I am not intending to downplay the statement and I question whether Hegseth actually will permit women, who pass the qualifications assessment(s), to serve in various combat arms roles.

I am all for valid, job-related standards for the military, so long as there exist objective and reliable measures (assessments) of those standards and that those standards are applied consistently across people, regardless of gender or biological sex.

For example, a number of Army women have proven they can successfully complete the rigorous Ranger course. The course ought to be open to any soldier, man or woman, who can meet the standards to attend the course, again, so long as those standards are valid predictors of course success, are job-related, and can be measured with sufficient objectivity and reliability. An additional requirement would be that Ranger qualification is necessary or desired for that soldier's MOS. It doesn't make as much sense to send a signal corps person to Ranger school as it would an infantry or other combat arms soldier.

What I found the most objectionable was his focus on "warrior culture" which seems quite male-centric and gendered and is wrong-headed in terms of how we in modern society should view the role of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. Not to mention the discuss of "lethality" discussed by Hegseth coupled with the notion of "the enemy within" ranted by Trump. That shit scares me and I don't scare too easily.