With gender equality in all the headlines today, you would think that this issue would not even come up. But "Gender Equality" is not what people who fight for it really want. What they really want is special privilege. If a man and a woman have the SAME job description, what possible cogent argument could be made for making gender-specific requirements for that job? I am retired military special operations. During my tenure, the Navy allowed females to join EOD. I won't comment on whether I agreed with that or not. But I saw first-hand that training was impossible for most (most, not all) females to complete the training without lowering the standards. This caused not only discontent from the males who had to perform at a higher standard during training, but real-world hardship during deployments to combat zones. Lowering standards to accommodate everyone doesn't always equate to success overall.
If a woman is determined to do a job that has been dominated by males for such a long time then she should go out of her way to fulfill the requirements of the job not lower them and the officer's courage. I am adding eight words here because i dont want to write anything else.
Unfortunately police officers will need to be able to protect themselves and others in physically dangerous situations. An offender is very unlikely to be less violent towards a woman police officer simply because she is a woman. She needs to be able to protect herself as well as her male counterparts are able to.
Women and men have different bodies, and they should have
different physical standards in the police force. The only standard that should be universal is
the ability to take a perpetrator down to the ground. This can be achieved easily by smaller
officers by studying specialized martial arts such as Krav Maga.