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.
I think it's from the Bequin novel. Haven't read/ heard it myself yet but I am a fan of Dan Abnett novels, Inquisitor ones especially. I expect if you've been in the military you'd get more out of Gaunt's Ghosts.
What'd be interesting to see if clone Bequin's blank status is due to genetics, or fact she is cloned. Ancient alchemists feared "Homunculi" as they were born outside the womb, ergo no soul, ergo- abominations.
My current headcannon says the Pariah gene may be on the MRNA strand, which you get from your Mom- so it's more prevalent/ passed on in women. IE: A male blank got if from Mom, but can't pass it on; but her daughter can. This'd explain the Sisterhood, as they'd all "breed true" over successive matrilineal lines.
And though peeps don't like to cite War of the Beast, Vulkan knew about the sisterhood and found them in hiding, and they still had numbers despite no overt Black Ships backing.
odinsgrandson wrote:GW hasn't really stopped using the subtly sexist language- I think because it echoes a lot of their source material (they like to sound like an old chivalric epic, you know?). But that means that using male terms is the least reliable indication that a group is made up of only one gender.
Not to mention a lot of this was written in the 1980’s, by folk that grew up in the 60’s and 70’s.
Whilst sexist language was common, even in the “right on” lefty Alternative Comedy scene, we should be careful of assigning sexist intent to that wording.
Cop out it may be to some, but it really was a different time. I was born in 1980, and grew up when sexist and racist language (which I won’t go into specific examples of) was just…normal. And it doesn’t mean everyone who grew up then is or was sexist, racist or homophobic. And that’s reflected in the media of those times.
As an example? Check YouTube for “Young Ones, Racist Policeman”. A very, very right on comedy, and a scene making fun of the Police being racist. But good god the language used in that scene would not be acceptable now.
And lefty as I am, I am careful to keep such changes in mind where others might just outright criticise the use of certain words, phrases or even stereotypes. There is after all a world of difference between The Black and White Minstrel Show, and Papa Lazarou of League of Gentleman even though they both use black face. Quick hint? The former is a racist portrayal to its core. The latter is basically just Clown Goth Makeup. Insensitive yes, but not racist in intent or performance.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question. They are not asking what the evidence is for Custodes previously being male, but what the evidence was for Custodes previously being locked to male for any reason other than "because they are male". Astartes have a lore reason for being male, however much a person agrees with it. Sisters of Battle likewise. Both Custodes and Sisters of Silence have never had such a rationale supplied.
The implication is that either group (lorewise) could recruit from the opposite sex, but does not for some unknown reason like tradition or the Emperor being a douchebag (the latter is my headcanon- he is an arsehole in every other regard, why would he be different in this?).
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
robbienw wrote: GW has no mechanism to stop those whose views they disagree with from buying their stuff and gaming with/collecting it, so it really is literally for everyone who wants to participate.
They do have a mechanism, though. Every time they notice an abundance of bigots buying their minis, they put out a statement hat Warhammer is for Everyone or they add in black space marines and female Custodes. Keep pushing it and you’ll force them to retaliate with Femmarines.
They don't though. 'An abundance of bigots' . They aren't going to know the views of 99.99% of people who buy their stuff, and they cant stop people enjoying and buying 40k in whatever format they like, which includes ignoring changes GW have made to the lore. It is literally for everyone.
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
robbienw wrote: cant stop people enjoying and buying 40k in whatever format they like, which includes ignoring changes GW have made to the lore. It is literally for everyone.
Correct.
So what’s with the repeated world record attempts for “furthest distance Teddy has been thrown from the pram”?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
It does when talking about a body of soldiers. "Men" in such context absolutely cannot be assumed to exclude women.
This is false. There is no other way you'd be able to able to convey they were men, if you assume in this instance all mention of 'men' in RT referred to mankind. If they were doing this they'd also be no mention of 'Women' or 'Men and Women' in RT. If they had wanted to leave it ambiguous they would have said 'These Custodians'. If they had wanted to include both men and women, they would have just said 'These men and women'.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question.
I'm not misunderstanding the question. The reason whey they were locked to being male was not given; that does not mean they were not locked to being male. They obviously were until the lore change. Lack of female Custodians does not imply female Custodians are possible, it can only imply they were not.
odinsgrandson wrote: One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.
GW didn't help matters by 1984ing it instead of spending two minutes writing how the structure of Terras nobility had changed - the Custodes being the first born heir of the noble houses as a way to secure their allegiance to the throne and the immediate post techno-barbarian nobility simply being a system of kings and their sons at that particular time.
But that wasn’t necessary.
It’s a retcon, not a development. Just like Marines going from “just well armed, trained and armoured” to being genetically enhanced. Just as Lion El’Jonson was first mentioned as Lynn Elgynsen (spelling to be confirmed!) in Rogue Trader, in a description of the first Feast of Malediction, which in that passage was a rite of the Dark Angels, not Blood Angels.
In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.
GW hasn't really stopped using the subtly sexist language- I think because it echoes a lot of their source material (they like to sound like an old chivalric epic, you know?). But that means that using male terms is the least reliable indication that a group is made up of only one gender.
-
That was me! GW also exclusively referred to generic players using male pronouns in their rulebooks ("Player two fails a save, so he removes one Marine as a casualty" etc.), despite having female staff members working on the setting and rules throughout this period. Male as default was the norm then, female only neing used for groups with no or exceptionally few men present.
That said, I think in those various Custodes snippets, the intention seems to have been to suggest they are indeed all male, and the recent lore is a small retcon.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
odinsgrandson wrote: In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.
I haven't had a guard book since 8th edition but glancing at the regiments section there is only one that uses the term 'his'. Ironically it is also the only regiment represented by a distinctly female image while the rest look like drawings of the old pewter (all male) model ranges.
The original 80s rogue trader actually had a number of female warriors depicted, I would imagine the 2nd ed guard book not so much - the 90s were somewhat uncertain times on girls in games and on boys playing girls in games, though more so in America than europe.
robbienw wrote: cant stop people enjoying and buying 40k in whatever format they like, which includes ignoring changes GW have made to the lore. It is literally for everyone.
Correct.
So what’s with the repeated world record attempts for “furthest distance Teddy has been thrown from the pram”?
I wouldn't know. You'd have to ask the newly minted female Custodian fans why they are having tantrums because some people objected to a lore change.
No one had tantrums about people objecting to the Black Templars turning from Imperial Truthers to God Emperor believers for example, or tantrums about people objecting to the massive Necron lore change around 5th edition. Why now we wonder?
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question.
I'm not misunderstanding the question. The reason whey they were locked to being male was not given; that does not mean they were not locked to being male. They obviously were until the lore change. Lack of female Custodians does not imply female Custodians are possible, it can only imply they were not.
That is a logical fallacy to assume Custodes were locked- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I actually agree the recent Custodes lore is a retcon, but no previous lore stated Custodes had to be male, only that they were male. When I say this implies they are not locked, I mean from a GW perspective- every other such factions with as much prominence have had lore justifications given, yet they omitted these two factions.
If you follow your logic, most of the additions to the setting are retcons rather than simply filling out gaps in a vast setting, and I disagree with that interpretation. I don't think Land Raider Crusaders or Rogal Dorn tanks are retcons just because they were never mentioned previously, for example.
odinsgrandson wrote: In another discussion about retcons, someone brought up all the different descriptions of imperial guard companies- and after all of them pointed out that each one used only male terms for what was officially mixed gender forces.
I haven't had a guard book since 8th edition but glancing at the regiments section there is only one that uses the term 'his'. Ironically it is also the only regiment represented by a distinctly female image while the rest look like drawings of the old pewter (all male) model ranges.
The original 80s rogue trader actually had a number of female warriors depicted, I would imagine the 2nd ed guard book not so much - the 90s were somewhat uncertain times on girls in games and on boys playing girls in games, though more so in America than europe.
I only quoted up to the 6th edition Codex (2014) because I had enough quotes to highlight the point that GW is horrendously inconsistent on most of even its basic lore. The gendered language was a side note. I also stopped at 6th because my newer books are still packed in a box somewhere due to a recent house move...
However, the timeframe between 6th and 8th seems about right for GW shifting to a more inclusive tone in their writing.
Interestingly, after Rogue Trader, 3rd edition had the most female Guard troopers until 9th. There were frequent references to female Guard units (like the Xenonian free companies), the Last Chancers set included 2 (including a Xenonian) the Tanith models included one. Proportionate to the size of the sets, this was a lot. I think the female Commissar and Catachan with grenade launcher were 2nd edition.
Then nothing until Ripper Jackson and Severina Raine in... 8th?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/04/24 09:29:36
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
Some years ago (feels like fairly recently, but it is probably longer time than I imagine) there was a Black Library book with a prominent black Space Marine (Ultramarine IIRC) on cover, and a bunch of people had a fit about it. Quite similar than this current Custodes incident.
And perhaps you don't remember, but non-white people used to be pretty rare in GW art and miniature paintjobs. It has thankfully changed now.
Haighus wrote: Then nothing until Ripper Jackson and Severina Raine in... 8th?
Wasn't much infantry released for the guard at all between 3rd and 8th. Command squads and tempestus scions - IIRC the latter originally mostly/exclusively male because their sex excluded them from the sisterhood (as elite schola progenium graduates).
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
Some years ago (feels like fairly recently, but it is probably longer time than I imagine) there was a Black Library book with a prominent black Space Marine (Ultramarine IIRC) on cover, and a bunch of people had a fit about it. Quite similar than this current Custodes incident.
And perhaps you don't remember, but non-white people used to be pretty rare in GW art and miniature paintjobs. It has thankfully changed now.
The prominent examples also tended to be segregated into their own units, like the Salamanders. Whilst "planet of hats" theming to much of 40k gives a lore justification, it is problematic when considering the real-world history of racial segregation of dark-skinned people.
Planet of hats is also a bit weird and potentially problematic in its own right, which is why a setting like Necromunda is so refreshing with its myriad cultures that are all still Necromundan. Whilst prevailing conditions on a world will shape culture and ethnicity (all Valhallans wearing winter clothes is obviously a requirement for life), people from different regions of a world would be expected to have variants of culture and ethnicity (between Valhallan hives, for example).
Haighus wrote: Then nothing until Ripper Jackson and Severina Raine in... 8th?
Wasn't much infantry released for the guard at all between 3rd and 8th. Command squads and tempestus scions - IIRC the latter originally mostly/exclusively male because their sex excluded them from the sisterhood (as elite schola progenium graduates).
Vostroyans, Catachan and Cadian command squads, about 5 commissars from GW, primaris psyker, the 3 regimental advisors, Straken, Harker, technically Ogryns and Ratlings but we don't know whether they have visible gender differences, the entire Elysian and resin DKoK ranges + the resin Cadian and Tallarn models from FW, and the scions (which I agree would likely have low numbers of females due to Sororitas recruitment pressures). The vehicles also got heavily reworked with no female crew added- almost every crew model is from 4th onwards except the upgrade sprue.
Compared to the plastic Catachan and Cadian infantry squads and heavy weapons teams, the Steel Legion, the metal Stormtroopers, metal Kasrkin and Cadian command squad plus some other cadian and catachan officers and special weapons, the Tanith, Yarrick, Creed and Kell, the Last Chancers, sanctioned psykers, and Ogryns again. There is the current Guard vehicle crew sprue from third too, which has some male crew.
I'm probably missing some releases but FW brings the balance up massively for post-3rd, for GW proper the plastic releases definitely weight in favour of 3rd. Metals and characters are pretty even.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/04/24 10:20:47
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
Odd comment about black space marines though, i think you'll find they've been around for a long long time. What did you mean by that?
Some years ago (feels like fairly recently, but it is probably longer time than I imagine) there was a Black Library book with a prominent black Space Marine (Ultramarine IIRC) on cover, and a bunch of people had a fit about it. Quite similar than this current Custodes incident.
And perhaps you don't remember, but non-white people used to be pretty rare in GW art and miniature paintjobs. It has thankfully changed now.
Its odd the way he phrased the comment though, like he is saying its primarily been done by GW as a punishment.
Non-white people have been in GW art and studio models for a long time, its not a new thing.
Haighus wrote: Vostroyans ... the entire Elysian and resin DKoK ranges
I had assumed they were older as they were all metal. 4th edition though.
Krieg of course vary from all male to all female at the whim of the player thanks to baggy greatcoaks and gasmasks.
Me too, until quite recently Over the last couple of years I've done a lot of digging through old White Dwarfs and the Vostroyans were released as a tie in to Cities of Death and the Medusa V worldwide campaign. They were the last gasp of the 2nd-through-3rd paradigm of Guard releases. After that, the range gradually contracted in variety.
Agreed re. Steel Legion and DKoK, personally I am comfortable declaring some of mine are female under all the clobber. However, I am equally comfortable in assuming they were designed as male given the accompanying lore only describes male characters when they were released.
...I now realise this has veered way off-topic, although the mismatch between model range and lore references is of relevance.
To come back to the thread: lorewise, male sisters of silence is plausible unless further reasoning is provided. Out of lore, it has problematic real-world connotations whilst 40k representation in marketing and model range remains so unbalanced (which is in contravention to the overall lore of the setting, as the Guard model issues highlight above). This entire debate has a tension between lore and reality, where lore can be consistent but remain problematic in the context of real life.
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You misunderstand MDGs question.
I'm not misunderstanding the question. The reason whey they were locked to being male was not given; that does not mean they were not locked to being male. They obviously were until the lore change. Lack of female Custodians does not imply female Custodians are possible, it can only imply they were not.
That is a logical fallacy to assume Custodes were locked- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I actually agree the recent Custodes lore is a retcon, but no previous lore stated Custodes had to be male, only that they were male. When I say this implies they are not locked, I mean from a GW perspective- every other such factions with as much prominence have had lore justifications given, yet they omitted these two factions.
If you follow your logic, most of the additions to the setting are retcons rather than simply filling out gaps in a vast setting, and I disagree with that interpretation. I don't think Land Raider Crusaders or Rogal Dorn tanks are retcons just because they were never mentioned previously, for example.
Its not a logical fallacy, its reasonable to conclude there are no females and can be no females from the evidence. You are essentially saying because there is no proof female Custodes existed or can exist, this proves they can exist
Hellebore wrote: Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.
If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.
A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.
I think you are ignoring my main argument a bit: If I were to write a fictional setting were there are is an all male paladin order front and center, I cannot for the life of me understand how it follows that I am saying that women can't or shouldn't be paladins in any setting anywhere. They just can't in this hypothetical setting. And that has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression, it just has to be or else that term has no meaning.
Emphasis mine. I don't think anyone is making the case that GW is trying to discourage people from having female space marines when they play like, Halo or some other franchise. But marines being the main face/focus of 40k means that gender-locking them makes the franchise a little less approachable and in-turn means that there are people not making happy gaming memories with you that they otherwise might.
I get your point, honestly I do....but, so what? Again, I'm fine with the change, but still GW is under no obligation to actually provide that for you. If you grant that it is not morally wrong for GW to not change something, which I believe you have somewhat....you can call it baffling or lame and that is to be respected, but it gives neither you nor anyone any ground to demand a specific change you want. It's artistic choice and also has to be respected.
I say again, because this one thing is really important to me: if GW chose to not include female Custodes, that choice can not be called morally wrong or bigoted, because it has to fall under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women. It doesn't give you the technical reason why, but its obvious from the lore (until the retcon ofc) that they can't be.
Kirk is seen sitting on a toilet in the brig in Star Trek V. Additionally, toilets are both seen and discussed in various Trek episodes from various series over the years. Try again
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/04/24 16:20:08
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women. It doesn't give you the technical reason why, but its obvious from the lore (until the retcon ofc) that they can't be.
Kirk is seen sitting on a toilet in the brig in Star Trek V. Additionally, toilets are both seen and discussed in various Trek episodes from various series over the years. Try again
"My men are ready,"-an officer telling their superior that their mixed gender forces are prepared for battle.
Does that statement state, or even imply, that the women in the officer's forces are actually all men? Or is it just an instance of English using masculine as the default?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
robbienw wrote: It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women
More accurately that only boys are were accepted, sometimes entire generations of offspring of which only one out of countless thousands of aspirants survive.
Which would make you think that Terran nobility might be quite the matriarchy when all is said and done. Or at least was, the consequences of that particular piece of lore were never explored and I suppose now never will be.
Nah I think you are onto something here, and there is a slight nod to it, Bequin is a clone, she goes to a realm with other clones of blanks and allegedly its run by Constantine Valdor, it could be nothing at all but your theory is not baseless.
Where is that from? I don't remember this from Eisenhorn or Ravenor...
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
As above, show me where it explicitly states they cannot be women. The scant lore we had on them till 8th edition, and what we’ve had since, doesn’t mention women recruits, that’s not the same as excluding them altogether.
If I say that the sky is blue right now, I’m not saying it cannot be grey on another day, or black when the sun goes down. In short, evidence of one thing does not make something else impossible.
Its already been shown to you. We have the quote from RT stating they are men, the quote from 30k where the Emperor states they are men, the quote from the 8th edition codex that explicitly states their recruits are infant boys, a BL author stating he wasn't allowed to iclude a female one because they are male, an entirely male miniature line and a whole book 60+ book series that ran for 80 years that hasn't featured or mention a single one amongst a host of named male Custodians.
Its a retcon, nothing more.
You can keep stomping your foot and repeating the same thing over and over again, but you’ve spectacularly missed my point. None of what you state above explicitly states the Custodes cannot be women.
There’s nearly 60 years of Star Trek on television and film. And not once does anyone use a toilet. By your logic toilets cannot exist in the Star Trek universe.
It does explicitly state Custodes can't be women.
Where? Give me a quote.
And bear in mind-a statement saying "Custodes ARE men," is not the same as saying "Custodes MUST BE men."
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
You're trying to get this poster to say where in the process map we've never seen it says women can't be Custodes?
That's really not the strong gotcha card you seem to think you're playing there, you know, and demonstrates the weakness of the "this wasn't a retcon" position.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
. They aren't going to know the views of 99.99% of people who buy their stuff, and they cant stop people enjoying and buying 
