You have ignored my posts to you throughout this thread, even in that post. You were insulting the American Rangers.
As far as your link, she was brave and won a medal, that doesn’t have anything to do with this thread, she can be replaced with a male version which is a medic who is the same as her, except improved in all physical attributes and without the female weaknesses.
She is incapable of serving with the Rangers or Special Forces or the SEALs, or an infantry unit, in any unit she serves in, she will always be less than she could be if she were in a man’s body.
If you knew your military history you would know that bravery has never been in short supply for field medics.
Let her try and fail. When she fails, she will then not be serving with the Rangers, SEALs or any other Special Forces.
In my youth there were God Damned few males who could better me. They tried and they failed.
Like you they were not only ignorant they were arrogant. But me being a God Damned cunning female managed to beat them at their game not only physically but mentally and emotionally as well. They went home with their tales between their legs.
Now, there are many awesome males who are my better and I will gladly bow to them. Unfortunately, you are not one of them
Now take your testosterone laced idiocy and leave me alone you stupid stupid man.
“the question posed tonight is already answered—yes, women may serve in combat duty—but that a correlative point has also been made, namely that anyone who disagrees with this position is backward, uncommitted to equal rights, something of a male chauvinist, a Tailhook type. And to the extent that he does not believe in gender equality, he or she is an undeveloped, metaphysical fetus. And of course, we all know what we do with unwelcome fetuses.”
“The first point is utilitarian: Given that combat duty exacts the most that the human body can deliver, does it make sense to admit to combat duty a gender whose members are physically weaker than males?
“The second point is sociological: In combat conditions, is it realistic to suppose that traditional deferences to sexual identity and derivative customs relating to privacy can simply be ignored? Isn’t it likelier that any such assumption is an invitation to distractions which in tight and anxious military situations could prove lethal?
“And finally, third, are we not, in suggesting that the male predisposition to protect the female should be ignored, sticking our meddling little fingers into the chemistry of biological relationships from which much that is concededly civilized issues? For instance, the call to protect the hearth, to honor the mother and care for the child, to shoulder that burden that corresponds with the incremental capacity of the male to carry greater physical burden, even as the woman bears so many burdens distinctive to her own sex? We plant our flag on a sound tradition, ladies and gentlemen, and warn our dogged adversaries that whatever sophistries they hurl up against it, that flag will continue, bruised but proud, to stand high over the madding crowd.”
William F. Buckley
http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=328
I encourage reading the entire debate at the link.