Federal Judge rules against different fitness standards for women

[Sicks_Ate]

@Silvorange

I agree with ** FairyChatMom** that there is a difference between being able to perform a specific task, which should be the same for everybody, and being fit, which is different for different types of bodies. Men and women have rather different types of bodies,and equally fit men and women may not be able to perform tasks at the same level. It’s a binary with only a very small gray area (trans* people), so it’s easy to make sex-based categories. You can’t have everything personalized because it would get too complicated, but it seems like adding height categories for running would be reasonable as well.

Think again. Being tall doesn’t necessarily confer an advantage in running. Trust me.

Bigger Is Better, Except When It’s Not (Published 2007)

Distance running is different. Tall people naturally have longer strides, but stride length, it turns out, does not determine speed. Running requires that you lift your body off the ground with each step, propelling yourself forward. The more you weigh, the harder you have to work to lift your body and the slower you will be.

The best runners are small and light, with slim legs. “If you have large legs, you have to move a big load,” Dr. Secher said. “The smaller you are, the better you are.”

[Silvorange]

@Sicks_Ate

Think again. Being tall doesn’t necessarily confer an advantage in running. Trust me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/health/nutrition/27Best.html?_r=0

Thanks, that’s good to know. It gives me some hope as a new runner.

[steronz]

This is a really interesting ruling; I’m curious how this is going to affect other organizations.

The fitness tests we have to take in the Air Force are basically all about appearances. Nobody wants to see a bunch of lumpy US servicemembers struggling to catch their breath while climbing a flight of stairs. Logically, there’s very little reason to expect a 50 year old senior enlisted member to be able to exercise well, except that it’s hard to motivate the younger troops to exercise if everyone at the upper ranks is fat.

In that regard, gender and age specific standards make perfect sense, although Chessic Sense is right in saying that within those groups, certain body types are punished. I chalk that up to the difficulty of enforcing a standard without spending a ton of money and time. We tried to solve that problem with the ergometry cycle test and failed miserably.

For any job that actually requires some degree of strength, there’s usually a separate set of standards that could be made gender-neutral if they’re not already. But if the entire goal of the fitness test is just to make sure people are generally fit, I don’t see how you can do it without acknowledging that “fit” means different things for different people.

So what’s the answer here – a change to the civil rights act to allow for certain exemptions? Seems reasonable to me.

[Sage_Rat]

@Bricker

Can you explain what upon basis the circuit court will, in your estimation, reverse the ruling?

I’m not handsomeharry, but this does seem like an issue where there’s a good argument to be made on either side, so there’s even odds that any other judge will rule the other way.

But on the total, I think the balance is in favor of there being no gender discrimination, in this case. Basically, the reasons for requiring a certain level of fitness are:

1. In order to discriminate for/against a particular class of person.
2. To keep your work force good looking, for esthetic purposes.
3. To make sure you can mobilize your work force in physically demanding situations and have them prove usefull.
4. The position requires specific physical capabilities, which if not met, will result in harm to the worker or others.

If the FBI’s goals are either 1 or 2, then they should be forced to stop, since esthetics are unrelated to the job. If the goal is #3, where the expectation is that physical fitness is a secondary consideration of the job, but still might be necessary on the occassion, then requiring “general fitness” seems reasonable. And the lower minimum of “general fitness” would be expected to vary by sex (though one might also expect it to vary by height, age, etc., so as a judge, I might require them to take more variables into account, if they’re going to bother.)

All the FBI has to demonstrate is that general physical fitness is at least partially necessary for the job, as a department of the government which could be called in for emergency aid at any given time, and that the values they have defined are a reasonable test, among the general populace, of people who are physically active.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@blindboyard

A lot of you seem to hate equality.

I think you made this up entirely. Five people posted before you. None of them remotely expressed hatred for anything. To get from the posts above yours to “a lot” of people hating equality takes a pretty extremely slanted perspective.

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

@Chessic_Sense

Why not acknowledge reality by giving people with worse “skeletal differences” a lower score? How come I have to have the same run time as a tall man to get the same score, but women get a bonus for their physical differences?

The Civil Rights Act.

[handsomeharry]

@Bricker

Can you explain what upon basis the circuit court will, in your estimation, reverse the ruling?

Just got back to this thread.

PC will get it overturned. Don’t know which legal argument will prevail.

[marshmallow]

“This case at its core is about the simple premise — same job, same standard,” Andrew said. “If you’re going for the same job, you should be held to the same standard whether you’re male or female.”

Sounds good.

My question is which side does the BS fall? That is to say, are the women who can only do the 14 pushups woefully unqualified and only being let in due to political correctness run amok, or is the standard of 30 pointless?

[Grumman]

@TonySinclair

I don’t see why it’s important in something like the FBI, where you might be a deskbound analyst.

Then they shouldn’t apply to men, either. Either the requirement is important, regardless of your sex, or it’s not important, regardless of your sex.

[Projammer]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

I think you made this up entirely. Five people posted before you. None of them remotely expressed hatred for anything. To get from the posts above yours to “a lot” of people hating equality takes a pretty extremely slanted perspective.

I think you missed a whoosh there.

FairyChatMom nailed it. If I’m in a burning building pinned under a fallen beam, I’m going to be a whole lot happier seeing the 250lb ex high school linebacker coming through the door rather than the 110lb ex cheerleader.

If the job description is pushing pencils and pulling file folders, however many pull-ups the applicant can do is pretty much irrelevant until they apply for a transfer. If the job may require carrying my 200lb unconscious body out of a danger zone, it’s completely relevant.

[MichaelEmouse]

@FairyChatMom

Seems to me there’s a difference between a test for general physical fitness and a test for a specific job’s physical requirements. Aren’t there physiological reasons that women and men, in general, can’t do the exact same things to the exact same level? I’m reaching back in my memory, but, for example, women can’t run as fast as men because of skeletal differences, or so I was told. And that’s why standards for passing PT tests in the military are different based on sex (and age.) I don’t see that as discrimination - it’s an acknowledgment of reality.

But as mentioned above, if a job requires a minimum performance standard, like carrying an unconscious person out of a burning building within a certain amount of time, your plumbing is not a factor. You can either do it, or you can’t. And social engineering shouldn’t enter into the picture.

@Silvorange

I agree with ** FairyChatMom** that there is a difference between being able to perform a specific task, which should be the same for everybody, and being fit, which is different for different types of bodies. Men and women have rather different types of bodies,and equally fit men and women may not be able to perform tasks at the same level. It’s a binary with only a very small gray area (trans* people), so it’s easy to make sex-based categories. You can’t have everything personalized because it would get too complicated, but it seems like adding height categories for running would be reasonable as well.

What does fitness refer to here, if not for the ability to perform a set of tasks to a given level?

If it’s about aesthetics, then a BMI or height-to-waist size test or similar should be used.

If it’s not about aesthetics, then what does it matter if someone is not fit, if they can perform the tasks to a given level? What does it matter if they’re fit, if they cannot perform the tasks to a given level?

[Boogly]

Perhaps for general fitness reviews use a bell curve with certain minimum requirements for each sex? It would require very general physical fitness tests and I have no idea how to ‘equal’ it out.

For job specific tests there should be an absolute minimum. When I was a volunteer firefighter it was much easier for me (210 lbs and in decent shape) to carry a weighted dummy than female firefighters. There were males who also were unable to complete the carry as well. However we were primarily industrial firefighters so the only the only positions they didn’t qualify for was the Rapid Intervention Team.