[fwdude]

Until my dying day, like you, I will resist the efforts of feminists and politicians to put females into combat roles directly. Every combat veteran I have ever spoken to feels exactly the same way.

Standard are ALWAYS necessarily lowered to accommodate female members who are recruited to meets some quota. Otherwise, they would almost never pass.

A question Matt Walsh once posed is still true. Do you know how you can know that a female's standards for qualification are different than for males? Because females were allowed in.

We had a couple of female recruits in my police academy class and one of them could barely hit the target in firearms training. They fudged the qualifying scale until she could get in. Pathetic.

[rlmorel]

That is the basis of my fundamental objection to females in combat.

The lives of soldiers around them are at risk, not just their own.

The outcome of an engagement, a battle, or a war could be decided on whether a woman would be able to overcome someone in hand-to-hand combat, carry a wounded comrade out, hump a 155 mm shell to a truck, or withstand they physical rigors enough to incur routine operational injuries at the same rate as men, which they cannot.

This is not a knock on women's intellect, guts, or a desire to serve their country.

It is simple biology.

This linked PDF, written over a decade ago by a female Marine who deployed to Iraq, explains it all very well:

Women in Combat - The Question of Standards