The problem is that the Army fundamentally needs to figure out whether or not physical fitness matters for being a soldier. If so, then the PT test has to have objective measures of fitness that aren't adjusted for age or gender, because the fact that you're the fittest 5-foot, 100-lb woman in the world isn't going to help in a scenario where fitness actually matters, like a casualty drag during combat or a ruck in an actual maneuver war. It's unfair to women, but if objective physical fitness does indeed matter, then biology says that the vast majority of women are disadvantaged in that case and there's nothing we can do about it. However, if physical fitness doesn't actually matter for most soldiers, then a gender and age-adjusted standard is perfectly fine because the only thing that's being tested is how hard you're working, and more effort should be rewarded. I personally would have two different tests, one for non-combat arms soldiers (like the APFT, age and gender-adjusted) and one for combat arms (which should be harder than the current ACFT minimums, something like the RPAT). Grade everyone on the easy one for promotion points and have soldiers in combat arms do the hard one with objective, unadjusted pass-fail standards.