I agree with one thing, privacy is an invalid argument. Screw privacy.
There are two problems
1) the standards will be relaxed for women. Perhaps not officially but commanders will be required to explain why the job can’t be done by a woman, and no answer will be adequate. Women already have lower standards for every measurement of physical fitness in all the branches.
2) discipline. Put young men and young women together and they will do what young men and women do. It will hurt moral and lead to real and false charges of assault.
In the end it will damage readiness and cost lives.
Wonder if there will be quotas, too? Not enough women passed the physical tests? Why? Must be something wrong.
>>1) the standards will be relaxed for women. Perhaps not officially but commanders will be required to explain why the job can’t be done by a woman, and no answer will be adequate.
You are quite correct! As with everything this regime has done, the unspoken truth is the most important part. McSally said that only “qualified” women should fill combat roles, but we all know that when enough “qualified” women are not available, there will be questions as to why women fail to qualify. Then, the standards will start to drop, unofficially of course!
If women are such great war-fighters, then lets just form Amazon units and let them fight on a level playing field with the male units. This would be a great opportunity to prove the equality of the sexes.
One of the more interesting aspects I have personal knowledge of is the reluctance of some women to join these warfare specialities. I had a three star tell me one of the disappointing problems they were having was getting women to take pilot slots. Even when offered a pilot slot many of them chose a flight officer slot instead. Neither of us could fathom wanting to be in a plane and not be at the controls. When I went through Annapolis the available ship driver billets for women went unfilled as many of them chose shore jobs.