1. No, the conditions would remain for men because It's a relative change. Let's put it another way, the entry standard for women's 200m in 2016 was 11.32 and men's was 10.16. Therefore is it reasonable to change the women's entry standard time to 10.16 as Well?
You are missing very important point here, 200m is not a mixed gender event. When competitions are mixed (e.g. shooting) requirement to qualify is the same for both genders.
2. That remains to be seen. Any change will see fluctuation in data, it's usually how that data is analysed that is the key or if more data is captured since the change. You could look at examples from Israel I guess or other countries to gauge the impact.
You mentioned IDF, where women have light combat and support roles. (I actually have a number of friends with first hand experience in IDF and could ask them, if we have things to ask
)
Others use the same standards are men. (e.g. pilots)
You're using absolute weights though and a pretty disingenuous argument. Let me put it another way. An 85kg male can do 10 pullups. A 60kg female can do 12 pullups. How do you differentiate relative strength and endurance between the two?
I actually weight less than my neighbor. I was merely pointing out, something being harder for particular person, doesn't mean it isn't easier to do.
In your quoted example
female doing 12 pull ups has clear advantage, it would allow her, for instance, climb somewhere where men would not.
However, taking the comment at face value I would expect the female to be able to carry the weight of necessary equipment. It can be argued that fewer rations, smaller clothes, smaller sleeping bag and smaller boots could make up 5lb worth of kit difference.
This is a fair statement I fully agree with, having smaller weight because soldier is expected to carry less as she needs less is perfectly fine. (assuming it is the case, I don't know if food rations vary in reality) .
I think weight differences are taken into account to a point, e.g. heavy gunmen carry more (at least in some armies) and that's the reason they tend to be bigger than the rest.
Let's say women had always been allowed to serve in front line position and specialist units. Do you think the current selection rules would have the same thresholds?
WWiI anyone? Countless female snipers on USSR side. A number of pilots too. But how many among them storm troopers? None.
I think we ran out of arguments and got to essentially expressing opinions.
Easing (that's what it actually is) standards to get more women into SAS is very likely to weaken (elite) squads.
If so, I see dire ethical issues with "should I send John with Jane, even though it reduces his chances to survive" and "should I send Jane at all, as she's not as fit".
It defeats the very idea of "elite unit".
I hear you on "but women failing to pass standards set for men doesn't necessarily mean they are less fit", but am skeptical about the chances of it, and
for a reason.
On of the reason Norway has created women only squad was dealing with nuanced situations with Muslim population:
The Jegertroppen, as it is known in Norwegian, was set up in 2014. Military commanders here say that the war in Afghanistan proved an "operational need" existed for highly-trained female soldiers who could gather intelligence and interact with women and children during deployments in conservative societies.
I'm not sure you've answered (sorry if I missed it): why push women into shitty jobs like these? How could someone see risking your life at work for modest salary as an advantage?