Daniel said:
In my opinion, if the woman that wants to be in combat and is qualified to be, she should be allowed to do so.
They argue that it isn't just about equality and someone being allowed to do something if they want to, but that it would actually cause more trouble and give the unit that they are in more vulnerabilities compared to another unit that doesn't have a male replaced by a female.
One example being a female not being able to pick up an injured full grown male with their gear on and being able to carry them to safety.
Here is a quote from the article in OP:
"It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t have separate standards. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100 lbs heavier than her with their gear on."