Is it time for a gender neutral APFT/Fitness Test?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:34:27 -0400

with all the clamor regarding transgendered service members and women in direct combat roles (as well as Ranger, and soon to be SEAL, ext.), is it finally time to do away with gender specific physical fitness tests?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 5:44 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:44:05 -0400

Part of me loves this concept but it would literally result in kicking out many female service members. For non-combat roles, there are items that a woman (based on natural physique) shouldn't be required to complete in order to be in "good" shape. Our bodies are different, there is no denying that part. I think gender different PT standards will have to remain unless the methods of testing are also changed.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 26 at 2015 6:26 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 18:26:08 -0400

Gender Specific PFT standard are required because they are a HEALTH measure, and Physical Health is Gender Specific.

Male & Female bodies are "Built" & "Designed" differently. Being Transgender does not change the Physical Gender component. It "may" change a specific "Accommodation" however until Policy is published in regards to this, we are ahead of ourselves.

The reason Females have longer on the Run is because they "as a class:" are smaller, have shorter legs, have less VO2 capability, etc, which results in "about" a 1min/mile difference in run speed.

The reason Females have a "variance" on Upper Body testing, is because they "as a class:" have muscle distribution which varies WILDLY from males, resulting in less upper body strength.

Using the same "metric" (portion of the test) for both genders is not feasible when measuring HEALTH.

If you take a male and a female of EQUAL health, running at the same speed the female is expending more "effort" (working harder) to maintain that pace. Likewise if you were to have males and females both do pullups, and they both had equal "fitness" and did the same QUANTITY, the male would expend less "effort." This is just a product of how we are built.

That is why (exactly) gender neutral tests don't work.

Now, should they be closer? Sure. Why not. But exactly equal. Nope. You will raise the standard too high for one, or worse LOWER THE STANDARD for the other.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 26 at 2015 7:11 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:11:38 -0400

Until hormone therapy becomes an issue, a transgender male is still a male, and a transgender female is still a female. It would be better to leave the standards as is for accession and retention purposes as it is based specifically on male and female physical standards. If they want to go SF afterwards, then the standards should be equal.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 7:48 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:48:25 -0400

I believe the threshold requirement should be based on the MOS and the level of fitness that job requires with scoring for points adjusted for age and sex. That way everyone has to meet the same requirements, while the system still rewards a 50 year old female soldier who can outrun a 20 year old male soldier.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 26 at 2015 7:55 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:55:15 -0400

No, I believe it is time for a job specific, gender neutral PT test(s). eg. Being a finance clerk has different physical requirements than a light infantry mean.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2015 9:34 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 21:34:30 -0400

Super question to get the gray matter working. I think that MOS specific testing is probably the answer or at least the right direction. Based on the statements of COL Charles Williams and Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS. (Talk about playing safe and being "wishy washy", I'm glad I'm out and don't need to over work the gray matter.)

Response by MSgt Niclas Svensson made Aug 27 at 2015 12:23 AM

MSgt Niclas Svensson — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:23:31 -0400

For your average (non-combat) specialties, no I don't think they need to be equal. I DO however think they should be closer. There is absolutely no reason why an 18 year old woman shouldn't be able to run faster than a 50 year old man, yet their minimum run time is exactly the same. A minute or so difference I could understand, but what it is right now is ridiculous.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 3:21 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 03:21:16 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 27 at 2015 9:03 AM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 09:03:20 -0400

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.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 27 at 2015 1:39 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:39:57 -0400

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?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 6:50 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:50:56 -0400

Sure, I'm getting tired of doing my 80 push ups to max my score. Why do 80 when I could only have to do 50.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 28 at 2015 6:57 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 06:57:19 -0400

Yes either do the job to the same standard or not at all

Response by SPC James Burkett II made Aug 28 at 2015 7:03 AM

SPC James Burkett II — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:03:35 -0400

There has to be some kind of gender neutral or MOS testing brought into play and I don't say this even in regard to male vs female, but as a whole a transgender soldier would still have the physical body build of there previous gender meaning you give a male standard test to a newly female to male soldier chances are he will fail where as a female standard test was given to a new male to female soldier she would most likely blow the test out of the water, but it would fall under EO if you told a transgender soldier they have to take the test of their previous gender.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Aug 31 at 2015 10:02 AM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:02:26 -0400

Where there are specific physical requirements for a school or duty position, I.e. Ranger School, BUDS, Q Course, SCUBA, Operational Detachments, SEAL teams, The Ranger Regiment, Force Recon etc. physical standards, and the measurements therefore, ought to be the same for all. Other wise leave the current system in place. BTW, if the APFT/ Fitness test is gender neutral should it not also be age neutral? How about body type neutral?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2015 7:31 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 07:31:24 -0400

Only if we also do away with the age brackets. Basic science establishes physiological differences between age groups, as well as between males and females. That's why we have different standards for men and women and different standard for various age groups. Logically, we either need to keep both age and gender based scales or get rid of both. Keeping one but not the other would be illogical. We could establish an age and gender neutral test for everyone, or an MOS specific standard that is he same for all ages and genders. I lean towards the age and gender neutral test option, as it seems we are trying to establish what standard is required to do a job, and age and gender don't seem to matter in this discussion: either one can meet the standard or they can't.

What we can't do is be like the Marine Corps on its recent study, which argues that establishing a standard is not necessary, because being male is the only required standard to be in certain Marine MOSs.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2016 10:07 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:07:23 -0400

Honestly, too many soldiers do not realize that the APFT does overlap, so the point is moot, unless the female standard is raised to 70% or so...which is the standard in many units.

Response by MSG Don Burt made May 1 at 2016 12:21 PM

MSG Don Burt — Sun, 01 May 2016 12:21:26 -0400

Pure and simple, NO!
If you're gonna play with the Big Boys, ya gotta play by the rules!
With that being said, the czarists and PC will probably force feed the change to us!