work for me in this scenario is not a very big ask.

Again your preaching change from an outsiders perspective. You do not understand the nature of the environment or the workplace. You sit there outside looking in demanding change for the "greater good" consequences be damn because it worked for you.

Side note: Any considerations that a spouse of a military member may not be "ok" with significant other being naked or around naked individuals of the opposite sex with the zero gender separation in all aspects that you seem ok with? Mix in alcohol and bad decisions in the barracks and issues, work performance, headaches and money down the road.

The author of your article argues that unequal physical capabilities and sexual misconduct are justifications to exclude women from infantry combat roles. I don't buy it, but not because I doubt the observations cited.

Part of the point of fitness assessments should be to cull those likely to be injured by the demands of service. If these requirements were serving their purpose there wouldn't be concerns of "unequal physical capabilities", because who ever made it through would meet the physical demands of the job.

For pre-screening, yes but the test were on already active serviced marines and soldiers. What would happen to them? Just boot them out?
If they were to implement the ACFT the gender disparity would only increase. Going from the double to the low single digits. Other option is to overall lower the standards across the board which is lunacy. A

Sexual misconduct isn't something that should be excusable for a soldier, under any circumstances, toward anyone, let alone their fellow soldiers.

I agree,

Much of the article reads like past arguments used to exclude women from voting or deny equal opportunity to any number of groups. It's positively dripping with sexism that goes far above and beyond any rational argument for the positions held.

Pretty sure your projecting there.

Anyway, I digress. There may never be as many women well suited for infantry combat as there are men, but to exclude the ones who are, or who could be, on such statistical over-generalizations serves no purpose other than to enshrine prejudice and irrationality.

See the thing is the military is not about the individual, it is about the group. I don't know how to explain it better to an civilian. You get special dispensation, your on the **** list by everyone around you regardless of circumstance or reasons. You don't change group to meet the needs of the few.

A lot of people, consciously or not, are allowing their own personal biases to justify things in the name of 'reality and practicality' when all they are really doing is looking for a pretext to defend tradition. Of course prejudices are reality until they are sufficiently challenged.

And some people think the earth is flat, no matter how much experience, data or tests say otherwise. They have their own set "facts" and "reasons" to throw at the opposite party to justify their reasons.
Sigh The ironic thing is I'm pretty sure you think the same of me
For the sake of the mods and being pretty far off topic. I would be happy to continue this debate in PMs if you wish.

 

[Morbad]

Again your preaching change from an outsiders perspective. You do not understand the nature of the environment or the workplace. You sit there outside looking in demanding change for the "greater good" consequences be damn because it worked for you.

Not because it worked for me, but because there is no reason to tolerate arbitrary discrimination just satisfy workplace culture.

I, and quite a few others, are outsiders at least partially because we find the outmoded and discriminatory culture of the armed forces, as evidenced by it's official policies, and confirmed by the experiences of family and friends who have served, to be repugnant.

Anyway, are you so sure you're still an insider? A lot can change in a generation.

Doom and gloom predictions of declining unit cohesion and morale have been used as excuses to delay or resist integration time and time again. 70 years ago they were used as an argument to keep blacks segregated and it took an executive order to change that. More recently the same predictions were pushed in an effort to deny homosexuals the ability to serve openly. In both cases such predictions proved false and I'm confident they will again. Like it or not, further integration is coming. It may take some time and it may not always go smoothly, but it's going to happen and we'll be better off for it.

Any considerations that a spouse of a military member may not be "ok" with significant other being naked or around naked individuals of the opposite sex with the zero gender separation in all aspects that you seem ok with?

No, both because it shouldn't be the job of the military to dictate or police spousal interactions, and because I personally find such attitudes to be ridiculous. If someone thinks they may violate their own convictions and/or the trust of their spouse, that's on them...they can either learn to control themselves, reevaluate the restrictions they are placing upon themselves, or refrain from exposing them selves to temptation by choosing a career that will keep them on a shorter leash.

Mix in alcohol and bad decisions in the barracks and issues, work performance, headaches and money down the road.

I can think of plenty of solutions to these potential issues. The implication that segregation is somehow better than holding soldiers to higher behavioral standards, barring alcohol use in barracks or while deployed, or mandating contraception, seems quite silly to me.

For pre-screening, yes but the test were on already active serviced marines and soldiers. What would happen to them? Just boot them out?
If they were to implement the ACFT the gender disparity would only increase. Going from the double to the low single digits. Other option is to overall lower the standards across the board which is lunacy.

They could be grandfathered in, or if they aren't capable in their positions, reassigned. Though again, if they are capable, having requirements that they now wouldn't meet would make those requirements appear arbitrarily excessive.

Ultimately it comes down to the question, 'can they do the job, or not'? When it comes to physical performance, that's what these tests are supposed to answer. Anything beyond that isn't an assessment, it's a mandate.

Pretty sure your projecting there.

I'm confident I'm not and if you like, I can disarticulate that article and highlight several examples. Maybe I'll save that for PM.

See the thing is the military is not about the individual, it is about the group. I don't know how to explain it better to an civilian. You get special dispensation, your on the **** list by everyone around you regardless of circumstance or reasons. You don't change group to meet the needs of the few.

What I'm suggesting is exactly the opposite of special dispensation (I seek neither to protect male privilege, nor to allow anyone into positions they aren't physically capable of doing justice in order to satisfy gender quotas) and it's the status quo that protects the few (soldiers who cannot behave themselves) at the expense of the many (everyone who values equality of opportunity, or even those who don't, but could conceivably be protected by it).

pretty far off topic.

Perhaps not so much. The topic is recent Trek, and a big part of the complaints, controversy, and conflict around this franchise (and media in general) have to deal with, or are at least present in the context of, these same sorts of disagreements over gender.

It's how people can watch Keanu Reeves' character kill half a dozen armed men with a pencil, and somehow think that's not so far fetched, but balk when Jessica Chastain's does something similar...then put it down to man vs. woman, rather than 6'1"/185 pound oft-action-star vs. 5'4"/120 pound individual with a fraction of the stage and screen combat experience.

 

[lysan]

Difficult to test, and even if such an observation could be made it would be descriptive, not proscriptive...there would be nothing to suggest that being female, in and of it self, would prevent someone from beating a 54 year old Tyson, or even a 24 year old Tyson.

For example, the fastest known woman in the world in 1988 was faster than the fastest known man in the world in 1920, and the gaps between male and female performance have generally been slowly narrowing as female representation increases.



That's a given. Pull people at random out of a crowd and you'll probably have to go through quite a few before you find someone that would be able to reliably best me in a fist fight, simply because I'm above average in size, fitness, and experience. I still wouldn't last a single round against most professional fighters in my weight class, and even at 54, Tyson could probably kill me in the time it took to stop the fight.

The spectrum of what's possible (assuming we limit ourselves to healthy/non-disabled individuals), with a given sex is far greater than the average difference between sexes. Which is one of the reasons why being accepting of an obviously fantastical feat of combat prowess when a man is engaged in it, but drawing the line at a woman being able to do something similar, strikes me as odd.



Personally, I think segregating athletics (and almost anything else) by sex is as arbitrary and outdated as segregating them by ethnicity, skin color, or social class. There are more relevant attributes with which to base divisions on, if the goal is 'fairness' or encouraging meaningful competition, actual tested performance not the least among them.

In all my 10 years in the army I never saw evidence that support we are physical equal, as you mentioned there are two standards, one for women and one for men, and even the standards for men had to be lower today compared to what they were 15 years ago, it’s just insane, but I digress.

 

[Morbad]

In all my 10 years in the army I never saw evidence that support we are physical equal

There is a pronounced tendency for male humans to be significantly larger and stronger than female humans. It's folly to pretend this tendency doesn't exist, but it's far greater folly to pretend that tendencies are a better basis for proscription than the results of actual testing. There are plenty of women who are or will be more capable than the average male infantryman, and to exclude them because most other women are not is nuts.

It's also worth pointing out that observed tendencies aren't wholly biological either. Societal expectations and opportunities are at least as significant and as society becomes more accepting of independent, athletic, women, the gender gap in ability will shrink. As long as biological differences remain, it's never going to be a 50/50 split of men and women being assigned to combat positions (barring extreme situations of total mobilization, or where attrition has dramatically reduced the number of males of combat age), probably won't even be close, but the gap will narrow in the mid to long-term, even if women are held to the same standards.

as you mentioned there are two standards, one for women and one for men

This is changing. Barring some radical intervention, the ACFT and OPAT are only weeks away from being implemented and are intended to be age and gender-neutral. The requirements are based on MOS, so those not likely to be in physically demanding positions will have an easier time than before, while some of those in more demanding assignments (combat infantry related, for example) will be harder to pass than prior tests. This will probably limit the number of women in direct combat roles, at least until society and training catch up...but those that get through will have been tested to the same standards as their male peers.

and even the standards for men had to be lower today compared to what they were 15 years ago, it’s just insane, but I digress.

Mostly because people have a tendency to be fatter and it's getting harder to find recruits that can meet requirements in the quantities desired. That tendency doesn't mean that everyone is fat.

As for the lowering of standards...where those standard were implemented with good reason, I entirely agree, lowering them is not ideal. However, until society starts producing healthier people, it may be necessary.