Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As you say, it a matter of public record and also OT for this thread.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
From the Orks And Gender thread...

 JNAProductions wrote:
From an out of universe perspective, Orks are stereotypically male.

From an in universe perspective, I'd imagine the closest things Orks have to gender in their own society is the various types of Boys. A MekBoy is different from a WeirdBoy in ways that matter to the Orks.
And, as a reminder, Orks are NOT stupid. They're simple. If an Ork force found itself on a planet with strong gender norms among the local populace, especially in regards to who fights, they'd learn that. They wouldn't ADOPT that to themselves, but they'd certainly learn that "Oomie men are the stabby ones, and oomie women man the artillery" or whatever the planet does.

It's fun to discuss what in-universe Ork society might have for gender equivalents, or what they think of other species' gender ideas.

But from our perspective-that is, someone who doesn't exist inside the 40k universe-they are presented as male.

The problem as I see it is that we have the novel Brutal Kunnin'. In there we have a female techpriest that is hardly female and referred to as she. We have a skitari using his/her own pronouns (at least in the german translation, not sure if it's just "they" in english and they didn't know how to translate that) and is supposed to be postgender I guess. We also have an Iron Warrior who is a "he" and we have all the Orks and Grots that always refer to themselves as he with the only notable exception of a Squig that becomes a "she" after it got the name of "princess" because it ate a "princeps" and the Orks didn't understand what that's supposed to mean.
So, the Orks might have a concept of gender OR at least they copy the designations from humans. It's one aspect I don’t like about the book, it's basically just the Ork codex in novel form . I prefer the way they handled Ork language in The beast arises where it's always: "The Ork shouted something in their crude language the Space Marines couldn't understand."

Do you feel that Orks are not male-coded and male-presenting from our perspective?

Orks are presented as equivalent to males in humans despite Orks being asexual and reproducing by fighting but ultimately what does it even matter if it is? GW's take on fantasy genre orcs is inspired and modeled after football hooligans getting drunk and getting into mindless brawls. Not exactly sure how many women took part in the football hooliganism that GW originally was referencing when I am going to go out on a limb and assume the overwhelming majority of those people where male.

 Vankraken wrote:
Not exactly sure how many women took part in the football hooliganism that GW originally was referencing when I am going to go out on a limb and assume the overwhelming majority of those people where male.

Tsk tsk. Football hooliganism not very inclusive and diverse.

Has anyone here suggested GW should change Orks from being male-coded? I haven't seen that. Only recognising that it is part of the majority of male-coded factions that leads to the big imbalance in representation.

People talk about introducing female Marines because they are the face of 40k. Orks are not.

Also worth clarifying again that male-coded doesn’t mean “therefore male”.

For instance, Droids in Star Wars can have male, female or neutral personality programming. But having that programming doesn’t an actual gender create. All Droids are sexless and genderless. But the can be male or female presenting, as per their owner and designer’s preference.

The same is true of Orks. That other species in the galaxy code them as males doesn’t make Orks gendered internally. Internally? Orks is Orks.

Haighus wrote:Has anyone here suggested GW should change Orks from being male-coded? I haven't seen that. Only recognising that it is part of the majority of male-coded factions that leads to the big imbalance in representation.

People talk about introducing female Marines because they are the face of 40k. Orks are not.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone's suggesting to change the Ork aesthetic, but simply recognising the aesthetic as it has been presented.

And that, ironically, if people want an "all male presenting faction", technically, Orks fit that brief.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also worth clarifying again that male-coded doesn’t mean “therefore male”.

Also true! Ultimately, when there are people calling for a "male faction" in 40k (which some people have called for - citing Space Marines as their 'male space'), are they making that distinction? Do Orks fulfil that "male-ness" by being aesthetically male, if not biologically?

The same is true of Orks. That other species in the galaxy code them as males doesn’t make Orks gendered internally. Internally? Orks is Orks.

We do also need to consider the OC design that has gone into them, however. Orks *may* be just Orks IC, in their own culture. Orks may be perceived as having a gender IC, from other cultures. But also, it was an OC culture and OC design choice to present Orks as they are presented as. And, ultimately, that is a masculine presenting design.

That's not to say it's a problem - mostly because Orks don't dominate the aesthetic marketing of 40k.

 Haighus wrote:
Has anyone here suggested GW should change Orks from being male-coded? I haven't seen that. Only recognising that it is part of the majority of male-coded factions that leads to the big imbalance in representation.

People talk about introducing female Marines because they are the face of 40k. Orks are not.

I wouldn't call for a change to Orks, but it's a weird situation where they arguably have a perfectly genderless race whose biology doesn't matter, their thought process doesn't factor into anything sexual and they could be a great non-binary or even asexual space away from the issues with a lot of races. But they're always dudes. I get people keep saying "an ork is an ork and has no concept of internal gender" which, ok, that could be true. But they're innately using that masculine language even in absence of a human narrator in some cases.

That said I'm not really on board with "just consider marines due to marketing", either the boot fits for everyone or it doesn't. For proper female marines I'd basically expect to see the exact same models with the odd face with softer features, no overtly sexualised changes to the plate as theoretically there shouldn't be a need even in-setting. Even so I appreciate the internal narrative to the setting that the imperium maybe don't know they can use female aspirants, or they honestly believe that it won't work for XYZ reasons because the Imperium is intentionally backwards.

After an interesting talk with my other half she honestly said the inhabitants of the game stores are more of a problem than any of the mini ranges, she can find some stuff she finds intriguing or pretty but she wouldn't feel comfortable in a store. Maybe we should start addressing those problems and perceptions first?

Dudeface wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Has anyone here suggested GW should change Orks from being male-coded? I haven't seen that. Only recognising that it is part of the majority of male-coded factions that leads to the big imbalance in representation.

People talk about introducing female Marines because they are the face of 40k. Orks are not.

I wouldn't call for a change to Orks, but it's a weird situation where they arguably have a perfectly genderless race whose biology doesn't matter, their thought process doesn't factor into anything sexual and they could be a great non-binary or even asexual space away from the issues with a lot of races. But they're always dudes. I get people keep saying "an ork is an ork and has no concept of internal gender" which, ok, that could be true. But they're innately using that masculine language even in absence of a human narrator in some cases.

That said I'm not really on board with "just consider marines due to marketing", either the boot fits for everyone or it doesn't. For proper female marines I'd basically expect to see the exact same models with the odd face with softer features, no overtly sexualised changes to the plate as theoretically there shouldn't be a need even in-setting. Even so I appreciate the internal narrative to the setting that the imperium maybe don't know they can use female aspirants, or they honestly believe that it won't work for XYZ reasons because the Imperium is intentionally backwards.

After an interesting talk with my other half she honestly said the inhabitants of the game stores are more of a problem than any of the mini ranges, she can find some stuff she finds intriguing or pretty but she wouldn't feel comfortable in a store. Maybe we should start addressing those problems and perceptions first?

It’s a bit of both as an issue, a lot of the men making these discussions hard are the same men who make me uncomfortable at stores and to express myself.
Space marines are interesting from where they can be used narrative wise, but they also have to exist with the inherent culture that effectively makes everything a man until said otherwise. Which also means GW tends to soften marines a lot, since they cool and such. Rather than monsters crafted by a society that is horrific.

I even wonder if sisters of silence haven’t seen much is that they kinda fall into the same design space as sisters of battle for expansion. Making them unique requires some thought from all places in the line, where it often feels like the different parts of 40K design are too separate.
Right now they effectively a force that exists to stuff over like 3 army’s, possibly toxic to any meta for balance.

Part of the issue with Orks is that we don’t really know what Orks mean in their own language.

In the Codex it’s anglicised at best, Low Gothic at worst. And we can’t assume that, being an entirely separate species with its own innate kultur, that Boy has the same definition as English or Low Gothic.

So far as I can tell? Boy is arguably a rank of social standing (them not really having a standing military in the common sense). After all, you’ve Snots, Grots, Boyz, Nobz, Warboss and Oddboyz.

Consider. Daffgatz has just snuck in, beaten Bogjaw over the head and nicked all his teef. You go to rally the Ladz of your Mob, because Daffgatz now needs a kicking in return (and you know he’s now got a bunch of loose teef on him) You can then described Daffgatz as either a Boy, or a Nob. And from that they gain some inkling of how much of a fight it’s gonna be, and any possible pushback from said fight.

Can I particularly prove this hypothesis? Probably not, as I don’t recall any of the Orky background books really going into that, other than confirming stratas of social standing.

But in a fundamentally genderless society? It’s a definite possibility.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Part of the issue with Orks is that we don’t really know what Orks mean in their own language.

In the Codex it’s anglicised at best, Low Gothic at worst. And we can’t assume that, being an entirely separate species with its own innate kultur, that Boy has the same definition as English or Low Gothic.

So far as I can tell? Boy is arguably a rank of social standing (them not really having a standing military in the common sense). After all, you’ve Snots, Grots, Boyz, Nobz, Warboss and Oddboyz.

Consider. Daffgatz has just snuck in, beaten Bogjaw over the head and nicked all his teef. You go to rally the Ladz of your Mob, because Daffgatz now needs a kicking in return (and you know he’s now got a bunch of loose teef on him) You can then described Daffgatz as either a Boy, or a Nob. And from that they gain some inkling of how much of a fight it’s gonna be, and any possible pushback from said fight.

Can I particularly prove this hypothesis? Probably not, as I don’t recall any of the Orky background books really going into that, other than confirming stratas of social standing.

But in a fundamentally genderless society? It’s a definite possibility.

That's a good in-universe bit of talking.

Out-of-universe, though, Boy is masculine. Moreso than son, which can at least be sometimes used as meaning just children in general. And Orks, in general, are presented in a masculine fashion.

In and out of universe, that’s externally applied. And it still doesn’t mean Orks have genders, or any concept of such.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In and out of universe, that’s externally applied. And it still doesn’t mean Orks have genders, or any concept of such.

Imagine you're new to the setting, you have big muscular, masculine formed alien who are in units of "boyz" and referred to as a "he" individually. You would 100% presume they're another male centric force.

Instead of beating around the bush, let's take the position of Orks being modeled after male imagery and stereotypes. A mix of Tolkien/generic fantasy orcs mixed with football hooligan stereotypes, and using troll logic for their technology. In-universe it's a mono sex species that reproduces via spores and are non sexual beings who live to fight, loot, and win. Orks sees themselves as an Ork and gender is a foreign concept to them.

If this was a matter of fact (I personally think this fairly well sums it up) then what is the issue at hand or what should be done differently?

 Vankraken wrote:
Instead of beating around the bush, let's take the position of Orks being modeled after male imagery and stereotypes. A mix of Tolkien/generic fantasy orcs mixed with football hooligan stereotypes, and using troll logic for their technology. In-universe it's a mono sex species that reproduces via spores and are non sexual beings who live to fight, loot, and win. Orks sees themselves as an Ork and gender is a foreign concept to them.

If this was a matter of fact (I personally think this fairly well sums it up) then what is the issue at hand or what should be done differently?

The same as with marines, it's another string on the bow of the setting being overly masculine and male centric. There are fluff reasons, valid or otherwise for both of their respective representations and level of inclusiveness.

The point is the entry point to the hobby, to read up to them being a genderless mushroom you need to get past the initial impression of a collection of green muscle guys. They portray as yet another male muscle bunch.

Again: I have no problem with it as is, but just offering how no matter where you look in 40k there are problems of this ilk. I personally think tau do it best, where there is very little physical definition to the tau themselves, nor the kroot, but both genders are represented openly in the fluff.

Dudeface wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Has anyone here suggested GW should change Orks from being male-coded? I haven't seen that. Only recognising that it is part of the majority of male-coded factions that leads to the big imbalance in representation.

People talk about introducing female Marines because they are the face of 40k. Orks are not.

I wouldn't call for a change to Orks, but it's a weird situation where they arguably have a perfectly genderless race whose biology doesn't matter, their thought process doesn't factor into anything sexual and they could be a great non-binary or even asexual space away from the issues with a lot of races. But they're always dudes. I get people keep saying "an ork is an ork and has no concept of internal gender" which, ok, that could be true. But they're innately using that masculine language even in absence of a human narrator in some cases.

That said I'm not really on board with "just consider marines due to marketing", either the boot fits for everyone or it doesn't. For proper female marines I'd basically expect to see the exact same models with the odd face with softer features, no overtly sexualised changes to the plate as theoretically there shouldn't be a need even in-setting. Even so I appreciate the internal narrative to the setting that the imperium maybe don't know they can use female aspirants, or they honestly believe that it won't work for XYZ reasons because the Imperium is intentionally backwards.

After an interesting talk with my other half she honestly said the inhabitants of the game stores are more of a problem than any of the mini ranges, she can find some stuff she finds intriguing or pretty but she wouldn't feel comfortable in a store. Maybe we should start addressing those problems and perceptions first?

The two things are related. By catering to the more exclusive male-dominated version of the game, you promote the view that Warhammer is “for” the people who make gaming spaces uncomfortable. By making more inclusive minis, you either drive away some of those uncomfortable types or you make them more comfortable with the existence of women in Warhammer, at least in terms of minis and art at first. Catering to the angry all-dudes types reinforces all the worst aspects of gaming culture that make public gaming spaces so unwelcoming.

 Vankraken wrote:
Instead of beating around the bush, let's take the position of Orks being modeled after male imagery and stereotypes. A mix of Tolkien/generic fantasy orcs mixed with football hooligan stereotypes, and using troll logic for their technology. In-universe it's a mono sex species that reproduces via spores and are non sexual beings who live to fight, loot, and win. Orks sees themselves as an Ork and gender is a foreign concept to them.

If this was a matter of fact (I personally think this fairly well sums it up) then what is the issue at hand or what should be done differently?

I think the concept of Ork Gurlz is an interesting one, mostly because its really hard to get right. Most traditional attempts at differentiation of fantasy orcs end up being more problematic than helpful. Either they end up falling into stereotypical nurturing and support roles or they end up designed as Green Sonja with maybe some lower fangs at their most monstrous feature. I think the right way to do it is honestly just to make a design that's one of da boyz in nature. It's just something really hard to land based on the attempts I see looking for ideas.

 Haighus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is that not a commentary on the limitations of English, rather than Orks, societally, having genders?

Boyz/Boy is an Orkish word. Therefore it by no means carries the same definition as the English definition. It’s like Trunk. To me, that’s something an elephant has. To our American chums, it’s where you put the shopping in your car.

Orks using English masculine pronouns and terms doesn’t mean Orks are a single gender. Or even have a concept of such things.

When you’re an Ork? You’re an Ork. And because everyone knows Orks are the best, that’s seemingly enough definition for their society.

It's largely irrelevant whether the orks are aware or not for the context of the conversation. The fact Ghazkul is on his crusade to make the biggest waagh ever, instead of simply "their" is the point.

Trunk is also the name for an elephants appendage in America, they just co-opted it as a synonym for boot. You'll have a hard time persuading someone that "boy" is a synonym for something that is genderless however.

Saying that, iirc they use male pronouns for one another aswell rather than genderless.

Well, perhaps more pertinently they use male pronouns when translated into English/Low Gothic. It is humans who have assigned that.

This is what is called the thermian argument. You are using poorly sketched out headcannon of purely in setting justifications to try and make a point about meta issues.

No one gives a flying feth if the orks IN THE SETTING have no concept of gender. We humans living in the real and not made up world can look at orks and see that they are deliberately gendered to us. They were made by humans with an identifiable male gender.

And it is EASY to tell because you can set them next to an ACTUALLY non gendered army, the tyranids, and notice the differences immediately



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Orks have no gender, yet the writer immediately genders them as male by referring to them as he/him.

And in the end? Out in the real world?
No one cares.

I mean people seem real interested in defining orks as totally agender so they can pretend they are totally not another masculine faction in the setting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I ask those who know better: would Men of Iron be a good example here for genderless phrasing? Getting past the very first word, it's a literal robot. No gender parts to speak of. No squishy organics. Not even a gendered personality. Again, excusing the very first word, THEY are always referred to as THEY/THEM, or IT. Men of Iron is just a Moniker, like IBM, or Thinkpad. If we retconned Men of Iron to be People of Iron, it would be an exact match for how we are trying to visualize the Ork example. You have zero problem with the lore being genderless in that example. Now apply it to the Orks, or the Custodes, or the Space Marines. They or them. Done. They are a powerful fighting force. Are we done here?

UR-025 isn't particularly gendered visually, but he is referred to by male pronouns consistently. Probly because male is the assumed default for anything.

But he's also the only Men of Iron I know of in the setting, so it's impossible to really say much about them as a whole based on the one example we got.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Same with Ad-Mech, though as discussed elsewhere they’re perhaps better described as post-gender, just another sacrifice of their humanity on the altar of the Omnissiah.

Tyranids however? Hormogaunts may very well be female, as they’re confirmed to be egg layers. Though given the weirdness of that race of gribblies, I can’t rule out the eggs as described aren’t generated by the Hormagaunts, but implanted and that.

I think the difference is that AdMech are so layered, masked, and obscured that they're kinda removed from a lot of gender signifiers. Tyranids aren't even humanoid looking, so humanoid mrkings of gender is kinda obliterated.

Going through, I'd go through gender appearances as such:

Spoiler:

Sororitas - Fem-coded (with the exception of their male priests and followers)

Custodes - Generally gender neutral armour (because of the sheer size), but with masc-coded heads. Hopefully to change in time to also feature fem-coded heads. SoS are fem-coded.

Mechanicus - Agender. No strong features of gender either way.

Titanicus - Big robots. No gender.

Agents - A variety of genders.

Astra Militarum - A variety of genders.

Grey Knights - Large armour means that anyone could be in it - but male pronouns and all male heads. Could simply be a default coding, but at present, explicitly all male.
Imperial Knights - Big robots. No gender.

Astartes - Like Grey Knights, large armour tends to remove ideas of "gender", but aforementioned male pronouns and heads. Again - could be changed with headswaps and language, but at present, explicitly male.

Daemons - Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle daemons lack a lot of gendered identity. Khorne and Slaanesh daemons are typically androgyne (Khorne leaning masc, Slaanesh leaning fem, but ultimately not hyper-coded)

Chaos Knights - Big robots. No gender.

Chaos Marines - Like Grey Knights and Astartes. Large armour obscures "gender", but currently only use male pronouns and faces. Could be changed with headswaps and gender neutral language. Currently only explicitly male, but people seem to embrace the idea that there is some gender deviancy.

Eldar - A variety of genders.

Dark Eldar - A variety of genders.

Genestealer Cult - A variety of genders, or outright alien aesthetics.

Votann - Large armour, coupled with mixed gender representation beneath the armour.

Orks - Masculine coded, due to being generally under armoured, and still largely humanoid in overall physique. Textually agender, but masculine in appearance and language (ironically the opposite of Space Marine flavours!)

Necrons - Robotic. No discernible signs of gender.

T'au - Obscuring armour, coupled with mixed "gender" representation (we see sexual dimorphism, even if shown in a different way to our understanding - humanoid aliens, but not overly "gendered" by human terms).

Tyranids - Not even humanoid. No gender.

Did I miss anything? Either way, I have noticed that point of interest - that Orks are the most "masculine" army in appearance and behaviour, but are textually agender. Space Marines, which are often championed as the "masculine" army, are predominantly masculine in name only - in appearance, they aren't overly male unless you remove the helmet.

Is this a new observation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

StudentOfEtherium wrote:personally i don't love the interpretation of space marines et al as "asexual" in the sense of the queer identity. there's a lot of baggage here (for example, space marines have all the brainwashing and physical alterations)

granted, 40k isn't much of a sexual setting in the first place, so it's hard to have asexuality, since it's primarily defined by absence. whether or not a given sister of battle is asexual or allosexual won't really come up, compared to gender which can be (but isn't always) more obvious

Nah, I get you!

I use asexual in a way that is distinct from our current understanding of real people who are asexual/aromantic - but ultimately simply in that Space Marines are not sexually available or concerned post-humans. A guardsmen's asexuality is different to a Space Marines' asexuality, for example.

If you have an alternative classification, I'd be interested to hear it!

Big armor that would erase secondary sexual characteristics will default to male presenting because male is the default assumption of the human form.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Same with Ad-Mech, though as discussed elsewhere they’re perhaps better described as post-gender, just another sacrifice of their humanity on the altar of the Omnissiah.

Tyranids however? Hormogaunts may very well be female, as they’re confirmed to be egg layers. Though given the weirdness of that race of gribblies, I can’t rule out the eggs as described aren’t generated by the Hormagaunts, but implanted and that.

I think the difference is that AdMech are so layered, masked, and obscured that they're kinda removed from a lot of gender signifiers. Tyranids aren't even humanoid looking, so humanoid mrkings of gender is kinda obliterated.

Going through, I'd go through gender appearances as such:

Spoiler:

Sororitas - Fem-coded (with the exception of their male priests and followers)

Custodes - Generally gender neutral armour (because of the sheer size), but with masc-coded heads. Hopefully to change in time to also feature fem-coded heads. SoS are fem-coded.

Mechanicus - Agender. No strong features of gender either way.

Titanicus - Big robots. No gender.

Agents - A variety of genders.

Astra Militarum - A variety of genders.

Grey Knights - Large armour means that anyone could be in it - but male pronouns and all male heads. Could simply be a default coding, but at present, explicitly all male.
Imperial Knights - Big robots. No gender.

Astartes - Like Grey Knights, large armour tends to remove ideas of "gender", but aforementioned male pronouns and heads. Again - could be changed with headswaps and language, but at present, explicitly male.

Daemons - Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle daemons lack a lot of gendered identity. Khorne and Slaanesh daemons are typically androgyne (Khorne leaning masc, Slaanesh leaning fem, but ultimately not hyper-coded)

Chaos Knights - Big robots. No gender.

Chaos Marines - Like Grey Knights and Astartes. Large armour obscures "gender", but currently only use male pronouns and faces. Could be changed with headswaps and gender neutral language. Currently only explicitly male, but people seem to embrace the idea that there is some gender deviancy.

Eldar - A variety of genders.

Dark Eldar - A variety of genders.

Genestealer Cult - A variety of genders, or outright alien aesthetics.

Votann - Large armour, coupled with mixed gender representation beneath the armour.

Orks - Masculine coded, due to being generally under armoured, and still largely humanoid in overall physique. Textually agender, but masculine in appearance and language (ironically the opposite of Space Marine flavours!)

Necrons - Robotic. No discernible signs of gender.

T'au - Obscuring armour, coupled with mixed "gender" representation (we see sexual dimorphism, even if shown in a different way to our understanding - humanoid aliens, but not overly "gendered" by human terms).

Tyranids - Not even humanoid. No gender.

Did I miss anything? Either way, I have noticed that point of interest - that Orks are the most "masculine" army in appearance and behaviour, but are textually agender. Space Marines, which are often championed as the "masculine" army, are predominantly masculine in name only - in appearance, they aren't overly male unless you remove the helmet.

Is this a new observation?

my two notes:

Slaanesh tends to lean towards explicit androgyny, which is why a lot of models will include aspects of men and women (a lot of them only have one breast, for example). this was called attention to in the old realms of chaos books (although, hilariously, without google around to correct them, the writers used "bisexual" to describe this). as a whole, Slaanesh's aesthetic is more intersex than anything else... but when it comes to the way that people perceive gender, androgyny is adjacent to femininity. the margin in the middle is thin, and in the absence of traditional male signifiers, people will assume femininity. this is why, for example, bishounen anime characters will be perceived of as "girly" even when they don't have any explicit feminine aspects

and regarding GSC, the army definitely has models for men and women, but they definitely lean further towards grizzled snarling men like a lot of other male-focused factions. in particular, neophytes are exclusively male, while all the female models are characters

Slaanesh is the fear the queer god. Us LGBT folk reclaim that sort of stuff, but let's make no mistake, a core of the identity of slaanesh is how scary non cis, non hetero people are to many cis het folks. How scary we are to society over all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
From the Orks And Gender thread...

 JNAProductions wrote:
From an out of universe perspective, Orks are stereotypically male.

From an in universe perspective, I'd imagine the closest things Orks have to gender in their own society is the various types of Boys. A MekBoy is different from a WeirdBoy in ways that matter to the Orks.
And, as a reminder, Orks are NOT stupid. They're simple. If an Ork force found itself on a planet with strong gender norms among the local populace, especially in regards to who fights, they'd learn that. They wouldn't ADOPT that to themselves, but they'd certainly learn that "Oomie men are the stabby ones, and oomie women man the artillery" or whatever the planet does.

It's fun to discuss what in-universe Ork society might have for gender equivalents, or what they think of other species' gender ideas.

But from our perspective-that is, someone who doesn't exist inside the 40k universe-they are presented as male.

The problem as I see it is that we have the novel Brutal Kunnin'. In there we have a female techpriest that is hardly female and referred to as she. We have a skitari using his/her own pronouns (at least in the german translation, not sure if it's just "they" in english and they didn't know how to translate that) and is supposed to be postgender I guess. We also have an Iron Warrior who is a "he" and we have all the Orks and Grots that always refer to themselves as he with the only notable exception of a Squig that becomes a "she" after it got the name of "princess" because it ate a "princeps" and the Orks didn't understand what that's supposed to mean.
So, the Orks might have a concept of gender OR at least they copy the designations from humans. It's one aspect I don’t like about the book, it's basically just the Ork codex in novel form . I prefer the way they handled Ork language in The beast arises where it's always: "The Ork shouted something in their crude language the Space Marines couldn't understand."

Most warhammer authors don't really have a concept of gender outside the binary. It's not really common to think that way.

And the few times they've tried the same people shouting bout fem stodes here raise a mighty clamor about how dare GW use nonstandard pronouns for a tech priest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Instead of beating around the bush, let's take the position of Orks being modeled after male imagery and stereotypes. A mix of Tolkien/generic fantasy orcs mixed with football hooligan stereotypes, and using troll logic for their technology. In-universe it's a mono sex species that reproduces via spores and are non sexual beings who live to fight, loot, and win. Orks sees themselves as an Ork and gender is a foreign concept to them.

If this was a matter of fact (I personally think this fairly well sums it up) then what is the issue at hand or what should be done differently?

I think the concept of Ork Gurlz is an interesting one, mostly because its really hard to get right. Most traditional attempts at differentiation of fantasy orcs end up being more problematic than helpful. Either they end up falling into stereotypical nurturing and support roles or they end up designed as Green Sonja with maybe some lower fangs at their most monstrous feature. I think the right way to do it is honestly just to make a design that's one of da boyz in nature. It's just something really hard to land based on the attempts I see looking for ideas.

Orks being male coded is fine. I mean they're kind of classist as a portrayal honestly, but whatever.

stratigo wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Same with Ad-Mech, though as discussed elsewhere they’re perhaps better described as post-gender, just another sacrifice of their humanity on the altar of the Omnissiah.

Tyranids however? Hormogaunts may very well be female, as they’re confirmed to be egg layers. Though given the weirdness of that race of gribblies, I can’t rule out the eggs as described aren’t generated by the Hormagaunts, but implanted and that.

I think the difference is that AdMech are so layered, masked, and obscured that they're kinda removed from a lot of gender signifiers. Tyranids aren't even humanoid looking, so humanoid mrkings of gender is kinda obliterated.

Going through, I'd go through gender appearances as such:

Spoiler:

Sororitas - Fem-coded (with the exception of their male priests and followers)

Custodes - Generally gender neutral armour (because of the sheer size), but with masc-coded heads. Hopefully to change in time to also feature fem-coded heads. SoS are fem-coded.

Mechanicus - Agender. No strong features of gender either way.

Titanicus - Big robots. No gender.

Agents - A variety of genders.

Astra Militarum - A variety of genders.

Grey Knights - Large armour means that anyone could be in it - but male pronouns and all male heads. Could simply be a default coding, but at present, explicitly all male.
Imperial Knights - Big robots. No gender.

Astartes - Like Grey Knights, large armour tends to remove ideas of "gender", but aforementioned male pronouns and heads. Again - could be changed with headswaps and language, but at present, explicitly male.

Daemons - Tzeentch Daemons and Nurgle daemons lack a lot of gendered identity. Khorne and Slaanesh daemons are typically androgyne (Khorne leaning masc, Slaanesh leaning fem, but ultimately not hyper-coded)

Chaos Knights - Big robots. No gender.

Chaos Marines - Like Grey Knights and Astartes. Large armour obscures "gender", but currently only use male pronouns and faces. Could be changed with headswaps and gender neutral language. Currently only explicitly male, but people seem to embrace the idea that there is some gender deviancy.

Eldar - A variety of genders.

Dark Eldar - A variety of genders.

Genestealer Cult - A variety of genders, or outright alien aesthetics.

Votann - Large armour, coupled with mixed gender representation beneath the armour.

Orks - Masculine coded, due to being generally under armoured, and still largely humanoid in overall physique. Textually agender, but masculine in appearance and language (ironically the opposite of Space Marine flavours!)

Necrons - Robotic. No discernible signs of gender.

T'au - Obscuring armour, coupled with mixed "gender" representation (we see sexual dimorphism, even if shown in a different way to our understanding - humanoid aliens, but not overly "gendered" by human terms).

Tyranids - Not even humanoid. No gender.

Did I miss anything? Either way, I have noticed that point of interest - that Orks are the most "masculine" army in appearance and behaviour, but are textually agender. Space Marines, which are often championed as the "masculine" army, are predominantly masculine in name only - in appearance, they aren't overly male unless you remove the helmet.

Is this a new observation?

my two notes:

Slaanesh tends to lean towards explicit androgyny, which is why a lot of models will include aspects of men and women (a lot of them only have one breast, for example). this was called attention to in the old realms of chaos books (although, hilariously, without google around to correct them, the writers used "bisexual" to describe this). as a whole, Slaanesh's aesthetic is more intersex than anything else... but when it comes to the way that people perceive gender, androgyny is adjacent to femininity. the margin in the middle is thin, and in the absence of traditional male signifiers, people will assume femininity. this is why, for example, bishounen anime characters will be perceived of as "girly" even when they don't have any explicit feminine aspects

and regarding GSC, the army definitely has models for men and women, but they definitely lean further towards grizzled snarling men like a lot of other male-focused factions. in particular, neophytes are exclusively male, while all the female models are characters

Slaanesh is the fear the queer god. Us LGBT folk reclaim that sort of stuff, but let's make no mistake, a core of the identity of slaanesh is how scary non cis, non hetero people are to many cis het folks. How scary we are to society over all.

yeah the original idea was definitely queerphobic but i still think it's noteworthy as an army playing into intersex and queer bodies and ideas. we can and we should reclaim this sort of thing, because simply put, it's cool. gw should do a heavily queer-coded slaanesh kill team or warcry warband

This entire conversation is so self defeating it feels so hopeless...

Orkz only appear to have a gender because we give them a gender and because gender is a fluid concept we are applying a label only for convenience of conversation. Since so many people want to get lost in the weeds lets really get into it, Orkz themselves would have no concept of gender because they are all the same gender. In their society they would have their own customs and beliefs, like looking sideways at Weirdboyz or thinking that Meks are cowardly, but the only reason male and female come into the conversation is because we the players assign them that way. Orkz are so irrelevant to the conversation of gender because they are genderless and the unending desire to ascribe either gender to them is just projection. If you want to argue that they are "male coded" then you have to admit that this entire discussion is arbitrary based on personal views.

We can talk about authors intent and how different authors present things but I really wish people could drop Orkz from the conversation because it makes as much sense as ascribing gender to Tyranids. The only difference is one faction is relatively humanoid, thus more relatable to humanity, and the other is alien enough that we can't really place labels on them at first glance.

Maybe because I play both races, along with others like Chaos Daemons and Necrons, that I just don't care about the gender or relating to my models so maybe I am just such an outsider in this conversation but it feels like a bunch of people talking past one another to snipe straw men.

We all have a line in the sand in what we will accept as a retcon. My best example is AoS vs WHFB; that was such a heel turn away from grim dark fantasy to high fantasy/borderline scifi that it was like a gut punch to me when it happened. AoS has its own charm but trying to tie it in anyway to WHFB was a huge mistake on their part and is my biggest issue with it to date. Female Custodes is no where near that level of retcon and for me it doesn't cross the line or what I accept as a retcon. I think we could all have a healthier understanding that some people like certain aspects or somethings without trying to build it into some sort of sinister immoral hatred, e.g. I like the dystopian setting and think that Space Marines being all male adds to the bleak setting, I would prefer that they keep that piece of 40k because slowly they have been taking away from that feeling of dread.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
This entire conversation is so self defeating it feels so hopeless...

Orkz only appear to have a gender because we give them a gender and because gender is a fluid concept we are applying a label only for convenience of conversation. Since so many people want to get lost in the weeds lets really get into it, Orkz themselves would have no concept of gender because they are all the same gender. In their society they would have their own customs and beliefs, like looking sideways at Weirdboyz or thinking that Meks are cowardly, but the only reason male and female come into the conversation is because we the players assign them that way. Orkz are so irrelevant to the conversation of gender because they are genderless and the unending desire to ascribe either gender to them is just projection. If you want to argue that they are "male coded" then you have to admit that this entire discussion is arbitrary based on personal views.

We can talk about authors intent and how different authors present things but I really wish people could drop Orkz from the conversation because it makes as much sense as ascribing gender to Tyranids. The only difference is one faction is relatively humanoid, thus more relatable to humanity, and the other is alien enough that we can't really place labels on them at first glance.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Shade. The point people are making is that orks being coded as male further adds to the number of "all-male" armies in the franchise. Which as others have pointed out, could potentially make the franchise less approachable for those who *do* want to identify with their army of choice. Additionally, pointing out that people aren't generally all that passionate about adding gurlz to orks because they aren't the flagship faction helps illustrate the nuance that marines being monosex is, for many people, only problematic because they're the prominent face of the franchise.

So orks are very relevant to the discussion as they both help illustrate how many factions are "all-male" and because they offer some perspective on *why* some of us are okay with the idea of femarines/femstodes.

Also, saying this sincerely and not as an attack, are you familiar with the concept of "coding?" From your post, it seems like you might not be.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
Orkz are so irrelevant to the conversation of gender because they are genderless and the unending desire to ascribe either gender to them is just projection. If you want to argue that they are "male coded" then you have to admit that this entire discussion is arbitrary based on personal views.

And yet they're named to be boyz.

Boy:
noun
1. a male child or adolescent.

A product description:

This multipart plastic kit builds Boss Snikrot, an infamous Kommando leader and Ork assassin. He’s armed with a pair of combat blades known as Mork's Teeth,

Novel blurb:

When Ufthak and his orks attack the forge world of Hephaesto, the last thing they want is to share the spoils with the notorious Kaptin Badrukk. But with armies to defeat and loot to seize, Ufthak's boyz might just need Badrukk's help – though that doesn't mean they can trust him…

Again, the orks might not have or understand gender, infact I think there's a book where they even scoff at the idea of gender themselves, but they're clearly marketed as introduced as male coded.

This kind of coding disconnect is not unique to 40K, either.

Consider Transformers, and specifically the transformers themselves. In universe the transformers are not male or female yet the default coding of them is, in the majority of cases, male. Optimus Prime has no sex, yet he is unequivocally male due to the coding of his character.

Arcee wasn't in the first Michael Bay Transformers film because it was felt by those making it that a "female" robot would need to be explained, yet "male" robots apparently did not need any explanation when they are just as inexplicable as a "female" presenting transforming robot. Then Arcee appeared in like 2 scenes in the sequel and one of them was her being killed off unceremoniously.

The Transformers comics have actually engaged with this and explored what outward gender identification/representation means in a society of machines, yet that does not carry through into the mass-market adaptations such as the movies.

Can we not use Transformers as an example? That movie was so "male gaze" that it was basically a Bazzers film. If that's what people need to understand the point, we need to do better in our education system.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we not use Transformers as an example? That movie was so "male gaze" that it was basically a Bazzers film. If that's what people need to understand the point, we need to do better in our education system.

But that is precisely why it is so useful as an example. You learn about and identify the concepts in there, where they are so obvious, so then you can spot them in others where they are a bit more hidden.

Ironically the single most well known ork was named after a woman - Margaret Thatcher (Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
yeah the original idea was definitely queerphobic

The original author stated that he was disappointed the first slaanesh models were not as erotically charged as he had hoped, so i'm not sure his intent was 'queer fear', though at the same time there was a lot of leaning on paradise lost, temptation, and mutation.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:
If you want to argue that they are "male coded" then you have to admit that this entire discussion is arbitrary based on personal views.

My personal view is that a reasonable adult will look at the fictional aliens with big bulging muscles, inverted-triangle body shapes, universally male pronouns, male naming schemes (eg Boyz) and total embodiment of masculine tropes (football hooliganism, hot rodding, guns) and perceive them as male.

That isn't arbitrary, it's a straightforward inference based on normal social cues. If someone looks at Orks and doesn't see them as male, they're either appealing to the fluff and totally missing the point (the 'she's actually a thousand year old witch' defense) or a shapeshifter in disguise.

It's relevant to the thread because Orks illustrate the difference between background and presentation- in the fluff they might be just as non-binary as Tyranids, but in terms of how they appear and appeal to players, they aren't. Someone who is put off by roided-out beefcake male power fantasy factions probably isn't going to pick Orks instead.

stratigo wrote:No one gives a flying feth if the orks IN THE SETTING have no concept of gender. We humans living in the real and not made up world can look at orks and see that they are deliberately gendered to us. They were made by humans with an identifiable male gender.

And it is EASY to tell because you can set them next to an ACTUALLY non gendered army, the tyranids, and notice the differences immediately

Absolutely.

Tyranids are truly genderless, because of how alien they are in appearance and behaviour. They are animalistic, not just brutish humanoids.

Big armor that would erase secondary sexual characteristics will default to male presenting because male is the default assumption of the human form.

Unfortunately, you're correct.

However, it's not as egregious as something like Orks.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:This entire conversation is so self defeating it feels so hopeless...

Orkz only appear to have a gender because we give them a gender

Not to quote the rest, but you pretty much answer yourself at the start here.

We, the OOC humans playing and observing the game, recognise that Orks have a gendered appearance. That doesn't mean that Orks *can't* be agender or genderless, but aesthetically, they *do* possess the semiotic connotations of gender.

As a non-binary person, I recognise and acknowledge that my appearance is gendered, but that doesn't change my gender. The different here is that I am a real person, and Orks are not real persons. They are a fictional construct, and we must consider that their appearance is designed, not lived.

We can talk about authors intent and how different authors present things but I really wish people could drop Orkz from the conversation because it makes as much sense as ascribing gender to Tyranids. The only difference is one faction is relatively humanoid, thus more relatable to humanity, and the other is alien enough that we can't really place labels on them at first glance.

I think you hit exactly *why* this is relevant - Orks, despite being an alien race, *are* closer to a "human" understanding (or, at least, an approximation of understanding) - obviously, they're fictional fungus monsters who believe Red Uns go Fasta, and that Might Makes Right, and everything else that makes up Ork Kultur, but that is more understandable and legible to us (externally) than Tyranids. They look closer to us. Their semiotic codes are more legible for us, external observers, to recognise and compare our own to.

Orks are precisely relevant *because* we can so easily still ascribe identities and labels to them. And, as much as in setting they might be genderless, in GW's descriptions, they nearly always have masculine pronouns.

Funnily enough Tyranids are female coded for the most part despite being Dino-insects from another galaxy - Norn Queen, Heirodule, Termagant, Harridan...

Just stirring the pot here (first image circa 1988 mini, the others are ~2016; all GW "orc" minis):

 Gnarlly wrote:
Just stirring the pot here (first image circa 1988 mini, the others are ~2016; all GW "orc" minis):

Spoiler:

They're GW Orc minis, but not 40k. They're similar, but they're not exactly the same. Especially with how... detached Blood Bowl can be from other GW identities.