K. Speculating is still speculating so you have nothing.
Wasn't a speculating question. Sorry you didn't get that.
You can start with Australia. I think you were already given a post about it.
No it is biological fact. Male are physically strong on average.
It's also a biological fact that women are better marksmen on average than men. But I digress, PFT, not what dangles between one's legs, should decide.
Yes why would the military want to classify part of their training, evaluation and readiness stats......... I wonder why...... Hmmmmmm...
And why would the rest of the scientific body of researchers not give credence to studies offering no transparency or peer review to independent sources? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
No I was talking about the SCOTUS ruling. It was not about the military reports but that the law was unconstitutional. The military can simply return to the previous basic standards and let women bomb out at previous numbers.
Sounds good to me. I mean, it doesn't. I certainly wouldn't sign up for the military while our ***-pimple-in-chief is in office, so we can fight for his fear of brown men. But if anyone, and I do mean anyone, who can pass the PFA wants to, more power to them.
I disagree as I do not treat gender as unrelated to sex.
Well not keeping up with anything like actual medical and psychological research before making unqualified comments about them is your problem due to irrational pre-conceptions is your problem, not mine.
Yes it was as the military does not do individual evaluation for disqualifying conditions already present.
They actually do in many cases, because most conditions have ranges which fall outside of disqualifying and are thus reviewed on case by case basis. But that's neither here nor there, since it wasn't what I was talking about.
And I tire of this format and this back and forth. Later.