Posted on Aug 26, 2015
Is it time for a gender neutral APFT/Fitness Test?
15.8K
52
37
9
9
0
APFT
Gender
Responses: 17
8
8
0
Maybe this should be a whole new discussion but to play devil's advocate in response to those who feel that the APFT should be MOS specific. Would MOS's with lower APFT requirements become "reclass" targets for Soldiers who struggle with the APFT? Would this change snowball into the idea that each MOS should have its own pay scale?
(8)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
That's an interesting point. If we are talking reclassification based on lack of MOS qualification (in this case, pt standards), then yes, it seems wed reclassify folks into less demanding MOSs, and that maybe there'd be room for extra compensation for specialty pay for harder MOS standards. We already do a load of specialty pays, so why not add one for harder MOS, or maybe for meeting hose MOS standards even if you aren't in that MOS. Langiage pay could provide a basis for this. We pay folks to speak (some) foreign languages even if their MOS does not require it.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
I have mixed opinions on this. Men and women are biologically different, as such I support having a high standard for biological capabilities for each gender. However, developing something like that would be time consuming and difficult to implement, so I'll compromise and be supportive of a baseline gender neutral standard. The current APFT does a piss-poor job of measuring fitness, but if we do make this test gender neutral it should be at the higher standard (men's standard). Ultimately, I want women's unique skill sets used to the best extent possible. If we could create a fitness test that is equally difficult for men and women under the same standards that would be my choice, but I don't see that happening.
(6)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
SPC Joey Reynolds I even mentioned in my initial post that if we adapt a gender neutral APFT it needs to be to the higher standard (men's standard). This is regardless of whether women are in combat roles.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
There's no way we could have completely equal test if they continue waist measurements...the mens max is 37.5 I believe...that's a pretty big woman! Or a womans max being 34 would be a bit small for most men who are just build bigger.... that's the whole reason there are separate tests to begin with both genders are built different...Although when transgender comes into question I do believe you need to complete the test you were born into since that's would be the test your body was meant to fill...I saw an article about a transgender fighter destroying her female opponent....of course she did! She was born with the physique of a man. This isn't a test of what your gender mentality can complete, but what your body can.
(0)
(0)
SGT Kristin Wiley
SSgt (Join to see) The waist measurements are specific to the Air Force, so that's a mute point in the Army. I personally believe that transgenders should have to perform according to their biological gender from birth, but with today's society, I highly doubt that will satisfy the outcry. A gender neutral standard would prevent issues across the board, especially with women filling combat roles. I also believe that the fitness test needs to be changed so it actually measures health and fitness, instead of how well you can perform on 3 different exercises. There's no doubt that we are biologically different, and therefore have different capabilities. It's also why the Army is considering developing a fitness test based on each job/MOS. If you can meet the requirements for your occupation, then you should be allowed in that occupation regardless of gender, sexuality, ect.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT Kristin Wiley I was unaware of that, thank you. I agree that the best possible route, if any changes are going to be made, would be job specific testing.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I feel this question is irrelevant. There are many male Soldiers in all MOSs that can't even pass the APFT in their own gender/age group. Should we lower the standards for them or make it more neutral within the gender? Folks on here are saying an 18 year old female should be able to out run a 50 year old male. I am a pubic hair shy of 50 and there are very few males of all ages that can out run me.
A possible course of action if combat MOSs are opened to females would be to require females to pass the APFT in the male age group they are currently at? I just find it funny that people are all about equality and the same standard yet leaders don't even take the time to ensure their Soldiers, male or female can meet the standard. It's so much easier to separate a Soldier because they can't pass the APFT than to take the time to assist/train that Soldier to meet the standard.
Sad.
A possible course of action if combat MOSs are opened to females would be to require females to pass the APFT in the male age group they are currently at? I just find it funny that people are all about equality and the same standard yet leaders don't even take the time to ensure their Soldiers, male or female can meet the standard. It's so much easier to separate a Soldier because they can't pass the APFT than to take the time to assist/train that Soldier to meet the standard.
Sad.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Great comment.
If the Army implements MOS-specific fitness requirements, do you think these should be tested annually (say, like the foreign language requirement for linguists) or just once, say, at basic training? I see the Army going to a one-time qualification standard at initial entry training. I think, though, that this should be an annual requirement for everyone in the same MOS. Otherwise, we will end up with MOS-qualified Soldiers led by NCOs and officers who aren't required and maybe can't meet the same standard. That seems illogical. (Yes, I also think having age neutral fitness standards would be logical, and I recognize that the APFT maybe isn't a great measure of physical fitness or health).
If the Army implements MOS-specific fitness requirements, do you think these should be tested annually (say, like the foreign language requirement for linguists) or just once, say, at basic training? I see the Army going to a one-time qualification standard at initial entry training. I think, though, that this should be an annual requirement for everyone in the same MOS. Otherwise, we will end up with MOS-qualified Soldiers led by NCOs and officers who aren't required and maybe can't meet the same standard. That seems illogical. (Yes, I also think having age neutral fitness standards would be logical, and I recognize that the APFT maybe isn't a great measure of physical fitness or health).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google