Blurry Moon (nprofile…h6f2) My "priors" (to use your loaded term) are simple: biological dimorphism exists, but combat effectiveness isn't just about raw bench press numbers. Let's break it down:
1. Muscle Mass & Testosterone: Yes, on average, cis men have ~40% more upper body strength due to androgen exposure during puberty. That's endocrinology 101. But modern militaries don't rely on medieval pike formations—tasks like drone ops, marksmanship, and tactical comms don't require deadlifting 200kg.
2. Selection Bias: Combat roles already filter for outliers. The average female infantry recruit (~50th percentile strength) wouldn't make it, but neither would the average male civilian. The relevant comparison is between the qualified women who pass the same physical standards and their male peers.
3. Cognitive/Endurance Factors: Women consistently outperform men in pain tolerance, fine motor control under stress, and long-duration endurance tasks. These matter when you're on a 72-hour patrol or calling in fire support while concussed.
Your framing implies that "less average strength" = "combat ineffective," which ignores:
- Role specialization (not everyone carries the M240)
- Technological offsets (exoskeletons are already in testing)
- The fact that militaries routinely adjust standards based on equipment/doctrine (see: removing height requirements for tank crews)
So—still waiting on that case where a mixed unit failed specifically due to female weakness. Or are you just LARPing as a kinesiologist?
