seeing as how it is a very comprehensive research search engine, i’m not sure of your beef here. i judge the quality of science by the quality of the journal it’s published in and by reading the actual paper. not by taking the opinion of a couple of academics who are personally vested in the argument.

reading comp clearly not your strong suit....

molecular biologist... am i supposed to be impressed? pretty odd considering you’re a science denier. fyi... pretty sure my cv stacks up to just about anyone who posts here.

it’s almost like you’re taking this personally.... what’s the story here???

yes, my observational data seems to be confirmed by actual independent experimental data.

that you’re not even willing to admit the biological differences between men and women is laughable. you want to discuss the merits of research and you’re a damn science denier? GTFO.

sooooo.... you didn’t serve. got it. but do go on telling me all about how it is.

google scholar doesn’t list anything for mackenzie, m. nice try though. and i browsed her school page... i see some publications, but not much there that would be construed as actual research, or anything that looks like it required an IRB, demonstrates a study design, or analysis of experimental data? lookd like she…

lols... says the guy who’s taking the biased opinion of two “researchers”. pot... meet kettle.

come on tyler... clearly trump is saying this is not your average 20 something. that kim is a dangerous tyrant who needs to be taken and dealt with seriously was the obvious point of trump’s comments. your articles are quickly becoming tiresome and predictable...

and i put “researchers” in quotes because i can’t find a single research study either one has published....

no, i’m saying given that neither one of us has seen the study, neither of us is in a position to address the study design. and the USMC is known to be biased, but the two self described advocates are not? come on, who’s being intellectually dishonest now? until the details of the study are released, i take the study…

fraudsters like me? riiiiight. you can’t cry about bias and they lean on two very biased sources to discredit the study. the marines conducted the study. without seeing it and how they controlled for bias, i have no idea. and here’es the kicker... neither do you. and as to specific criticisms with methodology...…

professional assessment... LOLS. the study hasn’t been released to the public so other than the two “researchers” opinion of the study, we really have nothing else to go on. and given their clear bias with respect to the study subject and it’s outcome, not sure we can put much weight behind their opinion until the…

and you have something other than your opinion to offer in regards to your claims????

do tell us the flaws of this study design... all you have apparently come up with is, it was conducted by the USMC so it MUST be biased. it might be, but again, present another study you’d like to refute it with, or critique the study with actual facts, as opposed to merely your opinion.

it’s one study... that disagrees with your viewpoint. and until there’s another to refute it, it’s all the data we have to go on. as to the list of countries that have integrated females into front line combat... that’s great. there’s a lot of countries out there that do a lot of things differently than the US. and…

oh, so data you don’t like is garbage... got it.

that you’re ok with this social experiment costing lives, all in the name of progress is disturbing.

LOL... most of the females in my unit weren’t even deployable let alone able to perform at the same level as the average male soldier. and i’ve got a feeling things haven’t changed all that much since i ets’d. not to mention how well integrating females into previously male only missions has worked out... apparently…