Are Women Tournaments Sexist?

[Webb5432]

My guess, they made a women's division to keep sexist guys from making obnoxious kitchen jokes at women. At least in a women only tournament, the odds of you being picked on due to your gender are far less when there is no one in the group other than your gender.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

If all you want is victory without thought to the consequences or the feelings of others, why stop at mental violence?

Maybe because it's a mental game and bringing your fists to a mental game would be stupid? That's why the line is drawn at mental violence.
Actually I don't know exactly where the line is drawn when it comes to "trash talk" in tournaments. I'm pretty sure death/assault threats would be taken very seriously by the authorities, so as long as they steer clear of that it should all be fine.

If you want to play games where your willingness to abuse others is more important than actual skill, fine. But I do not want to be a part of a community like that, and I'm not alone in that.

Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you're not alone. And yet the community goes on

 

[lacktheknack]

No, it's not.

It's sexist if there's no "unisex" division. As long as women can play with men if they want to, there's no issue.

And if ANYONE makes a "that's what she said" joke...

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Eh, women aren't men and men aren't women, we all have our strenghts and weaknesses, but to say that women don't do hard work or that because of that they don't deserve the opportunity to prove themselves is kinda lame.

That's the thing though, they were given the opportunity in frontline combat. They still are in US I think.
And most of them have come out so utterly broken and beaten, it looks more like torture on them instead of seeing them do service for the country. There was another article by a woman who has served at a fairly high rank in the US army and at the frontline the regular routines/stress of combat basically fucked her over, damaging her body almost beyond repair and rendering her infertile. She was tough as nails, about as tough as women come, but trying to defy the limitations of gender evolution/genetics comes with a HEAVY pricetag. One which most countries still don't feel like paying.

Males more vastly more disposable (running short of workforce or the job is too risky? Just send in more crazy guys, the supply is endless!) but built tougher as well. There is literally no downside to sending men barging into risky situations, they have done so for thousands of years. High-population nations like China still treat men like nothing more than worker ants...an infinite supply of disposable strength and manpower *shudder*. But with women you have to think twice (or thrice).

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

Eh, women aren't men and men aren't women, we all have our strenghts and weaknesses, but to say that women don't do hard work or that because of that they don't deserve the opportunity to prove themselves is kinda lame.

That's the thing though, they were given the opportunity in frontline combat. They still are in US I think.
And most of them have come out so utterly broken and beaten, it looks more like torture on them instead of seeing them do service for the country. There was another article by a woman who has served at a fairly high rank in the US army and at the frontline the regular routines/stress of combat basically fucked her over, damaging her body almost beyond repair and rendering her infertile. She was tough as nails, about as tough as women come, but trying to defy the limitations of gender evolution/genetics comes with a HEAVY pricetag. One which most countries still don't feel like paying.
Not only are males more generally more disposable (running short of workforce? Just hire more guys, the supply is endless!) but built tougher as well. There is literally no downside to sending men barging into risky situations, they have done so for thousands of years, nations like China still treat men like nothing more than worker ants, an infinite supply of disposable strength. But with women you have to think twice.

There are plenty of cases where men can't handle the frontline and end up with PTSD, but even if that weren't the case, I still think that women should be allowed to sign up and, provided that they can meet the standards the army sets, should be allowed to go to the frontline. Being female is not an automatic disqualification for the army.

In your reasoning, women are more capable doctors than men. Because they have better immune systems, have been taking care of people and developing medicines since the stone age. Yet, when it comes down to how things work in our modern times, the medical sector is dominated by men.

For the immune system thing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110927192352.htm

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

If all you want is victory without thought to the consequences or the feelings of others, why stop at mental violence?

Maybe because it's a mental game and bringing your fists to a mental game would be stupid? That's why the line is drawn at mental violence.
Actually I don't know exactly where the line is drawn when it comes to "trash talk" in tournaments. I'm pretty sure death/assault threats would be taken very seriously by the authorities, so as long as they steer clear of that it should all be fine.

But aren't jokes like "Imma gonna rape you when this is over" assault threats and aren't jokes like "Imma gonna kill you" death threats? The tone is completely different, I get that, but what defines a threat? If a woman feels legitemately unsafe with the comments made by the other people on that tournament, doesn't that make it a threat?

I think that mental violence is a whole different ballgame than trashtalking. If you're allowed to show opponents mangled images of their dead relatives, would you? the difference between one and the other is the damage done by what is said. If girls don't feel comfortable to participate in tournaments because of trashtalk, isn't that a big load of damage done? rather than an easily forgettable comment.

 

[gazumped]

Yes. If 'Male Only' anything is sexist, then 'Female Only' anything is sexist. End of story.

This is basically the very simple and easy test you can do with anything.

Just ask yourself, if it was the other way around, would there be an outcry?

Yes, but you've got to allow for the differences in context.

If the OP's statistics of there being a 95%/5% male/female split on DotA at least is accurate, it's already very close to being male only. Having the women only group serves to welcome women into something that they may avoid if they perceive it as male dominated.

The flipside would have to take place in a female dominated field. Would it be sexist if there was a men-only nursing course or parenting support group? 'cause from where I'm standing as a woman I think those would be very good ideas.

Not that I particularly think that a male only gaming group would be bad so long as they're also hosting female only groups, but it wouldn't serve the same purpose.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

There are plenty of cases where men can't handle the frontline and end up with PTSD

"Plenty" is irrelevant. You need to speak about the general situation and the chances of a female ending up with PTSD is significantly higher than a male. 30% is no joke.

but even if that weren't the case, I still think that women should be allowed to sign up and, provided that they can meet the standards the army sets, should be allowed to go to the frontline. Being female is not an automatic disqualification for the army.

Automatic disqualitication for the army? Of course not, there are plenty of army roles which don't involve physical stress. There are heaps of women in those roles already.
But frontlines? No. Transport units and missions can only afford to carry X number of soldiers to the mission. Obviously you would take nothing but the best soldiers, you would only resort to women if you had a desperate shortage of soldiers and needed something to pad out the numbers.
Every woman you put on the frontline suffers more damage and has a significantly higher health/injury risk, the statistics speak for themselves. And then you need to spend resources fixing her up or bringing her back. Her body is going to pretty much fall apart the longer she continues, it has happened time and again.

In your reasoning, women are more capable doctors than men. Because they have better immune systems, have been taking care of people and developing medicines since the stone age. Yet, when it comes down to how things work in our modern times, the medical sector is dominated by men.

For the immune system thing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110927192352.htm

Well that's a bit of an insult to my "reasoning" isn't it lol? How does having better immunity make you a better doctor? How on earth are those two factors related? Does your improved immune system automatically fill your brain with biological knowledge? Heck no, it all needs to be studied and learned.
As far as I know most health nurses are still female, the very term "nurse" became associated with females and in many ways still is. Google image search the word "nurse" and tell me what you find on the first couple of pages. Almost entirely female! Now search for "doctor". A lot more men, but still plenty of women to be found. Google Image isn't the most accuate representation of stastics, but still still gives a solid idea of what people associate with X profession.

Perhaps it was because they are better at taking care of patients due to "motherly" instincts (or whatever) but I believe it was more due to the fact that almost all the men were sent off to fight...so who was left to run the hospitals and essential civilian services? Women. And they did great!

If the medical sector is indeed dominated by men (if that can even be proved) then it is eitirely due to men being more willing to be doctors than women and for no other reason. I can't think of anything else.
In video gaming I know for a fact that men simply display far more interest in the topic than women. Ask how many teenage girls come home after school to play some Battlefield/Diablo. "What's that?" most of them will reply, "we go window shopping, or just socialize".
As far as I know women aren't blocked from entering medical schools in any developed country, nor are they discouraged.

 

[veloper]

I don't get how the "videogame tournaments of pro levels, where for people to participate there needs to be a welcoming atmosphere" thing applies here.

If women are participating, they've long entered the "boys club" and they've stayed there long enough to get good so they don't need to be welcomed-to any more, they're already in.

Are they saying women tournaments are somehow different than co-ed ones? In which way if so? All this seems to do is allow lesser players to feel accomplished when they're really not by creating an unique category with lower standards just for them.

What's wrong with that? We may not take such tournaments seriously, but if it makes them feel better anyway, why not?

Umm, isn't it obvious? Tournaments aren't things whose purpose is to make people feel good. Tournaments are competitions whose purpose is to show who's the best at something. In doing those "feel good tournaments" you diminish every other one, just by merely calling it a tournament.


This is like how they give every single kid a medal in sports nowadays so that they won't feel bad, they rob the meaning out of competition for the sake of people's feelings and they rob how good those who DO deserve a medal feel.


Is it too much to ask to treat women as people and believe they don't need to be specifically tended to? Remember, this isn't a "feel good tournament" even, women can still join the co-ed ones too, this is a scrub-enabling tournament which will actually keep women's collective skill levels down by making "good" a different, much lower level of skill compared to what is actually top level play.

I don't think this will reflect badly on all tournaments.
There are already local tournaments in every kind of competition and the skill levels aren't very high in backwaters, so what the fans do, is put alot more value on winning a bigger tournament over winning just a small local event.

The only real downside I can see is less competition, but the girls already made it clear they don't want to play with us, so there's not much to gain on that front.

 

[Okulossos]

yes it is sexist and it is not a good idea, but apparently some people think it is necessary and that is what disturbs me. There is no "Mens-Only" tournament an if there was, people would be all over it for sexism etc. But on the other hand men don't sexually assault other men to the point where they quit the tournament (see tekken x streetfighter event).
I guess it is not ok and sexist, but since the community seems to contain and protect sexist being such as that bearded creep from the above mentioned event, women need their own event to be able to play freely and for fun.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

The only real downside I can see is less competition, but the girls already made it clear they don't want to play with us, so there's not much to gain on that front.

Their most common excuse is "the guys keep throwing sexist comments at us and we start feeling insecure". Apparently it has never struck them to simply throw sexist comments back and hold thieir ground, they're to "polite" and "considerate" (I'm only using words that I have heard from female gamers on this forum, believei it or not!).

I had read some stastistic that 40% of gamers are female. So why DON'T we see girls saying "you wave your tiny dick around a lot, lets see how well you play asshole" to a guy who is being sexist to them and trying to discourage them from gaming (or focusing on the game)? Too polite, too shy, or enough of these excuses and just admit that females just aren't determined towards gaming as males? It's got to be one of those.

 

[Lieju]

If you want to play games where your willingness to abuse others is more important than actual skill, fine. But I do not want to be a part of a community like that, and I'm not alone in that.

Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you're not alone. And yet the community goes on

Things are changing, though.

Especially if these kinds of tournaments want to be taken seriously and be respected as actual mature sport, they need to face the facts and draw some lines.

There always will be that kind of things, though.
When I've held tournaments with my friends we have had very silly rules and not taken it seriously at all, but we aren't anything like professionals and were doing it in a group where everyone knows everyone.

Obviously the mental aspect is important, and you'll want to lead your opponent and manipulate them, but yelling obscenities just is so crude and childish.

I mean, when watching chess-matches, you don't see much that kind of a thing.
(Except, again, when me and my friends are playing or something like that. We also play with pokemon-figurines as the pieces and make appropriate sound-effects when moving them)

 

[Drago-Morph]

Research found that men tend to use one side of their brain (particularly the left side for verbal reasoning) while women tend to use both cerebral areas for visual, verbal and emotional responses. These differences in brain use cause a difference in behavior between men and women. Women tend to be better at sensing emotional messages in conversations, gestures, and facial expressions, and are thus more sensitive. Women start to speak and read at an earlier age than men and are generally better in verbal skills, such as learning a different language. They tend to have a better grasp on grammar and spelling, and girls have better handwriting than boys do. Women have better sight at night and have a more acute sense of smell, taste and hearing.

Men are better in spatial coordination and have a better sense of direction (usually!). They excel in math and are great at interpreting three-dimensional objects. They have a better hand-eye coordination and more precise control of large muscle movement. They have poor peripheral vision but better sight in bright light and a better sense of perspective. Since they use one side of their brain more than the other, they tend to use the left side for verbal reasoning and the right for visual and emotional activities (if they are right handed).

These differences are not rules. It is easy to find women who excel in math and men who have excellent language skills (and it is even easier to find men with no sense of direction). Chances are the above statements are not going to work for your everyday situation, but these have been shown to be true in scientific studies, based on large, diverse populations. When looking at large populations, these differences between men and women become evident, and proper statistical analysis takes care of the exceptions.

Source: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/jakabovics/mf2.html

Emphasis mine.

Do people really take these studies seriously? I've seen dozens of these things, studies on the psychological/physical differences between men and women to explain this or that about why men and women act the way they do, or why certain things are the way they are. And every single one has been contradicted by a different one. "Men were hunters because they have better spatial awareness!" "No, men were hunters because they had better short term memory!" It's ridiculous.

And then even the people who try to defend women in these situations have to preface their defense with "well, yeah, that may be true on the whole, but there are always special cases and that's why women should be allowed to do X". As if women were just naturally incompetent at a given thing, but we need to keep it open so that the few who are good enough to play with the big boys get their shot. We wouldn't want to be sexist, after all.

The only thing that I think can be fairly segregated is when it comes to certain physical activities that require full-body contact and the participants are expected to be as large and muscular as physically possible. There are exceptions, like in martial arts, but something like football or wrestling is where women might have a disadvantage to men. This actually leads back into the first point I made, because I think the only claim between the different sexes I've seen made that's pretty much true is that men and women's bodies max out physically at different muscle masses. Men can get bigger than women. But that doesn't really matter to much of anything until you start pushing the size limits of the body, so anything below a situation where you're expected to be as beefy as possible, men and women are on equal playing fields.

 

[Rblade]

there is a reason games like darts even have women divisions. Some rare women might surface that beats the top males but it's so rare it warrents a seperate league to make it interesting for women to get involved

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

There are plenty of cases where men can't handle the frontline and end up with PTSD

"Plenty" is irrelevant. You need to speak about the general situation and the chances of a female ending up with PTSD is significantly higher than a male. 30% is no joke.

but even if that weren't the case, I still think that women should be allowed to sign up and, provided that they can meet the standards the army sets, should be allowed to go to the frontline. Being female is not an automatic disqualification for the army.

Automatic disqualitication for the army? Of course not, there are plenty of army roles which don't involve physical stress. There are heaps of women in those roles already.
But frontlines? No. Transport units and missions can only afford to carry X number of soldiers to the mission. Obviously you would take nothing but the best soldiers, you would only resort to women if you had a desperate shortage of soldiers and needed something to pad out the numbers.
Every woman you put on the frontline suffers more damage and has a significantly higher health/injury risk, the statistics speak for themselves. And then you need to spend resources fixing her up or bringing her back. Her body is going to pretty much fall apart the longer she continues, it has happened time and again.

In your reasoning, women are more capable doctors than men. Because they have better immune systems, have been taking care of people and developing medicines since the stone age. Yet, when it comes down to how things work in our modern times, the medical sector is dominated by men.

For the immune system thing: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110927192352.htm

Well that's a bit of an insult to my "reasoning" isn't it lol? How does having better immunity make you a better doctor? How on earth are those two factors related? Does your improved immune system automatically fill your brain with biological knowledge? Heck no.

If the medical sector is indeed dominated by men (if that can even be proved) then it is eitirely due to men being more willing to be doctors than women and for no other reason. Just like video gaming - men simply display far more interest in the subject than women. As far as I know women aren't blocked from entering medical schools in any developed country, nor are they discouraged.

I think that the standards we set for who goes up to the frontline shouldn't be defined by what gender you are, but by how qualified you are to do so. If, in the end, that means that the best soldiers to go there are men only, then that's fine by me. But if a woman is part of the best, she should go.

My point is, it's not fair to judge me on my gender. If I can utilize my genders strenghts in a way that makes me better qualified than a man, or if I can negate my weaknesses, then it's not fair to draw the line and ask me as a person to step down because I don't have dingly bits.

Please, stop assuming that women as a whole are less capable of fullfilling a task, any task, except stuff like making sperm or I don't know, peeing in the snow. Stuff that relates to having a penis.

As far as the medical argument goes: How is being physically stronger and less likely to get PTSD all there is to being a soldier? Does that fill your head with all sorts of stragetical knowledge? No, it doesn't.

Having a stronger immune-system that will make it less likely to catch whatever your patient is having is as much an advantage as not getting PTSD after coming back from the frontline, because it allows women to work more then men, work longer with a lesser risk of getting diseases.

Right now, female doctors are set to outnumber the male ones in 2017, so perhaps there is merit in the thought that women make better doctors, does that mean that men can't still be as good as a woman? absolutely not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/female-doctors-set-to-outnumber-male-colleagues-by-2017-6269813.html

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

But aren't jokes like "Imma gonna rape you when this is over" assault threats and aren't jokes like "Imma gonna kill you" death threats? The tone is completely different, I get that, but what defines a threat? If a woman feels legitemately unsafe with the comments made by the other people on that tournament, doesn't that make it a threat?

Hmm very good point. Even I've yelled "ok I'm going to kill you this time" across the gaming cafe back during the counterstrike days and thrown the "rape" word around as a means of defeating someone ingame.

I can see issues rising when women come into the scene however and suddenly start taking the "Imma rape you" comment to heart, forgetting all about context.

What's interesting is that the language I threw around automatically became more polished when a girl was present. Isn't that weird? I almost subconciously did it, I remember so clearly. Someone would bring their girlfriend over to our DotA rounds (she wouldn't play, just watch and talk and stuff) and suddenly all our "gonna f-ing rape you dude" comments stopped as long as she was around, hehe.

Because of this confusion of understanding context, I say let that level of trash talk. Just talk and nothing more. Everyone is given headsets to wear, they can shut out the trash talk if they want. I've actually seen many tournament participants wearing noice-cancelling IEM's under their headsets (i.e. they wear IEM's to listen (and cancel sound) and have their headset on top to use just the microphone + cancel out even more sound). They basically can't hear shit
I don't see why the females can't do that.

I think that mental violence is a whole different ballgame than trashtalking. If you're allowed to show opponents mangled images of their dead relatives, would you? the difference between one and the other is the damage done by what is said. If girls don't feel comfortable to participate in tournaments because of trashtalk, isn't that a big load of damage done? rather than an easily forgettable comment.

Good points.
But here's the thing - ultimate it's seen as loss for THEM (i.e. female gamers) when it comes to tournaments. Not for the guys and not for even gaming in general, it's simply not how the situation is seen. Even the audience doesn't look at the situation and think "oh no, those female players aren't going to come, what a loss". Heck no.

Because the best players WILL show up, they WILL prove why they're the best and that's what the audience came to see - professional gameplay. It just happens to be that those best players are almost entirely male. To the audience it boils down to watching screens, hearing nicknames and live commentary. They don't give a shit if some female players decided to sit out due to trash-talked to death.

 

[Zyst]

math not so much (you just have to be able to do some basic stuff like 'okay so blink dagger uses 75 mana, black hole 450 so I still have enough for my combo, or I don't have enough for my combo but I got 10 stick charges which will bring me back up to it'

Erm, have we both played the same DotA? At which point HP progression is outdone by adding armour, would +5% crit or + 40 damage yield better results? Would you go for "spikey" damage curve or a consistent one, albeit with a lower maximum, how would two sources of dodge/evade mesh together. Yes, calculating your mana is simple but I don't think it's the only Maths to be done.

Yeah but that's really simple, there's no such thing as 5% Crit, this is not LoL, there's only 1 crit item really. And after a certain amount of ASPD and Attack it will benefit you greatly but there are really simple formulas for everything. For example 1 armor per 200 hp, Dodge increases EHP by 25%/35% depending on the item against melee attacks discounting MKB in which case another item might be a better option, I do find that Mana Management and Last hitting (I am guessing you know the percentages melee and ranged creeps do on each other) are the most mana intensive, the rest follow a very flexible formula that becomes second nature after a few years of gameplay, after 9 years of playing DotA and DotA 2 you don't even think of it, it's just obvious.

 

[Dr. Doomsduck]

What's interesting is that the language I threw around automatically became more polished when a girl was present. Isn't that weird? I almost subconciously did it, I remember so clearly. Someone would bring their girlfriend over to our DotA rounds (she wouldn't play, just watch and talk and stuff) and suddenly all our "gonna f-ing rape you dude" comments stopped as long as she was around, hehe.

Good points.
But here's the thing - ultimate it's seen as loss for THEM (i.e. female gamers) when it comes to tournaments. Not for the guys and not for even gaming in general. The audience doesn't look at the situation and think "oh no, those female players aren't going to come, what a loss for us". Far from it. The best players WILL show up, they WILL prove why they're the best and that's what the audience came to see - professional gameplay. It just happens to be that 95% of those professionals happen to be male and girls need to "huddle up" in tiny groups to hold their own.

That is interesting. Whatever the cause of it, I'm guessing it would make you a professional gamer that wouldn't throw around rape-slang when you're playing in front of an audience. If everyone were to adjust themselves like that, thenthe numerous problems with these competitions wouldn't exist.

It IS a loss for the female gamers and I think that on the long run, the gaming industry can make a lot more cash if there are more women present in their community. The girls need to huddle up at this moment, but I think that, given a chance to grow a bit (perhaps through a few girls only contests) they will, in the future, no longer need to seperate themselves from the boys. Having a girl tournament is not the solution to sexism in gaming, but rather a way for women to learn that they're not the only ones out there, and that they can succeed as a gamer. So that in the future, more girls will be able to say "screw those assholes" we're here to play and win.

EDIT: I forgot to say, I think that being able to turn off the trashtalk is a good way to go. It makes things easier for all parties involved.

EDIT 2: Extra credits did an episode about that a while back. http://extra-credits.net/episodes/harassment/ very good material on the subject me thinks.

 

[blackrave]

If all you want is victory, why not just cheat? Or beat up your opponents (or hire others to do that), sabotage their equipment, get them drunk?

If all you want is victory without thought to the consequences or the feelings of others, why stop at mental violence?

If you want to play games where your willingness to abuse others is more important than actual skill, fine. But I do not want to be a part of a community like that, and I'm not alone in that.

P.S. "Sprtsmanship" is also sexist word, why not "sportspersonship" ?

Thus, I used the term 'not being a douchebag'.
Your observation of the sexism inherent in language is noted, though.

Cheating is violation of rules (thus "cheating").
Beating up opponents is direct violation of law.
Sabotaging their equipment is a bit too complicated.
Getting them drunk? That's actually really good idea

But seriously, I don't play competitive multiplayer (only MP I play is Minecraft)
So no need for trash talking

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I think that the standards we set for who goes up to the frontline shouldn't be defined by what gender you are, but by how qualified you are to do so. If, in the end, that means that the best soldiers to go there are men only, then that's fine by me. But if a woman is part of the best, she should go.

Agreed. And that is already happening, why aren't you getting this? It. Is. Happening.
What I was pointing out is that those women who do happen to tag along are suffering far higher injury, stress and trauma rates than the males. It is merely an observation, a statistical one at that.

My point is, it's not fair to judge me on my gender. If I can utilize my genders strenghts in a way that makes me better qualified than a man, or if I can negate my weaknesses, then it's not fair to draw the line and ask me as a person to step down because I don't have dingly bits.

It doesn't come down to dingly bits in this case though, it comes down to who has superior endurance/stamina, strength and all-round durability when it comes to physical stress. Backpacks aren't made lighter for women, that would mean carrying lesser ammo/suppplies and being wasteful. A wounded soldier doesn't become any lighter to carry when it comes down to a woman having to do it. And generally speaking women are ill-suited for the job, the ones who "prove" themselves are nothing more than EXCEPTIONAL women who are outright fighting their genetics and forcing their bodies for something they weren't designed to do. Otherwise we would have seen women fighting in tribal wars just as much as men during the cavemen days.

Please, stop assuming that women as a whole are less capable of fullfilling a task, any task, except stuff like making sperm or I don't know, peeing in the snow. Stuff that relates to having a penis.

You cannot be serious. Women are less capable when it comes to physically demanding tasks, PERIOD. Saying otherwise is simply being blind. If women were "equally" capable then you are calling entire nations stupid for not having half their armies consisting of women (hint: bad idea). Warring factions threw their best chances of winning at each other, do you think they chose men to be their their best warriors just because they FELT like it? You think they flipped a coin and decided that using men would be more effective?
Look at sports - the strength, speed and endurance averages (not world records, AVERAGES) for men and women are noticeably different. Women are even generally smaller and ligher than men. Good god, think for a second. I haven't mentioned the word "penis" at all, I don't know why the hell you keep referring to it. Superior strength/speed/endurance has nothing to do with having a goddamn penis.

As far as the medical argument goes: How is being physically stronger and less likely to get PTSD all there is to being a soldier? Does that fill your head with all sorts of stragetical knowledge? No, it doesn't.

But you can teach a man that strategical knowledge. You can also teach a woman that same strategical knowledge (she will learn equally well), and then you have a dilemma - two people with equal strategic knowledge, and one of them is stronger, has better endurance and is less likely to get hit by PTSD.
Sorry for testing your logic, but which one would you choose to send off to a critical mission? Which brainless fart would choose the woman over the man in any scenario?

Having a stronger immune-system that will make it less likely to catch whatever your patient is having is as much an advantage as not getting PTSD after coming back from the frontline, because it allows women to work more then men, work longer with a lesser risk of getting diseases.

In today's frontlines you don't get killed by disease. Having a marginally better immune system doesn't compensate for being physically weaker and having lesser endurance in any way.

Female: Hey, I have a 10% less chance of catching a cold than you! And a less chance of getting cancer!
Male: Sorry but I'm failing to notice how the fuck that is relevant to the next 3 days of hell we're going to experience in the warzone.
Female: Oh...right...

Right now, female doctors are set to outnumber the male ones in 2017, so perhaps there is merit in the thought that women make better doctors, does that mean that men can't still be as good as a woman? absolutely not.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/female-doctors-set-to-outnumber-male-colleagues-by-2017-6269813.html

Females outnumbering males as doctors by 2017? That's great news (see I said "great news" not "omfg sexism, let more males in!"). So where exactly did you get the idea that the sector was dominated" by males today? Domination involves having an overwhelming respresentation (like 80-90%+).

And here's another thing - if and when females outnumber males in any profession, nobody complains. It's always seen as a good thing. The majority of receptionists and secretaries are female and the world is fine with that. I'm also fine with that.
This is merely my observation of how the issue of "sexism" works today.