Beyond gender lines: Examining the Pentagon's push for unified combat fitness standards

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dropped a bombshell directive that's sending ripples through military fitness circles - a move toward gender-neutral physical standards for combat roles across all service branches. This isn't just a bureaucratic shuffle; it's a fundamental rethinking of how we prepare our warfighters for the battlefield.

The reasoning behind this shift cuts to the core of military effectiveness: combat situations don't differentiate between male and female soldiers, so why should fitness standards? Under this directive, any soldier in a designated combat position would need to meet identical physical requirements regardless of gender. The standards would be dictated by the actual demands of the battlefield - like carrying a 180-pound casualty out of harm's way - not by who's performing the task.

This approach presents both challenges and opportunities. For female soldiers pursuing combat roles, the bar will be set at the same height as their male counterparts, potentially leading to initial disparities in pass rates. For male soldiers, it eliminates perceptions of double standards while potentially increasing competition. The goal is to foster an environment where commanders can have complete confidence in every soldier's physical capabilities, enhancing unit cohesion and operational readiness.

Looking internationally, countries like Britain have already implemented similar standards with valuable lessons. While initial female pass rates were lower, structured training programs helped bridge the gap over time without compromising standards. This suggests that with proper conditioning and resources, physiological differences can be addressed while maintaining rigorous requirements.

The military services now have 60 days to identify combat roles before implementing these standards, with many questions still to be answered. Will this enhance military effectiveness or harm recruitment and retention? Is this an evolution in military fitness or a challenging overcorrection? What do you think about standardizing physical requirements across genders for combat positions? Share your thoughts in the comments below - I personally respond to every comment!

Chapters

• 0:00 Breaking news on military fitness standards
• 1:12 Understanding gender-neutral combat standards
• 6:02 Implications for male and female soldiers
• 11:23 Impact on military effectiveness
• 15:37 International comparisons and lessons
• 19:01 Are standards being lowered?
• 22:50 Conclusion and viewer questions

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

The military is about to shake up the fitness standards like never before. Gender lines might be erased. Hexeth just dropped a memo and it's turning heads. Let's talk about it. Roger Sarn Alright, so welcome to the Roger Sarin Podcast, the podcast where we dive into the latest developments affecting our Army. I'm your host, sarin Cruz.

Speaker 1: 0:33

Today we're talking about a significant shift in military policy and it's the Army's move to implement gender-neutral fitness standards for combat roles, the directive issued by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. It aims to standardize requirements across all genders. We'll explore what that means and the implications for male and female soldiers. Also the potential impacts on military effectiveness and lessons learned from other nations. So let's go ahead and get to it.

Speaker 1: 1:12

The one thing I want to say before we start is the memo dropped and I had some questions or things that I want to clarify. So I just compiled a few things, a few thought process or points out of the memo and I'm going to talk about them. Just make sure you stick around to the last one, okay. So the first thing is we have to understand gender neutral fitness standards, right? Because, as you heard what I said before, it's combat roles, so I'll put the memo in the description on my Google Drive so you could go ahead and read it yourself. I'm not going to bore you with that, but the memo, in a nutshell, says that all services across the board have 60 days to report back to them, because they want to first identify what a combat role is and then they're going to go from there. Okay, so when it comes to gender neutral fitness standards, it it's it required for all soldiers, right, regardless of gender, right? That's what gender neutral is. So they want all genders to meet the same criteria, or the physical criteria, for specific roles, particularly in combat positions, right? So the approach is kind of grounded in the principle that the physical demands of a job dictates the standard, not the gender, not the individual's gender, which kind of makes sense, right? Because if there is a person that is more of a low density, that they're more ancillary or they not combat, then maybe they don't need to be as as fit, but they still should be fit. I think that's just my personal. They should be fit, which everyone is, because if they're not, then they get chaptered out, right?

Speaker 1: 3:17

Um, but defense secretary peak Pete Hexeth I don't know why I can't say his name. I keep saying Hexeth, but I don't know, but he emphasized this in his directive. So he's stating that the military has allowed standards to slip and insisting on a physical uniform requirement for men and women in combat roles. That's his thought process. So his rationale is kind of straightforward, right, combat situations don't differentiate between male and female soldiers, so therefore the standards should reflect the actual demands on the battlefield. So I would take it that if you're a scout, infantry, a tanker or something like that, you're probably gonna be a little bit more rigorous versus, I don't know, maybe a legal representative, combat camera, those individuals like that water purification specialist which I haven't met, many of those.

Speaker 1: 4:18

So an example if a combat role like requires a soldier to like, let's say, uh, carry someone else that weighs less, maybe 180 pounds out of harm's weight, at the end of the day, every individual in that role must be capable of performing the task irrespective of gender. That's the thought process, right? So historically, um, the acft includes events, um, when they first started off. Hold on, yeah, so it has the deadlift. Uh, the standing power, throw the T pushups, the sprint, drag, carry. I love that one. Uh, the plank, which before it was the leg tuck. Personally. Personally, I liked the leg tuck the plank is like my kryptonite, but that's just me. And then the infamous two-mile run. You just can't get rid of that two-mile run. But these events in particular, they're designated to assess the soldier's combat readiness, and the move towards, like, gender neutral standards means that all soldiers will be evaluated based on their ability to perform the task, without adjustments for gender, Right. So the shift, ensure it kind of it's. It's it's geared towards ensuring that all soldiers are equally prepared for the physical challenges of combat, are equally prepared for the physical challenges of combat. So it's geared to promoting fairness and operational effectiveness. That's my thought process on that part.

Speaker 1: 6:02

Now, moving into the second thing that popped into my mind is what are the implications for male and female soldiers? Right? How does this affect everyone? So, for instance, for female soldiers, I think this policy presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Right, let's say that Historically, I think, women in the military have been, kind of like, held to a different physical standard, and we know that because we have biological, physiological differences. Right, we acknowledge that.

Speaker 1: 6:35

I think, however, with the uniform standard, the female soldiers aiming for combat roles, what he's trying to do is make them meet the same criteria as their male counterparts. So this could initially lead to like disparities in pass rates. So, um, which is acknowledged, right, if you make it more rigorous, then only the strong would survive, and I think that's what he wants. So, for example, when the ACFT was initially introduced, the data itself indicated that a significant percentage of female soldiers struggled with certain events, right, specifically the leg tuck, and it had a pass rate of only 52% amongst female soldiers. And you compare that to the 92% for the male population, right. So we do acknowledge that there's a disparity.

Speaker 1: 7:36

Um, and and and and. Again I re, I'm going to go back. This is aimed for combat roles. Will it change? Maybe later on, who knows? But as of right now, the 60-day report is is about mainly identifying what they are.

Speaker 1: 7:55

So, in order to address like the disparities, the army introduced, like um, like modifications, like they were allowing the plank as an alternative to the leg tuck, and then it resulted in improved passing rates amongst the females. So ultimately they made the plank a permanent event and I just I can't do the plank as much as long as as I could do with many leg tucks, so that's kind of like what got me, but still plank. I mean, don't get me wrong, but it's just I prefer to like tuck. But the army said this is what has to happen, so we have to adapt. Speaking of adapt, so to happen, so we have to adapt. Speaking of adapt, so when?

Speaker 1: 8:39

Um, this like the adaptation under it kind of underscores the army's commitment to maintaining kind of like a rigorous standards while ensuring that all soldiers have the opportunity to, or a fair opportunity to, succeed, right? So for the male soldiers, the implant, the implementation of the uh gender neutral standards, it kind of reinforces the expectations of high physical performance, right? Uh, it is going to eliminate, like perceptions of double standards and it ensures that all soldiers in combat roles are equally capable. However, it also means increased competition, so as all soldiers are now evaluated on the same criteria. So I think competition is always good.

Speaker 1: 9:23

And don't get me wrong, I don't care personally. I'm not going to lie, I'm not going to sit here and be like well, I'm for this, I'm for that. I don't care. You know what I mean. Pass your ACFTft, call it a day and and it is what it is. Um, when it comes to the combat role itself, I'm I'm more worried about like because I'm medical. I'm more worried about medical people taking care of that soldier. That that's down on the x. That's what I overall care about and that's why we did the ACFT right, because we had to make sure that everyone's combat ready. So let's I digress. So I guess, overall, while the transition poses kind of changes or challenges, if you will, it still aims to foster an environment of fairness and operational readiness. It's going to be ensuring that all soldiers are evaluated based on their ability to perform essential combat tasks. That's the bottom line. But I will say this, though I will post it on the screen so you can see.

Speaker 1: 10:31

I think back in 2015,. I think back in 2015, secretary Hegseth. He specifically said and it's not in quotations on the Washington Post, but he said that women should not be allowed in combat and criticized that the 2015 decision under President Barack Obama to open all military positions to women. So I can see where this directive comes from, right, so this has always been his core belief. So do with that as you will.

Speaker 1: 11:11

So the next thing that came to my mind was the impacts on military effectiveness, right? So kind of like the, the like the adopt the adoption of, of gender neutral fitness standards. It's aims, it aims itself to have like a bigger impact on military fitness, right. So proponents argue that the uniform standard enhances unit cohesion, right, a uniform standard, and it also enhances operational readiness, which I can see right, because if everyone thinks they have a fair, like an equal playing ground, then I guess there's no discrepancy and it also I can trust those to my left or right that they're also equally fit as I am. But do we do that, though? Because when we had that PT test, apft, acft, now, if I score 560 and someone scores a 480, we're we're we're dogging them out, right? So are we really like we're still going to make fun of you regardless? That's that's my point. But when all soldiers, uh kind of like meet the same uh physical criteria, uh commanders can have because it's about the command as well they can have like confidence in each individual, um, their ability to perform under these conditions. That's that's. That's kind of like another bottom line, um it also the, the, the uniformity itself can lead to more effective teamwork and, um, I guess, some more trust within the, the, the, um.

Speaker 1: 12:54

Another thing is, critics do express concerns about, like the, the, the, the potential reduction and retention and, I'm sorry, yeah, the reduction in retention and recruitment right, because, uh, especially like we're talking about the female population. So I think they call them critics. But the people who have concerns, they fear that the standards might be kind of like discourageable to capable individuals from pursuing or remaining staying in the military as a career, right. So it's important to balance and understand and make sure that we're maintaining high standards, at the same time ensuring that we still have a diverse and capable force. And I know the D word is very off limits, but that's how I think right now when it comes to this, because if we had all males, we wouldn't. Well, we would still be diverse, because we have people from different backgrounds, beliefs and cultures, but, yeah, no, we still. You know what I mean.

Speaker 1: 14:07

I almost talked myself into a corner on that one, I don't know how I did that. So, as of today, in order to kind of mitigate these concerns, the Army has taken a few steps to ensure that the standards are both rigorous and achievable. So, for instance, the ACFT is still graded by gender, but also by age groups, so it still allows like competition within their respective age groups, whether they're male or female, right, ultimately, the goal is to create a force where All members. Yeah, to create a force where all members yeah, to create a force where all members are physically prepared for the demands of combat. That's the bottom line. So when you make sure that that force is prepared, you're going to ultimately enhance the overall military effectiveness. You're going to ultimately enhance the overall military effectiveness.

Speaker 1: 15:05

So, real quick, if you're finding this video insightful, don't forget to like, comment, share and subscribe. Also, do me a favor drop your thoughts in the comments. I love to hear from you. I'd like to hear what your take is on this, and obviously you guys already know that I answer my comments. Let's get back to it.

Speaker 1: 15:26

So the next thing that came to my head was like international comparisons, right, and lessons learned, or just international comparisons, because we also look at our counterparts. When I was in, I was stationed in Germany for 10 years and we did a lot of multinational training and we always look and we ask them. Like, even when I was a BLC instructor at the 7th NTO Army Academy on Grafenburg, germany, we'd at least have one student per classroom from another nation. Right, there were certain things that they couldn't see from another nation. Right, there were certain things that they couldn't see. However, we still. It was our opportunity to understand how their army operates right, so that's something that we do. So we also have to take a look at what they're doing. So, when we look internationally, several countries have implemented gender neutral fitness standards right, so it's offering valuable lessons for us.

Speaker 1: 16:26

The US Army and some of these international examples highlight, like, the importance of setting standards that are both rigorous and reflective of, like real world demands and real world demands. When I say that, I'm talking about, as I said, the word of purification specialist is not expected or is not a combat role per se. So, under this memo, then they would not have the same rigor, right, because that's not their real world. They still have to be a soldier, but they're not cav, they're not armor, they're not infantry, so that's what I mean by that. So they also underscore the necessity of a structured training program to help soldiers meet these standards without compromising readiness or fairness, because you have to build up, or fairness, right, because you have to build up.

Speaker 1: 17:26

So, for instance, we have the British Army. They revised their PT or their physical assessment, in 2019. And that was to ensure that all combat roles were open to women under the same standard as men. They did that. So they found that, while initially the pass rates for women were lower, over time with better training right, because you have to build them Even any soldier when you bring them in, you build them right. So they had better training and preparation, which ultimately caused performance to improve significantly, right? So I guess the key takeaway here is the proper conditioning, resources and training can bridge a gap while maintaining high standards, right, so we don't have to just be like, well, it's your standard, boom, I'm pretty sure, just like the acft when we implemented it. Um, they gave it time like a grace period. So, as us in the US Army, as we move forward, it seems as if the defense secretary wants to adopt similar strategy. The key question remains will the US Army see the same long-term benefits, or will we struggle with retention and recruitment? Those are our challenges. We're already struggling. Now Let me know what you guys think.

Speaker 1: 19:01

The next point that came to my head is our standards being lowered, cause that's what everyone's going to say oh, you're just lowering standards. Actually, before I sat down and recorded this, I was on the phone with a buddy of mine and she said she said she was a, a, a Marine back in the day she specifically said, because I told her what I was doing, she said so they're going to lower their standards for men and increase the standards for women, because that's the only way that you can kind of make that happy medium. Right? So that kind of made sense to me because I didn't think about it that way. Right, because I was like, no, they're just going to make a gender neutral standard. She was like, yeah, but the only way to do that would be is to make it more difficult for women and make it easier for men. And that makes me think, right, but yeah, um, the last, like the last, the last thought of that. When she said that, I was like, huh, I guess that makes sense. But, yeah, are the standards being lowered? Because one of the biggest concerns about gender neutral fitness standards is whether they will be leading to lower expectations. Expectations, right, some of the skeptics argue that the adjusting the standards accommodate for broader participation, inevitably weakening force readiness. But is that actually the case, though? I guess that's my question.

Speaker 1: 20:41

The army us, the army insists that the new standards are based on the actual job performance need, and that's what the memo pretty much says, as I read it combat rules. They're not making things easier or harder for any particular group, but they're just like, let's say, by aligning like fitness test with the physical demands of combat, I think the army aims to ensure that every soldier is truly prepared for the battlefield, for their conditions, right, for what their real world is. So it's also worth noting that other, like elite military forces, such as the Marine Corps Special Operations Units, they already operate under gender, gender neutral standards. So like I think, yeah, the Marine Corps, their infantry officers, they've maintained a strict physical requirement, so and it, but it did result in very few female graduates. That's a that's another thing, right, but the standard hasn't been compromised. This also kind of, I guess, plays as an example of that. Gender neutral standards don't necessarily mean lower performance, but they just they do require like a realistic expectation as well as like structured training. Right, you have to get them there, um, just like any person that's going to um train to cause they want to go Ranger, they want to go whatever it is they want to do. They have that train up, that buildup, and I think they're going to give us a grace period for everyone to get to where they got to go If they're in combat roles. This is again they have to identify what combat roles are.

Speaker 1: 22:32

Many of us won't even see this because it's going to take so long. You know how long it took. We're on what revision? 15.5 for the ACFT. So they're going to roll it out and then they're going to scale it back, then roll it out, and they're going to scale it back, then roll it out, and they're going to scale it back, then upgrade it. It's going to be a lot. But yeah, what's the bottom line Because I just keep rambling sometimes the effectiveness.

Speaker 1: 22:56

I think the effectiveness of the policy itself is going to depend on how well we implement it. Right, it's not just about fairness, it's about ensuring that every soldier can perform when it matters the most, right, that's that's, that's what it is. So where does this actually leave us With the? I think with the Army's move towards the gender neutral fitness standards is kind of like a bold step that it challenges traditional perceptions. Right At the end of the day, it also seeks to ensure that the best, most capable soldiers fill combat roles.

Speaker 1: 23:36

Some see this as an evolution in the modern warfare maybe, I don't know While others worry about the unintended consequences, like the struggle in recruitments, struggle in early attrition. I made two videos on that already, on both of those subjects, so only time is going to tell how successful this shift is going to be. So what do you guys think? Should the standards be the same across the board? Should there be considerations for physiological differences? Let's keep the conversation going. If you like this video, then go ahead and check out this video about the retention problem that I just spoke about, and remember you don't have to embrace the suck if you got the right tools in your ruck. I'm Sarn Cruz and I'll see you in the next one. Peace.