Originally posted by mickazoid:
Re: (2) A soldier is not the same as a wrestler - physical strength / mass / size is not the sole determinant of a warrior or a soldier. From infantry to cavalry, female warriors / soldiers (I use the term here interchangeably) have been devastatingly effective in those societies not crippled by sexism.
Physical capability is not the sole determiner of a soldier's abilities. However, it is not a meaningless measure either and whenever particular fitness standards have been applied (primarily infantry recruitment), women have (on average) managed to pass fewer recruits through the systems. Capable individuals, yes. Some very capable as soldiers, no doubt about that. But averages have not been equally split by gender.
When I wore the uniform, the people most likely to be behind on runs were the women in my unit. They could not execute some manouvers like the fireman's carry and other sorts of things as well, generally. Now, I daresay that a soldier is a composite of abilities and for some trades in the military, raw physical power isn't all that relevant.
But for other trades, especially those going directly into harms way, often on foot, lugging a boatload of kit and possibly expected to move wounded comrades under fire, it still matters and the average (not all examples, just average) female doesn't score as well as the average male (bandying about stats about olympic athletes is meaningless as to the general population's capabilities and I'll bet the vast body of recruits falls closer to societal averages than to olympic athletic levels).
Military recruitment standards should not be built around male or female capabilities, but around the understood requirements of the job. Anyone of either sex who can manage those requirements should be allowed to do the job. But expecting both sexes to perform equally well in meeting requirements for any trade is pointless. Yes, individuals of either sex may well meet any given job req, but overall averages will show each sex (at a guess) better qualified for certain types of trade. (This assumes that recruiting standards are reasonable, well-thought out, and the needs of the job are correctly assessed, which is by no means a given). The job's needs should determine the requirement and we should not expect any particular job to have a 50/50 ratio by sex of candidates able to meet the requirements - it will be dependent on requirements and average capabilities of members of either gender.
There is no sexism inherent in the above assertion about how we should be filling our military trades (similarly, our first responders should follow similar policies). But to ignore relevant differences in capability by gender would be inducing unnecessary risk into an already hazardous profession. Let individuals prove they can meet a req without respect to gender, but don't assume that the gender distribution for any job is or even should be 50/50.
But this is getting way off topic for this thread.
This was a discussion about starports. If we want a 'random static' discussion about the merits of female soldiers, that's fine, but it is another topic. This thread should focus back on starports...