Editorial: Gender-Neutral Standards or Gender Erasure? How the Military’s New Fitness Rules Threaten Women, Non-Binary Service Members

Holding all service members to the highest male physical benchmarks risks pushing capable personnel out and undermining military readiness

Natalie C. Frank, Ph.D October 2, 2025

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; Wikipedia [CC BY SA 4.0]

QUANTICO, VA - At Quantico, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced plans to apply the highest male physical fitness standards across every military branch. Framed as “gender-neutral” readiness meant to ensure all service members can meet combat demands, the policy reads more like exclusion—especially for women and non-binary personnel.

The administration says the goal is simple: everyone must be physically capable of combat. Hegseth put it plainly: “When it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral.” On paper, that sounds reasonable. But modern warfare increasingly depends on intelligence, technical skill, drones, cyber operations, and strategic decision-making, areas where mental agility and expertise matter more than raw strength. By forcing male peak benchmarks on everyone, the Pentagon risks pushing out highly capable women and non-binary personnel whose strengths match these changing mission needs.

This policy reaches beyond fitness and could quietly push women and non-binary people out of combat and specialist roles. The administration has labeled diversity programs “toxic” and criticized protections against hazing and bullying. Taken together, that suggests an environment less supportive of women and non-binary service members. Disbanding advisory committees that focused on women’s issues in the armed forces only reinforces that marginalization.

Competence isn’t just brute strength. Many combat jobs now require technical skill, adaptability, leadership, and resilience, areas where women and non-binary personnel often excel. By favoring male physical standards over functional readiness, the policy implies that if you aren’t male or don’t fit a narrow physical ideal, your place in the military is conditional.

Hegseth’s comments about discipline and leadership add to the worry. Looser definitions of harassment and “toxic leadership” could normalize behavior that leaves women more exposed. Paired with unrealistic physical standards, this approach risks driving capable people away from joining or staying in the military.

The stakes are high. Cutting diversity in the name of “fairness” shrinks the talent pool and weakens readiness. Diversity improves problem-solving, leadership, and strategy across operations. Limiting excellence to physical benchmarks is short-sighted and strategically harmful.

True readiness includes cognitive, technical, interpersonal, and physical skills. Male-level strength isn’t the only measure of merit. Policies should let all service members contribute according to their strengths and reflect the realities of modern warfare. Anything less is both unfair and counterproductive.

It is crucial for the Pentagon to recognize that uniformity in standards is not equivalent to equality in opportunity. By enforcing the highest male benchmarks for all, the administration risks erasing the contributions of women and non-binary service members, undermining both careers and mission effectiveness.

The armed forces are strongest when inclusive, when personnel can leverage their unique strengths, and when policies reflect real-world operational demands. The current proposal, dressed as gender-neutral, threatens to become a liability in both equity and national security. The military must rethink this approach before the pursuit of “uniformity” compromises effectiveness and erases capable service members.

Join the conversation: share your thoughts on how the military can balance fairness, readiness, and inclusion. Let us know what you think in the comments.