Should PT standards be neutral across the board?

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:13:43 -0400

With the integration of transgendered personnel into the military, should PT standards be redesigned, possibly even in a job specific sense, to have set standards across the board regardless of gender, and graded as pass/fail?

Response by 1LT Susan Bailey made Jun 25 at 2016 3:30 PM

1LT Susan Bailey — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:30:16 -0400

I gotta say off the top, I'm not a fan of that idea. I think there is a real need to re-evaluate the purpose and application of any of the physical fitness tests. As a nurse, I don't feel it's necessary to have to prove a level of fitness to the same degree as an Infantryman or Marine for that matter. I think by using a totally universal "standard" it makes the point of the whole thing moot.
But, I also think that using a physical fitness score as a primary arbiter of your ability to do the job well or long-term also shortcahanges the military of some very good members, skills, and talent. Look at how some members who are so fit have to get taped because their body simply doesn't match the average tables. At least in the Army, I know of a few instances where people were chaptered out because they could not meet these standards, but there performance was great! So I have to ask how these so-called standards are really applicable today. Some MOSs do need a level off specific fitness, but I believe they have developed skills challenges to meet those needs. Please let me know if I'm wrong. As transgendered troops come in, I think we really have to revisit the value of the fitness scores against future potential.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 25 at 2016 3:43 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:43:10 -0400

To do that we will either have to loosen the requirements for the women or keep the standards high and have fewer women in the ranks. One cannot ignore the differences between men's and women's physical capabilities for political or ideological reasons.

Reality will quickly raise its ugly head and force choices to be made.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 4:03 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:03:10 -0400

They should be more focused on real-world events. Every test measures endurance. What about strength, mobility, and technique? There are many Service Members that don't understand how to do a proper fireman carry.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 4:05 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:05:22 -0400

Yes there should be one Minimum standard for each service regardless of any factors. Now some things like infantry very well should have additional standards for what they need to do but there should be one basic standard for each of the services.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jun 25 at 2016 4:09 PM

CPT Joseph K Murdock — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:09:41 -0400

We can't pretend away that the bodies are different, that's why women don't play in the NFL.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 4:21 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:21:57 -0400

There should be a universal PT standard for military members and a more restrictive PT standard for combat arms. Since gender (along with gender fluidity) is no longer a held belief, standards must be applied uniformly to comply with the need to treat every equally.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 4:28 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:28:31 -0400

Rather than have pass fail tests that are implemented to determine retainability, implement mandatory daily/bi-daily sessions in each unit. Have minimum exercises/routines set in place that everyone is required to complete before the unit is released from PT (tailor time and amount of personnel present to unit operational requirements). Have tests at the unit level that determine the need for physical fitness intervention for specific members (separate standards for men and women). No fail would result in paperwork or discipline, just more PT for that individual. That's my thoughts. This way everyone is made to at least lead a healthy lifestyle regardless of gender or political nonsense.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jun 25 at 2016 4:49 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:49:15 -0400

Let me be blasphemous. No, it depends on the branch of service and your deployment. PO2 George Martin, do you see any job on a ship that can not be done equally on board a ship or sub that a female could not do? I suppose, in actual combat situations on a surface ship a case could be made for the strength. If you are in a combat situation on a boat, it just means you have some that can sympathize with you more than a guy.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 4:50 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:50:40 -0400

The Army had to do that in 1980 with the current 3 Army Physical Fitness events.

Including Transgender males ,who most likely will have a competitive advantage.

Many, but not all, female to male transgenders who many will have issues with doing pushups and the faster time required in the run (especially if they are overweight or close to it).

Its a conondrum that the civilian leadership legislated into regulations knowing its only about 3 per thousand who are affected. It is EEOC at its extreme since the miltary is selective about those with ailments or deformities but those who want to join or who are already in playing God with their body and they wanting special privileges/Parole since they chose to change their gender?

In our times of sequestration, limited budgets, riffing soldiers for minor stuff but who are, in my opinion, worthy of staying in but then allowing in those who will need help, NCO protection and most likely will not bond with their soldiers/marines/shipmates/airmen because they are transgender in a very clickish and tough environment of basic training or small unit cohesion where their is no favoritism and where everyone does their part for the team. I believe, based on my family experience with a problem smoking/drinking/dropout/depressed transgender lazy daughter would be boat anchor or a caustic impediment to a small unit having someone who is having issues with themselves and not focused on the mission.

The mission is learning to get along with others, learing a skill, becoming a leader, selfless service and not worrying about being in the wrong body but worrying about being at the ready for the enemy or battle stations on a ship or being at the ready as an Airman. Its not about :'OMG, I want my reassignment now!'

What gets me mad is now the SECDEF says Uncle Sam will pay for the surguery and treatment for a preexisting condition which I think is not part an injury or illness related to their garrison or combat duty. It is such b.s. We are so short of money but the selective transgenders, as long as they can pass P.t. get the free surguery at our expense!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 25 at 2016 5:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:53:59 -0400

The standard for passing should be the same across the board, the standard for excelling should be different based on factors like age and sex. Yes, that means even that 60 year old General should have to meet the same Minimum standard as a 21 year old soldier. That will hopefully force us to take a second look at what the minimum standard should be, before we apply it across the board to everyone. Elevated standards for certain specialties also make sense.

If the base army standard is 2 miles in 18 minutes, 30 sit-ups and 30 push-ups... the base standard for Combat arms could still be 2 miles in 15 minutes, 60 sit-ups and 60 push-ups... if that's what the MOS requires.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Jun 25 at 2016 6:04 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:04:59 -0400

Are men and women physically different? Yes. Are the mission requirements between servicemen and women different? No. I'm supportive of it, especially if are the physical requirements are based on the mission. We want our servicemen and women held to the same standards, so we know without a doubt that they can perform accordingly. I don't necessarily believe that raising the bar to the males standard is the right answer. The MOS fitness test sounds like a good start to finding the right balance.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jun 25 at 2016 6:22 PM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:22:18 -0400

Leave the way they are, everyone should be abile to do what's asked.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jun 25 at 2016 6:30 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:30:58 -0400

I am sure that I am about to piss off a bunch of people but I think that all this emphasis on PT scores is a bunch of BS along with all of the medals for nothing. We haven't won a war in 70 years but we sure as hell have some high PT scores. I guess that we need to be in shape to haul around all of the medals we give ourselves. I have said before that I can understand why I needed to be in shape in the infantry but the majority of people in the military have no such need. As long as a person can perform their assigned job and does not look like a slob that should be the standard.

Response by LT Carl Bogen made Jun 25 at 2016 7:51 PM

LT Carl Bogen — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:51:27 -0400

I feel that no exceptions should be made for anyone who is part of the military, if we have to be PC, then let it be so.

Response by SFC Alfredo Garcia made Jun 25 at 2016 8:32 PM

SFC Alfredo Garcia — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:32:57 -0400

I think the option of having multiple APFTs should be evaluated for feasibility. If your job is some type office based, technological, health care etc they should consider one version. If you are infantry, police, or anything with arduous expectations, there should be another. Neither should be easy but the expectations should merit their career field. Another tactic is to have a single PT standard and require different passing scores to meet minimum expected job demands. For example one requires 60 pts per even and another may require 70 pts and yet an elite level may require 80 pts for the jobs that expect the highest physical performance. That passing standard should be the same across that military branch for that job or field.

In either case it should be gender neutral and based on the expected job requirements. One Soldier should not have to pick up slack for another unless that Soldier has been injured or incapacitated.

No, it should not be Pass/Fail as it will remove the motivation for those to excel to garner premiere fitness, promotion points, et cetera. They will only look at the singular 'passing' number.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jun 25 at 2016 9:34 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:34:56 -0400

The soldier in the blue pants looks like she is in pretty good shape to me.

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Jun 25 at 2016 11:27 PM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:27:27 -0400

I like the idea of pass/fail- you either exceed the standard, or you don't. But women are built different than men. And men are built different then women. I don't think it would ever work to hold to an identical standard, when we are very different.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 11:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:10:04 -0400

No...women and men have completely different physiological makeups.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 11:14 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:14:15 -0400

PT is important but i think too much is given to the score a person gets. PT. Scores dont show that person's ability to do his/her job. Just because i max a PT test doesnt mean i know my job....and just because i fail a PT test doesnt mean that i am that i dont know my job. ...just a BROAD thought for a deeper discussion.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jun 26 at 2016 11:44 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:44:47 -0400

I've taken so long thinking about this one that my response may go unnoticed. However, it simply isn't something that you can answer glibly. Lives are at stake. I was tempted to go with multiple PT tests of varying degrees of difficulty: Test individuals according to the requirements of their MOS. That makes sense, doesn't it? Sure, every Marine is an infantryman, but that isn't true of the other branches. However, then I thought of the fact that everyone in every branch could end up in a combat zone. Anyone could find themselves in need of defending themselves. I well-remember that those who arrived in Vietnam during the first days of the Tet Offensive, were issued a helmet, a flak vest, an M-16 and ammo, and thrown onto the berm surrounding a base camp under attack. No one bothered to ask what their MOS was nor were they inclined to listen. Thus, I'll vote for a separate PT test for men and women. There are physiological differences that must be accepted. However, I would add these caveats. Transgender should be tested according to their chosen gender. That will give an advantage to new-women and new-men may struggle. So be it. Also, anyone entering the combat arms must pass the male PT test. Sorry if that puts the ladies at a disadvantage, but everyone who goes in harms way has the right to expect their comrades to pull their own weight.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jun 26 at 2016 1:10 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 13:10:59 -0400

I wouldn't do a job specific PT standard because then you get fat desk jockeys and buff war fighters. But yes, PT standards need to be neutral across the board. No more "opting out" of certain requirements. If we're going to open up combat MOS to females, then all females need to be held to the same standards as their male counterparts. Even with the transgender argument, should a male be allowed a pass on his poor PT performance because he says "I identify...". We've been downsizing our military force for the past couple years, so those that remain in need to be held to the same high standard regardless of whether they are male/female or identify as something else.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 26 at 2016 6:17 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 18:17:01 -0400

Absolutely. Effective immediately men should have to meet women's PFA requirements.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 7:08 PM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 19:08:05 -0400

I'd be in favor of a baseline assessment of fitness common to all members regardless of biology or identity, with steeper requirements for physically demanding jobs, including combat arms but also some others. As far as accessions & promotions, the baseline assessment could be a simple pass/fail metric.

Working in IT for the last 15 years, I've become ambivalent about promoting someone who's a decent performer with a high fitness score over an outstanding performer whose fitness merely meets the standard. I'd rather have a staff of highly qualified networking gurus than a crew of fitness fiends. If I have both, great! But, the mission comes first.

Response by Sgt Joseph Baker made Jun 26 at 2016 9:03 PM

Sgt Joseph Baker — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:03:25 -0400

The one place that they actually were the same, the Marine Corps school for Infantry Officers did, until 97% of the female candidates failed to meet the minimum. How do you show up not being prepared for the minimum? Of course, now the progressives want to review what is really needed to be a Marine Infantry Officer. Anyone surprised?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2016 10:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:32:12 -0400

Get the one standard across the board out of your heads it will never happen. MOS specific on the other hand I totally agree with and it needs to and will happen. The way the Commo and MI realm is headed it is going to take some very smart, almost weird individuals to function. Let's face it your typical computer wiz isn't the athletic type, they are most likely glued to a chair and a monitor 22 hours a day. The Army doesn't want them for their PT score they want them for their brain. When it comes to national defense why would we sacrifice having the best person for the job for a mediocre computer guy who is a PT stud? Think about it.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 27 at 2016 9:45 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:45:06 -0400

Hell Yes!
If you are going to make it "Equal" ten make it "Equal all the way"
BUT...then we all know that the Army is more EQUAL to some than others. Remember, Equal Opportunity "Goals" and those pesky yet nonexistent Equal Opportunity QUOTAS are only different because of location in the dictionary.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2016 10:41 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 10:41:24 -0400

I see a lot of people recommending an MOS based PT test. How is it that you expect perfection from one group and accept mediocrity with open arms from another, and then pay us the same while serving and then retired? Does anyone else see huge problems with this?

Response by PO1 Jack Howell made Jun 27 at 2016 12:28 PM

PO1 Jack Howell — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:28:09 -0400

No. The simple fact is that men and women are different physically. There are jobs in the military that are more physically demanding than others. In that case, it would be the responsibility of that individual do extra physical conditioning on their own or as a group. If you're going to change anything, then you should look at completely changing the process and formula for computing body fat percentages. The current system (specifically in the Navy) is seriously flawed.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2016 2:47 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:47:42 -0400

The main issue I see with making it MOS based is that when you're in combat...Your MOS doesn't mean anything because you are a soldier/infantryman first and whatever your MOS is second. If we went to war and I was physically fit according to an office job my battle buddies could suffer because I couldn't handle my portion of the work load during a litter carry or anything of the sort. Regardless of gender or MOS when you're out there you need to all be on the same level physically.

Response by Sgt Tammy Wallace made Jun 27 at 2016 3:17 PM

Sgt Tammy Wallace — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:17:48 -0400

Remember before answering; that it's not just different between males and females, it's also different between young and old...don't let the picture confuse you. :)

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Jun 28 at 2016 12:13 AM

SSG Mark Franzen — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:13:54 -0400

I believe that doesn't Matter if your male or Female should be the same across the board. it pass or fail.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 28 at 2016 11:39 AM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:39:19 -0400

no.

Response by SMSgt Sheila Berg made Jun 28 at 2016 12:19 PM

SMSgt Sheila Berg — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:19:22 -0400

How does that work for 6 foot person versus a 5'5" person with different muscularskeletal structure? Muscle mass is different. Would the requirements be the same irregardless of the job?

Response by A1C Michael Richards made Jun 28 at 2016 12:42 PM

A1C Michael Richards — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:42:14 -0400

Surprise surprise--men and women are different--very few women have the strength men do--if in combat the male will be worrying about the female soldiers--if captured it does not take a high IQ to know what will probably happen to the female--why do we have to make changes that possibly endanger more soldiers to harm?

Response by TSgt James Carson made Jun 28 at 2016 1:54 PM

TSgt James Carson — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:54:47 -0400

PT should be equal accross the board since women will now join in combat situations. Women may have to unfortunatly be medicated so as to allow them to perform equally along side their male counterparts since women bare the burdon of child baring. If women wish to be apart of the butchery known as war, then get on with it since they now have 53% of the natioal vote. Fathers who have lost sons to war will now have fathers of daughters in their camp. may all war will end and our civilization will just go away with a whimper.

Response by PO1 Mile Oconnell made Jun 28 at 2016 2:00 PM

PO1 Mile Oconnell — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:00:22 -0400

going to walk the walk. my vote is yes

Response by TSgt James Carson made Jun 28 at 2016 2:02 PM

TSgt James Carson — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:02:45 -0400

If I may. When a woman is pregnant and called to serve, is she going to be waivered. What will be the equal counter for a male soldier? Will standards place soldiers in more danger when a woman is captured or most likely to be captured if she can't keep up. Will males be required to do more to protect their female team mates than they would males. I'm fed up with the military cover-ups when it comes to these issues.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 28 at 2016 2:43 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:43:20 -0400

Within a service, the standards should be the same because, for example, every Marine is subject to being assigned combat duty as a grunt. In the Air Force, we'd apply the same thinking. Making certain accommodations within a service based on sex, age, etc., should not detract from the mission. So if we keep mission in mind and the requirements around that, the fitness standards should fall in line.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Jun 28 at 2016 5:46 PM

MAJ Bill Darling — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:46:30 -0400

If one's goal is truly equality and recognizing that there is a basic minimum level of fitness ability for all those accessioning into and/or serving in the armed forces, regardless of job, age, or sex, then yes, of course they should. In short, there are no merit-based reasons to oppose it, only emotional ones. If this means having a military that is only comprised of 1% females or one that accepts many more heretofore screened-out males, then so be it.

Perhaps a simple pass/fail would be required to create an individual service-wide acceptable test which would push the option of more stringent standards or goals down to individual branches and/or units (ie while the USA may have a simple p/f test at level X the 82nd Airborne of Infantry branch may require a higher Y (but not lower) for the same p/f test). It undermines the age = sex argument and removes the need for scales, simplifying the test.

The case of age barely holds up and withers under any scrutiny. As with sex, one's age doesn't correlate to one's job or even experience level. We should expect the same of a 40 year old PFC as we should from an 18 year old one. An age-specific scale merely acts as patronizing head patting or "atta boy". We understand that a 48 year old general or MSG will probably not perform at the level of 20 year old SPC; we don't need to inflate their score to make them feel better about getting older.

I don't support the idea of job specific tests for three reasons. 1. It adds a level of bureaucracy to an institution already burgeoning with it. 2. It ignores the multi-MOS/branch composition of units even at the battalion level, setting up multiple standards of performance in units striving for excellence or a common standard. 3. It obviates the principle of everyone being an infantryman first (at least for the USA and USMC).

Exceptions probably should be made for those on physical profile on the principle that a trained experienced soldier/sailor/airman/marine who is physically incapable of performing the minimum is outweighed by the cost of replacing him. Also, it is arguable that those specialized branches in which one can accession directly into armed forces from civilian life, are usually in need, and are typically limited in command opportunities (ie doctors, lawyers, chaplains) would have their own standard. Then again, one could argue there is not need for service-specific medical officers, JAGs or chaplains, but that's a different ball of wax.

Response by SSG Stephan Pendarvis made Jun 30 at 2016 5:00 PM

SSG Stephan Pendarvis — Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:00:34 -0400

It appears it will go that way anyhow....

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 1 at 2016 2:20 AM

SPC Kirk Gilles — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 02:20:49 -0400

But as was commented on below, that does potentially nullify the integration by being able to make standard too demanding.
I know of a LE agency that used a rope climb test each year for officers. Designed to keep females out of the dept. Is that right? I'm not comfortable with engineered exclusions. The Box is open now. Adjust fire.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Jul 2 at 2016 6:08 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:08:42 -0400

This should have happened a long time ago, regardless of any changes in gender policies.

Response by TSgt Jamie Boylan made Jul 3 at 2016 8:46 PM

TSgt Jamie Boylan — Sun, 03 Jul 2016 20:46:59 -0400

I have said this for years, PT standards should be the same for both genders as we are all expected to do the same basic job in the military.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2016 12:00 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:37 -0400

Yes

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2016 12:08 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:08:15 -0400

I think the only variant on pt requirements should be for age and height. Age is obviously, and a 5'3" person shouldn't have to run as fast as a 6'6" person. Height should also possibly affect sit ups.

Response by A1C Michael Richards made Jul 7 at 2016 2:16 PM

A1C Michael Richards — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 14:16:46 -0400

If in combat, which I never was nor ever will be--too old now--the men are going to be concerned about a female in their outfit-even she can do more pushups etc.--it does not take a rocket scientist to know what will happen to a female POW--in the support ranks AOK-- not in combat where they might be captured--the PT should be the same for females as well as males--if they want parity then do the work--

Response by SSgt Paul Esquibel made Jul 9 at 2016 12:19 PM

SSgt Paul Esquibel — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:19:06 -0400

I think they should have been gender neutral for along time in specific areas of fitness, mainly running, I believe regardless of gender any running part of the test should be the same, I have witnessed and seen many times that women can run a 1.5 in under 10min and many men struggling to finish under 13:30