Examples of double standards with punishments to Soldiers.

1SG (Join to see) we won’t agree on this but it is the great point of this forum. I don’t agree with a lot of the military standards. But then again I am out now due to injuries I received while in. But A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations. Same situation, an APFT is administered, the principle is that a soldier who runs a 15:55 run fails but only if your a male if your female you get 19 minutes. That is a double standard. Two different standards for the same situation. Same applies for age. When your on the Range there is no different standards for anyone shooting that day, that means their is a standard that is fair.

SSG Lyle O'Rorke
Yes, we won't agree.
Males and females have different body compositions, so the situation is not similar. Using your standard, there shouldn't be male and female competitions in the Olympics. 100 yard dash is a 100 yard dash, weight lifting is weightlifting, swimming, etc. Apparently, it's not just the Army who has it wrong, it's all sports bodies.
Reminds me of the man who was a competitive weightlifter who had never won. He decided he gender identified as a woman. He was then permitted to enter competitions as a woman. The amount of weight he was able to left didn't increase, but he began "winning" competitions.

1SG (Join to see) the difference is that in those sports people don’t face life and death situations where their ability to physically perform can literally mean the difference between life and death. A female who does her 19 push ups having to pick up and carry a male weighing over 225lbs with gear vs a male who does 51 push ups but can lift and carry that weight. The scores should be the same for both genders. Then again I have always been one for same rights, same jobs, and same standards and expectations.

SSG Lyle O'Rorke and a male scoring 300 on the APFT wont significantly better in that scenario. Further , the APFT isnt a measure of that ability.
I've had 2 males scoring 290+ on APFT struggle to carry me, so that clearly isn't sound argument.

The problem is that the Army is too focused on appearance and physical fitness than the ability to qualify with a weapon. It is sad that Soldiers are identified by how well they perform during one hour of a day rather than the rest of any day...

the sad part is that they are not "identified by how well they perform during one hour of a day"

it's more like during the less than 20 minutes of performance, twice a year. But I get what you are saying, I just think weapons qual is equally important and see it as a double standard

As they should be.

Why do you hate to say it Sir? If it is so, then it needs to be said.

SFC - you know why I hate saying that.