In the above picture, taken when I served in the United States Marine Corps, two female Marines and I flexed on the world by posing for photo in a Walmart parking lot. Two of us were military police (MP) sergeants (E-5) and the other woman was a corporal (E-4) with a different job.
Back then, I don’t recall there being much debate about the physical distinction between human males and females. Besides, men and women had different physical fitness standards in the Corps.
For instance, in order to achieve the highest physical fitness test score, I was required to perform 20 dead-hang chin- or pull-ups. Truly, there was a lot of upper body strength necessary to properly complete this task without use of momentum (i.e., kipping).
Yet, my female counterparts in the photo were subject to perform a flexed-arm hang on a pull-up bar for a high score of 70 seconds without fully extending their arms. At the time, I could perform that maneuver with relative ease, yet chin-/pull-ups were far more challenging.
The rationale for this disparity in standards was that, on average, adult human males have more upper body strength then adult human females. This was a relatively uncontroversial matter when I was enlisted (1996-2007).
However, at some point, along came a push for diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility (DEIA, and derivatives thereunto, such as DEI) which led to standards of physical ability between the sexes to be challenged. Thankfully, I was already discharged after this occurred.
In just under two decades, otherwise rational physical standards have apparently been abandoned in other occupational fields as well. For example, in 2016, the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) released a Gender Equity Report that stated:
The ultimate goal of the Gender Equity Action Plan is to create a diverse work force that is more reflective of the citizens we serve, embrace diversity and recognize individual worth within the team environment and create greater job satisfaction and retention of female firefighters while continuing to encourage and support diversity within the leadership ranks.
To evaluate the LAFD proposition, it’s worth first understanding that in order to be considered a rational argument one’s proposal empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Second, a brief illustration of the LAFD claim may be expressed by a syllogism:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If the ultimate goal of a firefighting entity is to foster a diverse workforce, then a fire department conditionally should select for sex or gender requirements rather than the highest physical standard possible.
If a fire department conditionally should select for sex or gender requirements rather than the highest physical standard possible, then more physically qualified candidates – regardless of sex or gender – may not be selected for employment.
Therefore, if the ultimate goal of a firefighting entity is to foster a diverse workforce, then more physically qualified candidates – regardless of sex or gender – may not be selected for employment.
I argue that the presumed LAFD position is logical (deductive in nature), yet isn’t reasonable (sound in judgment). Thus, this is an irrational argument, because sex/gender identity has little (if anything) to do with firefighting capability. Now, consider a rational syllogistic proposal:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If the essential role of a firefighter is to extinguish fires and provide lifesaving services, then firefighters empirically should be physically able to perform their duties at the highest standard possible.
If firefighters empirically should be physically able to perform their duties at the highest standard possible, then a firefighting force’s composed identity has little (if anything) to do with its ability to respond to emergencies.
Therefore, if the essential role of a firefighter is to extinguish fires and provide lifesaving services, then a firefighting force’s composed identity has little (if anything) to do with its ability to respond to emergencies.
I argue that my illustrated proposition is both logical (following the form of deduction) and reasonable (justifies the rationale from premises to conclusion). Ergo, I maintain that it’s a rational argument. Essentially, firefighting is about what one does, not what one is.
A similar argument could be made in regard to the MPs and Marines with whom I once served. No matter what rhetoric one uses, if or when it comes time to go one-on-one in an apprehension or with hand-to-hand combat in war, the important factor is what one does, not what one is.
Therefore, maintenance of the highest physical standards possible in occupations wherein physicality matters is a rational consideration. Noteworthy, this matter has become more prescient since the Los Angeles fires have become a key focus of many within our nation.
When recently listening to an episode of the DarkHorse Podcast by biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, I was content with hearing another person call out the DEIA rhetoric for what it is: insane—not sensible; absurd; and/or subject to a severely disordered state of mind.
Admittedly, I recently argued that it may not be appropriate to assess moral, ethical, or legal blame “while the flames are literally still blazing,” though now additional evidence has caused me to rethink that position. One remains free to change one’s own mind.
During the DarkHorse Podcast episode, Weinstein and Heying watched a video purportedly of LAFD Assistant Chief Kristine Larson in which she ostensibly ridiculed criticism of women in firefighting roles. Larson’s apparent response was steeped in sarcasm and not rationality.
Addressing this insane DEIA trap that arguably correlates with the response to Los Angeles currently being engulfed in flames, Weinstein and Heying engaged in the following dialogue:
Heying: The idea that every job is inherently, equally open to every human being, regardless of either immutable characteristic or skill is insane and it is tearing apart functional systems in basically every domain.
Weinstein: I wanna highlight a couple things here, because I think the problem with this is it’s a trap. Okay? The trap is, “Oh, you’re against women in firefighting.” Well, I’m against women in firefighting to the extent that they are disadvantaged in doing the job by biology, but I’m certainly not against any woman who is well-endowed for the job and skilled at the job. I’m not against anybody—trans, gay; I don’t care.
But, that is irrelevant to the discussion that you just heard her [Larson] engaged in, because what she says, she says a couple things. One, she says, “No amount of diversity is enough.” Now, here’s the problem, longtime viewers will know that the analysis goes like this.
Anytime you exclude any population from eligibility, you are going to reduce the potential quality. If the group you exclude is small, the degree to which you are likely to exclude the best people is small also. To the extent that the group that you are discriminating against is large, the effect on competence and capacity is going to be large.
To bias and to say “no amount of diversity enough” is to say “we are going to select as much as we can from a tiny population—even if that population is exactly equally competent.” And I don’t think they will be. But even if they are exactly equally competent, what you are deciding is you’re going to have a less competent firefighting force by making that decision.
What’s more, you hear her talking in there and she says, ‘It makes everybody feel included, and people look at me as a lesbian, as the chief of [firefighters], and they think, ‘I didn’t even know that I could do such a thing.’ An obsession with how people feel is disqualifying for a job like this. This job is about accomplishing something.
An insane DEIA trap, whereby how people either colloquially “feel” (i.e., thought, belief, hutch, or other forms of cognitive process) or actually feel (i.e., emotion or bodily sensation), will logically – as proposed by Heying – tear apart functional systems in basically every domain.
Similarly, as expressed by Weinstein, the case isn’t whether or not females absolutely shouldn’t, mustn’t, or oughtn’t to serve in certain occupational roles. Rather, if one is “disadvantaged in doing the job by biology,” then empirical versus conditional beliefs are at odds.
By “empirical,” I’m referring to that which is capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. This process relies on rationality.
By “conditional,” I’m referencing that which is subject to, implying, or dependent upon a condition and that expresses, contains, or implies a supposition. This process relies on irrationality.
For instance, the aforementioned LAFD syllogistic proposal represents an irrationally conditional belief. The condition is that if diversity is the ultimate goal in a firefighting force, then more physically qualified candidates may not be selected for employment.
Alternatively, my aforementioned rational syllogistic proposal represents a rationally empirical belief. The essential role of a firefighter is to extinguish fires and provide lifesaving services, and identity has little (if anything) to do with an ability to respond to emergencies.
Bear in mind that one’s identity is a matter of who and one’s ability is a matter of what. If my home is engulfed in flames, I don’t care who shows up to extinguish the flames, as long as the person is capable of fulfilling the highest firefighting standard possible (what).
In closing the two female Marines featured in the photo for this blogpost weren’t capable of performing at the same physical standard that I was. Understandably, there’s a rational argument to be made as to whether or not women empirically should serve in the military.
However, that argument isn’t one I’m putting forth herein. The female MP in the photo was in an administrative position, as was her non-MP friend. Neither of them worked “the road” (standard policing duty) with me.
Of course, I’ve worked with exceedingly few female Marines who were physically capable of performing at a similar level to their male counterparts and I support one heightened standard to which all men and women may aspire. This means that not everyone will qualify.
As such, an insane DEIA trap that artificially qualifies some while discriminatorily suppressing others from qualification is an irrational method to which I’m opposed. Unfortunately, those people currently subject to the Los Angeles fires don’t have the privilege of debating this matter.
In any case, perhaps you disagree with my assessment. Maybe you believe that DEIA is a moral and ethical good, rationality and biology, be damned! Just as I’m free to change my mind, you’re free to maintain insane beliefs. About this matter, I’m not self-disturbed.
If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Fuller, T., Berzon, A., Browning, K., and Hubler, S. (2025, January 11). L.A. was prepared for serious fires. But it wasn’t ready for four. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/11/us/los-angeles-calfire-firefighters.html
Heying, H. (n.d.). Heather Heying [Official website]. Retrieved from https://www.heatherheying.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Blame. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/blame
Hollings, D. (2023, May 11). Catering to DEIA. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/catering-to-deia
Hollings, D. (2024, May 18). Cognitive distortions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-distortions
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Conditional should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conditional-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, June 24). Contentment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/contentment
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Discrimination. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/discrimination
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2025, January 12). Insane in the membrane. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/insane-in-the-membrane
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2024, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions
Hollings, D. (2022, November 10). Refutation of representation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/refutation-of-representation
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2025, January 10). Who is the one to blame? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/who-is-the-one-to-blame
Jonahtank3. (2025, January 10). LAFD Assistant Chief Kristine Larson: “Am I able to carry your husband out of a fire? He got himself in the wrong place.” [Video]. TikTok. Retrieved from https://www.tiktok.com/@jonahtank3/video/7458039624393346346
Los Angeles Fire Department. (n.d.). Equity and human resources bureau. Retrieved from https://lafd.org/equity-and-human-resources-bureau
Terrazas, R. M. (2016, July 18). LAFD Gender equity action report. Los Angeles Fire Department. Retrieved from http://ens.lacity.org/lafd/lafdreportarchv/lafdlafdreport1864105333_08162016.pdf
Weinstein, B. (n.d.). Bret Weinstein [Official website]. Retrieved from https://www.bretweinstein.net/
Weinstein, B. [@DarkHorsePod]. (n.d.). DarkHorse Podcast. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/@DarkHorsePod
Weinstein, B. [@DarkHorsePod]. (2024, October 22). Fires, Facebook & free speech: The 259th evolutionary lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/live/2I5y8yx_bP0?si=3Ioxogw0qcLqJNbm
XD-anomaly-Dx. (2017, July 30). Flex. Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flex
Komentar