24078
Post by: techsoldaten
 Just Tony wrote: Void__Dragon wrote: Sim-Life wrote:
I'm surprised that you decided to call.me a bigot over saying "people dying in the street have bigger concerns than their pronouns" but not some things other people have posted in this thread.
Feel free to point them out my bigoted and dismissive friend and I shall ascertain whether the poster is a bigot on a case by case basis. 
So is everyone who disagrees with you a bigot?
You've gone through several pages trolling and accusing without actually shutting down anyone, in fact, several have even completely rebutted you despite your dismissals. Might be time to move on.
And before you type it: I'm not your fething friend. Nor is anyone else you've been patronizing in this thread.
Show me the person and I shall show you the crime.
We would all do well to remember the next step is bans from public spaces associated with the hobby for those who disagree with Void Dragon. Along with doxxing and attempts to get you fired.
Because representation is literally a matter of life and death for marginalized people, and bigots with outdated notions about biological sex are the ones responsible.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
I'm not sure androgynous is the right descriptor. Androgynous means possessing both masculine and feminine characteristics. Marines do not, for the most part, possess feminine characteristics. There may be some outliers (Emperor's Children, perhaps?), but generally speaking you look at a marine and think "that's a guy." They are, however, eunuchs because apparently the marine creation process renders them sterile and shrivels up his "wargear". Which is darkly amusing and ironic, really. You have a large macho man, the sort that you'd find in an 80s action flick or Rob Liefield comic, and he has the reproductive capabilities of an old carrot. 
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Great example of a 'terrible thread' imo.
>opening post is a link to a potentially inflammatory article - no context or opinion is given whatsoever to the content of it - it's not even quoted from at all
>title has nothing to do with the content of the article, which is not even about 40k as a game and does not claim 40k as a whole is transphobic, it's about a piece of lore for one of its books
>title is a vague, very difficult to answer question which is guaranteed to start endless arguments
52675
Post by: Deadnight
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not sure androgynous is the right descriptor.
Androgynous means possessing both masculine and feminine characteristics.
Marines do not, for the most part, possess feminine characteristics. There may be some outliers (Emperor's Children, perhaps?), but generally speaking you look at a marine and think "that's a guy."
They are, however, technically eunuchs because apparently the marine creation process renders them sterile and shrivels up his "wargear". Which is darkly amusing and ironic, really.
You have a large macho man, the sort that you'd find in an 80s action flick or Rob Liefield comic, and he has the reproductive capabilities of an old carrot.
'An old carrot'. Lulz.
That's what happens when they get pumped full of that astartestosterone gunk!
94238
Post by: Huron black heart
I don't think GW is transphobic, but they have perhaps used some phrases that are now seen as such.
Personally I try to be decent to all around me, and accept them as they are, and hopefully they treat me the same. But that just isn't human nature. We seem to find things to argue and disagree over, sometimes merely for the sake of it.
The whole transrights movement seems to have been hijacked by the media and the vocal minority, on both sides of the argument.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Deadnight wrote: CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not sure androgynous is the right descriptor.
Androgynous means possessing both masculine and feminine characteristics.
Marines do not, for the most part, possess feminine characteristics. There may be some outliers (Emperor's Children, perhaps?), but generally speaking you look at a marine and think "that's a guy."
They are, however, technically eunuchs because apparently the marine creation process renders them sterile and shrivels up his "wargear". Which is darkly amusing and ironic, really.
You have a large macho man, the sort that you'd find in an 80s action flick or Rob Liefield comic, and he has the reproductive capabilities of an old carrot.
'An old carrot'. Lulz.
That's what happens when they get pumped full of that astartestosterone gunk!
40k is the ultimate roider vs natty setting.
116670
Post by: Ordana
Christ, the amount of crap that comes out of an obvious outrage clickbait article...
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
 blood reaper wrote:Deadnight wrote: CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure androgynous is the right descriptor. Androgynous means possessing both masculine and feminine characteristics. Marines do not, for the most part, possess feminine characteristics. There may be some outliers (Emperor's Children, perhaps?), but generally speaking you look at a marine and think "that's a guy." They are, however, technically eunuchs because apparently the marine creation process renders them sterile and shrivels up his "wargear". Which is darkly amusing and ironic, really. You have a large macho man, the sort that you'd find in an 80s action flick or Rob Liefield comic, and he has the reproductive capabilities of an old carrot.
'An old carrot'. Lulz. That's what happens when they get pumped full of that astartestosterone gunk!
40k is the ultimate roider vs natty setting.
The virgin roid Marine vs the chad natty Sister.
101159
Post by: Dai
 Ordana wrote:Christ, the amount of crap that comes out of an obvious outrage clickbait article...
Nerd bigots are most insane bigots!
123017
Post by: Olthannon
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not sure androgynous is the right descriptor.
Androgynous means possessing both masculine and feminine characteristics.
Marines do not, for the most part, possess feminine characteristics. There may be some outliers (Emperor's Children, perhaps?), but generally speaking you look at a marine and think "that's a guy."
They are, however, eunuchs because apparently the marine creation process renders them sterile and shrivels up his "wargear". Which is darkly amusing and ironic, really.
You have a large macho man, the sort that you'd find in an 80s action flick or Rob Liefield comic, and he has the reproductive capabilities of an old carrot.
You are right, I had thought androgynous was synonymous with gender neutral. I guess Space Marines are therefore non-binary. Again though, that is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't matter that they were male to begin with, that seems a daft thing to hang up on in all of the 40k lore. It is in fact very much in keeping with the satirical aspect of 40k. It doesn't matter what you were, you are transformed into a genetically enhanced killing machine to combat the forces of the Imperium. It matters not from whence your genitalia hung, so long as the blood flows. Or something.
It's a core concept of sci fi to have your gender and identity swallowed up by some dystopian way of existence in the future and you are allowed no individuality. It doesn't matter whether the aspirant was male or female to begin with, they become transhuman. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, it would actually be a good way for 40k writers to discuss ideas about transgender and identity.
I believe the main reason behind this open letter to GW was that rather than doing that, they "doubled down" so to speak on making it male only, when there isn't a need to do that. The fact that the book came out during Pride Month, is an added kick in the ascribed genitalia of whatever you fancy.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
Blindmage, trans women are women. A person is no less a gender than the person born that way. I know many trans people, and quite a few are in my friend group. Of the group I play wargames with, a group of about 4 people, 1 is trans. I know no one who plays 40k. By that measure, I know no trans women who play 40k. I do however know a trans woman who plays Infinity, who chooses models because they're women, and loves the 40k background. She argues extensively, more than I ever would, that Space Marines need to remain men. I'm of the opinion that Space Marines be sexless, and look like their Primarch generally, regardless of their original sex. By the way people are talking here, I wouldn't be transphobic, but my trans girlfriend would be. She got me into 40k, and we played Kill Team back before it became what it is now. Me and her painted Admech models together when she was off duty for the Navy. She's also from the Philippines, and has to deal with homophobic parents. Yet she laughed when I told her about this issue. Just because you're dealing with bigots and horrible people does not make 40k transphobic, it does not make the "community", whatever that is, transphobic. I have a privilege of being somewhat big and strong, so the homophobic people I know never bothered me. I have a caring family and kind friends. The game store I go to has a kind owner and a cool guy who works there on saturdays. Never once did any of my friends get harassed. The 40k community is not transphoic. Your local community is. 40k and that line are not transphobic. The people who harass trans people with similar terminology are.
I know no trans people who play 40k, because the rule set is bad and my girlfriend cares much more about it being lore accurate than whether or not there are Trans Marines or Femarines. The local community never shunned us. The store never refused us.
There are many more factors to everything than anyone is giving credit to. The line is stupid, and I'd rather see it removed, but the fact that people argue for it to stay, and argue that it isn't transphobic, doesn't make them hate trans people.
Space Marines are Male to Alpha Male trans.
Once you're that fethed up, as a Space Marine, gender and sex don't matter. They're all Battle Brothers, no matter where they started. Some are just prettier than others, and the Blood Angels take that cake.
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Dai wrote: Ordana wrote:Christ, the amount of crap that comes out of an obvious outrage clickbait article...
Nerd bigots are most insane bigots!
I think you're assigning malice to indifference.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Blndmage wrote:If I'm coming off hostile it's because I've sat back and seen enough sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic gak on these boards and this thread is explicitly where my experience with the community, and by this I mean here on dakka, is relevant.
I haven't seen any other trans folks willing to out themselves for this, but I am. This could literally mean 4can folks will dox me. No joking. Being trans on the internet is an ever changing field of landmines that are people's bigotry.
If another trans person wants to give their thoughts and discuss things that's great. But you might want to stop and consider why I seem to be the only trans woman here. The community is scary. It's the reason none of my queer friends will touch the hobby.
Enby, which, I suppose makes me trans (or at the very least, not cis). There's a reason I haven't commented, and why I've stopped posting on dakka so much - all the bolded gak you mention, and the seeming lack of effort to clean it up and monitor basic decency and tolerance on this forum. As a trans person, I also find the aforementioned "biological male" mention grim, and I'm one of the signatures on the letter highlighting it's issues. Do I think GW is transphobic? No. I think they used a term which has negative connotations due to it's use as a transphobic dogwhistle. As a global company and one that has made a statement saying they oppose bigotry, they need to do better by including specific editors whose job it is to recognise and highlight these types of phrases, and remove them, for the sake of ensuring that GW stays true to their comments of " 40k is for everyone". It's no good saying that when the material GW prints is tacitly used to exclude others. Does 40k have a transphobe problem? Yes. Is everyone who plays 40k a transphobe? No. Is there a significantly large/vocal cohort of transphobic folks? Yes, and I think that people are either ignorant (wilfully or unwittingly) or naive if they don't believe there is. Moreover, the response to actual evidence of transphobia is very often swept under the rug as "isolated incidents", but that still ignores the fact that people are being transphobic asshats. You want to show you're not a transphobe and not contribute to the problem? Call it out, condemn it, and support the voices of trans folks within the hobby - silence in the face of bigotry is essentially as a good as compliance. I think this may be my only post in this thread, considering some of the responses here. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Olthannon wrote:You are right, I had thought androgynous was synonymous with gender neutral. I guess Space Marines are therefore non-binary. Again though, that is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't matter that they were male to begin with, that seems a daft thing to hang up on in all of the 40k lore. It is in fact very much in keeping with the satirical aspect of 40k. It doesn't matter what you were, you are transformed into a genetically enhanced killing machine to combat the forces of the Imperium. It matters not from whence your genitalia hung, so long as the blood flows. Or something.
Not quite non-binary. Space Marines use male pronouns and masculine terminology, as well as following gender "rules" that place them as typically masculine - they are still "male", at least in terms of their gender identity. I think the term you're looking for is agender, but they're not even that at present. Realistically, Space Marines *should* be asexual agender transhumans, but they're not portrayed as such. It's a core concept of sci fi to have your gender and identity swallowed up by some dystopian way of existence in the future and you are allowed no individuality. It doesn't matter whether the aspirant was male or female to begin with, they become transhuman. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, it would actually be a good way for 40k writers to discuss ideas about transgender and identity.
I believe the main reason behind this open letter to GW was that rather than doing that, they "doubled down" so to speak on making it male only, when there isn't a need to do that. The fact that the book came out during Pride Month, is an added kick in the ascribed genitalia of whatever you fancy.
Entirely agreed on the rest of this! Just figured I'd clear up the distinction between non-binary and agender identities! I think it's especially painful that it happens both in Pride Month, and also after GW make their statement about " 40k being for everyone".
22150
Post by: blood reaper
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
I think it's cute
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
What about "folx"?
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
I say y'all a lot, but I refuse to say "folks" unless it is specifically something like "What are y'all folks doin' round here?"
120227
Post by: Karol
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'm not sure androgynous is the right descriptor.
Androgynous means possessing both masculine and feminine characteristics.
Marines do not, for the most part, possess feminine characteristics. There may be some outliers (Emperor's Children, perhaps?), but generally speaking you look at a marine and think "that's a guy."
They are, however, eunuchs because apparently the marine creation process renders them sterile and shrivels up his "wargear". Which is darkly amusing and ironic, really.
You have a large macho man, the sort that you'd find in an 80s action flick or Rob Liefield comic, and he has the reproductive capabilities of an old carrot.
If we assume that at least the drug part of making a marine is a super form a testosteron treatment, and marine candidates start getting on the juice before they start puberty. Then sterility is a given. When you are at school teachers and trainers constantly warn everyone about using "enhancers" because it can have that effect in its more extrem forms. It has to work somehow different for some marines, because Lukas the Trickster sired children so there is that part of the lore to deal with. But all in all if you go through a hormon theraphy pre puberty, then it is not the shriveling thing that makes marine different from regular humans. They litteraly have rewired brains, they feel pleasure from being in battle, even the most friendly and peaceful ones like the salamanders. For something like SW or BA succesor they can enter litteral berzerkergang.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Sim-Life wrote: blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
What about "folx"?
I would rather be killed by sarin gas or ebola that use 'folx', 'folks', or any phrase inserting X's anywhere - literally the byproduct of cloistered academics.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:Blndmage wrote:If I'm coming off hostile it's because I've sat back and seen enough sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic gak on these boards and this thread is explicitly where my experience with the community, and by this I mean here on dakka, is relevant.
I haven't seen any other trans folks willing to out themselves for this, but I am. This could literally mean 4can folks will dox me. No joking. Being trans on the internet is an ever changing field of landmines that are people's bigotry.
If another trans person wants to give their thoughts and discuss things that's great. But you might want to stop and consider why I seem to be the only trans woman here. The community is scary. It's the reason none of my queer friends will touch the hobby.
Enby, which, I suppose makes me trans (or at the very least, not cis).
There's a reason I haven't commented, and why I've stopped posting on dakka so much - all the bolded gak you mention, and the seeming lack of effort to clean it up and monitor basic decency and tolerance on this forum.
As a trans person, I also find the aforementioned "biological male" mention grim, and I'm one of the signatures on the letter highlighting it's issues. Do I think GW is transphobic? No. I think they used a term which has negative connotations due to it's use as a transphobic dogwhistle. As a global company and one that has made a statement saying they oppose bigotry, they need to do better by including specific editors whose job it is to recognise and highlight these types of phrases, and remove them, for the sake of ensuring that GW stays true to their comments of " 40k is for everyone". It's no good saying that when the material GW prints is tacitly used to exclude others.
Does 40k have a transphobe problem? Yes. Is everyone who plays 40k a transphobe? No. Is there a significantly large/vocal cohort of transphobic folks? Yes, and I think that people are either ignorant (wilfully or unwittingly) or naive if they don't believe there is. Moreover, the response to actual evidence of transphobia is very often swept under the rug as "isolated incidents", but that still ignores the fact that people are being transphobic asshats.
You want to show you're not a transphobe and not contribute to the problem? Call it out, condemn it, and support the voices of trans folks within the hobby - silence in the face of bigotry is essentially as a good as compliance.
I think this may be my only post in this thread, considering some of the responses here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Olthannon wrote:You are right, I had thought androgynous was synonymous with gender neutral. I guess Space Marines are therefore non-binary. Again though, that is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't matter that they were male to begin with, that seems a daft thing to hang up on in all of the 40k lore. It is in fact very much in keeping with the satirical aspect of 40k. It doesn't matter what you were, you are transformed into a genetically enhanced killing machine to combat the forces of the Imperium. It matters not from whence your genitalia hung, so long as the blood flows. Or something.
Not quite non-binary. Space Marines use male pronouns and masculine terminology, as well as following gender "rules" that place them as typically masculine - they are still "male", at least in terms of their gender identity.
I think the term you're looking for is agender, but they're not even that at present. Realistically, Space Marines *should* be asexual agender transhumans, but they're not portrayed as such.
It's a core concept of sci fi to have your gender and identity swallowed up by some dystopian way of existence in the future and you are allowed no individuality. It doesn't matter whether the aspirant was male or female to begin with, they become transhuman. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, it would actually be a good way for 40k writers to discuss ideas about transgender and identity.
I believe the main reason behind this open letter to GW was that rather than doing that, they "doubled down" so to speak on making it male only, when there isn't a need to do that. The fact that the book came out during Pride Month, is an added kick in the ascribed genitalia of whatever you fancy.
Entirely agreed on the rest of this! Just figured I'd clear up the distinction between non-binary and agender identities! I think it's especially painful that it happens both in Pride Month, and also after GW make their statement about " 40k being for everyone".
To start with I have thought about transitioning many times (and still do to this day), so there is no hate from me. But I think I am not the normal then bc of my background. I am a competitive martial artist and I run martial arts schools. I have done BJJ, Kenpo, Kickboxing, Boxing, TDK, Akido, and many more. I have trained literally thousands of students with a retention rate of 70% over 2yrs (Meaning my students stayed students for 2+ yrs, about 40% for 4+yrs and I have trained some students for a decade). I used to travel to teach and compete as well. I took as many classes (no college degree though) as I could for personal fitness and nutrition.
From my years of experience for males and females in a literal combat environment, i do not agree at all that females and males are equal biology and sex is not fluid like sex is and knowing how testosterone plays a role for muscles and bone density as well as some other things. If you had to pick a female or a male to be trained for combat and to be given more HGHs, Testosterone, and other crazy implants you would pick a make over female. This is no transphobic this is just biology.
I guess I dont see this as a problem bc I got to see men and women fight for 15yrs and while I think gender is fluid being trans, sex is not.
120227
Post by: Karol
As someone with no education in nutrition or biology, but a student at a wrestling school I will say it like this. In senior year the boys class preps with the euro champion female team, the regular one, not the juniors and the results are very close to 50/50 win rates. At give a perspective of how "bad" the female rankers are in 2021 they brought back 9 medals from the Euros, 4 silver and 5 bronze. So it is not like those female wrestlers are unskilled or unfit. They are world level skilled and fit. Often more skilled then us, we are just stronger.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
 Amishprn86 wrote:From my years of experience for males and females in a literal combat environment, i do not agree at all that females and males are equal biology and gender is not fluid like sex is and knowing how testosterone plays a role for muscles and bone density as well as some other things. If you had to pick a female or a male to be trained for combat and to be given more HGHs, Testosterone, and other crazy implants you would pick a make over female. This is no transphobic this is just biology.
I guess I dont see this as a problem bc I got to see men and women fight for 15yrs and while I think sex is fluid being trans, gender is not.
Not to sound patronising, but I think you may have mixed up sex and gender there - gender is the social construct, the performance and "rules" by which a person lives their life and social identity, sex is the biological element. Gender is/can be fluid as it is entirely socially constructed, sex is the biological aspect (which can still be non-binary and isn't as clear cut as male/female).
Just to clarify your stance, because I think you may have mixed up gender and sex there!
5018
Post by: Souleater
I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:From my years of experience for males and females in a literal combat environment, i do not agree at all that females and males are equal biology and gender is not fluid like sex is and knowing how testosterone plays a role for muscles and bone density as well as some other things. If you had to pick a female or a male to be trained for combat and to be given more HGHs, Testosterone, and other crazy implants you would pick a make over female. This is no transphobic this is just biology.
I guess I dont see this as a problem bc I got to see men and women fight for 15yrs and while I think sex is fluid being trans, gender is not.
Not to sound patronising, but I think you may have mixed up sex and gender there - gender is the social construct, the performance and "rules" by which a person lives their life and social identity, sex is the biological element. Gender is/can be fluid as it is entirely socially constructed, sex is the biological aspect (which can still be non-binary and isn't as clear cut as male/female).
Just to clarify your stance, because I think you may have mixed up gender and sex there!
I did in my typing I already corrected it. Just a fast typing mistake. (see signature lol)
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Amishprn86 wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:Just to clarify your stance, because I think you may have mixed up gender and sex there!
I did in my typing I already corrected it. Just a fast typing mistake. (see signature lol)
Ah, not a problem! I think I must have seen it before your edits!
120227
Post by: Karol
Now, we may not have a lot of biolgy at school here, but from what I remember, humans aren't fungi and we don't have more then 2 sexs.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Karol wrote:Now, we may not have a lot of biolgy at school here, but from what I remember, humans aren't fungi and we don't have more then 2 sexs.
We have more than 2 sex chromosome combination, you are correct we are not orks.
129984
Post by: Vatsetis
I think that people are right in pointing out that the language used arround the fictional pseudo science involve in producing the mass murderers pseudo fascist Space Marines of the distant future SHOULD indeed be in line with current Trans and Queer movements. (And if you see any contradiction you are indeed a male supremacist).
(disclaimer: havent read yet the previous 10 pages of thread, comment only on goonhammer article).
73007
Post by: Grimskul
Geez, I go to bed for the night and there's already been 5 extra pages, a good chunk of which is just ad hominems thrown around by the usual suspects because they had to resort to it rather than actually engaging in proper discourse.
You're a bigot, you're a bigot. Everyone gets to be called a bigot!
121131
Post by: Catulle
Sgt_Smudge wrote:Blndmage wrote:If I'm coming off hostile it's because I've sat back and seen enough sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic gak on these boards and this thread is explicitly where my experience with the community, and by this I mean here on dakka, is relevant.
I haven't seen any other trans folks willing to out themselves for this, but I am. This could literally mean 4can folks will dox me. No joking. Being trans on the internet is an ever changing field of landmines that are people's bigotry.
If another trans person wants to give their thoughts and discuss things that's great. But you might want to stop and consider why I seem to be the only trans woman here. The community is scary. It's the reason none of my queer friends will touch the hobby.
Enby, which, I suppose makes me trans (or at the very least, not cis).
There's a reason I haven't commented, and why I've stopped posting on dakka so much - all the bolded gak you mention, and the seeming lack of effort to clean it up and monitor basic decency and tolerance on this forum.
As a trans person, I also find the aforementioned "biological male" mention grim, and I'm one of the signatures on the letter highlighting it's issues. Do I think GW is transphobic? No. I think they used a term which has negative connotations due to it's use as a transphobic dogwhistle. As a global company and one that has made a statement saying they oppose bigotry, they need to do better by including specific editors whose job it is to recognise and highlight these types of phrases, and remove them, for the sake of ensuring that GW stays true to their comments of " 40k is for everyone". It's no good saying that when the material GW prints is tacitly used to exclude others.
Does 40k have a transphobe problem? Yes. Is everyone who plays 40k a transphobe? No. Is there a significantly large/vocal cohort of transphobic folks? Yes, and I think that people are either ignorant (wilfully or unwittingly) or naive if they don't believe there is. Moreover, the response to actual evidence of transphobia is very often swept under the rug as "isolated incidents", but that still ignores the fact that people are being transphobic asshats.
You want to show you're not a transphobe and not contribute to the problem? Call it out, condemn it, and support the voices of trans folks within the hobby - silence in the face of bigotry is essentially as a good as compliance.
Yep.
"We used to have more trans posters" indeed.
120227
Post by: Karol
Amishprn86 wrote:Karol wrote:Now, we may not have a lot of biolgy at school here, but from what I remember, humans aren't fungi and we don't have more then 2 sexs.
We have more than 2 sex chromosome combination, you are correct we are not orks.
yes, but having something else then XY or an XX is not having a different sex, it is being afflicted with a genetic disorder. I have a personality disorder, but that doesn't make me a different kind of human, just because it is geneticaly based.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Karol wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Karol wrote:Now, we may not have a lot of biolgy at school here, but from what I remember, humans aren't fungi and we don't have more then 2 sexs.
We have more than 2 sex chromosome combination, you are correct we are not orks.
yes, but having something else then XY or an XX is not having a different sex, it is being afflicted with a genetic disorder. I have a personality disorder, but that doesn't make me a different kind of human, just because it is geneticaly based.
But I didn't say that, just said we have more than 2 pairs, many people dont even know this.
120227
Post by: Karol
 Grimskul wrote:
You're a bigot, you're a bigot. Everyone gets to be called a bigot!
what is a bigot by the way, because my translator give me bigot as translation and the meaning of the word is so XIXth century, that it no way means the same in english as it does here and I have a feeling it isn't Churchils "British Invasion of German Occupied Territory". Automatically Appended Next Post: Amishprn86 wrote:Karol wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Karol wrote:Now, we may not have a lot of biolgy at school here, but from what I remember, humans aren't fungi and we don't have more then 2 sexs.
We have more than 2 sex chromosome combination, you are correct we are not orks.
yes, but having something else then XY or an XX is not having a different sex, it is being afflicted with a genetic disorder. I have a personality disorder, but that doesn't make me a different kind of human, just because it is geneticaly based.
But I didn't say that, just said we have more than 2 pairs, many people dont even know this.
yes. we don't have more then 2, ergo we would have to have 2 or less, and we know we don't have 1. There for we can't have more then 2, and I only remember the more then 2, because on a biology lesson one type of fungi had like 1000+ .
123017
Post by: Olthannon
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Olthannon wrote:You are right, I had thought androgynous was synonymous with gender neutral. I guess Space Marines are therefore non-binary. Again though, that is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't matter that they were male to begin with, that seems a daft thing to hang up on in all of the 40k lore. It is in fact very much in keeping with the satirical aspect of 40k. It doesn't matter what you were, you are transformed into a genetically enhanced killing machine to combat the forces of the Imperium. It matters not from whence your genitalia hung, so long as the blood flows. Or something.
Not quite non-binary. Space Marines use male pronouns and masculine terminology, as well as following gender "rules" that place them as typically masculine - they are still "male", at least in terms of their gender identity.
I think the term you're looking for is agender, but they're not even that at present. Realistically, Space Marines *should* be asexual agender transhumans, but they're not portrayed as such.
Thank you, more than happy to be corrected on the proper vocab!
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Karol wrote: Grimskul wrote:
You're a bigot, you're a bigot. Everyone gets to be called a bigot!
what is a bigot by the way, because my translator give me bigot as translation and the meaning of the word is so XIXth century, that it no way means the same in english as it does here and I have a feeling it isn't Churchils "British Invasion of German Occupied Territory".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote:Karol wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Karol wrote:Now, we may not have a lot of biolgy at school here, but from what I remember, humans aren't fungi and we don't have more then 2 sexs.
We have more than 2 sex chromosome combination, you are correct we are not orks.
yes, but having something else then XY or an XX is not having a different sex, it is being afflicted with a genetic disorder. I have a personality disorder, but that doesn't make me a different kind of human, just because it is geneticaly based.
But I didn't say that, just said we have more than 2 pairs, many people dont even know this.
yes. we don't have more then 2, ergo we would have to have 2 or less, and we know we don't have 1. There for we can't have more then 2, and I only remember the more then 2, because on a biology lesson one type of fungi had like 1000+ .
An unreasonable antagonistic person towards a group. AKA a prejudiced person. Normally towards groups outside their normal, example, LGTBQ+ and immigrants
120227
Post by: Karol
Okey thanks, this makes a lot more sense ,then a person, most often a woman, who openly flounts their religious morality, while not really following them in their life or secretly opposing them. The whole thread makes a lot more sense now. thank you for the explanation.
53939
Post by: vipoid
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
Well, if nothing else, this thread has at least provided me with a new signature.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
 Souleater wrote:I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
I'm of the same opinion. I've been using Goonhammer to keep track of 40K tactics, and new armies for a couple years. I'm all cool with GH allowing opinion pieces in their site, but if mods are going to ban users that disagree with the hive mind they are trying to pass as part of the hobby I'm out, as such I have erased GH from my favorite list, and I'm planning never to return. Thought comforming through coercitive means is anathema to me.
M. Automatically Appended Next Post: blood reaper wrote: Sim-Life wrote: blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
What about "folx"?
I would rather be killed by sarin gas or ebola that use 'folx', 'folks', or any phrase inserting X's anywhere - literally the byproduct of cloistered academics.
LATINX!
M.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Tyel wrote:If you want to play female marines, or trans marines, go nuts. I'm sure some people will go "nooo my fluff" - but overwhelmingly people won't care.
I however feel getting upset that established lore is reprinted is crazy.
I just think it was unnecessary for them to reprint it in that fashion. We can all clearly see that marines are all males. We don't need justification from a rulebook.
This isn't really about people playing with female marines. It's about legitimizing these dangerous fringe groups - intentionally or otherwise.
These sorts of divides ultimately lead to violence. We're dangerously close to Proud Boys lynching drag queens reading books to kids at a library. The next few years will be incredibly dangerous for those that are not cis white males.
124280
Post by: Tiberias
 Daedalus81 wrote:Tyel wrote:If you want to play female marines, or trans marines, go nuts. I'm sure some people will go "nooo my fluff" - but overwhelmingly people won't care.
I however feel getting upset that established lore is reprinted is crazy.
I just think it was unnecessary for them to reprint it in that fashion. We can all clearly see that marines are all males. We don't need justification from a rulebook.
This isn't really about people playing with female marines. It's about legitimizing these dangerous fringe groups - intentionally or otherwise.
These sorts of divides ultimately lead to violence. We're dangerously close to Proud Boys lynching drag queens reading books to kids at a library. The next few years will be incredibly dangerous for those that are not cis white males.
I have an honest question: is it permissable or acceptable in this day and age to have a faction within a fictional setting like 40k that is entirely male?
I'm not saying trans people don't face prejudice and that's obviously not a good thing, but I can't quite see how space marines being male have anything to do with it.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
 Insectum7 wrote:Hecaton wrote: Void__Dragon wrote:It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh.
The face of the setting being segregated for no good reason is perfect for 40k/The Imperium. What part of "dystopia" don't you understand?
This I agree with.
I'm totally pro female Custodes though, I think that would be a nice counterpoint.
Female Custodes would've been a fantastic idea. Just a couple extra heads and you're ready to go.
Unfortunately I seen what people want with their female Marines (so big tits in armor in an all female Chapter wearing what might as well be makeup) so I'll pass until that weirdness does.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Imagine being so mentally fragile that you cant allow a fictional setting to have a male-only faction. I guess the Sisters of Battle are promoting hate and bigotry against males because it's a female faction.
Seriously though if you are so mentally unstable that a fictional universe cannot have a procedure that only works on males, you need to spend less time playing board games and more time getting yourself some help
8042
Post by: catbarf
Space Marines being all-male probably wouldn't be an issue if they weren't also the de facto face of the setting, game, franchise, and company as a whole.
They're the poster boys (literally), and that puts them under more scrutiny for issues like representation.
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
EviscerationPlague wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Hecaton wrote: Void__Dragon wrote:It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh.
The face of the setting being segregated for no good reason is perfect for 40k/The Imperium. What part of "dystopia" don't you understand?
This I agree with.
I'm totally pro female Custodes though, I think that would be a nice counterpoint.
Female Custodes would've been a fantastic idea. Just a couple extra heads and you're ready to go.
Unfortunately I seen what people want with their female Marines (so big tits in armor in an all female Chapter wearing what might as well be makeup) so I'll pass until that weirdness does.
My friend is making a female Custodes army using 3D printed heads and it just looks awesome. The rest is just standard Custodes body. Imagine I might do something similar myself when I want to make a Custodes Kill Team.
I personally have put a lot of female heads on my CSM models. It's just fun to have variety.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:Space Marines being all-male probably wouldn't be an issue if they weren't also the de facto face of the setting, game, franchise, and company as a whole.
They're the poster boys (literally), and that puts them under more scrutiny for issues like representation.
Pretty much this.
121080
Post by: Sunno
Im not a 40K or GW games player but as an outsider who just loves the models and lore, it’s all very simple.
Existing lore/Sex/gender/science/chromosomes/trans/female SM/Male SM. It doesn’t matter. What matters and will drive any of this is GWs ability to make money or avoid losing money.
If it was provable that there is an untapped market of people out there who would buy into 40K if only GW allowed female SM then trust me, GW would have incorporated female SM ages ago to expand their market share and profits. There simply isn’t that provable group that would make it worth any effort that GW would need to put in.
Conversely there is probably more evidence that people are either neutral or against the move and its more likely that GW would lose customers, something that GW is looking to avoid.
People who want GW to change the existing fluff and include FM Space Marines, im sorry your demographic just isn’t large enough to make GW money or outweigh the losses they would make if they did include FM Space Marines.
That's not to say there isn't a market out there. So many amazing people making STLs for this. Heads, torsos etc. But as a company, its just not worth it for GW.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
 Miguelsan wrote: Souleater wrote:I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
I'm of the same opinion. I've been using Goonhammer to keep track of 40K tactics, and new armies for a couple years. I'm all cool with GH allowing opinion pieces in their site, but if mods are going to ban users that disagree with the hive mind they are trying to pass as part of the hobby I'm out, as such I have erased GH from my favorite list, and I'm planning never to return. Thought comforming through coercitive means is anathema to me.
M.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood reaper wrote: Sim-Life wrote: blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
What about "folx"?
I would rather be killed by sarin gas or ebola that use 'folx', 'folks', or any phrase inserting X's anywhere - literally the byproduct of cloistered academics.
LATINX!
M.
All hispanic people I know (and I'm in CA) are liberal as all hell and hate this term. It's a bunch of middle class white people with no struggle in their lives butchering a language for their own benefit of feeling good.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
How do you even pronounce it?
Latin X sounds like a mediocre rapper and Latinks doesn't even sound like its from a romance language, which is what Spanish is. It's an ugly word that actually sounds like some sort of slur.
It's just not a good term.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Miguelsan wrote: Souleater wrote:I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
I'm of the same opinion. I've been using Goonhammer to keep track of 40K tactics, and new armies for a couple years. I'm all cool with GH allowing opinion pieces in their site, but if mods are going to ban users that disagree with the hive mind they are trying to pass as part of the hobby I'm out, as such I have erased GH from my favorite list, and I'm planning never to return. Thought comforming through coercitive means is anathema to me.
M.
I've been hovering over the GH site all day waiting for my comment to be approved and shown in the comment section. Just found out that it was removed by a mod. Word for word, this was my comment:
a_typical_hero wrote:I read the article several times to understand it better, but I still cannot make sense of it.
I'm one of the people the article mentions who might see the sentence with no issue, if you are not part of the ongoing debate.
"There is no specific hormonal or biological make-up of a human male"
I understand hormonal and biological make-up of a male as "having way more testosteron than a biological female" and "born with testicles and a penis instead of breasts, ovaries and a vagina". Thus, the claim that there is no specific make-up does not make sense to me.
Could somebody please elaborate to help me understand what the fuzz is about?
I appreciated GH in the past for their analytics, but if they aren't able or willing to elaborate on their point of view when asked sincerily, I don't see any reason to keep supporting them with views.
71077
Post by: Eldarsif
Sunno wrote:Im not a 40K or GW games player but as an outsider who just loves the models and lore, it’s all very simple.
Existing lore/Sex/gender/science/chromosomes/trans/female SM/Male SM. It doesn’t matter. What matters and will drive any of this is GWs ability to make money or avoid losing money.
If it was provable that there is an untapped market of people out there who would buy into 40K if only GW allowed female SM then trust me, GW would have incorporated female SM ages ago to expand their market share and profits. There simply isn’t that provable group that would make it worth any effort that GW would need to put in.
Conversely there is probably more evidence that people are either neutral or against the move and its more likely that GW would lose customers, something that GW is looking to avoid.
People who want GW to change the existing fluff and include FM Space Marines, im sorry your demographic just isn’t large enough to make GW money or outweigh the losses they would make if they did include FM Space Marines.
That's not to say there isn't a market out there. So many amazing people making STLs for this. Heads, torsos etc. But as a company, its just not worth it for GW.
I think the problem is momentum. Changing it now so late in the game would probably make a lot of Timmys angry about it and I imagine GW fears that. I personally would love to see some official female Space Marines, but at the same time I am not expecting that will happen any time soon. So I am happy to kitbash my own.
However, GW is improving on their other ranges to get to a larger demographic. The first Stormcast release was pretty much boys in gold and now they've made a lot of explicit representations in the line which I personally like. Same goes for a lot of other recent lines that are not Space Marines.
76888
Post by: Tyran
CthuluIsSpy wrote:How do you even pronounce it?
Latin X sounds like a mediocre rapper and Latinks doesn't even sound like its from a romance language, which is what Spanish is. It's an ugly word that actually sounds like some sort of slur.
It's just not a good term.
It is a poorly researched term, specially as it gives no consideration to actual inclusive language found within progressive Hispanic communities.
107707
Post by: Togusa
 insaniak wrote:
Ah yes, the two genders: 'Male' and 'Political'.
The discussion is relevant to gaming, and is therefore fine so long as it stays civil and on track.
I never made any claim as to "two genders." Moderator or not, please do not put words in my mouth.
I simply asked the relevant question, is not politics banned for discussion on this board? Even with things that relate to the game, we've seen political discussions locked in the last six months.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/788666.page#10808512
Makes it pretty clear that at " End of the day, this is a forum dedicated to the wargaming hobby, about collecting and playing with toy soldiers, not a place to gakpost and have flame wars about politics, plenty of other places you can do that."
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Asmodios wrote:Imagine being so mentally fragile that you cant allow a fictional setting to have a male-only faction. I guess the Sisters of Battle are promoting hate and bigotry against males because it's a female faction.
Seriously though if you are so mentally unstable that a fictional universe cannot have a procedure that only works on males, you need to spend less time playing board games and more time getting yourself some help
People concerned about that aren't mentally fragile. When you don't see yourself represented in pop culture it affects you. That's why people get so ridiculously upset about something like Ariel not being white -- they think they're losing their representation.
The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.
We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
 Togusa wrote: insaniak wrote:
Ah yes, the two genders: 'Male' and 'Political'.
The discussion is relevant to gaming, and is therefore fine so long as it stays civil and on track.
I never made any claim as to "two genders." Moderator or not, please do not put words in my mouth.
I simply asked the relevant question, is not politics banned for discussion on this board? Even with things that relate to the game, we've seen political discussions locked in the last six months.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/788666.page#10808512
Makes it pretty clear that at " End of the day, this is a forum dedicated to the wargaming hobby, about collecting and playing with toy soldiers, not a place to gakpost and have flame wars about politics, plenty of other places you can do that."
But what if the books write it in? is that not part of the hobby talking about lore? You can make everything political honestly. Just bringing up a random topic like "Should all space marines be male?" and making it to be political on purpose then yeah I agree we dont really need that, but when a book comes out declaring they are, then are we allowed to talk about it? I dont see why not. And ESPCEIALLY when a huge community member is asking for action from the community, well you bet I want to talk about that bc what if they are spreading hate themselves? (not saying they are, just if someone would).
65352
Post by: SirDonlad
bleeeh
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Nvm
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Daedalus81 wrote:Asmodios wrote:Imagine being so mentally fragile that you cant allow a fictional setting to have a male-only faction. I guess the Sisters of Battle are promoting hate and bigotry against males because it's a female faction.
Seriously though if you are so mentally unstable that a fictional universe cannot have a procedure that only works on males, you need to spend less time playing board games and more time getting yourself some help
People concerned about that aren't mentally fragile. When you don't see yourself represented in pop culture it affects you. That's why people get so ridiculously upset about something like Ariel not being white -- they think they're losing their representation.
The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.
We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.
What you just posted is the definition of mentally fragile. In order for there to be a distinction in anything, the scope of those things needs to be limited. Take your ariel example. I would be unhinged if I was mad that ariel is not a 6'3 Italian male because I'm not "seeing myself represented" in ariel. Nothing can be all-inclusive, ariel cannot be white/African/Hispanic/brunette/blonde/redhead/male/female all at once. I could see a group being upset if they were removed from an entire fiction universe but it is completely unhinged to think you need representation in every group in any fiction. I would be mentally fragile if I was writing articles titled "Female only Sisters of Battle promotes bigotry and violence against Cis Males". In no way does having a female faction somehow constitute an attack on me, actually, it's quite the opposite. Having a defined role for any group/ character allows you to build spaces where you can highlight what makes a group special and different.
8042
Post by: catbarf
Sunno wrote:If it was provable that there is an untapped market of people out there who would buy into 40K if only GW allowed female SM then trust me, GW would have incorporated female SM ages ago to expand their market share and profits. There simply isn’t that provable group that would make it worth any effort that GW would need to put in.
GW didn't think Sisters would sell. Their stock expected to last four months ran out in two hours. I'd say any argument that starts from the premise that GW knows what will sell and what won't is on shaky ground.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
Miguelsan wrote: Souleater wrote:I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
I'm of the same opinion. I've been using Goonhammer to keep track of 40K tactics, and new armies for a couple years. I'm all cool with GH allowing opinion pieces in their site, but if mods are going to ban users that disagree with the hive mind they are trying to pass as part of the hobby I'm out, as such I have erased GH from my favorite list, and I'm planning never to return. Thought comforming through coercitive means is anathema to me.
M.
Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
108384
Post by: kurhanik
Daedalus81 wrote:Tyel wrote:If you want to play female marines, or trans marines, go nuts. I'm sure some people will go "nooo my fluff" - but overwhelmingly people won't care.
I however feel getting upset that established lore is reprinted is crazy.
I just think it was unnecessary for them to reprint it in that fashion. We can all clearly see that marines are all males. We don't need justification from a rulebook.
This isn't really about people playing with female marines. It's about legitimizing these dangerous fringe groups - intentionally or otherwise.
These sorts of divides ultimately lead to violence. We're dangerously close to Proud Boys lynching drag queens reading books to kids at a library. The next few years will be incredibly dangerous for those that are not cis white males.
Yup, basically this. When you give the kind of person who would stove someone's face in with a brick for being different even a tiny bit of legitimization, it makes things all the more hostile. LGBTQ groups have been the targets of bigotry for a long time, and simple things like the normalization of dehumanization via language helps to reinforce this. Like I said earlier in the thread, where I grew up, "gay" used to often be used as a term for "that is stupid" or "that is dumb" etc - which given the actual terminology, and how casually it was used, reinforces an "otherness" of actual gay people.
catbarf wrote:Space Marines being all-male probably wouldn't be an issue if they weren't also the de facto face of the setting, game, franchise, and company as a whole.
They're the poster boys (literally), and that puts them under more scrutiny for issues like representation.
Yup, being the literal face of the setting, and pushed hard, and being something like half the armies played in the game is what makes it an issue.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
catbarf wrote:Sunno wrote:If it was provable that there is an untapped market of people out there who would buy into 40K if only GW allowed female SM then trust me, GW would have incorporated female SM ages ago to expand their market share and profits. There simply isn’t that provable group that would make it worth any effort that GW would need to put in.
GW didn't think Sisters would sell. Their stock expected to last four months ran out in two hours. I'd say any argument that starts from the premise that GW knows what will sell and what won't is on shaky ground.
Source? How do we know they thought this? For all we know they are basing the sells numbers from the metal line that was $11-$13 per model without something other than a bolter.... and GW did not update or make new kits that fast for 15yrs so it was within reason to wait 10+yrs for updates (like sisters and DE did).
87012
Post by: Toofast
 Tyran wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.
Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.
The part that's extremely simple is that 99.9999% of the population has either XX or XY chromosomes. Biologists had no problem making that very basic statement of scientific fact until very recently. Space Marines are made from individuals with XY chromosomes, which is all that statement says. Whoever reads transphobia from that statement deserves a gold medal in mental gymnastics and an F in science and reading comprehension.
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?
Sure, you can argue there isn’t much harm here, but it’s definitely a “no gurlz” statement canonized into the fluff.
Seems realistic to me. Navy SEALs don't allow women, and the USMC had to lower all their PT standards once women were allowed to join combat units. It's not being "anti-women", it's choosing the most effective troop for the role. If the role requires extreme physical strength, it will be predominantly men because of basic biology.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Toofast wrote: Tyran wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.
Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.
The part that's extremely simple is that 99.9999% of the population has either XX or XY chromosomes. Biologists had no problem making that very basic statement of scientific fact until very recently. Space Marines are made from individuals with XY chromosomes, which is all that statement says. Whoever reads transphobia from that statement deserves a gold medal in mental gymnastics and an F in science and reading comprehension.
Which I agree here, I am transgender person and see no problem with it. Now would it be nice to have new marines come out with an updated gene-seed that works for all humans? Sure that be nice, but we are also talking about HH lore which was new ish to this process. It is not really transphobic to say they wanted males for the strongest possible army. Sexist ? yeah maybe lol. If Goon said this was Sexist I think it would have gain more traction.
87012
Post by: Toofast
My wife is Venezuelan and a lot of her friends are gay. When we were in Cancun with a bunch of her friends, I asked them about that. They all said some variation of "We have a million things to worry about that are 1000x more pressing than calling us latinos, hispanics, or latinx. It's something only you over educated white Americans have time to even think about". Pretty much in line with polls I've seen in the US about it, something like 2-4% of latinos actually like or use that term while the rest think it's stupid. You can tell someone has never actually spent time in Latino communities or in Latin America and doesn't even know anyone from Latin America when they use that term. It's virtue signalling at its finest, the people they're trying to signal to don't even like it.
78396
Post by: Thairne
 Bosskelot wrote:These threads are always useful for outing the bigots so I can put them on my block list.
Same, but the other way around.
124280
Post by: Tiberias
Amishprn86 wrote:Toofast wrote: Tyran wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.
Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.
The part that's extremely simple is that 99.9999% of the population has either XX or XY chromosomes. Biologists had no problem making that very basic statement of scientific fact until very recently. Space Marines are made from individuals with XY chromosomes, which is all that statement says. Whoever reads transphobia from that statement deserves a gold medal in mental gymnastics and an F in science and reading comprehension.
Which I agree here, I am transgender person and see no problem with it. Now would it be nice to have new marines come out with an updated gene-seed that works for all humans? Sure that be nice, but we are also talking about HH lore which was new ish to this process. It is not really transphobic to say they wanted males for the strongest possible army. Sexist ? yeah maybe lol. If Goon said this was Sexist I think it would have gain more traction.
But the example used was "physically strongest aspirants". How can it be sexist to say that a male human on average is going to be physically stronger than a human female (considering that they recieved the same training conditioning, because a trained female athlete is going to outperform an untrained male any day of the week). That is a fact just like for example that people born in different climate conditions developed different types and concentrations of melanin...there can't and shouldn't be any value judgement about that fact because nobody has any control over this circumstance.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Tiberias wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Toofast wrote: Tyran wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.
Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.
The part that's extremely simple is that 99.9999% of the population has either XX or XY chromosomes. Biologists had no problem making that very basic statement of scientific fact until very recently. Space Marines are made from individuals with XY chromosomes, which is all that statement says. Whoever reads transphobia from that statement deserves a gold medal in mental gymnastics and an F in science and reading comprehension.
Which I agree here, I am transgender person and see no problem with it. Now would it be nice to have new marines come out with an updated gene-seed that works for all humans? Sure that be nice, but we are also talking about HH lore which was new ish to this process. It is not really transphobic to say they wanted males for the strongest possible army. Sexist ? yeah maybe lol. If Goon said this was Sexist I think it would have gain more traction.
But the example used was "physically strongest aspirants". How can it be sexist to say that a male human on average is going to be physically stronger than a human female (considering that they recieved the same training conditioning, because a trained female athlete is going to outperform an untrained male any day of the week). That is a fact just like for example that people born in different climate conditions developed different types and concentrations of melanin...there can't and shouldn't be any value judgement about that fact because nobody has any control over this circumstance.
Read my history I do not think it is sexist, I am saying if Goon went the sexist angle I can see a better argument for it bc at least in 40k you can say females can be enhance to male levels (see succubus). I feel there is no argument for it being transphobic. I can not see ANY reason for it being transphobic and I am wondering why they do actually. Does that mean he thinks SoB are also transphobic? What about Incubi, Succubus, Escher? all those are 1 sex only groups too.
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
 Eldarsif wrote:EviscerationPlague wrote: Insectum7 wrote:Hecaton wrote: Void__Dragon wrote:It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh.
The face of the setting being segregated for no good reason is perfect for 40k/The Imperium. What part of "dystopia" don't you understand?
This I agree with.
I'm totally pro female Custodes though, I think that would be a nice counterpoint.
Female Custodes would've been a fantastic idea. Just a couple extra heads and you're ready to go.
Unfortunately I seen what people want with their female Marines (so big tits in armor in an all female Chapter wearing what might as well be makeup) so I'll pass until that weirdness does.
My friend is making a female Custodes army using 3D printed heads and it just looks awesome. The rest is just standard Custodes body. Imagine I might do something similar myself when I want to make a Custodes Kill Team.
I personally have put a lot of female heads on my CSM models. It's just fun to have variety.
Which is all fine and dandy, but that isnt what I seen the majority want.
All said and done, I think helmetless Marines are stupid and I refuse to have one in my army.
107707
Post by: Togusa
catbarf wrote:Sunno wrote:If it was provable that there is an untapped market of people out there who would buy into 40K if only GW allowed female SM then trust me, GW would have incorporated female SM ages ago to expand their market share and profits. There simply isn’t that provable group that would make it worth any effort that GW would need to put in.
GW didn't think Sisters would sell. Their stock expected to last four months ran out in two hours. I'd say any argument that starts from the premise that GW knows what will sell and what won't is on shaky ground.
If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Alaska I'd like to show you. I'll give you a good price on it.
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
Toofast wrote:
My wife is Venezuelan and a lot of her friends are gay. When we were in Cancun with a bunch of her friends, I asked them about that. They all said some variation of "We have a million things to worry about that are 1000x more pressing than calling us latinos, hispanics, or latinx. It's something only you over educated white Americans have time to even think about". Pretty much in line with polls I've seen in the US about it, something like 2-4% of latinos actually like or use that term while the rest think it's stupid. You can tell someone has never actually spent time in Latino communities or in Latin America and doesn't even know anyone from Latin America when they use that term. It's virtue signalling at its finest, the people they're trying to signal to don't even like it.
You tell me (points at name)
Gets better when the same people went with Philippinx, not only it has been used as a racial slur against Pinois, but there is no X in the Tagalog language.
M.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
How did this conversation become more friendly than the Power Level one?
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
 Rihgu wrote: Miguelsan wrote: Souleater wrote:I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
I'm of the same opinion. I've been using Goonhammer to keep track of 40K tactics, and new armies for a couple years. I'm all cool with GH allowing opinion pieces in their site, but if mods are going to ban users that disagree with the hive mind they are trying to pass as part of the hobby I'm out, as such I have erased GH from my favorite list, and I'm planning never to return. Thought comforming through coercitive means is anathema to me.
M.
Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
I'm cool with the owners of a private website using it anyway they feel like, and even turning it into an echo chamber. But when I went to read the article, and the comments all I saw was "I agree/I signed up the petition" posts along with "why my post was deleted" followed with by the mods making snide remarks like "Build your fething website" I won't patronize that type of place. I guess your experience might have been different.
M.
87012
Post by: Toofast
Nothing says tolerance like banning anyone who disagrees with your viewpoints and trying to cancel them from all of society.
107707
Post by: Togusa
I think because it's more human. We all know to empathize with others and we generally seek to make our spaces more open to others. Most gamers are marginalized people themselves who were tormented for decades before our current modern era. That leads to a lot of damage and I genuinely believe that most people want to help others, not tear them down.
With that said, I also think people are treading carefully here and probably holding back a lot of their opinions in full out of fear of reprisal. Automatically Appended Next Post: Miguelsan wrote: Rihgu wrote: Miguelsan wrote: Souleater wrote:I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
I'm of the same opinion. I've been using Goonhammer to keep track of 40K tactics, and new armies for a couple years. I'm all cool with GH allowing opinion pieces in their site, but if mods are going to ban users that disagree with the hive mind they are trying to pass as part of the hobby I'm out, as such I have erased GH from my favorite list, and I'm planning never to return. Thought comforming through coercitive means is anathema to me.
M.
Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
I'm cool with the owners of a private website using it anyway they feel like, and even turning it into an echo chamber. But when I went to read the article, and the comments all I saw was "I agree/I signed up the petition" posts along with "why my post was deleted" followed with by the mods making snide remarks like "Build your fething website" I won't patronize that type of place. I guess your experience might have been different.
M.
Too be fair, I'd say the less people that visit Goon the better. It's a site that encourages the worst aspects of WAAC/Min/Max behavior and Competitive strategy.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Rihgu wrote:Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
Would you say my comment is/was hateful and bigoted or trollish?
121183
Post by: steelhead177th
this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.
as for female SM do whatever you like. if you want to slap makeup on male minis do it. Just don't pretend it should be execpted by everyone else.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
steelhead177th wrote:this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.
as for female SM do whatever you like. if you want to slap makeup on male minis do it. Just don't pretend it should be execpted by everyone else.
You're scum. And also the EXACT type of person that the 40k community needs to usher out.
103063
Post by: Gene St. Ealer
a_typical_hero wrote: Rihgu wrote:Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
Would you say my comment is/was hateful and bigoted or trollish?
I was trying to remember who posted this earlier in the thread, thanks for raising your hand, hero.
It seems to me that GH initially started with incredibly heavy handed and unfair moderation and has backed off over the last couple hours (looking at recent responses from Greg). They absolutely started by banning anything that wasn't 100% agreement and adulation.
24078
Post by: techsoldaten
Miguelsan wrote:Toofast wrote:
My wife is Venezuelan and a lot of her friends are gay. When we were in Cancun with a bunch of her friends, I asked them about that. They all said some variation of "We have a million things to worry about that are 1000x more pressing than calling us latinos, hispanics, or latinx. It's something only you over educated white Americans have time to even think about". Pretty much in line with polls I've seen in the US about it, something like 2-4% of latinos actually like or use that term while the rest think it's stupid. You can tell someone has never actually spent time in Latino communities or in Latin America and doesn't even know anyone from Latin America when they use that term. It's virtue signalling at its finest, the people they're trying to signal to don't even like it.
You tell me (points at name)
Gets better when the same people went with Philippinx, not only it has been used as a racial slur against Pinois, but there is no X in the Tagalog language.
M.
They've been doing it since the 30s with "Aelutian." The average Unangan never uses the word.
120227
Post by: Karol
catbarf wrote:Space Marines being all-male probably wouldn't be an issue if they weren't also the de facto face of the setting, game, franchise, and company as a whole.
They're the poster boys (literally), and that puts them under more scrutiny for issues like representation.
Okey. Explain to me why in a hobby made by men, bought and played by men and boys, is it somehow bad for there to be a faction which is men only? What scrutiny is there to have.
LGBTQ groups have been the targets of bigotry for a long time, and simple things like the normalization of dehumanization via language helps to reinforce this
Maybe in countries like Russia, but not in western countries. There are not just laws that put people on equal footing, but make it actualy illegal to be anti. Only dehumanization that happens comes from the people themselfs. Pride parades don't seem to have much to do with pride or being part of the society, and more like shock value execcs for shock value. And the ones we have are, supposably, tame comparing to those that happen in western countries.
Yup, being the literal face of the setting, and pushed hard, and being something like half the armies played in the game is what makes it an issue.
But if you try to revert it doesn't it end up like scouting in the US, where boy scouts had to close down and girls scout were never made to take in boys.
Different hobbies are picked by different people. My sisters love horseback ridding, I don't think there is any non professional/police members of the ridding club they go to and it has over 100+ members.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
Okey, but if the people doing the banning are all pro trans, then you get as much of a discussion about the topic, as you would get at a catholic organisation in Poland about abortion. Why leave the option to post, if the only posts which are accepted are those you agree with it. Just lock the comment sections and show what you think in the article.
128561
Post by: GrosseSax
ERJAK wrote:steelhead177th wrote:this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.
as for female SM do whatever you like. if you want to slap makeup on male minis do it. Just don't pretend it should be execpted by everyone else.
You're scum. And also the EXACT type of person that the 40k community needs to usher out.
But...but I thought Warhammer was for everybody?
71876
Post by: Rihgu
a_typical_hero wrote: Rihgu wrote:Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
Would you say my comment is/was hateful and bigoted or trollish?
What was your comment?
120227
Post by: Karol
Nah warhammer is only for people who think exactly like else and everyone else should leave. Or at least this is the sentiment I am getting reading about how people think the game should be governed and how outside of game activities somehow become core to the game, or even more important the game itself.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
I would feel bad "spamming" it a third time in this thread. Please just look it up from my profile. It's like the within the most recent 3. 
130394
Post by: EviscerationPlague
Because caring about the disenfranchised and making sure people feel included is something easier to agree on compared to botching game balance and mechanics.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
a_typical_hero wrote:
I would feel bad "spamming" it a third time in this thread. Please just look it up from my profile. It's like the within the most recent 3.
I just did, actually. I would say that your comment wasn't necessarily hateful but did ask the exact same questions with the exact same "innocent tone" that hateful people use when they're "just asking questions". So if I was digging through dozens or hundreds or however many comments of hateful rhetoric I would probably delete that one just to be safe.
Honestly, the proper answer is "look it up". Your understanding is from a decade or more ago and to get you up to speed would require tons of investment on mine or another repliers part and not everybody is up to the task. That's not meant to be rude, I also wouldn't try to explain the concept of 0 to somebody who hasn't come across it, and I'm not really equipped to boil either topic down to easy-to-understand terms. edit: it also requires a certain amount of "deprogramming" as it were, if you're trying to explain it to somebody who has certain preconceptions.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
Togusa wrote:
I think because it's more human. We all know to empathize with others and we generally seek to make our spaces more open to others. Most gamers are marginalized people themselves who were tormented for decades before our current modern era. That leads to a lot of damage and I genuinely believe that most people want to help others, not tear them down.
With that said, I also think people are treading carefully here and probably holding back a lot of their opinions in full out of fear of reprisal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Miguelsan wrote: Rihgu wrote: Miguelsan wrote: Souleater wrote:I do appreciate the mods keeping this topic open for discussion. And the folks have have taken the time to expand on the problem, rather than shouting down anyone that questions them.
I'm of the same opinion. I've been using Goonhammer to keep track of 40K tactics, and new armies for a couple years. I'm all cool with GH allowing opinion pieces in their site, but if mods are going to ban users that disagree with the hive mind they are trying to pass as part of the hobby I'm out, as such I have erased GH from my favorite list, and I'm planning never to return. Thought comforming through coercitive means is anathema to me.
M.
Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
I'm cool with the owners of a private website using it anyway they feel like, and even turning it into an echo chamber. But when I went to read the article, and the comments all I saw was "I agree/I signed up the petition" posts along with "why my post was deleted" followed with by the mods making snide remarks like "Build your fething website" I won't patronize that type of place. I guess your experience might have been different.
M.
Too be fair, I'd say the less people that visit Goon the better. It's a site that encourages the worst aspects of WAAC/Min/Max behavior and Competitive strategy.
So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.
2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.
Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.
If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.
56055
Post by: Backspacehacker
I literally had to come back to this thread to laugh at the fact that someone is suggesting that Goonhammer is anything but full of WAAC players.
121929
Post by: Psychocouac
ERJAK wrote:
again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance
Godwin point spotted.
71876
Post by: Rihgu
 Backspacehacker wrote:I literally had to come back to this thread to laugh at the fact that someone is suggesting that Goonhammer is anything but full of WAAC players.
Yea my favorite kind of WAAC player is the type who goes to tournaments with as few datasheets as possible because they can't remember that many rules, and they consider 1-4 a good W-L for a weekend.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Miguelsan wrote:
You tell me (points at name)
Gets better when the same people went with Philippinx, not only it has been used as a racial slur against Pinois, but there is no X in the Tagalog language.
M.
That is hilarious. Like, poetic levels of compound ignorance.
107707
Post by: Togusa
ERJAK wrote:
So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.
2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.
Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.
If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.
For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.
For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Asmodios wrote:What you just posted is the definition of mentally fragile. In order for there to be a distinction in anything, the scope of those things needs to be limited. Take your ariel example. I would be unhinged if I was mad that ariel is not a 6'3 Italian male because I'm not "seeing myself represented" in ariel. Nothing can be all-inclusive, ariel cannot be white/African/Hispanic/brunette/blonde/redhead/male/female all at once. I could see a group being upset if they were removed from an entire fiction universe but it is completely unhinged to think you need representation in every group in any fiction. I would be mentally fragile if I was writing articles titled "Female only Sisters of Battle promotes bigotry and violence against Cis Males". In no way does having a female faction somehow constitute an attack on me, actually, it's quite the opposite. Having a defined role for any group/ character allows you to build spaces where you can highlight what makes a group special and different.
I'm unsure that you can define mentally fragile as you choose to see fit, but whatever makes you comfortable, I guess.
I said nothing about needing representation of every group in all media.
What I did say was that white people ( I'm white ) complain about whites getting removed from media. That's mentally fragile when a ridiculous amount of media is about cis white people.
So I'll reiterate my point:
The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.
We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Togusa wrote:ERJAK wrote:
So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.
2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.
Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.
If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.
For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.
For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?
But there is a difference in a WAAC player looking at Goons analytics and Goon being WAAC themselves. While I don't agree with Goons takes a lot of the times they at least are not WAAC players in general (EDIT: Maybe 1 is, I have not followed all of their 40k careers, from what they write, how they talk and the few games I have seen they are not WAAC but just hyper numbers player)
5946
Post by: Miguelsan
Psychocouac wrote:ERJAK wrote:
again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance
Godwin point spotted.
Not only that, ERJAK needs to read the whole paradox of tolerance in context (basically the part were Popper says that intolerance should be repressed only when rational discourse has failed, and it's breaking the laws of civilized society)
M.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Daedalus81 wrote:Asmodios wrote:What you just posted is the definition of mentally fragile. In order for there to be a distinction in anything, the scope of those things needs to be limited. Take your ariel example. I would be unhinged if I was mad that ariel is not a 6'3 Italian male because I'm not "seeing myself represented" in ariel. Nothing can be all-inclusive, ariel cannot be white/African/Hispanic/brunette/blonde/redhead/male/female all at once. I could see a group being upset if they were removed from an entire fiction universe but it is completely unhinged to think you need representation in every group in any fiction. I would be mentally fragile if I was writing articles titled "Female only Sisters of Battle promotes bigotry and violence against Cis Males". In no way does having a female faction somehow constitute an attack on me, actually, it's quite the opposite. Having a defined role for any group/ character allows you to build spaces where you can highlight what makes a group special and different.
I'm unsure that you can define mentally fragile as you choose to see fit, but whatever makes you comfortable, I guess.
I said nothing about needing representation of every group in all media.
What I did say was that white people ( I'm white ) complain about whites getting removed from media. That's mentally fragile when a ridiculous amount of media is about cis white people.
So I'll reiterate my point:
The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.
We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.
That's a pretty bad faith argument right there. The thing of the matter about the removal is that they are changing often within the confines of the canon a character to something else. There's not as many complaints about characters that are created new.
120227
Post by: Karol
ERJAK 805786 11391592 wrote:Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.
How isn't it dangerous if they have so much higher rates to suffer from addiction, sucide, be draged in to sex work etc. It is not vile it is just stating the horrible truth. If someone say that people with mucoviscitosis don't live past 30, and we don't know how the cure them and the only way to lenghten their life span is a full lungs transplant, then it is hate speach against people affected.
121183
Post by: steelhead177th
 GrosseSax wrote:ERJAK wrote:steelhead177th wrote:this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.
as for female SM do whatever you like. if you want to slap makeup on male minis do it. Just don't pretend it should be execpted by everyone else.
You're scum. And also the EXACT type of person that the 40k community needs to usher out.
But...but I thought Warhammer was for everybody?
it seems anyone who thinks differently from "progressives" should be shunned and removed ...as if there is a bias against them that isn't based on logic or reason, but hate and fear.
You don't have to embrace my way of thinking, but I don't have to embrace yours either.
for such inclusive people, you want to exclude a large percentage of the popluation.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Miguelsan wrote:Psychocouac wrote:ERJAK wrote:
again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance
Godwin point spotted.
Not only that, ERJAK needs to read the whole paradox of tolerance in context (basically the part were Popper says that intolerance should be repressed only when rational discourse has failed, and it's breaking the laws of civilized society)
M.
The concept of Godwin as a failure of discourse is a bit dead and tired considering where the world is at right now.
Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate. Godwin himself has also criticized the overapplication of the law, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons.
But I guess it depends on your interpretation of "Nazi-esque".
107707
Post by: Togusa
Amishprn86 wrote: Togusa wrote:ERJAK wrote:
So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.
2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.
Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.
If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.
For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.
For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?
But there is a difference in a WAAC player looking at Goons analytics and Goon being WAAC themselves. While I don't agree with Goons takes a lot of the times they at least are not WAAC players in general (EDIT: Maybe 1 is, I have not followed all of their 40k careers, from what they write, how they talk and the few games I have seen they are not WAAC but just hyper numbers player)
See this right here is something I do not understand about gaming folks.
I've stated a reason why I am not a fan of a specific website. My reason is pretty reasonable because it directly affects me, based on how my local group uses (keyword) said website as a stick to tell players to take their sub-optimal lists and feth off. And then the gamer defense is to be perturbed that someone, somewhere on the net doesn't like a website that they obviously do, and then they feel that they need to defend it.
Whether or not they (all of them or most of them) at the site are, or are not WAAC players isn't the point. The point is my local competitive group has ruined this site for me and made it a place I do not wish to visit by using it constantly to back up their dislike of narrative gaming. My intention isn't to put down the people who work at Goonhammer, or to drag them through the mud. I also do not mean to single you out for this, it's just that your post is the most convenient for me to address this issue. It is both okay to like, and not like things that others might like. Like I'm not one of the ones who wants women space marines. But if they add them next year, I'm not going to get upset about it. I'm not going to stop playing the game or take to the net to write a ten page diatribe about them. I'm just going to keep on playing with my models the way I always have.
121183
Post by: steelhead177th
and ERJAK, i said harmful not dangerous. try reading the comment correctly and stop putting words in my mouth.
In fact you twisted my words in to a statement nothing like the one I made to paint an image I wasn't making.
Very disappointing and bad form.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Togusa wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Togusa wrote:ERJAK wrote:
So 1. Goonhammer isn't WAAC. Goonhammer is to competitive play what Linus Tech Tips is to processor die manufacturing.
2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.
Banning people who say nonsense like '50/13' or other racist/bigoted crap doesn't create an echo chamber. Letting them stick around does. If you allow people to present ideas like 'I think all trans people are mentally ill freaks' and give that inane, bigoted nonsense the same position as other, less stupid opinions like 'people being treated poorly for ephemeral reasons like arbitrary gender rules is bad' then you end up in a situation where the entire platform is just those arguments over and over and over again, or the GOOD people leave and all you're left with is a Nazi-esque echochamber. It's the paradox of tolerance.
If you're really worried about people not being able to express different viewpoints, but those viewpoints are 'I think X minority group should be rounded up and killed' you're focusing on the wrong thing.
For point 1, we can agree to disagree I suppose. The most insufferable WAAC people in my local area all treat Goonhammer like it is God's own word and use it routinely to troll and put down anyone who doesn't play WAAC games in the area.
For point 2, I never brought any of that stuff up...was this reply meant for another poster?
But there is a difference in a WAAC player looking at Goons analytics and Goon being WAAC themselves. While I don't agree with Goons takes a lot of the times they at least are not WAAC players in general (EDIT: Maybe 1 is, I have not followed all of their 40k careers, from what they write, how they talk and the few games I have seen they are not WAAC but just hyper numbers player)
See this right here is something I do not understand about gaming folks.
I've stated a reason why I am not a fan of a specific website. My reason is pretty reasonable because it directly affects me, based on how my local group uses (keyword) said website as a stick to tell players to take their sub-optimal lists and feth off. And then the gamer defense is to be perturbed that someone, somewhere on the net doesn't like a website that they obviously do, and then they feel that they need to defend it.
Whether or not they (all of them or most of them) at the site are, or are not WAAC players isn't the point. The point is my local competitive group has ruined this site for me and made it a place I do not wish to visit by using it constantly to back up their dislike of narrative gaming. My intention isn't to put down the people who work at Goonhammer, or to drag them through the mud. I also do not mean to single you out for this, it's just that your post is the most convenient for me to address this issue. It is both okay to like, and not like things that others might like. Like I'm not one of the ones who wants women space marines. But if they add them next year, I'm not going to get upset about it. I'm not going to stop playing the game or take to the net to write a ten page diatribe about them. I'm just going to keep on playing with my models the way I always have.
I think you dont understand me, its a site about math to help balance the game, that is not encouraging WAAC at all, Goon doesn't have WAAC articles or even ones that pushes for it at all. So how can you say its Goons fault your local has WAAC players? Even without Goon those same players will act the same way, they just would use something else to say their reasonings.
My issues with them are their opinion pieces are just bad most the time, and they think they have some authority when they do not.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:That's a pretty bad faith argument right there. The thing of the matter about the removal is that they are changing often within the confines of the canon a character to something else. There's not as many complaints about characters that are created new.
Is it now? Requiring only new characters be different from the norm is frankly obtuse.
I take it that you didn't like Samuel Jackson in the MCU? Surely he should have been white as that is canon.
Even Jesus was made white for feths sake.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
That seems to have gotten very broad, at times.
74088
Post by: Irbis
Tiberias wrote:But the example used was "physically strongest aspirants". How can it be sexist to say that a male human on average is going to be physically stronger than a human female (considering that they recieved the same training conditioning, because a trained female athlete is going to outperform an untrained male any day of the week).
Because it's nonsense based on outdated cherry picked samples with a side of sexist BS that keeps getting parroted by people with an agenda? 
When you encourage half of your population to do exercise while telling the other half that moving is 'improper' and 'unladylike' and telling them to stay in kitchen (see - tomboy, a word that used to be a pretty heavy slur in the past for showing such 'deviant' interests), gee, I wonder why the far bigger pool that did regular exercise produces far more stronger athletes than the group that was actively discouraged and the ones that did exercises were much smaller pool allowing for less talent from far end of bell curve to shine through. It's a mystery, eh?
Funnily enough, past cultures that did encourage all the members of tribe/city/state to exercise and hunt/fight/compete from childhood note that the difference between sexes is much smaller (that's where the myth of Amazons comes from - tribes that allowed women to prosper instead of confining them to kitchen roles like Greeks produced 'inhumanly' strong women from Greek perspective, go figure). Even in recent times, when Soviet army drafted hundreds of thousands of women to fill roles of tankers, pilots, snipers, machine gunners, and other soldiers in numbers big enough to catch that far end of bell curve, they found, surprise, surprise, that women do perform just as well as men and a lot of Soviet women easily bested best males from SS and Heer units. Gee, maybe Soviets just didn't hear of that sCieNcE?
This whole discussion stinks of rabid racist supremacist view from 19th century claiming the superiority of WHITE MALE based on sCieNcE - because funnily enough, when you compare conquered native populations the oppressors denied proper nutrition, medicine, education, stress free environment, etc, etc, then yes, you can make argument that white males are stronger, smarter, superior, etc, etc. It will be incredibly stupid (and racist) argument ignoring why this is the case, but it doesn't stop people using it, even to this day, hiding behind sCieNcE in smug dishonesty. Sexist sCieNce works the exact same way, just tries to be more insidious and polite. Doesn't stop it from being equally wrong almost every single time someone tries to properly look.
Then there is the final argument making all the sexist gak spewed by poor, insecure incels moot anyway. 40K is not taking place in the present day. It's 40.000 years from now. Along the way, there was golden summit of godlike technology that removed all diseases and deficiencies from the human genome - which obviously included equalizing body strength of every single human to the same potential, really high level. Even if we assume there are minor differences now, there should be absolutely zero differences in potential given the same level of nutrition and care in every single 40K homo sapiens. Trying to introduce them when they make no sense just because someone feels insecure is sexist, sorry.
And finally, the whole 'WIMMINZ WEAKZ' argument is idiotic from another angle, too. Most of space marine chapters recruits from literal hellholes where the 'strongest' aspirants are uneducated, stunted, scarred kids missing a fair bit of body parts - making them inferior recruiting material to just about every girl from civilized world that received proper levels of care. And why should body even matter when SM are limited by strength of their power armour? Numerous studies found women make better soldiers because they are far less likely to do stupid things, better at obeying orders and cooperation, more tolerant to pain, more patient, accurate, and less likely to show off - throwing all of this away and claiming males are better thanks to a single trait based on outdated, biased data, a trait that thanks to tin can SM wears doesn't even matter - guessing one word that sums this "argument" is so easy people should hit it in one try.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Daedalus81 wrote:Asmodios wrote:What you just posted is the definition of mentally fragile. In order for there to be a distinction in anything, the scope of those things needs to be limited. Take your ariel example. I would be unhinged if I was mad that ariel is not a 6'3 Italian male because I'm not "seeing myself represented" in ariel. Nothing can be all-inclusive, ariel cannot be white/African/Hispanic/brunette/blonde/redhead/male/female all at once. I could see a group being upset if they were removed from an entire fiction universe but it is completely unhinged to think you need representation in every group in any fiction. I would be mentally fragile if I was writing articles titled "Female only Sisters of Battle promotes bigotry and violence against Cis Males". In no way does having a female faction somehow constitute an attack on me, actually, it's quite the opposite. Having a defined role for any group/ character allows you to build spaces where you can highlight what makes a group special and different.
I'm unsure that you can define mentally fragile as you choose to see fit, but whatever makes you comfortable, I guess.
I said nothing about needing representation of every group in all media.
What I did say was that white people ( I'm white ) complain about whites getting removed from media. That's mentally fragile when a ridiculous amount of media is about cis white people.
So I'll reiterate my point:
The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.
We can all see marines are male. We don't need to justify it.
Id consider it mental fragility when you think the HH saying "space marines are males" is a transphobic attack. If I thought "ariel is a white redhead" or "blade is a black vampire hunter" as a personal attack I would consider myself mentally unstable.
the article states
"Using the words printed in the Horus Heresy rulebook, even if the underlying meaning made sense (it doesn’t) wouldn’t be appropriate because it mimics the language used by bigots to foster hate and division." and what is this insane bigoted language? "The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”
Sorry, but if you find that sentence as an attack on trans people you are unhinged and the last thing you should be worried about is board games. Meanwhile, the same article calls to"punch" fascists in the face but by reading the article as written the article is essentially stating that any disagreement on this topic is fascism.
So now we get this hilarious article that finds an imaginary call to violence against trans while actively calling for violence against anyone who disagrees.
Luckily i hardly ever watched any of their WAAC trash but ill make especially sure to stay clear from their name and brand now.
16387
Post by: Manchu
This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!
120227
Post by: Karol
If one would go by the social media metric and then everyone and everything can by naziesque. I have a family member who lives with his family in Norway. His son got banned from twitter for posting a picture of our common grandfather in his uniform from 1941 in africa. You no longer are a nazi, because you want to be one, but because other call you one. Same with WAAC here or every other ism in the world.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Because I play Harlequins have I chosen side natty? And are my orks like those people who are obsessed with fermented foods and probiotics?
88921
Post by: Stevefamine
14 Pages in 1 day
It's all cherry picked samples. It's a dystopian horrifying fantasy world. Why wouldn't it be horrible?
At the end of the day GW doesnt think they'll make enough $$$ for female injection plastic kits. They could and should release finecast any-sex heads and female torsos. If you're not familiar Victoria's Minis handles this fantastically with their resin cast bits.
87012
Post by: Toofast
GrosseSax wrote:ERJAK wrote:steelhead177th wrote:this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.
as for female SM do whatever you like. if you want to slap makeup on male minis do it. Just don't pretend it should be execpted by everyone else.
You're scum. And also the EXACT type of person that the 40k community needs to usher out.
But...but I thought Warhammer was for everybody?
It's for everyone except the people that disagree with me politically
53939
Post by: vipoid
Out of mild curiosity, would it be preferable if the passage in question was changed to something along the lines of:
"Due to the genetic and hormonal conditioning, Space Marines always emerge from the process as, to all intents and purposes, biologically male."
I ask because, while all-male super-soldiers makes sense (due to biological differences in muscle density and the like between sexes), it seems a little strange that the Imperium can genetically modify men to spit acid but can't genetically engineer women to become male (or to have enough male physiology that there ceases to be any meaningful distinction).
To be clear, I have absolutely no horse in this race. I don't find the current text offensive in any way and have no objections to it remaining unchanged. Mainly just curious whether a tweak along these lines would satisfy the trans-activists whilst still maintaining the spirit of the lore.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
 Irbis wrote:Tiberias wrote:But the example used was "physically strongest aspirants". How can it be sexist to say that a male human on average is going to be physically stronger than a human female (considering that they recieved the same training conditioning, because a trained female athlete is going to outperform an untrained male any day of the week).
Because it's nonsense based on outdated cherry picked samples with a side of sexist BS that keeps getting parroted by people with an agenda?
When you encourage half of your population to do exercise while telling the other half that moving is 'improper' and 'unladylike' and telling them to stay in kitchen (see - tomboy, a word that used to be a pretty heavy slur in the past for showing such 'deviant' interests), gee, I wonder why the far bigger pool that did regular exercise produces far more stronger athletes than the group that was actively discouraged and the ones that did exercises were much smaller pool allowing for less talent from far end of bell curve to shine through. It's a mystery, eh?
Funnily enough, past cultures that did encourage all the members of tribe/city/state to exercise and hunt/fight/compete from childhood note that the difference between sexes is much smaller (that's where the myth of Amazons comes from - tribes that allowed women to prosper instead of confining them to kitchen roles like Greeks produced 'inhumanly' strong women from Greek perspective, go figure). Even in recent times, when Soviet army drafted hundreds of thousands of women to fill roles of tankers, pilots, snipers, machine gunners, and other soldiers in numbers big enough to catch that far end of bell curve, they found, surprise, surprise, that women do perform just as well as men and a lot of Soviet women easily bested best males from SS and Heer units. Gee, maybe Soviets just didn't hear of that sCieNcE?
This whole discussion stinks of rabid racist supremacist view from 19th century claiming the superiority of WHITE MALE based on sCieNcE - because funnily enough, when you compare conquered native populations the oppressors denied proper nutrition, medicine, education, stress free environment, etc, etc, then yes, you can make argument that white males are stronger, smarter, superior, etc, etc. It will be incredibly stupid (and racist) argument ignoring why this is the case, but it doesn't stop people using it, even to this day, hiding behind sCieNcE in smug dishonesty. Sexist sCieNce works the exact same way, just tries to be more insidious and polite. Doesn't stop it from being equally wrong almost every single time someone tries to properly look.
Then there is the final argument making all the sexist gak spewed by poor, insecure incels moot anyway. 40K is not taking place in the present day. It's 40.000 years from now. Along the way, there was golden summit of godlike technology that removed all diseases and deficiencies from the human genome - which obviously included equalizing body strength of every single human to the same potential, really high level. Even if we assume there are minor differences now, there should be absolutely zero differences in potential given the same level of nutrition and care in every single 40K homo sapiens. Trying to introduce them when they make no sense just because someone feels insecure is sexist, sorry.
And finally, the whole 'WIMMINZ WEAKZ' argument is idiotic from another angle, too. Most of space marine chapters recruits from literal hellholes where the 'strongest' aspirants are uneducated, stunted, scarred kids missing a fair bit of body parts - making them inferior recruiting material to just about every girl from civilized world that received proper levels of care. And why should body even matter when SM are limited by strength of their power armour? Numerous studies found women make better soldiers because they are far less likely to do stupid things, better at obeying orders and cooperation, more tolerant to pain, more patient, accurate, and less likely to show off - throwing all of this away and claiming males are better thanks to a single trait based on outdated, biased data, a trait that thanks to tin can SM wears doesn't even matter - guessing one word that sums this "argument" is so easy people should hit it in one try.
I am a profession personal trainer, I am a experience combat fighter. I have trained thousands of people in martial arts including; men, women, children, and adults. Not just in karate, but also MMA, BJJ, and TDK.
You are wrong, there is 100% a difference in men and women when it comes to strength.
You can look at any fighting sport, or sport that involves strength and men will win. Lets look at strength differences; deadlifting for an example, Women's record is 636lbs, men's is 1,404lbs. Ok what about something women might be better at? Squats, Women's record 570lbs, men's 1080lbs.
These are not just a large difference but near double the difference. Lucia Rjiker one of the best female fighters ever known, nickname the "Lady Tyson" and she still lost to armature male kickboxer.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
Daedalus81 wrote: ZebioLizard2 wrote:That's a pretty bad faith argument right there. The thing of the matter about the removal is that they are changing often within the confines of the canon a character to something else. There's not as many complaints about characters that are created new.
Is it now? Requiring only new characters be different from the norm is frankly obtuse.
I take it that you didn't like Samuel Jackson in the MCU? Surely he should have been white as that is canon.
Even Jesus was made white for feths sake.
Samuel Jackson was playing Nick Fury Jr.. Nick Fury (Sr) is the white one. So he shouldn't have been.
Jesus was made in every groups image. There's also Asian Jesus and the like as well as several natives and otherwise. Because Jesus and God are representatives of everyone. They made man in their image.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
 Manchu wrote:This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!
Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?
Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.
You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.
120227
Post by: Karol
Irbis wrote:
Because it's nonsense based on outdated cherry picked samples with a side of sexist BS that keeps getting parroted by people with an agenda?
When you encourage half of your population to do exercise while telling the other half that moving is 'improper' and 'unladylike' and telling them to stay in kitchen (see - tomboy, a word that used to be a pretty heavy slur in the past for showing such 'deviant' interests), gee, I wonder why the far bigger pool that did regular exercise produces far more stronger athletes than the group that was actively discouraged and the ones that did exercises were much smaller pool allowing for less talent from far end of bell curve to shine through. It's a mystery, eh?
Funnily enough, past cultures that did encourage all the members of tribe/city/state to exercise and hunt/fight/compete from childhood note that the difference between sexes is much smaller (that's where the myth of Amazons comes from - tribes that allowed women to prosper instead of confining them to kitchen roles like Greeks produced 'inhumanly' strong women from Greek perspective, go figure). Even in recent times, when Soviet army drafted hundreds of thousands of women to fill roles of tankers, pilots, snipers, machine gunners, and other soldiers in numbers big enough to catch that far end of bell curve, they found, surprise, surprise, that women do perform just as well as men and a lot of Soviet women easily bested best males from SS and Heer units. Gee, maybe Soviets just didn't hear of that sCieNcE?
You don't know what you are talking about. And at my age (17) guys in my weight range are going to be stronger, then the female division members. Maybe you can find some american girls that are comperable, but they are going to be weaker then the american wreslers from the same age and weight group. Ancient civilisation maybe had more fit people, as long as they weren't malnurished, but there is a reason why you needed a men/husband to plow earth, because a woman no matter how fit would not be able to pull out the socha from the ground on her own.
Being a tanker, pilot, sniper, machine gunner doesn't require physical strenght. The gun is somewhat of an equalizer. And if you want to read real studies about how women perform in the military then you have a gigantic stock of material from Israel starting from the early 60s and ending now. And they show that female soldiers in infantry units, suffer more injuries, that units with females in them are slower and take higher loses, both durning training and in live combat. They were also unable to cross obsticles , in full combat gear, that male soldiers would cross. And Israel wants everyone in the army, there is no culture of "driving off" females from military service, in fact one could say there is the reverse happening.
You don't know what you are talking about if you think a two heads taller trained male soldier would get beaten, on a regular basis, by a smaller and weaker woman. That is fantasy land.
87012
Post by: Toofast
ERJAK wrote:
2. Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around?
That depends on what you define as "hate speech". Most people calling for the removal of "hate speech" have the same definition as Michael Scott, except unironically. Saying that humans are either XX or XY is not hate speech, it is just a fact. I have no idea how that became equated with "trans people shouldn't have rights" other than a bunch of people online looking to be victims of something and seizing the tiniest possible opportunity to do so.
129860
Post by: TheBestBucketHead
Did he say that they're dangerously mental ill or did he say that it is a harmful mental disorder, considering their extremely high suicide rates, and the fact that they consider top surgery a life saving surgery due to this? I feel there's an important distinction.
105694
Post by: Lord Damocles
Sgt_Smudge wrote:As a trans person, I also find the aforementioned "biological male" mention grim, and I'm one of the signatures on the letter highlighting it's issues. Do I think GW is transphobic? No. I think they used a term which has negative connotations due to it's use as a transphobic dogwhistle.
GW didn't use the term 'biological male' though...
120227
Post by: Karol
 Stevefamine wrote:14 Pages in 1 day
Like Irbis said it's all cherry picked samples.
At the end of the day GW doesnt think they'll make enough $$$ for female injection plastic kits. They could and should release finecast any-sex heads and female torsos. If you're not familiar Victoria's Minis handles this fantastically with their resin cast bits.
Take the 10 best female MMA fighter, and let them fight Brock Lesner. Even on the same day one after one. Men are stronger, there is a reason why you have a separate weight lifting, combat sports etc divisions. If we were to compete in wrestling vs same age group, same weight group females, there would be no women qualifing for above country events, and it would be very rare to see one qualify for regionals.
104890
Post by: ScarletRose
ERJAK wrote: Manchu wrote:This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!
Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?
Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.
You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.
Unfortunately the mods are notoriously milquetoast about doing anything, as if Dakka is still a struggling website with single digit membership so they couldn't possibly dare ban someone.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Daedalus81 wrote:This isn't really about people playing with female marines. It's about legitimizing these dangerous fringe groups - intentionally or otherwise.
So you're saying you can't have a group in fiction like the Astartes that are emphatically all-male without "legitimizing those dangerous fringe groups."
I reject that idea because it's anti-art and anti-expression.
Daedalus81 wrote:These sorts of divides ultimately lead to violence. We're dangerously close to Proud Boys lynching drag queens reading books to kids at a library. The next few years will be incredibly dangerous for those that are not cis white males.
The world is typically more dangerous for males than for non-males. Automatically Appended Next Post: EviscerationPlague wrote:
Female Custodes would've been a fantastic idea. Just a couple extra heads and you're ready to go.
Unfortunately I seen what people want with their female Marines (so big tits in armor in an all female Chapter wearing what might as well be makeup) so I'll pass until that weirdness does.
Yeah, a lot of it seems pretty fetish-y.
120227
Post by: Karol
ERJAK 805786 11391637 wrote:
Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?
Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.
You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.
How is that not a fact though? They have higher rates of sucides, higher rates of other behavioral disorders etc. With sucidide rates that high or ending outside of society how is it not dangerous. If someone has a heart defect that kills people before they reach 25years of age, it can be called dangerous. Diabetes is dangerous etc.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Huh? No, otherwise the lack of presence of female Astartes miniatures is egregious. Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:The issue for me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there are male-only marines. It's reinforcing the reason for male only marines in a fictional universe, which gives purchase to the ne'er do wells to proclaim their cultural victory.
If you don't give a gak about the hobby, and instead about the culture war, don't expect to be taken seriously by people who enjoy the hobby. Automatically Appended Next Post: Eldarsif wrote:I think the problem is momentum. Changing it now so late in the game would probably make a lot of Timmys angry about it and I imagine GW fears that. I personally would love to see some official female Space Marines, but at the same time I am not expecting that will happen any time soon. So I am happy to kitbash my own.
It would also bother a lot of perfectly reasonable people.
Eldarsif wrote:However, GW is improving on their other ranges to get to a larger demographic. The first Stormcast release was pretty much boys in gold and now they've made a lot of explicit representations in the line which I personally like. Same goes for a lot of other recent lines that are not Space Marines.
Except expanding the range to include female miniatures does not get a "larger demographic," that is a fiction. Automatically Appended Next Post: catbarf wrote:
GW didn't think Sisters would sell. Their stock expected to last four months ran out in two hours. I'd say any argument that starts from the premise that GW knows what will sell and what won't is on shaky ground.
GW's market research isn't amazing but it's also that they released a faction that wasn't Astartes, gave it proper support, and, surprise surprise, it was popular.
It's almost like GW is willfully ignorant to the popularity of non-Astartes factions... Automatically Appended Next Post: Rihgu wrote:
Which is cool and all but there are plenty of dissenting opinions in the comments on that article. The ones that were deleted/banned were the hateful/incendiary ones. Or, I guess they could have even been ones in agreement, as they're gone now they really could have been anything. But since I do see dissenting/non Hivemind opinions in the comment section, it seems a pretty safe assumption that "thought conforming through coercive means" isn't occurring there.
They're just banning hateful bigots/trolls from their privately owned website.
I just disagreed with the take, entirely reasonably, and they deleted my comment. So not, that's not what they're doing, they're trying to build consensus and lean on GW. That's why I encourage everyone who disagrees with the above take to email GW and mention this article specifically and mention that you don't agree with it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:I take it that you didn't like Samuel Jackson in the MCU? Surely he should have been white as that is canon.
Nah, Ultimate Nick Fury was black. Automatically Appended Next Post: Irbis wrote:When you encourage half of your population to do exercise while telling the other half that moving is 'improper' and 'unladylike' and telling them to stay in kitchen (see - tomboy, a word that used to be a pretty heavy slur in the past for showing such 'deviant' interests), gee, I wonder why the far bigger pool that did regular exercise produces far more stronger athletes than the group that was actively discouraged and the ones that did exercises were much smaller pool allowing for less talent from far end of bell curve to shine through. It's a mystery, eh?
Even correcting for that, human males build muscle far more quickly than female and out limb lengths are more optimized for leverage. So don't try to say it's all social conditioning or whatever. Automatically Appended Next Post: [quote=vipoid 805786 11391632 55b4f23109bb4f5979f77edc0c9a96ba.jpg "Due to the genetic and hormonal conditioning, Space Marines always emerge from the process as, to all intents and purposes, biologically male."
That would probably be fine for people like the writer of the article in the OP, but not for the Female Marines crowd, and it's the latter that's here in this thread.
76888
Post by: Tyran
Men are on average physically stronger, that is a biological fact.
But that is only somewhat relevant in military, which does recruit women, and almost mostly irrelevant in 40k, in which powered armor exist, in which biological augmentation exist, in which most of the warfare is done with ranged weapons (which are massive equalizers).
I mean, the fact that the IG has all female regiments and mixed regiments show that gender is not something 40k military forces or the IoM really care about... except when it comes to Marines (and Sisters, although in the Sisters case it is because in-universe political loopholes).
And the truth is that Astartes are so hilariously enhanced that biological gender differences wouldn't really matter. Astartes are recruited when they are still kids, before puberty starts giving male children a physical edge, and then proceed to add modification after modification. A female recruit? it should be trivial to modify her body through hormone therapy and surgical enhancements, it would be a drop in the ocean that is the extensive Astartes modifications.
Sure you could make the argument that the resultant Astartes would be anatomically identical to any male Astartes. And with the heavy indoctrination one could even argue that such female recruit would no longer be female*. After all, an Astartes masculinity is also artificial, at the end of it an Astartes has far less in common with the average man than the average man has with the average woman. The only reason Astartes still refer to themselves using masculine terms and pronouns is because Chapter culture, but biologically their gender has pretty much been surgically modified to the point of nullification.
*And wouldn't forced gender transition be particularly grimdark? It definitely is a horrifying prospect.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Smudge will never acknowledge that lol
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Asmodios wrote:Sorry, but if you find that sentence as an attack on trans people you are unhinged and the last thing you should be worried about is board games. Meanwhile, the same article calls to"punch" fascists in the face but by reading the article as written the article is essentially stating that any disagreement on this topic is fascism.
So now we get this hilarious article that finds an imaginary call to violence against trans while actively calling for violence against anyone who disagrees.
Luckily i hardly ever watched any of their WAAC trash but ill make especially sure to stay clear from their name and brand now.
That's projection, I think.
Nowhere did I say the snippet was an attack on trans. I did say it wasn't a useful or helpful thing to place into a rulebook.
Right now you have the in group who feel attacked. Then you have the out group who also feels attacked. I can't tell the in group to stop feeling attacked, but the reality is that they are the ones who are safe. Some idle "punch nazis" threat on the internet pales in comparison to the very real violence suffered by the out groups.
73007
Post by: Grimskul
Karol wrote:ERJAK 805786 11391637 wrote:
Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?
Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.
You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.
How is that not a fact though? They have higher rates of sucides, higher rates of other behavioral disorders etc. With sucidide rates that high or ending outside of society how is it not dangerous. If someone has a heart defect that kills people before they reach 25years of age, it can be called dangerous. Diabetes is dangerous etc.
Because it doesn't match their narrative and thus is disregarded. I love how he's treating as if though this is a hotbed of extremist radicalization. They've already started with trying to silence people by labelling people as bigots or transphobes for disagreeing and now that has failed they're showing their hand from how they're basically begging for the mods to censor or ban people they disagree with, matching exactly the kind of mindset that was already seen in the Goonhammer comments early on. They don't want discourse, they just want people to regurgitate their only talking points and shout down everyone else that doesn't share their opinion. I'm pretty sure most sane people on this thread have already agreed that this one line from GW is being blown out of proportion, and it's just virtue signallers and people who have a lot of extra baggage giving it all this hidden meaning and power over the trans community somehow.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Tyran wrote:And the truth is that Astartes are so hilariously enhanced that biological gender differences wouldn't really matter. Astartes are recruited when they are still kids, before puberty starts giving male children a physical edge, and then proceed to add modification after modification. A female recruit? it should be trivial to modify her body through hormone therapy and surgical enhancements, it would be a drop in the ocean that is the extensive Astartes modifications.
If the process involves upregulation of genes that are on the y chromosome, then it wouldn't work on female humans.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Hecaton wrote:If you don't give a gak about the hobby, and instead about the culture war, don't expect to be taken seriously by people who enjoy the hobby.
If you think the hobby is being reassured that marines can only be male then I'm not sure you're really enjoying the hobby.
127462
Post by: Hecaton
Daedalus81 wrote:
If you think the hobby is being reassured that marines can only be male then I'm not sure you're really enjoying the hobby.
I don't think that. But you stated your reasoning for wanting there to be female marines is that you thought there was a cultural imperative to make media along those lines.
129984
Post by: Vatsetis
That Space Marines are only male reflects the cultural background in which they were originally created in Britain during the early 80´s (more specifically as a power fantasy for male teenagers, even doe with a satitic sense that has been lost greatly since). Obviously the fictional pseudo science involve in the "only male superhumans" is going to be at odds with actual science.
As a cultural product they cannot be inclusive Space Marines are no venue for representation, neither of women or trans people. If you have progressive views you should better ask for them to regain their satiric nature rather than the more "serious" tone of the last years.
In this sense Paul Verhoeven adaptation of "Starship troopers" is genius even doe the Argentinian charecters are depicted by WASP´s actors. Introducing Trans, Gay and Racialized actors in a selfrightcheus and "serious" adaptation of the militaristic and reactionary novel would have been lame (at best).
If you are complaining that a land mine with the shape of a toy is not manufactured with enviromental friendly materials perhaps you are missing the point. 
76888
Post by: Tyran
Hecaton wrote: Tyran wrote:And the truth is that Astartes are so hilariously enhanced that biological gender differences wouldn't really matter. Astartes are recruited when they are still kids, before puberty starts giving male children a physical edge, and then proceed to add modification after modification. A female recruit? it should be trivial to modify her body through hormone therapy and surgical enhancements, it would be a drop in the ocean that is the extensive Astartes modifications.
If the process involves upregulation of genes that are on the y chromosome, then it wouldn't work on female humans.
Even then genes can be modified, and 40k has genetic engineering far beyond anything modern civilization is capable of producing. It should be a trivial issue.
But anyways, the point is that the "boys only Marines" has nothing to do with the biological differences between genders, but rather is a product of a corporate directive.
Any in-universe justification of it is nothing but executive meddling, which is apparently common according to BL writers.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Hecaton wrote:
 vipoid wrote:"Due to the genetic and hormonal conditioning, Space Marines always emerge from the process as, to all intents and purposes, biologically male."
That would probably be fine for people like the writer of the article in the OP, but not for the Female Marines crowd, and it's the latter that's here in this thread.
One problem at a time.
108384
Post by: kurhanik
Karol wrote:ERJAK 805786 11391637 wrote:
Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?
Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.
You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.
How is that not a fact though? They have higher rates of sucides, higher rates of other behavioral disorders etc. With sucidide rates that high or ending outside of society how is it not dangerous. If someone has a heart defect that kills people before they reach 25years of age, it can be called dangerous. Diabetes is dangerous etc.
Wait....have you ever thought of um, WHY suicide rates might be higher amongst trans people? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with being trans, and everything to do with people being horrible to them. When your family kicks you out for being "different" or "not normal", and you are told your entire life that you are worth less than someone else, and that you don't matter and that your identity is fake, of course this will happen.
It reminds me of that Onion article that read something like "local trans woman would rather feel safe than brave".
121430
Post by: ccs
Karol wrote:
But if you try to revert it doesn't it end up like scouting in the US, where boy scouts had to close down
You are mistaken on this. They are not closed down.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Daedalus81 wrote:Asmodios wrote:Sorry, but if you find that sentence as an attack on trans people you are unhinged and the last thing you should be worried about is board games. Meanwhile, the same article calls to"punch" fascists in the face but by reading the article as written the article is essentially stating that any disagreement on this topic is fascism.
So now we get this hilarious article that finds an imaginary call to violence against trans while actively calling for violence against anyone who disagrees.
Luckily i hardly ever watched any of their WAAC trash but ill make especially sure to stay clear from their name and brand now.
That's projection, I think.
Nowhere did I say the snippet was an attack on trans. I did say it wasn't a useful or helpful thing to place into a rulebook.
Right now you have the in group who feel attacked. Then you have the out group who also feels attacked. I can't tell the in group to stop feeling attacked, but the reality is that they are the ones who are safe. Some idle "punch nazis" threat on the internet pales in comparison to the very real violence suffered by the out groups.
An exact quote from one of your earlier posts in this thread “This isn't really about people playing with female marines. It's about legitimizing these dangerous fringe groups - intentionally or otherwise.” So your saying that space marines being male is “legitimizing dangerous fringe groups”. Sorry but this is the same mental gymnastics used by the goon hammer people to paint completely normal text as dangerous to trans individuals. Once again a group not being in every single space of a game is not dangerous or an attack. Just because I’ve never seen a story about a white salamander marine does not mean the GW writers are writing dangerous coded language against me.
71547
Post by: Sgt_Smudge
Karol wrote:ERJAK 805786 11391592 wrote:Referring to the other comment about 'private websites' why would you keep hate speech around? Why would you bother? Statement like Steelhead's 'I think trans people have a dangerous mental disorder' SHOULDN'T be engaged with. All that does is give free advertising for vile ideas. If you get someone who spews hate speech on your platform, the CORRECT response is to just ban them off and be done with it.
How isn't it dangerous if they have so much higher rates to suffer from addiction, sucide, be draged in to sex work etc.
Have you considered WHY we're more likely to be pushed into those situations? Hint: it's not our biology or mental stability that causes it. It is not vile it is just stating the horrible truth.
No, it's stating from a position of ignorance, and acts to dehumanise us. It's fething vile language, and it's exactly the kind of stuff that I'm saying is wrong.
We're bloody PEOPLE. Stop trying to call us "dangerous" or "mentally unwell".
steelhead177th wrote:this topic is ludicrous and meant to stir up trouble so a few can feel moral superior to those that don't follow their non-standard views, while exploting a tiny percentage of the human population with an extreme and harmful mental disorder.
Feth you. I'm a human being. I'm not extreme. I'm not harming anyone. And of the mental disorders I do have, they're unrelated to my gender.
steelhead177th wrote:and ERJAK, i said harmful not dangerous. try reading the comment correctly and stop putting words in my mouth.
I don't fething care. I'm not harmful to anyone.
Very disappointing and bad form.
Coming from the person who called me "harmful and extreme"? Go feth yourself, you don't know the meaning of bad form.
Manchu wrote:This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!
Mods, you can't ask people to use Rule One when there are users here who are calling myself, and people like me, "harmful" or "dangerous" or "unwell" based on who I am.
If people can do that with impunity, Rule One is either selective, or non existent.
I'm a human bloody being, and I don't appreciate being called a "fetishist", "dangerous", "harmful", "extreme" or any of the other gak being slung around here.
ERJAK wrote: Manchu wrote:This is complicated topic but Rule One still applies. Good pointer: Deal with the points people make without ad hominem. Thank you!
Dealing with your point, that's stupid. We literally just had someone say 'all trans people are dangerously mentally ill' on the previous page, how do you deal with that point? Politely disagree? Treat it like it's just another asinine wargaming screed and not something that gets people literally killed all over the world?
Rule #1 cannot deal with topics like this because it ends up treating actual, dangerous hate speech as being significantly worse than calling someone a poo-poo head.
You're more or less siding with bigotry on this one.
Agreed. There's nothing to "agree/disagree" or "discuss" about users calling me "extremely and harmfully mentally ill".
TheBestBucketHead wrote:Did he say that they're dangerously mental ill or did he say that it is a harmful mental disorder, considering their extremely high suicide rates, and the fact that they consider top surgery a life saving surgery due to this? I feel there's an important distinction.
In the nicest way, have you considered WHY we have such high suicide rates? Hint - it's not to do with our own heads.
Hecaton wrote:I reject that idea because it's anti-art and anti-expression.
You wouldn't know anti-art and anti-expression if it hit you over the head with a urinal that had Dada graffitied on it.
The world is typically more dangerous for males than for non-males.
Oh, you're being serious?
Sweet jesus.
Yeah, a lot of it seems pretty fetish-y.
The only person who seems to be putting a fetish into it is you. Do you have something you want to tell us?
Karol wrote:How is that not a fact though? They have higher rates of sucides, higher rates of other behavioral disorders etc. With sucidide rates that high or ending outside of society how is it not dangerous. If someone has a heart defect that kills people before they reach 25years of age, it can be called dangerous. Diabetes is dangerous etc.
Yet again, has anyone actually considered WHY we have such a high suicide rate? And that MAYBE, it isn't to do with us?
Lord Damocles wrote: Sgt_Smudge wrote:As a trans person, I also find the aforementioned "biological male" mention grim, and I'm one of the signatures on the letter highlighting it's issues. Do I think GW is transphobic? No. I think they used a term which has negative connotations due to it's use as a transphobic dogwhistle.
GW didn't use the term 'biological male' though...
Quote "...hormonal and biological make-up of the human male...".
Don't be obtuse just because they didn't spell it out in block capitals and put a little footnote on it saying "HEY BIGOTS USE THIS TO TARGET TRANS FOLK!!"
Grimskul wrote:They've already started with trying to silence people by labelling people as bigots or transphobes for disagreeing and now that has failed they're showing their hand from how they're basically begging for the mods to censor or ban people they disagree with, matching exactly the kind of mindset that was already seen in the Goonhammer comments early on.
Yeah - you're goddamn right I disagree with people calling me mentally ill or dangerous or harmful or extreme or a fetishist. You're goddamn right I disagree with people saying that the fething gak that I have to put up with from people who can't respect my *humanity* isn't real. You're goddamn right that I expect the mods to stick to their own Rule One and do something about it. They don't want discourse, they just want people to regurgitate their only talking points and shout down everyone else that doesn't share their opinion.
What discourse is there to have when people are calling me "mentally ill".
kurhanik wrote:Wait....have you ever thought of um, WHY suicide rates might be higher amongst trans people? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with being trans, and everything to do with people being horrible to them. When your family kicks you out for being "different" or "not normal", and you are told your entire life that you are worth less than someone else, and that you don't matter and that your identity is fake, of course this will happen.
Finally. Someone gets it. Thank you.
65952
Post by: murphs
There is an esoteric element to this whole debate that makes it very hard to follow.
This paragraph though
Let’s get the science out of the way: There is no specific hormonal or biological make-up of a human male. Sex is basically a pair of giant buckets of characteristics we lump people into. There is no single specific indicator of sex, there are hundreds, and almost every human who has ever existed is a jumbled mix of them. If you have enough traits of one kind we crudely decide you are “male”. Enough of another and we go for “female”. Not enough of either for us to make a snap judgment on little evidence? Well those people are intersex and they get “fixed”.
Shouldn't every instance of the term sex be replaced with gender in this paragraph? I thought that sex was a rock solid scientific category consisting of male and female. Whereas gender was divided into man and woman and was at least to some extent a social construct?
93557
Post by: RaptorusRex
As someone who is in the category of trans (non-binary she/they), I don't know. I'm not going to say GW is transphobic in the sense that they actively campaign against trans people existing. It's not bigotry per se, but rather a bit ignorant of the science to write that maleness is something solely hormonal.
Furthermore, masculinity - the societal traits associated with maleness - is something that has changed radically in terms of societal views since the dawn of modern living. We no longer expect boys and men to do heroic or violent deeds as a matter of course, as the post-Roman societies of Europe and those Feral Worlds Astartes chapters draw from in 40k did. And we shouldn't. Rather, men's lives in the West and large portions of the Eurasian east center around their labor - their role as the "family breadwinner" or "man of the house".
In addition, geneseed is not solely hard-scientific genetic modification even if we allow that it only affects assigned-male-at-birth people for those reasons. It's warp-touched, as it comes from the Primarchs, who are themselves creatures of the Warp. The Warp is a realm where narrative overwrites physical laws. And Geneseed clearly has some import in the Warp, as we see it time and time again used to curry favor with the Chaos Gods, as with Erebus sacrificing geneseed from Istvaan III in Know No Fear.
To tie this all together, I think if GW wanted to, they could eliminate the passage and lose little lore-wise. It very well could be that Geneseed is tied to those masculine narratives of conquest and heroism. I'm not asking for female Space Marines, as that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
10953
Post by: JohnnyHell
murphs wrote:There is an esoteric element to this whole debate that makes it very hard to follow. I thought that sex was a rock solid scientific category consisting of male and female.
Then you thought wrong.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Signed.
I don't think there is any malice or intentional bigotry on GW's part, they're just thoughtlessly copy-pasting the same old text (though the wording seems to be slightly updated,) but it has unfortunate implications nevertheless, and they should aim to do better.
And like this forum constantly shows, there is a lot of toxicity and bigotry in this hobby, so GW should try to consciously avoid to even accidentally legitimising any of it.
124280
Post by: Tiberias
 Crimson wrote:Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Signed.
I don't think there is any malice or intentional bigotry on GW's part, they're just thoughtlessly copy-pasting the same old text (though the wording seems to be slightly updated,) but it has unfortunate implications nevertheless, and they should aim to do better.
And like this forum constantly shows, there is a lot of toxicity and bigotry in this hobby, so GW should try to consciously avoid to even accidentally legitimising any of it.
I'm asking in good faith here to better understand the position: in your opinion, what are some unfortunate implications in this case?
87012
Post by: Toofast
Tyran wrote:Men are on average physically stronger, that is a biological fact.
But that is only somewhat relevant in military, which does recruit women
Yes, almost exclusively for non-combat roles which vastly outnumber combat roles. The military needs air traffic controllers, nurses, sonar technicians, warehouse managers, and the list goes on. The military does not recruit women for combat roles. When women were allowed to join combat units in the USMC, they repeatedly failed PT tests required to remain in those combat units, so the standards were lowered for everyone because "equality". That is why I wouldn't expect to see female space marines even if it was possible, because air traffic controllers and warehouse managers aren't really represented in a tabletop wargame and 99.999999% of women in the military do those roles rather than toting a 240 to raids on Tban strongholds.
65952
Post by: murphs
 JohnnyHell wrote:murphs wrote:There is an esoteric element to this whole debate that makes it very hard to follow. I thought that sex was a rock solid scientific category consisting of male and female.
Then you thought wrong.
Right so has the definition of sex changed to be the same as gender?
87012
Post by: Toofast
Hecaton wrote:
If the process involves upregulation of genes that are on the y chromosome, then it wouldn't work on female humans.
It's 2022, now anyone can have a Y chromosome just by declaring it. Didn't you get the memo? Automatically Appended Next Post: murphs wrote: JohnnyHell wrote:murphs wrote:There is an esoteric element to this whole debate that makes it very hard to follow. I thought that sex was a rock solid scientific category consisting of male and female.
Then you thought wrong.
Right so has the definition of sex changed to be the same as gender?
Do you actually think these people understand the distinction beyond screeching at people on the internet about how gender is a fluid concept? Automatically Appended Next Post: Vatsetis wrote:That Space Marines are only male reflects the cultural background in which they were originally created in Britain during the early 80´s (more specifically as a power fantasy for male teenagers, even doe with a satitic sense that has been lost greatly since). Obviously the fictional pseudo science involve in the "only male superhumans" is going to be at odds with actual science.
It very closely reflects the real world proportion of women in combat roles in any military around the world. You might as well be mad about the lack of straight male hairdressers or fashion experts in the media.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
why are you lot once again following people that attempt to take a trench and turn it into the alpine range?
An all male biological army is not an issue. An all female fanatical nun convent of a absurdly xenophobic religion is not a problem, an caste society with a clear hierarchical head of "faith" is not problematic either. It is the lore to a dystopian galaxy fethed beyond anything.
It's clearly not something somone, realistcally anyone, should feel the need to aspire too, the only thing that should matter for us as a community of hobbiest is the fun on the table and around the hobby. And that includes not being an donkey-cave to your opposing player, even if you may not like their politics or philosophy or looks.
sheesh
107707
Post by: Togusa
Calling it now, here is where the thread goes off its rails and degenerates into people screeching at each other.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Togusa wrote:Calling it now, here is where the thread goes off its rails and degenerates into people screeching at each other.
I think you're a bit late for that, sadly.
56055
Post by: Backspacehacker
Togusa wrote:Calling it now, here is where the thread goes off its rails and degenerates into people screeching at each other.
Bro that happened pages ago. Been here long enough to know that this was gonna be a gak show from the moment it started.
The sooner people realize that its just a make believe game and stop trying to apply real world things to it the better. Im just here to push plastic dolls around a table.
Just sit back and enjoy the show.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Well, we have left this open for a while and now it is time to lock things up. Thanks for all those who participated in good faith.
|
|
