During all the insanity that happened on Saturday involving the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there was a moment that stood out to many, and it involved the conduct of the female Secret Service agents. As one clip showed, the women protecting Trump looked jittery and slightly unsure of themselves. One of them tried to holster her side arm but kept missing the holster, eventually just placing it close to her until it was easier to do so. This resulted in many people questioning why there were female Secret Service agents in the first place. 

To be clear, I also spoke out about this, but I wanted to add something very specific that I think is important. It's my honest belief that women can, in fact, be Secret Service agents, however, I think there are specific places for them in any given detail, I just don't think they should be responsible for the immediate handling of the president. 

Women should not be SS agents, at least when it comes to this specific kind of detail. She can’t holster her weapon and they look jittery and disorganized. pic.twitter.com/WBkyoYTlrQ

— Brandon Morse (@TheBrandonMorse) July 14, 2024

The knee-jerk reaction from this for some will be to assume I'm being sexist, but let's look at this logically. 

Men are larger than women in general, they're stronger than women in general, and they're quicker than women in general. When a threat approaches, you want the largest mass possible to shield the president. If a threat tries to come at the president directly, you want the strongest and fastest fighter you can get to take the threat down. If, for any reason, the threat needs to be pinned or the president needs to be lifted bodily to safety, you want people with solid muscle mass to be able to handle the weight. Men's lung capacity is also larger, as well is their ability to pump blood through the body faster, making them tire less easily, at least in terms of short-term action.

Women are generally smaller than men, have less muscle mass, aren't as fast, and can be physically overpowered far more easily as a general rule. 

When we're dealing with the leader of the free world, or even the once and likely future leader, the question about who should be at his immediate side isn't a question. It should be men strictly due to the biological advantages given to them by nature when it comes to physicality. 

This doesn't mean women can't be undercover in the crowd, or among the agents around the area keeping watch. Women are very good shots so, with their eye for detail and natural slow twitch muscle fiber making them less likely to jitter or jerk while aiming, they could be very good at overwatch, just to give you one example. They could blend in with the crowd as undercover agents, as women are less likely to be suspected of being agents giving them the advantage of surprise when a suspect lets their guard down thinking they aren't a threat. 

But when it comes to directly protecting the president, the male body is just better built for that specific job. 

Let's put it this way. Would it be sexist of me to say that there should be women on a team's offensive line in the NFL? No, of course not. They put heavy, burly guys in that position because that specific job requires a specific body type. If you were to put a woman on the O-line and put her against a male form you'd typically see opposite her, she would be overrun very easily and possibly injured severely. 

The O-line's job is to help protect one man, the quarterback so that he can enact plays necessary to move the team forward. If we're willing to understand that a specific type of body is needed in this situation to protect a man so that a sports team can win a game, then this same logic needs to be put forward when we're talking about the leader of the free world. A person so important and powerful that their death could trigger events that could literally change the world for the worse and throw it into chaos. 

This isn't sexism. This isn't looking down on women. This is just a logical take given the biological facts. 

Women are fully capable of doing a myriad of jobs and by all means, they should have them if they want them, but there are certain jobs where their inclusion isn't wise or logical. This specific detail of being the closest to the president when the worst goes down, is neither wise nor logical.