Combat units have no civilian analog, although one comparison that could shed light on what happens when young men and women are off by themselves is college. Today, campuses are said to harbor a rape culture. This is hardly true, but colleges do seem plagued by rampant cross-gender miscommunication—and this among those who are, literally, the best-educated 18- to 22-year-olds in the country. Somehow, proponents expect 18- to 22-year-old combat soldiers and Marines to do college kids one better and remain sex-and-drama free. We should ask: how so?

Perhaps the argument proponents would make is that millennials are different and have figured out how to separate sex from emotion—though many millennials themselves disagree. So does Melvin Konner, author of Women After All: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy, who writes: “Male sexuality is driven. Men frequently want sex, period, while women tend to prefer it in the context of a relationship, a physical connection allied to an emotional one.”

To be sure, men have emotional needs, too. This is why proponents should also be made to explain how they would ensure exclusive relationships don’t form and/or if individuals in a unit do pair up, how this won’t disrupt cohesiveness.

Proponents assert that in the thick of combat, no one thinks about attraction or affection. True—but this is a red herring. The potential for trouble lurks after or before the bullets are flying. No line better describes life in or around the military than “hurry up and wait.” Combat is the hormonally driven, kinetic equivalent of “hurry up and wait.” The very nature of combat is to build up all sorts of tensions that then seek release.

Or, forget the Freudian link between Eros and Thanatos. What of the even more obvious tie between male aggressiveness and the male sex drive? Testosterone is critical to both. One consequence of this, in biological terms, is “male-male competition and female choice.” Or, in slightly cruder terms, until a substitute for aggressiveness is found, sex—and competition over female attention and affection—will matter.

The list of what proponents should be forced to explain goes on, and though everyone might prefer to sidestep the most glaring biological differences, some differences have finally begun to draw attention. For instance, the success of two female officers in Ranger School has led many to wonder whether sufficient numbers of women will ever be able to meet current performance standards.

Meanwhile, there is being able to meet the standard, and then there is being able to continue to perform at that level over time. Women in the military already acknowledge the toll that routine physical training exerts—which points to yet another inconvenient truth that proponents don’t want anyone examining: it is predominately women outside rather than inside the military who want to see ground combat units opened.

Talk to Servicewomen. The dynamic many see unfolding is that the most ambitious of their peers will now feel they have to serve in ground combat units in order to get ahead. This won’t just ratchet up the competition among all women, but it will have a major impact on childbearing and child-rearing choices, which already pose tough decisions for any young woman in uniform who wants to be a mother and a Service member, too.

Sadly, proponents don’t extend their feminist principles to military wives any more than they do to uniformed women who don’t want to integrate tactical units. It is often said that the hardest job in the military is being a spouse. This is because apart from ever-present worries about death and injury, long separations test even the strongest relationships. The recent movie American Sniper captured this well. The mission always came first for Chris Kyle, even when he was home on leave—a mission he seldom wanted to, or could, talk about.

Now, put yourself in Taya Kyle’s—or any wife’s—shoes. Physically fit, highly capable women are about to be introduced into your husband’s unit, women who will share potentially everything with him. It doesn’t matter how strong a marriage is. Both of you will have to be saints for no doubts to arise.

Such concerns might seem trivial to those outside military families. But they actually go to the heart of what the military claims to be about: a profession that looks after its own, and that seeks to do everything in its power to support its warfighters—a term DoD uses to underscore how military service is a commitment unlike any other.

Proponents like to dismiss this and assert that: “Well, according to your logic, men and women should never work together anywhere.” Or, they cite the case of astronauts—to which there are two counters. The first is Lisa Nowak, who was charged with attempted murder on the heels of what, at the time (February 2007), was described as a love triangle involving another astronaut. Perhaps this is the only sordid affair in NASA’s history. But the bigger difference between astronauts and combat soldiers—beyond age, presumed maturity levels and extensive screening—is aggressiveness.

NASA doesn’t need testosterone-filled fighters. Ground combat units do.

Actually, so do we all when it comes to this debate. We need decision makers to be chauvinists on behalf of national security.

Consequently, before it is too late, Congress should direct the Department of Defense to examine how women can be fairly groomed for strategic leadership positions. Congress should tell DoD to investigate who men will and won’t follow, at what levels, and why. Chances are excellent that so long as Commanding General Jane proves capable of deep strategic thinking, no one will care that she never kicked in a door. Finally, we the American people should insist that all discussion about equities be divorced from faux-feminism. Otherwise, decision makers in DoD are going to wreck the integrity of tactical units for the sake of a chimera.

We don’t need Special Forces teams, SEAL platoons and infantry squadrons to reflect society’s makeup. We need them to remain superlative at protecting it. Period.

Anna Simons is a Professor of Defense Analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School. The views expressed are her own.