rationalskepticism.org

TMB wrote:The difficulty with an ideal like this is the measurement.

In broad terms of equality and how it applies in a myriad of ways to all sorts of different groups, you can't. At least not easily.
However, given we're talking in the specifics of the IFC example...

TMB wrote:How do you assess and individual except against a standard based upon a group. In this case, the standard is based upon only passing the elite, and setting the standard so you get enough people, but not too many. The standards ae based upon the assessment of men and/or women to meet a specific quantity and to get the best. So they don't insist the candidates can fly or do magic, they are assessed on what is known to be possible but so difficult that very few will pass.

I think we can both agree that the IFC set a necessary high standard.

TMB wrote: In this case the standard is so high no women pass,

Incorrect.
The standard is set so high that no women has passed.
There is no evidence to suggest that no women could ever pass it. Perhaps with the correct training, one could.
If you want my views as to whether I think that is likely, then my view is that it is unlikely.
But not impossible.

TMB wrote: Or the standards have been set in the same way as they are for men, to limit how many women make the grade.

I think that is unlikely. Or at least the foolishly optimistic part of my mind thinks that whoever set the standards wasn't thinking of gender, only what constituted an acceptable determination of individual physical fitness.

TMB wrote: The author contradicts herself by saying that she was not given the chance to train with men, implying that by training with women, she is not being pushed as hard. This is true,

I'm not sure how this is a contradiction and seems to be a fairly well reasoned statement of fact.
However, if all women were forced to train (comparatively) harder than the men in order to reach a similar level of fitness, I could imagine a few might claim that this was unfair especially if they were not aspiring to apply for the IFC or similar.

TMB wrote: There is no doubt increased competition can lift the level, but it also discourages others, especially when they get consistently beaten, and need to return to their own group to be a winner.

We're not talking about competition here, we're talking about training for a role.

TMB wrote: For women it is possible to get an advantage by training with men, and competing with women.

This isn't about training with men, this is about having a harder training regimen. This is far easier to achieve in elite sports, where an individual can set their own training regimen, than it is when you're part of a much larger group such as being in the military.

TMB wrote: A more likely scenario is that the earlier levels for fitness are set based upon eliminating a certain % of female candidates, upping the ante mot male levels might eliminate too many females, or deter them from applying in the first place.

This strikes me as an unlikely scenario. I don't think anyone devising the IFC criteria needs to have given any thought to eliminating women from applying.