Originally Posted by palmetto defender
Look at performance data for athletes. A decent HS male athlete performs at a better level than the best women athletes in the world - in any track event, in swimming, in weight lifting. In any objective measured event.
By this logic, any "decent" male HS track-runner out sprints Gold-Medal winning Allison Felix.
Yea, I suppose that's believable.
Except that the 2012 Westchester County 200m Boys' Champ ran 22.08 and Felix ran 21.88 in London.
The "best" 200m sprinter in Westchester County (no track slouches mind you) would not have beat one of the "best women athletes in the world." Therefore, I suggest it would not be nearly as simple as you suppose that a "decent" male would beat her.
Ultimately, women (by-and-large) are not going to be able to sustain the testing/selection/training processes of these SOFs so the whole debate about women "not being able to handle it" is moot.
However, if they CAN prove they can meet/exceed the standards of their male counterparts, and can sustain the training regimen, why not? Best of the best yes? If they are better or as good as males who pass selection and can endure operational pace, why not?
Again, I'll reiterate, I don't believe many if any women will be able to qualify even to test for these groups, but just because you don't want to share your toys because girls have cooties is foolish.