You've basically doubled down on the same problem with your first essay. Repeating the same propaganda doesn't make it any more true.

You only see women as a function of reproductive biology. But, that is not the whole of lives. Roughly one third of our lives are spent bearing and raising children. If 16 year old boys are able and expected to fight in a war because they are not parents, then any 16 year old girl who is not a parent is also able. It's the expectation that is different, not the physical ability.

You also bring up physical discrepancies between the sexes. It's true that, on average, men are larger and more muscular. If that's the basis of exclusion from compulsory service in times of invasion then shouldn't a man the size and stature of, say, Seth Green, be disregarded in lieu of a woman the size and stature of, say, Brigit Nielson? Wouldn't the war effort be improved by following such guidelines over gender ones? Again, we find it's the gender expectation rather than the reality of physical prowess.

Further, the physical differences are not as naturally biologically pronounced as you suggest. There is no doubt that how we are raised so differently as males and females increases the differences. Women today are weight and fight training, they're playing sports and being active rather than staying confined and bent over needle work. The differences aren't as pronounced.

Saw a story on TikTok the other day about a young man in his 20's who broke into an 80 year old grandmother's house, presumably to terrorize and steal from her. He was not high or otherwise infirmed. But Grandma spends her days at the gym power lifting instead of at the senior citizens center playing cards. She whooped him bad. She whooped him real bad. I'd rather that grandma be on my squad than that 20 year old scrawny coward. Any sane and rational person would because my life depends on my squad mates being willing and able to "go to work" under fire. Being male and young is not a guarantee of that.

Beyond that, you also seem to be incapable of thinking of war beyond the bounds of men marching around with guns and facing off across a battlefield, all macho like. It's very medieval thinking. There are a lot of ways to serve in a war or invasion situation than to line up across a field in a pissing contest. There a lot.of ways to kill large groups of people that don't involve guns too.

You believe what you believe because you hold sexist beliefs. Biggest evidence of that was your claim that feminism is not about equal rights but about destroying traditional families. Bullshit. In the first place, the traditional nuclear family is a modern construct. Extended families were always more stable and they were the norm for millenia. If anything is destroying families, it is the push toward the nuclear model so that every man can be "king" of his castle which left large swaths of women and children exposed and vulnerable to instability and violence. Not feminism.

Thanks for the mention though.