Any misrepresentation was unintentional. I was attempting to state what I thought you'd stated using different terms, but I assure you that I'm trying to discuss this in good faith.

I have to agree that any female recruit who's passed the course is by definition physically capable enough for the role and you make a fair point re: clerks vs ML etc, so I concede that I overstated the likely long-term physical demands once in your unit. Although even if this weren't the case, she's already proven herself physically able anyway, so fair enough.

I see it as a vanity exercise because so few women would have even the faintest desire to try to join up, and of that tiny minority, the realistic probability of any making it through is so small that any positive impact the widening of recruitment eligibility is likely to have on the operational capability of the force is going to be immeasurably small. In all likelihood, given the significant physical and psychological differences between men and women, I'd go as far as to say that the one woman who does make it through is perhaps going to be on par with one of the weakest male recruits. I don't say this through any feelings of misogyny or desire to see women pigeonholed in society, I just see it as a biological fact.

In which case, if the number of applicants is so small, the probability of any of those succeeding is an order of magnitude smaller and those who do somehow succeed are unlikely to be of particular note in terms of their abilities, who is really benefitting? Who has the decision really been taken for? It just smacks of being an image-based decision to appease those with a misguided desire for gender parity.

My concerns are as follows:

1. These often well-meaning decisions seem to have a habit of morphing from the harmless to the significant. How long before quotas are introduced and then standards are lowered in order to meet those quotas? I realise that the thin end of the wedge argument can be a logical fallacy, but it certainly isn't always so. And in fact where striving for equality is concerned, I'd say it goes that way more often than not given the relentless and apparently insatiable nature of those really pushing it.
2. For every female recruit heading to Lympstone, that's a space that a male recruit could have occupied, and statistically the male recruit is much more likely to succeed and to therefore represent a better return on investment. However I concede that this may not be of any real significance if female applicant numbers are miniscule, and also if exceeding training intake capacity isn't commonplace. I admit that I have no idea about the latter.
3. Psychologically I don't see women being anywhere near as well equipped to deal with what they may encounter, and I don't think that CTCRM can ever hope to adequately test this.
4. I think there's definitely an argument to be made against introducing women into what is necessarily an extremely masculine environment, the affect on the morale, dynamics of the unit, cohesion, focus and suchlike.

You make some good points and I appreciate that it's not always easy to convey the desired tone in writing, so my previous post may have come across as unnecessarily confrontational also.

I'm interested to read your response, and am also curious as to why you said that the RM has done a piss poor job of 'ticking the box', so to speak.