Impact of Sex-Neutral Fitness Tests on Women in US Army Combat Roles

The U.S. Army has long been evolving to become more inclusive. Yet, its recent shift to sex-neutral fitness standards has sparked intense debate. Critics and supporters alike wonder: are these new tests fair to women seeking combat roles?

For decades, the military used different physical standards for men and women. However, in 2019, the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) introduced a single standard regardless of gender. This change raises important questions about equality, readiness, and opportunity within military ranks.

Understanding the New Army Combat Fitness Test

The ACFT replaced the older Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) that had been in use since 1980. The previous test featured different scoring tables for men and women. It included push-ups, sit-ups, and a two-mile run.

In contrast, the new ACFT includes six challenging events:

• Three-repetition maximum deadlift (140-340 pounds)
• Standing power throw (throwing a 10-pound medicine ball)
• Hand-release push-ups
• Sprint-drag-carry (a shuttle run with weights)
• Plank hold
• Two-mile run

Initially, the test was completely gender-neutral. However, after concerning data showed women failing at much higher rates, the Army adjusted the scoring. The current version still maintains identical minimum standards but uses different percentile tiers for promotion consideration.

The Case for Sex-Neutral Standards

Supporters of gender-neutral standards present several compelling arguments. First, combat doesn’t discriminate based on gender. Enemy forces, heavy equipment, and wounded comrades don’t become lighter for female soldiers.

Captain Kristen Griest, one of the first women to graduate from Army Ranger School, strongly supports uniform standards. She argues that lowering physical requirements for women would ultimately undermine their credibility and effectiveness in combat units.

Additionally, proponents point out that gender-neutral tests focus on actual combat-related skills rather than general fitness. This approach better prepares all soldiers for the physical demands they might face in battle.

Military Readiness and Unit Cohesion

Military leaders emphasize that combat effectiveness must remain the top priority. Army General Mark Milley has stated that standards should not be lowered simply to increase diversity. Instead, training methods should improve to help more women meet existing standards.

Moreover, uniform standards can potentially strengthen unit cohesion. When all soldiers must meet identical requirements, it builds mutual respect and confidence among team members. This trust is crucial in high-stress combat situations.

Challenges and Criticisms of the Approach

Despite noble intentions, the sex-neutral standards have faced significant criticism. Data from early ACFT implementation showed alarming disparities in pass rates. Women failed at rates up to 65% compared to 10% for men.

These statistics raise concerns about whether the test truly measures combat readiness or simply reflects biological differences. Critics argue that the test overemphasizes upper body strength, where men typically have natural advantages.

Biological Realities and Physical Differences

Scientific research consistently shows physiological differences between the sexes. On average, men have:

• 30% more upper body strength
• 10% more lower body strength
• Higher muscle mass to body weight ratio
• Greater bone density

Dr. Emma Williams, a sports physiologist, explains that these differences aren’t matters of effort or training but biology. “Women can absolutely achieve remarkable physical capabilities,” she notes. “But certain strength benchmarks require women to train significantly harder than their male counterparts.”

Career Advancement Concerns

Another significant concern involves career progression. Physical fitness scores influence promotion decisions in the military. If women consistently score lower on the ACFT, they may face limited career advancement opportunities.

This situation creates a difficult tension. While combat effectiveness remains paramount, the military also aims to develop diverse leadership. Without some accommodation for physiological differences, women might be systematically disadvantaged in career development.

Impact on Female Recruitment and Retention

Early data suggests the new standards may affect female participation in the Army. During initial implementation, recruitment officers reported heightened concerns among potential female recruits about meeting the physical requirements.

Furthermore, retention rates could suffer if women feel they face insurmountable physical barriers to advancement. Many military experts worry this could reverse decades of progress in female military integration.

Colonel Rebecca Johnson, who oversees recruitment initiatives, shared that “many highly qualified female candidates are expressing hesitation about joining combat roles due to concerns about the new standards.” This trend could limit the talent pool for critical military positions.

Seeking Balance: Recent Adjustments and Alternatives

Recognizing these challenges, the Army has made several adjustments to the ACFT. While maintaining identical minimum standards, they now use gender-informed performance categories for evaluation.

This approach aims to balance combat readiness with equitable opportunities. Soldiers must meet the same baseline requirements, but promotion boards consider scores relative to their demographic peers.

Training Innovations

The Army has also invested in specialized training programs to help women succeed. These include:

• Targeted strength development protocols
• Nutritional guidance specific to female physiology
• Mentorship programs pairing women with successful female combat soldiers
• Extended preparation periods for women transitioning to combat roles

Additionally, some military experts advocate for role-specific standards rather than universal requirements. This approach would set physical benchmarks based on actual job demands rather than applying identical standards across all positions.

Lessons from Other Military Forces

The U.S. is not alone in confronting these issues. Other nations’ experiences offer valuable insights into managing physical standards and gender integration.

Israel, which has long included women in combat roles, uses modified but rigorous standards for female combat soldiers. They focus on essential job functions rather than identical requirements.

Similarly, Australia implemented a phased approach when opening combat roles to women. Their system emphasizes job-specific physical standards with targeted preparation programs to help women succeed.

Finding a Path Forward

The debate around sex-neutral fitness tests reveals deeper questions about equality in the military. Is true equality measured by identical standards or equal opportunity to serve?

Many experts suggest the goal should be having the most capable fighting force regardless of gender composition. This might mean continually refining standards to ensure they measure what truly matters for combat effectiveness.

Captain Sarah Rodriguez, who serves in an infantry unit, offers a nuanced perspective: “We need standards that ensure every soldier can perform their duties effectively. But we must also recognize that different body types can achieve combat effectiveness through different means.”

Policy Recommendations

Military analysts have proposed several paths forward:

• Maintain rigorous but job-specific physical requirements
• Continue developing specialized training programs for women
• Regularly evaluate standards to ensure they correlate with actual combat performance
• Gather long-term data on how physical standards affect recruitment, retention, and battlefield effectiveness

The most promising approach may involve ongoing refinement rather than rigid positions. As more women enter combat roles, the Army will gain valuable insights about which physical capabilities truly predict success in battle.

Conclusion

The implementation of sex-neutral fitness standards in the U.S. Army represents a complex balancing act. The military must maintain combat readiness while providing equitable opportunities for all qualified personnel.

What seems clear is that neither complete gender neutrality nor drastically different standards represent ideal solutions. Instead, the Army continues to evolve its approach, seeking standards that reflect actual combat requirements while acknowledging physiological realities.

The coming years will reveal whether these adjustments successfully balance combat effectiveness with expanded opportunities for women in military service. The outcome will shape not just the Army’s gender composition but potentially its overall fighting capability for decades to come.

How do you feel about the Army’s approach to physical fitness standards? Should identical requirements apply to all soldiers, or should standards vary by role or gender? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

References

• U.S. Army Combat Fitness Test Official Information
• Department of Defense: Army Implements New Fitness Test
• RAND Corporation: Analysis of the Army Combat Fitness Test
• Military.com: Female Infantry Officer’s Perspective on Combat Standards
• Journal of Military Studies: Gender Integration in Combat Units