There are two entirely separate issues in debate here which are being conflated by a number of posters.
The first issue is whether employment should be based on merit/competence rather than gender or other characteristics. The 21st Century answer of course is that, in terms of employment, gender should have no role to play. Other arms and services operate role specific absolute fitness standards (ie carry weight x over distance y in under time z) irrespective of age or gender, why would the RAF Regiment be any different?
The second issue is one of cultural acceptance, is UK civil and military culture ready to accept female combat casualties? The answer again is yes, we have done so for many years, the difference of course is that now they will now potentially become casualties as a consequence of females being employed on roles requiring them to close with and kill the enemy. If we accept the requirement to provide non-gender biased life opportunities we must accept that the same opportunities will arise in terms of dying as well.
I have operated alongside female service personnel is dismounted close combat on operations and I can categorically state the only thing that mattered was their ability as a rifleman (in all aspects of the role), gender never came in to it. Properly trained to the task and given a fair chance (which does not mean reducing any role specific requirements) I don't doubt that this will prove to be a complete non-issue in military terms, but may cause ill-informed and over-emotive faux outrage in the tabloids.
Good luck to all who choose to go down this path.
MB
Last edited by Mahogany_Bomber; 16th Jul 2017 at 10:59.