The argument that women simply cannot “make the cut” and compete physically with men has consistently been the most prominent argument for keeping them out of combat units. Stephanie Gutmann summarizes this position: “When butts drop onto seats, and feet grope for foot pedals, and girls of five feet one (not an uncommon height in the ranks) put on great bowl-like Kevlar helmets over a full head of long hair done up in a French braid, there are problems of fit – and those picayune fit problems ripple outward, eventually affecting performance, morale, and readiness.” This chapter argues that these physical arguments are not as objective and straightforward as they appear. Physical capabilities seem to be easy to measure and evaluate – particularly in comparison to subjective qualities such as bravery, or complex concepts such as cohesion. Moreover, the main argument associated with women and physical standards appears to be quite simple – women are described as weaker than men, and therefore less able to do the types of activities required by infantry soldiers. Assessing the validity of this physical argument should also be relatively straightforward. Evidence indicates that there are clear differences in physical qualities between men and women and that, on average, women are indeed weaker than men.

However, if we go beyond this initial position, the arguments associated with physical standards are more complex. It is quite a large leap from the assertion that women are weaker than men, to the argument that this weakness necessarily renders women incapable of fulfilling combat roles. There are two key assumptions inherent in this argument. The first is that the physical difference between men and women is insurmountable. In other words, biology is destiny, even with training or adapting tasks. The second assumption is that combat requires unique physical skills not needed for other military roles, and that women lack these particular physical skills.