While this is starting to get off topic, I think the issue has two sides, both with pro's and con's.
Any fitness test in the Army should theoretically test your ability to meet the physical demands of your job. Those demands are no greater/lesser for anyone, regardless of gender- if you have to pick up a 120lb shell, that shell will weigh 120lbs whether you are a 260lb man or a 140lb female.
The problem with that is two-fold. 1. Different jobs have different demands. An FA soldier does different physical tasks than an SF soldier who does different tasks than a Finance soldier. So do we make branch specific PT tests? If we do that, which Branch test should cadets take? 2. The average male will outperform the average female in virtually any physical test of speed, strength, or endurance. Can we accept then that males will, on average, score higher on gender neutral tests and thus be placed higher on any OML?
Personally, I think a Branch specific test would be great- the current APFT/APRT is not a good measure of pretty much any physical skill required to be a good soldier. I also feel like gender neutral testing makes sense because we deploy into gender neutral situations in real life. However, as others have said, I do not think that is practical because society simply cannot accept that one group can consistently outperform another without somehow being unfair.
Any fitness test in the Army should theoretically test your ability to meet the physical demands of your job. Those demands are no greater/lesser for anyone, regardless of gender- if you have to pick up a 120lb shell, that shell will weigh 120lbs whether you are a 260lb man or a 140lb female.
The problem with that is two-fold. 1. Different jobs have different demands. An FA soldier does different physical tasks than an SF soldier who does different tasks than a Finance soldier. So do we make branch specific PT tests? If we do that, which Branch test should cadets take? 2. The average male will outperform the average female in virtually any physical test of speed, strength, or endurance. Can we accept then that males will, on average, score higher on gender neutral tests and thus be placed higher on any OML?
Personally, I think a Branch specific test would be great- the current APFT/APRT is not a good measure of pretty much any physical skill required to be a good soldier. I also feel like gender neutral testing makes sense because we deploy into gender neutral situations in real life. However, as others have said, I do not think that is practical because society simply cannot accept that one group can consistently outperform another without somehow being unfair.