Unfortunately she uses one data point, her own medical history, to make her case re "longevity." That is the entire thesis of her objection - nothing else. I found it odd that she managed to write these two sentences so close together:
"I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
There is a drastic shortage of historical data on female attrition or medical ailments of women who have executed sustained combat operations."
The second sentence admits to a shortage of data, but that doesn't stop her from making a confident claim in the first sentence. She points to differing training attrition rates, which should, if the screening is gender neutral, not really tell us anything about medical ailment attrition in combat operations.
"It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marine...."
Her above statement is one of several that points up an interesting observation but doesn't really argue against combat roles for women. Without women then some subset of men would be in the "higher rate of deterioration" group; even if you prove that most women will enter that group does not argue against combat roles for them.
By the way, it is clear she has paid a heavy price in the service of her country - those are some serious ailments.
