It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
Lammia wrote: The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
No it's not. The lore says nothing about the gender identity of the people involved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lammia wrote: Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
Nah. Let's stop trying to make turbofascism more appealing. The Imperium commits genocide of children born missing limbs, with harelips, etc at birth - that's part of the atrocity that comes with its system.
What do you mean by "that minority?" In my eyes the pro-FSM crowd are a step away from being in line with the people that statement had to be put out about - as soon as space marines are gender integrated they're all aboard the fantasy space fascism/genocide train. It's a failure in morality on their part.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
The fluff doesn't stop anyone from playing anything any way. The reason there are two unknown Primarchs is specifically for this reason. You can play whatever female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony models you want on the table as space marines and point to the unknown primarchs as a fluff justification. The only person that stops it is you and maybe in a very, very rare case some douchehat no one will like or agree with.
What do you mean by "that minority?" In my eyes the pro-FSM crowd are a step away from being in line with the people that statement had to be put out about - as soon as space marines are gender integrated they're all aboard the fantasy space fascism/genocide train. It's a failure in morality on their part.
This is absolute nonsense. Stop repeating it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: The fluff doesn't stop anyone from playing anything any way. The reason there are two unknown Primarchs is specifically for this reason. You can play whatever female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony models you want on the table as space marines and point to the unknown primarchs as a fluff justification. The only person that stops it is you and maybe in a very, very rare case some douchehat no one will like or agree with.
Just for what it's worth, the missing Primarchs were never intended specifically for players to fill them in themselves. According to Rick Priestly, they were just thrown in for a bit of mystery.
That doesn't stop people from doing so, of course. It's just not an intended purpose of them.
On a vaguely related note, if people could knock it off with the giant nested quotes, or at the very least spoiler tag them, that would do wonders for the continued legibility of this thread.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
The 'Deeply problematic' issue is the lore for no female Marines is gender/genetic essentialism used by transphobes and other XRW ideologies.
Maybe the transphobes etc are the problem here, not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire? Plenty, I'd wager the largest majority, play this game and like/respect the setting with no prejudice at all against women/trans/anything.
Sure, but the game/setting/empire work fine without that one paragraph that is a problem. And the game has had a big enough problem with that minority that GW have had to state the setting isn't an ideal to aspire too.
You don't have to change anything in the game. Just remove a lore limit that stops people from people playing their guys, their way.
And what's stopping you from putting down a lovely well painted army of female space marines now? Do you need it to be vindicated in the setting officially? Are you incapable of writing up a reason yourself? Or more elikely are you worried about someone having to deal with slabhead A at a group somewhere who is a stickler for the fluff (which is inherently transphone or anything other than a personal preference), or slabhead B who is actively a transphobe/xenophobic?
The only one here that is a real problem is the last one, changing the fluff will not stop them existing or wanting to behave they way they do. Likewise it doesn't stop you having female Marines now if you want to.
Changing the 40k setting as trivial or scientifically inaccurate as it may be, will not change the behaviours of people who have a prejudice. The people who don't want to play female marines because of the fluff, well they may not like the change and may decline after anyway, that's a personal preference for them.
Case in point: Despite GW calling them officially Sisters of Battle or Adeptus Sororitas, some people call them "Bolter bitches".
You can bet the same people who give you trouble now if you field a SM model with a female head, would continue to do so even if it would be canon. They want to agitate you. It has nothing to do with what the official fluff is.
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
Dai wrote: How can people get so worked up about this time after time after time?
Welcome to the Warhammer Community, where the lore as it is written, is seen as immutable and set in stone, where nothing can ever change.
...despite things changing all the time and people either leaving the hobby, learning to deal with it, or they do as most people do, and not really care all that much.
But hey, these thinly disguised political arguments are great at getting people heated.
It's basically a proxy for real-world political debates, but unlike the bigger debates this can actually, at least theoretically, be decisively won, as the possibility exists that some day one side actually forces 'daddy GW' to move and make a statement that says one side is right and the other wrong. In real politics, you can't really force someone to be convinced by your arguments if they don't want to be, but in a setting with an author that is somewhat of an ultimate authority and has a canon, you can force them to rewrite the setting's reality. It's the same with other fictional settings that have debates about these topics, the various controversies about Harry Potter come to mind for a recent example.
Reflecting on the 'But that's what SoB are for...' response to requests for FSM, I did have an idea for something that would at least go some way to giving more people what they want...
- Develop more individual identity between SoB orders. Something like the Knight orders in David Eddings' Elenium, where they each have very distinct cultures, outfits and fighting styles, rather than all just being different colours of the same armour. That puts Sisters on a more even playing field with Marines visually, which is one of the stumbling blocks now.
- Have the Ecclesiarchy do a deal with the Mechanicus for a process that absolutely isn't the same process as is used for Astartes (wink, nudge) because that would obviously be Heresy. But the end result is stronger, faster, more deadly Sisters.
- Have the official Imperial party line remain that the Astartes process only works on males, despite it being patently obvious by this point that this is not actually true...
It doesn't really do anything about the fact that the all-male faction is the most visible in the game, but it seems like a step in the right direction for representation and is amusingly absurd enough to sidestep the current 'science' issue.
Sim-Life wrote: The fluff doesn't stop anyone from playing anything any way. The reason there are two unknown Primarchs is specifically for this reason. You can play whatever female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony models you want on the table as space marines and point to the unknown primarchs as a fluff justification. The only person that stops it is you and maybe in a very, very rare case some douchehat no one will like or agree with.
There are gatekeepers everywhere. And there is lore that specficially rules out female/furry/trans/otherkin/pony Marines that gatekeepers will happily use to bully/limit players out of the hobby.
You don't need to change anything. Just have GW state the given reason is an in universe myth and never republish it.
insaniak wrote: Reflecting on the 'But that's what SoB are for...' response to requests for FSM, I did have an idea for something that would at least go some way to giving more people what they want...
- Develop more individual identity between SoB orders. Something like the Knight orders in David Eddings' Elenium, where they each have very distinct cultures, outfits and fighting styles, rather than all just being different colours of the same armour. That puts Sisters on a more even playing field with Marines visually, which is one of the stumbling blocks now.
- Have the Ecclesiarchy do a deal with the Mechanicus for a process that absolutely isn't the same process as is used for Astartes (wink, nudge) because that would obviously be Heresy. But the end result is stronger, faster, more deadly Sisters.
You can already do the first one if you want and as for the second are you mental? The appeal for a lot of people about the Sisters outside of the aesthetic is that they're unmodified humans. They achieve their goals by being badass without needing to be altered. Now leaving aside the fact that the Sisters would probably view tampering with their genetics as a blasphemy upon the form that the Emperor bestowed upon them, making genetic modified Sisters would be stamping on what sets them apart from Marines. It would be like equipping every Guardsman with a bolter and power armour and writing it off as "oh, Cawl found a way to make it cheaper and easier".
I don't find the lore arguments to be particularly compelling regardless of whether they're for or against femarines.
Lore can be changed if people want to change lore. Even without GW telling you that you can change the lore, 40k is a setting more than rigid immovable history, make your own lore and do whatever the hell you want. You can have Ork Space Marines for all I care.
I personally don't want femarines, but at the same time, if that's your thing, I'm happy for you to want that, and if you go out of your way to convert them, more power to you, I'll happily play against you, I'm not going to say it's something you're not allowed to do.
a_typical_hero wrote: Case in point: Despite GW calling them officially Sisters of Battle or Adeptus Sororitas, some people call them "Bolter bitches".
You can bet the same people who give you trouble now if you field a SM model with a female head, would continue to do so even if it would be canon. They want to agitate you. It has nothing to do with what the official fluff is.
And some people called me a furry for collecting Space Wolves. If I worried about all the things I've been called personally (let alone my toy soldiers) then I'd be a very broken person... instead I'm just bitter and spiteful
Dudeface wrote: ... not the fascist misogynistic fictional empire?
The Imperium isn't misogynistic, and calling them "fascist" is reductive.
Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
Sim-Life wrote: You can already do the first one if you want ...
I mean, sure, you can... but the actual model range that you see when you walk into a store is all corsets and boob plate. Which is fine if you want that sort of thing, but off-putting if you want a more practically-armoured force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church..
That's a misrepresentation of the reason Sisters exist, though. They're not allowed because they're viewed as inferior to men. They're allowed because 'men under arms' was a generic way of referring to soldiers, because in the early '90s that was the default for most western nations, and so recruiting women is exploiting a 'funny' loophole.
It worked in the '90s because nobody questioned the inherent bias involved. It works less well now that the Imperium has evolved into something much more egalitarian in every department except the Astartes.
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore. Changing the background so, say, a Dark Elf character was actually qualified to be king but just didn't cook long enough would be on the same level. For the record? I was HIGHLY against that one.
Urgh now i remember why i avoid these threads. Not going to win over any hearts or minds on dakka and if i want severe depression from the hate in the world I'll hop onto twitter.
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church..
That's a misrepresentation of the reason Sisters exist, though. They're not allowed because they're viewed as inferior to men. They're allowed because 'men under arms' was a generic way of referring to soldiers, because in the early '90s that was the default for most western nations, and so recruiting women is exploiting a 'funny' loophole.
It worked in the '90s because nobody questioned the inherent bias involved. It works less well now that the Imperium has evolved into something much more egalitarian in every department except the Astartes.
I don't think the relative levels of egalitarianism in other areas of the imperium, which in itself I feel is a misrepresentation anyway, affect this.
The imperium doesn't believe people should have an equal opportunity, they simply don't care enough about the individual in the first place for it to matter. It's not coming from a place of equality and kindness but neglect and apathy.
The GW team have been leagues ahead of where they were in terms of inclusive representation in the minis, that I won't dispute, but in the setting of the imperium it's not the same.
The argument for female Marines is that there's no good reason for gender locking super soldiers. It's hypocritical to then say it's fine the church only have female sororitas because early 90's jokes about western military being largely misogynistic are fine to be maintained, it's just as exlusive on a basic level. I don't know my necromunda fluff well but there seem to be a lot of arbitrarily gender locked gangs there too.
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore. Changing the background so, say, a Dark Elf character was actually qualified to be king but just didn't cook long enough would be on the same level. For the record? I was HIGHLY against that one.
I agree, Introducing previously unseen equipment is a much bigger change that what I would propose.
Hecaton wrote: That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
...
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Interesting. Do you feel the same way about every other hypothetical change, or just this one? If someone suggests making a primaris assault squad with jump packs do you post "ACCEPT THE LORE ASIT IS" and call their idea a participation trophy? Did you have the same level of outrage when GW gave space marines air superiority fighters?
Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore. Changing the background so, say, a Dark Elf character was actually qualified to be king but just didn't cook long enough would be on the same level. For the record? I was HIGHLY against that one.
I agree, Introducing previously unseen equipment is a much bigger change that what I would propose.
There isn't an eyeroll emoji strong enough. I don't need official GW validation to have a Lithuanian/Irish descent based Marines chapter if I felt this overwhelming urge to be as self-fellating as some here, you don't need official GW validation to have FSM in your Chapter or a whole FSM chapter.
Dudeface wrote: . It's hypocritical to then say it's fine the church only have female sororitas because early 90's jokes about western military being largely misogynistic are fine to be maintained,.
Not what I was saying, though. The fact that their existence is based on a badly dated joke is one of my least favorite things about SoB.
Dudeface wrote: . It's hypocritical to then say it's fine the church only have female sororitas because early 90's jokes about western military being largely misogynistic are fine to be maintained,.
Not what I was saying, though. The fact that their existence is based on a badly dated joke is one of my least favorite things about SoB.
OK, so to clarify you're more than happy for the fluff to change and rectify both at once? Because most of the pro-femarines voices are oddly fine with sisters staying as they are.
It's kind of funny to me that people are trying to attribute traits to the entire Imperium as if it's a monolithic entity and not a VAST coalition of worlds linked by mainly beurocracy and loosely by religion. It just goes to show how much damage modern GW has done to the setting by making every thing a war torn dystopian hell hole and making the setting feel so much smaller as a result.
Dudeface wrote: Because most of the pro-femarines voices are oddly fine with sisters staying as they are.
Probably because the hyper-fascist theocracy showing misogyny in a secondary/tertiary faction is less of an issue than (perceived) misogyny in the faction that is the face of the game and overwhelmingly dominates the lore, especially the lore that new players/fans first see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Introducing previously unseen equipment is a FAR CRY from rewriting lore.
No, it is literally re-writing lore. The original lore was that marine chapters were explicitly banned by treaty from having aircraft other than the transports used to ferry them to surface battles and had to rely on supporting Imperial Navy fighter and bomber squadrons for everything else*. Want to have a close escort for your Thunderhawks so they don't all get shot down by enemy fighters? Better hope the senior Navy officer in the region thinks your chapter is sufficiently loyal to deserve a wing of Thunderbolts. This was one of those separation of powers things introduced to prevent a repeat of the Heresy by ensuring that any single rebelling regiment/chapter/etc would lack combined arms support and be unable to fight effectively against the loyalist forces sent to destroy them. A marine chapter building and operating air superiority fighters would be committing open treason on a level very comparable to trying to tinker with their genetic engineering to produce female marines. But oh look, GW wants to sell new space marine aircraft kits and suddenly all that fluff is retconned away with a stroke of the pen and we never hear it again.
*See also the similar situation in BFG, where marine fleets had very limited warship options built primarily for orbital bombardment and troop deployment at the expense of performance in fleet engagements and it was explicit canon that marines were not allowed to have fleet warships. Oh, you want to put a lance battery on your battle barge instead of macro cannons? Instant excommunication and a Navy fleet will be arriving shortly to purge your entire chapter.
I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
Classy
We've already got the hyper fascist misogyny and transphobe accusations being thrown around. The classy ship sailed a while ago.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
Classy
We've already got the hyper fascist misogyny and transphobe accusations being thrown around. The classy ship sailed a while ago.
However, the question is at its core a reasonable and important one: what do people who want female Space Marines want from GW. There are several tiers imaginable:
- Female SM exist, but are visually identical to their male counterparts, so they need no specifically female models on the tabletop; their existence occasionally occurs in background works and in roleplaying campaigns etc.
- Female SM exist and are visually identifiable, but in a restrained way, similar to current AOS Stormcast or Warriors of Chaos; their existence occurs in background works, roleplaying, and via the odd model with a slightly more feminine general shape, a mix of male and female heads and torsos, and so on
- Female SM exist and are visually extremely distinct, with the WoW-style boob plate and exagerated waist-to-hip-ratio even in armour, to the point that their models need to be completely distinct from the generic Space Marine lineup and parts are usually not interchangeable; their existence is extremely visually present and changes the overall character of your army as it's obvious even from a distance.
That's all stuff that is still not 'fetishistic' but an accepted stylistic choice among different Fantasy/SciFi games, so each of those options could be a reasonable demand if one talks about 'Female Marines', but obviously these are worlds apart in their overall impact on the setting and its visuals.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
Classy
He's not wrong. I mean unless the helmet is off (which in a pitched battle is stupid but I digress) there is no way to know what is under space marine power armour unless the armour itself specifically designed to represent a gender. Even then with the helmet off I can't imagine women who would become Marines wouldn't still look particularly feminine.
However, the question is at its core a reasonable and important one: what do people who want female Space Marines want from GW. There are several tiers imaginable:
- Female SM exist, but are visually identical to their male counterparts, so they need no specifically female models on the tabletop; their existence occasionally occurs in background works and in roleplaying campaigns etc.
- Female SM exist and are visually identifiable, but in a restrained way, similar to current AOS Stormcast or Warriors of Chaos; their existence occurs in background works, roleplaying, and via the odd model with a slightly more feminine general shape, a mix of male and female heads and torsos, and so on
- Female SM exist and are visually extremely distinct, with the WoW-style boob plate and exagerated waist-to-hip-ratio even in armour, to the point that their models need to be completely distinct from the generic Space Marine lineup and parts are usually not interchangeable; their existence is extremely visually present and changes the overall character of your army as it's obvious even from a distance.
That's all stuff that is still not 'fetishistic' but an accepted stylistic choice among different Fantasy/SciFi games, so each of those options could be a reasonable demand if one talks about 'Female Marines', but obviously these are worlds apart in their overall impact on the setting and its visuals.
And why will sisters still be S3, T3, 1W? If they go to S4, T4, 2W why shouldn't they get Terminator Armor? 2A and Primaris Organs? Squatted? Will we need female Special characters? Which is more misogynistic the Dark Angels for only having one female special character, or the Blood Angels having two little Vamps in Boobplate? It doesn't really matter what people want. Reversing themselves at this point would cause more problems than it fixes, and wouldn't even placate many of the people calling for the change.
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
That's an intentional distortion of the reason the Sisters of Battle exist, and you know it.
Dudeface wrote: It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
"40k is for everyone" doesn't mean "40k should cater to everyone". It it means anyone can join in. If you don't like what you find, then that's on you.
Modelling aesthetics aside, in universe a female SM would probably not look any different from a male one.
I'd assume that breasts are underdeveloped or straight taken off, the body is just muscles over muscles without a distict female shape to it.
The face might be SLIGHTLY more feminime, but more into the direction of a very muscular and toned Ursula Creed and not a super model. With the notably exception of BA Marines, which might look like an extremer version of Gina Carano during her MMA time. And no make-up...
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
That's an intentional distortion of the reason the Sisters of Battle exist, and you know it.
Dudeface wrote: It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
"40k is for everyone" doesn't mean "40k should cater to everyone". It it means anyone can join in. If you don't like what you find, then that's on you.
OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
There was. They were called the Frater Templar. They pretty much ended after the Reign of Blood/Age of Apostasy. There still is - now they're called the Frater Militia, but they may be on a short vacation again.
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
That's an intentional distortion of the reason the Sisters of Battle exist, and you know it.
Dudeface wrote: It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
"40k is for everyone" doesn't mean "40k should cater to everyone". It it means anyone can join in. If you don't like what you find, then that's on you.
OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
You do know that the Imperium is a theocracy, right? Everyone is fighting for their religion. It's why they have crusades. Some are just way more open about it than others, and once again, that applies to both men and women. Hence zealots.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I am always curious when people say they want femarines, what are they hoping for?
Models from the ground up that are more svelte? Boob plate? Feminine faces (softer details and smaller chin)? Or just the exact some models but the fluff says some of them have don't have a cod in their codpiece?
Classy
We've already got the hyper fascist misogyny and transphobe accusations being thrown around. The classy ship sailed a while ago.
However, the question is at its core a reasonable and important one: what do people who want female Space Marines want from GW. There are several tiers imaginable:
- Female SM exist, but are visually identical to their male counterparts, so they need no specifically female models on the tabletop; their existence occasionally occurs in background works and in roleplaying campaigns etc.
- Female SM exist and are visually identifiable, but in a restrained way, similar to current AOS Stormcast or Warriors of Chaos; their existence occurs in background works, roleplaying, and via the odd model with a slightly more feminine general shape, a mix of male and female heads and torsos, and so on
- Female SM exist and are visually extremely distinct, with the WoW-style boob plate and exagerated waist-to-hip-ratio even in armour, to the point that their models need to be completely distinct from the generic Space Marine lineup and parts are usually not interchangeable; their existence is extremely visually present and changes the overall character of your army as it's obvious even from a distance.
That's all stuff that is still not 'fetishistic' but an accepted stylistic choice among different Fantasy/SciFi games, so each of those options could be a reasonable demand if one talks about 'Female Marines', but obviously these are worlds apart in their overall impact on the setting and its visuals.
See, I have advocated for option A. Since it makes sense and hurts no one.
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
That's an intentional distortion of the reason the Sisters of Battle exist, and you know it.
Dudeface wrote: It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
"40k is for everyone" doesn't mean "40k should cater to everyone". It it means anyone can join in. If you don't like what you find, then that's on you.
OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
You do know that the Imperium is a theocracy, right? Everyone is fighting for their religion. It's why they have crusades.
Some are just way more open about it than others, and once again, that applies to both men and women. Hence zealots.
You do know the adeptus sororitas is the militant arm of the ecclesiarchy right? That is the church's defined and supported military force. They do not allow men. That is a black and white situation.
My use of the term "fighting for their religion" was a little sloppy but you've intentionally avoided the point.
You do know that the Imperium is a theocracy, right? Everyone is fighting for their religion. It's why they have crusades.
Some are just way more open about it than others, and once again, that applies to both men and women. Hence zealots.
Not quite. Space Marines are still arguable atheistic with a potential superstition cult. They tolerate the Ecclesiarchy with resigned eye rolling more than devout worship.
Dudeface wrote: OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
There's no official standing army of men due to the Reign of Blood, and the Ministorum chose to approach this problem via using the letter of the law rather than the spirit, hence the Sisters of Battle. But there are plenty of non-sanctioned, non-official and non-standing forces fighting for the Ecclesiarchy everywhere. We see preachers fighting for the Imperium all the damned time. They've had rules since at least 2nd Ed.
But you know this. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone with the level of knowledge of 40k most people have there, thus I come back to my original point: You are intentionally distorting the facts of the Decree Passive to suit your argument. It is a brazen display of intellectual dishonesty.
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
That's an intentional distortion of the reason the Sisters of Battle exist, and you know it.
Dudeface wrote: It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
"40k is for everyone" doesn't mean "40k should cater to everyone". It it means anyone can join in. If you don't like what you find, then that's on you.
OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
You do know that the Imperium is a theocracy, right? Everyone is fighting for their religion. It's why they have crusades. Some are just way more open about it than others, and once again, that applies to both men and women. Hence zealots.
You do know the adeptus sororitas is the militant arm of the ecclesiarchy right? That is the church's defined and supported military force. They do not allow men. That is a black and white situation.
My use of the term "fighting for their religion" was a little sloppy but you've intentionally avoided the point.
No, I didn't avoid the point. Zealots fight for their religion. The Adeptus Mechanicus fight for their religion. Whenever the Imperial Guard shout "For the Emperor!" they are fighting for their religion because that is their god. They may not be as hardcore fanatics as zealots for the Sororitas, but they are still fighting for their religion. Just because it's not an answer you want to a poorly worded question doesn't mean that the point was "avoided".
See, I have advocated for option A. Since it makes sense and hurts no one.
Again:
And why will sisters still be S3, T3, 1W? If they go to S4, T4, 2W why shouldn't they get Terminator Armor? 2A and Primaris Organs? Squatted? Will we need female Special characters? Which is more misogynistic the Dark Angels for only having one female special character, or the Blood Angels having two little Vamps in Boobplate? It doesn't really matter what people want. Reversing themselves at this point would cause more problems than it fixes, and wouldn't even placate many of the people calling for the change. Will each order of Sisters be assigned to a specific Chapter for geneseed? Will they have to repaint their armor? Will they have to move into the Fortress Monastery? Or will they be sent out to open their own? How many sisters are in each order? Last info I have is about 3-4000 per order. Will they have to break up into new Chapters?
Dudeface wrote: OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
There's no official standing army of men due to the Reign of Blood, and the Ministorum chose to approach this problem via using the letter of the law rather than the spirit, hence the Sisters of Battle. But there are plenty of non-sanctioned, non-official and non-standing forces fighting for the Ecclesiarchy everywhere. We see preachers fighting for the Imperium all the damned time. They've had rules since at least 2nd Ed.
But you know this. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone with the level of knowledge of 40k most people have there, thus I come back to my original point: You are intentionally distorting the facts of the Decree Passive to suit your argument. It is a brazen display of intellectual dishonesty.
Stop it.
Yes you're, I do know this. I also know that the astartes creation process is meant to be keyed to the male biology. Weirdly one of these is a problem, where diversity should be an integral part of the story and game design. The other is some vastly supported intentional in-setting circumvention of a made up law via sexism, which is a-ok apparently.
I don't see how anyone can justify one and not the other. It's a parcel package, you can't demand inclusivity based on outdated gender discrimination for Marines then go "but yeah the all women army is fine".
Dudeface wrote: Chunks of it certainly are, hence where there is a faction of warrior nuns, because it'd be too dangerous having a standing force of men fighting for the church.
That's an intentional distortion of the reason the Sisters of Battle exist, and you know it.
Dudeface wrote: It is reductive but the point still stands, the setting is what it is, the people gatekeeping and attacking others personal choices aren't the game or its setting.
"40k is for everyone" doesn't mean "40k should cater to everyone". It it means anyone can join in. If you don't like what you find, then that's on you.
OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
You do know that the Imperium is a theocracy, right? Everyone is fighting for their religion. It's why they have crusades.
Some are just way more open about it than others, and once again, that applies to both men and women. Hence zealots.
You do know the adeptus sororitas is the militant arm of the ecclesiarchy right? That is the church's defined and supported military force. They do not allow men. That is a black and white situation.
My use of the term "fighting for their religion" was a little sloppy but you've intentionally avoided the point.
No, I didn't avoid the point.
Zealots fight for their religion. The Adeptus Mechanicus fight for their religion. Whenever the Imperial Guard shout "For the Emperor!" they are fighting for their religion because that is their god. They may not be as hardcore fanatics as zealots for the Sororitas, but they are still fighting for their religion.
Just because it's not an answer you want to a poorly worded question doesn't mean that the point was "avoided".
When you join a conversation about an absence of male sisters of battle, it is very much ignoring the context of the conversation.
You do know that the Imperium is a theocracy, right? Everyone is fighting for their religion. It's why they have crusades. Some are just way more open about it than others, and once again, that applies to both men and women. Hence zealots.
Not quite. Space Marines are still arguable atheistic with a potential superstition cult. They tolerate the Ecclesiarchy with resigned eye rolling more than devout worship.
Eh, Black Templars are pretty hardcore, but yeah Space Marines, ironically, are the least fanatical soldiers in the Imperium, as least when it comes to religion. They are fanatical in other ways, but faith isn't one of them. Which is weird, considering how they have chaplains, pray, live in monasteries, are partly inspired by knightly religious orders, etc.
I don't see how anyone can justify one and not the other. It's a parcel package, you can't demand inclusivity based on outdated gender discrimination for Marines then go "but yeah the all women army is fine".
It's pretty easy. First, I remind myself it's fiction, and I don't care if we have female marines or not, but we're already pretty well locked into Not in the fluff, the rules, and the market. A big monolithic government agency flaunting the spirit of the law by toeing right up to the letter of the law as a textbook example of "Power Corrupts" is both funny, and totally in keeping with the grim dark setting.
When you join a conversation about an absence of male sisters of battle, it is very much ignoring the context of the conversation.
When a poorly worded and vague question is asked, answering it is not "ignoring the context."
As to why there are no male sisters of battle, it's because of the Decree Passive, which was already explained. Fluff wise it was to explain why there's an all women army when the Church isn't legally supposed to have a fighting force.
Thematically they're supposed to be Nuns with Guns to Space Marine's Monks with...tonks? Bonks? I don't know a clever weapon pun that rhymes with monk, but you get the idea.
I don't see how anyone can justify one and not the other. It's a parcel package, you can't demand inclusivity based on outdated gender discrimination for Marines then go "but yeah the all women army is fine".
It's pretty easy. First, I remind myself it's fiction, and I don't care if we have female marines or not, but we're already pretty well locked into Not in the fluff, the rules, and the market. A big monolithic government agency flaunting the spirit of the law by toeing right up to the letter of the law as a textbook example of "Power Corrupts" is both funny, and totally in keeping with the grim dark setting.
So is a backwards scientifically ignorant stagnant empire just continuing to follow their previous ideas/creations in male space marines because they're unable to even consider testing females because "that's not how they did it the last 10k years".
To reiterate my personal stance: I'm against both female Marines and male sisters in the in universe fluff, I see no need to change it as it stands, as long as it's understood that people in the hobby should be free to create their own narrative and represent their hobby how they choose. I'm not going to refuse to play against a female space marine army, I wouldn't bat an eyelid and would happily have a chat about their story etc. But I don't think it needs writing into the core fluff.
Dudeface wrote: I'm not going to refuse to play against a female space marine army, I wouldn't bat an eyelid and would happily have a chat about their story etc. But I don't think it needs writing into the core fluff.
You're better than I am then. I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.
Dudeface wrote: OK explain to me, as others have done, why there are no males fighting for their religion, without making it arbitrarily about gender to exclude males please.
There's no official standing army of men due to the Reign of Blood, and the Ministorum chose to approach this problem via using the letter of the law rather than the spirit, hence the Sisters of Battle. But there are plenty of non-sanctioned, non-official and non-standing forces fighting for the Ecclesiarchy everywhere. We see preachers fighting for the Imperium all the damned time. They've had rules since at least 2nd Ed.
But you know this. I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone with the level of knowledge of 40k most people have there, thus I come back to my original point: You are intentionally distorting the facts of the Decree Passive to suit your argument. It is a brazen display of intellectual dishonesty.
Stop it.
Yes you're, I do know this. I also know that the astartes creation process is meant to be keyed to the male biology. Weirdly one of these is a problem, where diversity should be an integral part of the story and game design. The other is some vastly supported intentional in-setting circumvention of a made up law via sexism, which is a-ok apparently.
It's not sexism though. You're assigning malice.
Fun fact; Ireland's old law on the height of a boundary wall for your property used to read something to the effect of "not so tall as to impede the progress of a young man". Thats the same situation as the "men-at-arms" law in the Imperium. If an Irish farmer built their wall tall enough to impede old men, children and women but not young men then by word of the law it is legal. Circumventing it isn't sexism, its rules lawyering.
See, I have advocated for option A. Since it makes sense and hurts no one.
Again:
And why will sisters still be S3, T3, 1W? If they go to S4, T4, 2W why shouldn't they get Terminator Armor? 2A and Primaris Organs? Squatted? Will we need female Special characters? Which is more misogynistic the Dark Angels for only having one female special character, or the Blood Angels having two little Vamps in Boobplate? It doesn't really matter what people want. Reversing themselves at this point would cause more problems than it fixes, and wouldn't even placate many of the people calling for the change. Will each order of Sisters be assigned to a specific Chapter for geneseed? Will they have to repaint their armor? Will they have to move into the Fortress Monastery? Or will they be sent out to open their own? How many sisters are in each order? Last info I have is about 3-4000 per order. Will they have to break up into new Chapters?
Hurts no one?
Sisters are normal humans. Nutty ones, but standard and not bio-enhanced people.
The only change is people would be able to say 'This model was afab and called Garr. They had a tough life that made their trials to become a fully fledged battle brother seem easy. They were my favourite Tac. Marine to paint.' And for no one to reply 'but the lore...'
Dudeface wrote: I'm not going to refuse to play against a female space marine army, I wouldn't bat an eyelid and would happily have a chat about their story etc. But I don't think it needs writing into the core fluff.
You're better than I am then. I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.
I'm for female marines. Lore is no reason not to do it; lore has been changed and expanded before an it will be again.
Now if marines were some minor faction, this wouldn't be a big deal, but they're the massively over presented main faction, and that is not going to change.
And a big part of their appeal is that you can personalise them. Vampire marines? Sure! Viking marines? Go ahead! Mongol marines? Not a problem. Amazon marines? Get out of here!
I think it would just enrichen the settin to open up this avenue of personalisation too. And It wouldn't require much from GW. Just acknowledge in some throwaway sentence that whilst rare, female marines are possible. And perhaps have some feminine marine heads in some upgrade sprue.* As far as I know, most people who want female marines don't want extensive range redesign with boobplates etc.
* With converting female marines finding properly sized heads is the hurdle. Most GW's female heads look way too tiny.
I'm for female marines. Lore is no reason not to do it; lore has been changed and expanded before an it will be again.
Now if marines were some minor faction, this wouldn't be a big deal, but they're the massively over presented main faction, and that is not going to change.
And a big part of their appeal is that you can personalise them. Vampire marines? Sure! Viking marines? Go ahead! Mongol marines? Not a problem. Amazon marines? Get out of here!
I think it would just enrichen the settin to open up this avenue of personalisation too. And It wouldn't require much from GW. Just acknowledge in some throwaway sentence that whilst rare, female marines are possible. And perhaps have some feminine marine heads in some upgrade sprue.* As far as I know, most people who want female marines don't want extensive range redesign with boobplates etc.
* With converting female marines finding properly sized heads is the hurdle. Most GW's female heads look way too tiny.
Seems to me that an obvious counterpoint is that you didn't need GW to greenlight your cool conversions though. You're already free to personalize away without changing the setting.
Seems to me that an obvious counterpoint is that you didn't need GW to greenlight your cool conversions though. You're already free to personalize away without changing the setting.
True. I could have used some plastic female marine heads though.
I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.
Seems to me that an obvious counterpoint is that you didn't need GW to greenlight your cool conversions though. You're already free to personalize away without changing the setting.
True. I could have used some plastic female marine heads though.
I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.
I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.
Sim-Life wrote: You can already do the first one if you want ...
I mean, sure, you can... but the actual model range that you see when you walk into a store is all corsets and boob plate. Which is fine if you want that sort of thing, but off-putting if you want a more practically-armoured force.
Considering what SoB are inspired by and in essence fundamentally even technically space marines before primaris became an entirely unnecessary thing... If that aesthethique is off-putting then it is fair to say that 40k is not for you.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
So it really does boil down to it must be done in the specific way you want or it can't exist. Gotcha. Still disagree with it.
Uh, what? You're the one claiming that a fictional battle should be granted the same validity as real life ones. You don't see that?
Insectum7 wrote:
Lammia wrote: Twelve dudes made a dude who made 20 dudes in his image without anyone asking 'what if dudette?' is how it started. Things could be different but no one has ever wondered or questioned or self reflected at any point.
Genuinely, I think that's one of the most compelling aspects about it.
Not "because science" but "because backwards".
So why does the Imperium recruit women soldiers, support non-binary and trans- identities, and is institutionally egalitarian?
The Imperium IS backwards, but gender is not one of them, and that's been the case the entire time. For someone who likes to fall back on old lore, I'd have hoped you'd have known this.
Just Tony wrote:The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Lizard people aren't real. Space Marines are trans-human, and look humanoid. Not the same thing.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
haha purple hair and pronouns, what a funny joke. /j
Breton wrote:
Deadnight wrote: Marines are a blank slate. They can be anything. Despite the 'crusading warrior monk' schtick, they dont even have to be that - my Raptors say hi, for example. Val the bloody hander slayer of arcturus from the Nordic themed Thor's Hammers chapter of Astartes has as much crossover with Sororitas as an ork.
You're confusing and conflating either their pre-induction lives or someone's fanfic non-canon chapter fluff. Every chapter I've ever read about still has some sort of warrior monk religious aspect inside the chapter even if it may be as different in details as the Ultramarines and the Mortifactors. You're still going to find greco-roman dagger wrestling matches between two Marines in loincloths.
That's simply not true. Space Wolves lack nearly all religious aspects. The Raptors, likewise, are nearly entirely tacticool.
The "religious" nature of Astartes Chapters is not to be conflated with cultural customs. We're looking at ideas of *veneration* or of *spirituality* when it comes to religion. Most Astartes Chapters don't do that, at least, no more so than ANY Imperial culture does.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic?
I'm sorry, did you miss where Hec here asked for people to JUSTIFY trans ideology? Why the hell does that need justifying?
Just Tony wrote:You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Would you say that about Primaris Marines ten years ago? Aircraft? Grav-weapons? Centurions?
Seems a little weird, your fixation on participation trophies. Did you not get one, and all the other kids did?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't really care if lore reasons can be invented to either disallow or allow femarines, I'd simply prefer the astartes to remain big burly dudes rather than big burly women.
Why not both? You can have your Astartes as big burly men, but why not other people have both? I suppose my comment here is less why "I'd simply prefer the Astartes to..." and why not "I'd simply prefer MY Astartes to..." because that's really all I'm asking.
Hecaton wrote: That's not even the argument, since it's almost entirely men wanting to have female space marines in their armies.
Hi. Not a man. What's your take on that?
Generally, yeah, because people from that discipline often make a butchery of biology as a science.
I'm very left wing but I put my stock in actual science.
Gender isn't science - it's a cultural construct. Please, commit reading. Oh, and also to actual biology too, because you're still vastly outdated.
Just Tony wrote:Oh, and it's "strawperson"...
And case in point on mocking transphobia. Do you get tired of this?
Hecaton wrote:The lore says nothing about the gender identity of the people involved.
The lore calls Astartes he and him and brother. Gendered pronouns, baybee.
The Imperium commits genocide of children born missing limbs, with harelips, etc at birth - that's part of the atrocity that comes with its system.
Nah buddy, you've made this comment before - and you've still never backed it up. Show us these EXACT comments where the Imperium does these on an INSTITUTIONAL level.
In my eyes the pro-FSM crowd are a step away from being in line with the people that statement had to be put out about - as soon as space marines are gender integrated they're all aboard the fantasy space fascism/genocide train. It's a failure in morality on their part.
So, you're saying that FSM fans are pro-fascist because they want to see women toy soldiers? Gods, you're genuinely delusional. You're explicitly calling me a fascist. How the hell are are still here?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I don't find the lore arguments to be particularly compelling regardless of whether they're for or against femarines.
Lore can be changed if people want to change lore. Even without GW telling you that you can change the lore, 40k is a setting more than rigid immovable history, make your own lore and do whatever the hell you want. You can have Ork Space Marines for all I care.
I personally don't want femarines, but at the same time, if that's your thing, I'm happy for you to want that, and if you go out of your way to convert them, more power to you, I'll happily play against you, I'm not going to say it's something you're not allowed to do.
Now, I do agree with this, and appreciate your willingness to let people do as they want to - HOWEVER, unfortunately, some people will still use that lore as a cudgel. And, personally, I think if they're incapable of playing nicely in the sandbox, they need their toys taken away. It's not hard - the kids who can play nicely with other kids get to have fun, and those who can't are shown the door. Again - no-one wants to change anyone else's own army. Just giving people choice is enough.
Just Tony wrote:There isn't an eyeroll emoji strong enough. I don't need official GW validation to have a Lithuanian/Irish descent based Marines chapter if I felt this overwhelming urge to be as self-fellating as some here, you don't need official GW validation to have FSM in your Chapter or a whole FSM chapter.
You can have that, but you'll find very few people kicking up a stink if you show up with Lithuanian/Irish inspired models. Meanwhile, we have Breton here in the thread outright saying that they'd be trying to refuse a game against someone who played FSM, and first hand experience from many of us here who have experienced people crying when they see a FSM about how "it doesn't fit with the lore".
This is the kind of stuff we mean by that FSM is apparently a bridge too far. No-one cares when people make their own homebrew chapters, as long as they don't include women - because then, all hell breaks loose.
Tsagualsa wrote:What do people who want female Space Marines want from GW. There are several tiers imaginable:
- Female SM exist, but are visually identical to their male counterparts, so they need no specifically female models on the tabletop; their existence occasionally occurs in background works and in roleplaying campaigns etc.
- Female SM exist and are visually identifiable, but in a restrained way, similar to current AOS Stormcast or Warriors of Chaos; their existence occurs in background works, roleplaying, and via the odd model with a slightly more feminine general shape, a mix of male and female heads and torsos, and so on
Combination of the above. Body shape is indistinguishable, no need for alternate bodies. When helmeted, also no distinction. When unhelmed, due to the fact that we have masculine-presenting heads, we should also have femme-presenting heads too. The other solution is that masc-presenting heads are removed, and replaced with entirely inhuman heads - ie, MASSIVELY scarred and disfigured, full of augmentics, gender-indistinguishable.
Basically, we remove gendered appearance entirely, or allow for non-masculine features to be present in the heads alone.
Breton wrote:I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.
One hell of an assumption. I have FSM, and am non-binary and queer. You think I'd call you that if you were winning?
Crimson wrote:Now if marines were some minor faction, this wouldn't be a big deal, but they're the massively over presented main faction, and that is not going to change.
And a big part of their appeal is that you can personalise them. Vampire marines? Sure! Viking marines? Go ahead! Mongol marines? Not a problem. Amazon marines? Get out of here!
Absolutely this. I don't complain that Custodes are all male, because they're a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of GW's marketing. But Space Marines - they're the flagship. That won't change any time soon. They're also the "hey folks, we released a chibi Space Marines advent calendar! Oh, and a Paint-Your-Own Funko Pop! And a paint your own fully articulated mini! See how much customisation you can have with your Space Marines!" On a purely marketing level, why on earth should the flagship faction be so much of an ex-sausage party?
That is but ONE of many reasons, but it's the biggest argument as to why Space Marines, and not any others.
Spoiler:
* With converting female marines finding properly sized heads is the hurdle. Most GW's female heads look way too tiny.
Gods I do love that work.
Insectum7 wrote:Seems to me that an obvious counterpoint is that you didn't need GW to greenlight your cool conversions though. You're already free to personalize away without changing the setting.
It doesn't stop people from saying "COOL BUT THE LORE SAYS..."
If you haven't seen those sorts of comments, you're a lucky person. I've seen Crimson's art/conversions in various places across the interwebs, and they invariably have a comment like that left on them.
a_typical_hero wrote:If somebody wants to be a dick about you or your models, they will find a way. No amount of officiall regulation from GW will change that.
But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?
Disarm them. Remove their veneer of legitimacy. Take away their ability to use the lore as a hammer to smash down people's ideas. They'll get the message.
@Crimson:
Imo the (loyalist) Primarchs returning and the galaxy splitting in two were already pretty awful changes. And I know you know my feelings on Primaris
As for "net positive", I can see why one would think/want that too. But to me it feels like activism in a place/way where I'd rather it isn't.
Female Custodes are much more palatable to me. That's a change I happily advocate for.
Crimson wrote: I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.
I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.
I also think you'd still see hate anyways.
Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?
Crimson wrote: I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.
I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.
I also think you'd still see hate anyways.
Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?
Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.
Crimson wrote: I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.
I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.
I also think you'd still see hate anyways.
Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?
Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more) instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.
Sim-Life wrote: You can already do the first one if you want ...
I mean, sure, you can... but the actual model range that you see when you walk into a store is all corsets and boob plate. Which is fine if you want that sort of thing, but off-putting if you want a more practically-armoured force.
Considering what SoB are inspired by and in essence fundamentally even technically space marines before primaris became an entirely unnecessary thing
This simply isn't true.
Astartes:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Genetically enhanced
- Existed as long as the Imperium
- Multitudes of different warfare styles
- Aesthetic and cultural variety
- Entirely independent
Sororitas:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Humans
- Existed for only a portion of the Imperium's history, missing out on the Heresy
- Flame, melta, bolter, and not that many alternative fighting methods (no stealth, aerial insertion, Terminator heavy, etc)
- One showcased aesthetic, that of pseudo-Catholicism
- Subservient to the Ecclesiarchy
... If that aesthethique is off-putting then it is fair to say that 40k is not for you.
Not all aesthetics in 40k are that of the SoB though. Someone can enjoy 40k and not enjoy the RANGE of aesthetics that the different factions have. Tau have a very different aesthetic to the Sisters, who have a different one to the Votann, who have a different one to the Tyranids. However, when the only women army uses a very limited aesthetic range, that's not great, is it?
Compared to Astartes who are encouraged to be varied.
Insectum7 wrote:As for "net positive", I can see why one would think/want that too. But to me it feels like activism in a place/way where I'd rather it isn't.
Including women isn't activism. It's just being reflective in your flagship product of 50% of the population. Being inclusive isn't activism.
Female Custodes are much more palatable to me. That's a change I happily advocate for.
Why Custodes, and not Astartes? Isn't that "activist"?
Crimson wrote: I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.
I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.
I also think you'd still see hate anyways.
Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?
Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more) instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.
What is with your obsession with breasts? No one is saying people want that, but people keep bringing it up.
Not Online!!! wrote:Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.
Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?
Just a thought?
EviscerationPlague wrote:Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more)
Yeah, just like how GW has also released more and more and more Space Marines. You want a new JoyToy Marine?
instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.
Who asked for boobplate and makeup? Is that what you're after?
Or can you only imagine women as having breasts and makeup?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?
Because the problem is not the fiction, but the person you are playing with.
Change the lore and that guy will find the next "flaw" to make a comment about about.
Change the person and all the possible lore of past present and future doesn't matter.
Sure - but are we going to accept the idea that we can't do anything about that, or it's not our problem? Don't we want to make the community kinder? Don't we want to show the door to people who are incapable of being at the very least empathetic, or just not throwing a fit over what heads your plastic models use?
It's all well and good to say "well, they're just gonna do it anyways, it doesn't matter what we do" - what's the point in doing anything that way? We wouldn't need errata or balance patches for 40k, because "power gamers will power game", or we wouldn't need to punish cheaters because "cheaters will always cheat".
Crimson wrote: I used to think that it doesn't really mater, but after witnessing the bizarre hostility (I don't mean this thread) that posting female space marine pictures on internet elicits, I support GW canonising the concept.
I can understand that sentiment in response to hostility, but I just don't think it's a good enough reason.
I also think you'd still see hate anyways.
Maybe. But why continue giving them the chance to claim legitimacy?
Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more) instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.
What is with your obsession with breasts? No one is saying people want that, but people keep bringing it up.
You obviously haven't seen a majority of fan art for female Marines or even SoB fan art in general. It's all over IG and Facebook, and that doesn't even count the degenerates on DeviantArt.
Not Online!!! wrote:Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.
Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?
Just a thought?
EviscerationPlague wrote:Because the easiest route is to just give other factions more fluff and models (which has been asked for and been done more and more)
Yeah, just like how GW has also released more and more and more Space Marines. You want a new JoyToy Marine?
instead of changing lore to fulfill your desire for boobplate Marines with makeup on.
Who asked for boobplate and makeup? Is that what you're after?
Or can you only imagine women as having breasts and makeup?
They released a SoB JoyToy, so that made your argument incredibly irrelevant.
Also yeah, if you hadn't noticed, fan art for female Marines and SoB in general give more pronounced boobplate and makeup. You can feel free to deny it, but it's not what a majority of that art is: fetishism.
Not Online!!! wrote:Why do you think it deligitimises you, that is a whole diffrent discussion.
Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?
Just a thought?
considering your reaction, no i don't think so, i think bluntly and that sounds way ruder than it is intended, that this is an issue of your selfesteem and or your hobby skills and or hobby group.
Is it against the lore? Yes. Is that a valid reason to point out or even avoid a match against your army? yes, for people that value the setting and lore that is more than fair enough to decline but that can and will be done against any other army that doesn't fit 40k by some people.
When the only comment is, that it isn't cannon, well yes so what? if someone loses their gak then you didn't want to play them anyways because chances are they take themselves too serious anyways.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sure - but are we going to accept the idea that we can't do anything about that, or it's not our problem? Don't we want to make the community kinder? Don't we want to show the door to people who are incapable of being at the very least empathetic, or just not throwing a fit over what heads your plastic models use?
It's all well and good to say "well, they're just gonna do it anyways, it doesn't matter what we do" - what's the point in doing anything that way? We wouldn't need errata or balance patches for 40k, because "power gamers will power game", or we wouldn't need to punish cheaters because "cheaters will always cheat".
Don't we want to safeguard our community?
You can (and should) do this already. Do you want to tell me you suffer through a whole game of snarky and disrespectful comments, but if GW writes female Marines into the lore, you would step up in the very same situation? And then you would only do it about comments regarding female Marines, but if they find the next thing, you will endure it again, until something official is done about it?
Dudes*, if some donkey is showing disruptive behaviour in your community, speak up. And if they don't want to correct their behaviour, throw them out of your community. This has nothing to do at all with what the offical story is or not.
Sim-Life wrote: You can already do the first one if you want ...
I mean, sure, you can... but the actual model range that you see when you walk into a store is all corsets and boob plate. Which is fine if you want that sort of thing, but off-putting if you want a more practically-armoured force.
Considering what SoB are inspired by and in essence fundamentally even technically space marines before primaris became an entirely unnecessary thing
This simply isn't true.
Astartes:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Genetically enhanced
- Existed as long as the Imperium
- Multitudes of different warfare styles
- Aesthetic and cultural variety
- Entirely independent
Sororitas:
- Power armour
- Bolters
- Humans
- Existed for only a portion of the Imperium's history, missing out on the Heresy
- Flame, melta, bolter, and not that many alternative fighting methods (no stealth, aerial insertion, Terminator heavy, etc)
- One showcased aesthetic, that of pseudo-Catholicism
- Subservient to the Ecclesiarchy
... If that aesthethique is off-putting then it is fair to say that 40k is not for you.
Not all aesthetics in 40k are that of the SoB though. Someone can enjoy 40k and not enjoy the RANGE of aesthetics that the different factions have. Tau have a very different aesthetic to the Sisters, who have a different one to the Votann, who have a different one to the Tyranids. However, when the only women army uses a very limited aesthetic range, that's not great, is it?
Compared to Astartes who are encouraged to be varied.
Yet, we see, priests (chaplains), knightly armour and swords, cross symbology, double headed eagles ala HRE/ Religious symbol on marines all the time....
So no, you are wrong on the list already and secondly, Eldar, Dark Eldar and tau also exist and are esthethiqually quite diverse, especialy if you consider corsairs or the differing subgroups of deldar and if you don't want to field PA then the guard and a whole slew of regiments to your liking exist and may only require slightly more effort to field..
Uh, what? You're the one claiming that a fictional battle should be granted the same validity as real life ones. You don't see that?
This is your claim down here.
Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?
Just a thought?
So if a historical donkey cave is insulting your models it's fine because it's a valid battle, but not for fictional ones?
I am interested in if the Astartes are even humans anymore.
If the Sci magic that takes a baseline Human and turns them into Astartes could be used on both Females and Males wouldn't the end result be something that qualifies as something new rather than their previous forms?
Lore states countless times that Astartes are something separate and a step or two removed from the humanity of the Imperium.
I guess my question is what distinction could be made between former Males and Females that have undergone transformation?
Would there be any physical distinction?
I am of the opinion that physiologically Astartes are inhuman monsters (to the baseline) A transformation Including Females would show little variation. (Geneseed and Chapter depending).
So, if there is no outward difference in appearance the 'value' of both Female and Males aspirants for Astartes transformation exists only for in game lore.
If this leaves a change to be made in the current lore does it even matter to have the change in the first place?
Could GW writers be trusted to make such a change impactful and meaningful?
Obviously this just my opinion informed by my own experiences.
Crimson wrote: I'm for female marines. Lore is no reason not to do it; lore has been changed and expanded before an it will be again.
Now if marines were some minor faction, this wouldn't be a big deal, but they're the massively over presented main faction, and that is not going to change.
And a big part of their appeal is that you can personalise them. Vampire marines? Sure! Viking marines? Go ahead! Mongol marines? Not a problem. Amazon marines? Get out of here!
I think it would just enrichen the settin to open up this avenue of personalisation too. And It wouldn't require much from GW. Just acknowledge in some throwaway sentence that whilst rare, female marines are possible. And perhaps have some feminine marine heads in some upgrade sprue.* As far as I know, most people who want female marines don't want extensive range redesign with boobplates etc.
* With converting female marines finding properly sized heads is the hurdle. Most GW's female heads look way too tiny.
Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.
If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.
However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.
I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.
Personally, I have no real dog in this fight. I play a set of games where male/female/other characters have been baked in an equally represented from day 1. But if people want FSM then they will have to prove that it’s a profitable move overall for the company.
So what? The entire marine creation process is technobabble nonsense, nothing about it has anything to do with real science. Having female bodies react the same as male bodies wouldn't be any less scientifically accurate than the rest of the marine creation lore. And none of it is any more essential to the setting than various other things GW has retconned in the past. If marines can have air superiority fighters then the marine creation process can be retconned to work on women.
Well, the poster I was replying to said that male and female human bodies were so similar that it was impossible to conceive of a process that would work on male humans but not female humans. That's obviously trivially disprovable and that's what my post was about.
With respect to what you're saying, you haven't really established that it's better to have FSM than not, so you don't have a premise that your conclusion can follow from.
For what it's worth, I agree that Astartes should never have had air superiority fighters.
Sunno wrote: Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.
If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.
However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.
I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.
I agree with this too. Right now GW has plenty of evidence that many of those who want female Marines will just make them by already buying GWs minis.
Sunno wrote: Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.
If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.
However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.
I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.
I agree with this too. Right now GW has plenty of evidence that many of those who want female Marines will just make them by already buying GWs minis.
They can put out a sprue of accessories then for conversions. Bam! Money made.
This topic always feels like a bait. But we are 13 pages inn and it is not banned yet so that is a good sign.
I would love female space marines. I see no reasons not to have it.
For one I would like them in my space wolves. Every head swap I have looked at does not fit (although I have not tried since Votan came out.)
Second I would really like more gender diversity in my 40k. I love it on my GSC and DE. Adding female space marines would cover a lot of ground.
I would love more gender diversity in my local gaming group. Representation theory tells us that more representation would lover the treshold for playing for unrepresented groups.
Lastly and this is maybe a hot button issue I generally dislike the people I interact with who do not want female space marines. Not because they do not female marines. Call it rather and accidental statistik.
I also think this would be very easy to implement. Just either rewrite the lore. Or just have Caws fix it like he fixed the space wolves. Add some alternative head swaps in new releases. Maiby even a conversion sprue that they sell separately for existing models. Do it in an edition shift
So wait, when did we shift to "But they aren't human!" argument? Because the sisters are basically not human. Show me a base human, or even Astartes, that can weaponize their believe in their god, without turning to Chaos. Seriously. This keeps coming up that the sisters are humans, but I doubt very much that they have the literal exact same DNA as say, the smelt worker down in the base level of the Hive.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So wait, when did we shift to "But they aren't human!" argument? Because the sisters are basically not human. Show me a base human, or even Astartes, that can weaponize their believe in their god, without turning to Chaos. Seriously. This keeps coming up that the sisters are humans, but I doubt very much that they have the literal exact same DNA as say, the smelt worker down in the base level of the Hive.
Well you have random Psykers appearing in the population, maybe this is like that?
Hellebore wrote: The only pro human genetics supporting male only marines arguments I've seen are 'because testosterone', which I've already provided counter arguments to.
That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
Hellebore wrote: Until you've got something more than Y chromosomes, SRY genes or testosterone as justifications, I've not seen any science argument that supports a default basis for female exclusion.
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
The reason this doesn't make sense is the 55-80 genes that exist on the Y chromosome have very little effect. You're holding them up to be something they're not. The SRY gene is the main sex determinant gene and all it does is convert a gonad that produces testosterone regardless of its final form.
There's nothing special about them that is integral to our biology. Most of those integral genes are on the X chromosome, hence why men are most often affected by X linked genetic disorders.
There are plenty of examples of androgen insensitivity causing female phenotypic appearance, and hypersensitivity in women causing masculine appearance. PCOS alone can cause masculinisation and it's ENTIRELY caused by an ovary, not a teste.
The AR receptor is not an exclusively male receptor, because women of course use androgens in the normal hormonal function and use the same receptors to interact with them.
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/gene/ar/#synonyms
This is the point. Testosterone is not an exclusively Y chromosomal or even male hormone. It plays the same role in men and women. It uses the same receptor network in men and women.
There is no logical way you explain how any of the genes on the Y which are all pretty much related to either testosterone, gonad differentiation or spermatogensis, would be NECESSARY in order to control, monitor, or otherwise interact with any of the new organs a marine has.
The Ossmodula and the biscopia both secrete their own hormones to generate their intended effect, requiring no dependence on any existing hormones. The mucranoid is a sweat based organ, again not related to any specific sex determined functions. The oolitic kidney has nothing to do with sex, and kidneys don't need sex determination in order to grow.
The list goes on. Can you point to something in the marine implant regime that you can logically connect to genes that are exclusive to the male genome? Because all I see are organs that are versions of existing ones, or new ones that have nothing to do with testes, or organs that secrect their OWN hormones to generate function.
Hellebore wrote: And as I've said, excluding women from the process for a fictional cultural reason is a separate thing that obviously can happen. And the discussion should be around that.
But too many times I've seen people who just don't want there to be female marines fall back on 'well the emperor's science said it wasn't possible' when there's no genetic support for that that I've actually seen put forward.
I've put it forward before in threads on this topic. But, predictably, the pro-FSM crowd ignores that and starts back with spreading their BS in the next thread when it comes up, because truth is not a value that crowd holds dear.
Well I've been providing links and arguments, all I've seen from you is 'my science proves your science wrong' and ad hominem attacks based on your personal opinion of certain areas of study. For someone claiming to be led by the science you aren't coming across particularly scientific.
'upregulating genes on the y chromosome' is a nothing response, because there's nothing on the Y chromosome that producing more of will do anything like what is needed in the organs marines have. Extra SRY? Doesn't do anything. The SRY protein distorts DNA to prevent activation of genes for female reproductive growth and differentiates gonads to testes. Creating more does nothing and it has no involvement in the effects of other organs in the body.
Zinc finger proteins? Well let's make sure that marines have sperm that super shuts down X or Y chromsomes during spermatogensis.
As I said originally, you could probably deliberately design organs that somehow have to connect through these Y chromosome genes to function, but there is nothing on the chromosome that in any way would be vital to function or existence of artificial organs that are based on existing ones whose genes are nowhere near the Y chromosome.
So my point still stands - the Y chromosome has nothing of value that needs to be involved in any non sex-organ function for it work, both real or created. And thus, there is nothing to suggest that marine organs would require exclusively male genomes to function, unless they deliberately through some stupidly convoluted process made it that way on purpose.
There is no need for an oolitic kidney to require a Y chromosome to function when a normal one doesn't.
I've put it forward before in threads on this topic. But, predictably, the pro-FSM crowd ignores that and starts back with spreading their BS in the next thread when it comes up, because truth is not a value that crowd holds dear.
Don’t start putting out blanket statements like that, it’s unnecessary and inflammatory.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So wait, when did we shift to "But they aren't human!" argument? Because the sisters are basically not human. Show me a base human, or even Astartes, that can weaponize their believe in their god, without turning to Chaos. Seriously. This keeps coming up that the sisters are humans, but I doubt very much that they have the literal exact same DNA as say, the smelt worker down in the base level of the Hive.
Where does it say that the Sisters receive the same levels of modifications of marines? Do they have a "belief" organ shoved into them at the age of 16? You are aware that this is a setting where belief is an actual force that can have a tangible effect, yes?
Sunno wrote: Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.
If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.
However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.
I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.
I agree with this too. Right now GW has plenty of evidence that many of those who want female Marines will just make them by already buying GWs minis.
They can put out a sprue of accessories then for conversions. Bam! Money made.
They did that, and released it in the Imperial Guard Infantry Squad box.
Why would any space marine choose to identify as any gender at all and thusly, why would anybody bother using gendered terms for them? He might just be the default gender for them in 40k because Marines are created from male genetic stock and have never expressed a desire to be addressed differently.
The Grim Dark future probably isn't a very inclusive space and people medically transitioning might be executed if they do so in a way that makes them less productive and less fecund and the Imperium needs breeders.
I say this as somebody who's working out gender feelings of my own, I may well be trans but we'll see when I get to a point where I can act on it, and who likes inclusive properties. I don't need the stuff I liked because it was a horrible dystopia that I would never want to visit to be more like the light-hearted fluff that makes my queer little heart sing.
I could see GW attempting to side step the whole thing by 'Primaris'ising the Sisters.
Cawl/Guilliman provide a geneseed suite to the convents and rebuild them into a supersoldier force.
Maybe after they curb the ecclesiarchy's power and pull it back under true imperial control?
So they still provide the opportunity for super human women in the setting, they just don't suffer the outrage of marine players by making chapters co-ed...
My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.
Sometimes its just about changing for the sake of changing and the psychological rewards for doing so.
Hellebore wrote: I could see GW attempting to side step the whole thing by 'Primaris'ising the Sisters.
Cawl/Guilliman provide a geneseed suite to the convents and rebuild them into a supersoldier force.
Maybe after they curb the ecclesiarchy's power and pull it back under true imperial control?
So they still provide the opportunity for super human women in the setting, they just don't suffer the outrage of marine players by making chapters co-ed...
I'd rather that happen to the Sisters of Silence. The Sororitas being badass humans who pray the evil away is sort of their appeal. SoS is in greater need of a revamp and range expansion.
Table wrote: What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only?
If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.
Hellebore wrote: I could see GW attempting to side step the whole thing by 'Primaris'ising the Sisters.
Cawl/Guilliman provide a geneseed suite to the convents and rebuild them into a supersoldier force.
Maybe after they curb the ecclesiarchy's power and pull it back under true imperial control?
So they still provide the opportunity for super human women in the setting, they just don't suffer the outrage of marine players by making chapters co-ed...
I'd rather that happen to the Sisters of Silence. The Sororitas being badass humans who pray the evil away is sort of their appeal.
SoS is in greater need of a revamp and range expansion.
Yeah I was all keen on Sisters of Silence, and then I saw their stats. It was especially dissapointing when they were released alongside Custodes.
By the Emperor, the lads in this thread are sweating over this and pointing fingers. I don't think they should be added to the lore but official kits would be welcomed.
If it's profitable, the management at GW will add female marines.
Having official BL books with female marines? Depends if the author does a good job for the audience to accept it. Depends entirely on how they present it.
Your headcannon can be whatever you'd like and other folks opinions shouldn't really affect your man dollies and little toy soliders. It's a child's toy sold by a business. We as adults can partake in the hobby but the hobby is defined differently. Some read books, some paint models, some play video games.
Table wrote: What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only?
If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.
Agree. It's important to understand that they're not on equal footing. It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's part of the equation.
Table wrote: My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.
Sometimes its just about changing for the sake of changing and the psychological rewards for doing so.
I don't think so.
GW have a very clear get out of segregation free card for the sisters in their 'men under arms' decree, which is trivially simple to repeal.
You're falling into a trap that a lot of people do when anyone brings up real social justice issues. A person calling for a particular minority to receive support is not responsible for representing all social justice causes and it doesn't invalidate their position if they didn't include every other possible group in their argument. That argument is for that, and another for another.
You are more than welcome to start a thread discussing male sororitas as a separate issue, so long as IT isn't in bad faith as an attempted 'gotcha' argument against female marine supporters.
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Table wrote: My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. .
Is the answer that having them be a single gender doesn't actually make sense?
Frankly, I'd much rather the Decree Passive be retconned into limiting the Ecclesiarchy to forces under a specific size, and having the rule creatively skirted or ignored in certain regions, rather than the current 'See, they're not men, hur hur...' thing.
People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.
I mean, people have been pushing for female model representation in the Guard for decades now. Discussions around inclusion have been fairly common, particularly whenever GW releases a female model as it brings it to the forefront again. This isn't a new phenomena, nor is it exclusive to Marines. It's just amplified for Marines because they're the poster faction in the game, and because some people are so vehemently against it.
Dismissing it as 'bad faith' brings nothing productive to the discussion.
Dudeface wrote: I also know that the astartes creation process is meant to be keyed to the male biology.
And why can't we just accept that? Why does that have to be something that changes? We accept everything else at face value, but not that. Why?
Dudeface wrote: Weirdly one of these is a problem, where diversity should be an integral part of the story and game design.
Diversity has no inherent value when it exists only for the sake of existing. That's basically tokenism, and tokenism helps no one.
Dudeface wrote: The other is some vastly supported intentional in-setting circumvention of a made up law via sexism, which is a-ok apparently.
You're assigning a motive that just isn't there.
The Decree Passive had nothing to do with sexism or gender. It was an attempt to stop the Adeptus Ministorum from having an army, because that's what led to the Reign of Blood. I imagine it went something a little like this:
Adeptus Ministorum Representitive: You cannot curtail the Ecclesiarchy! High Lords Representitve: Your forces nearly tore the Imperium asunder! AdMinRep: We are the sword of the God-Emperor! HighLordRep: We have put a new measure in place. AdMinRep: You will never get away with this! HighLordRep: The Decree Passive forever prevent you from having men under arms. AdMinRep: You will rue the da... hold on, say that last part again? HighLordRep: No men under arms. AdMinRep: No men under arms? HighLordRep: That's what I just said. AdMinRep: *beat* Ok, sure. We can live with that. HighLordRep: Really? Because a minute ago you were adamant- AdMinRep: No, no! You are completely right. There has been too much fighting already. The Imperium has enough enemies without us fighting amongst ourselves, amirite? HighLordRep: Well... ok then.
*6 months later*
HighLordRep: We need to talk about all these troops you have. AdMinRep: The Adepta Sorortias! Glorious, aren't they! Devout followers. Expert fighters. True beacons of the Emperor's Grace. HighLordRep: I distinctly remember saying- AdMinRep: No men under arms, yes, we heard you. And, as you can see, we have none. HighLordRep: Y'know, that's not really what we meant when we sai- AdMinRep: Hey, buddy, you're the one who wrote the rules. We're just following them!
No sexism. No misogyny. No other motive you want to heap upon it.
The only fact of all this is that the Adeptus Ministorum was told they couldn't have an army, didn't want to comply, so found a convenient loophole in the wording of the Decree Passive and exploited that to the nth degree.
Dudeface wrote: I don't see how anyone can justify one and not the other. It's a parcel package, you can't demand inclusivity based on outdated gender discrimination for Marines then go "but yeah the all women army is fine".
That argument only works if your core premise, that Marines are only male because of "outdated gender discrimination", is true. You haven't proven that, and I doubt you ever could.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: What is with your obsession with breasts? No one is saying people want that, but people keep bringing it up.
You obviously haven't seen a majority of fan art for female Marines or even SoB fan art in general. It's all over IG and Facebook, and that doesn't even count the degenerates on DeviantArt.
You obviously haven't seen the examples posted here in this thread of non-fetishised FSM, of my own FSM, and the comments of multiple users here rejecting those ideas.
Plus, if we're going to be making the statement that a few (distasteful) pictures are indicative of everyone who plays that faction, what does that say for Eldar and Dark Eldar players. Slaanesh daemons? Tyranids? And, if it's "all over" IG and facebook, that's because of YOUR search algorithm. So, you tell me - why are you looking for it? Because I've never seen it, and I'm very well established in FSM groups.
So, care to elaborate?
They released a SoB JoyToy, so that made your argument incredibly irrelevant.
Yes. A. Singular. Good job, you can count! Now, how many Space Marine ones? How many unpainted Space Marine versions? And where's my Sisters of Battle chibi advent calendar?
Also yeah, if you hadn't noticed, fan art for female Marines and SoB in general give more pronounced boobplate and makeup. You can feel free to deny it, but it's not what a majority of that art is: fetishism.
And is the art community indicative of the entire fandom? If so, what does that say for Eldar players, Daemons players, and so on. Or, better yet, 40k players as a whole?
Not Online!!! wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?
Just a thought?
considering your reaction, no i don't think so, i think bluntly and that sounds way ruder than it is intended, that this is an issue of your selfesteem and or your hobby skills and or hobby group.
And I think bluntly and this sounds ruder than it is intended, but that's an issue of your lack of empathy and self-centredness.
As you said, thinking bluntly.
Is it against the lore? Yes. Is that a valid reason to point out or even avoid a match against your army? yes, for people that value the setting and lore that is more than fair enough to decline but that can and will be done against any other army that doesn't fit 40k by some people.
I value the setting. I don't value ALL of it, because the setting is large enough that it's a sandbox and should be there to promote creativity.
I value the setting's ability to uplift and encourage people, not to gak on their work.
And besides - if someone "values" the setting and hates the idea of Space Marine aircraft before they became canon, do they then change their opinion to continue "valuing" the setting, or do they hold their beliefs, and now no longer "value" the setting?
if someone loses their gak then you didn't want to play them anyways because chances are they take themselves too serious anyways.
If someone loses their gak because they didn't like how someone's plastic soldiers had women heads, then we should all rightfully mock them and deride them for it. It's pathetic behaviour. Do you agree?
a_typical_hero wrote:You can (and should) do this already. Do you want to tell me you suffer through a whole game of snarky and disrespectful comments, but if GW writes female Marines into the lore, you would step up in the very same situation? And then you would only do it about comments regarding female Marines, but if they find the next thing, you will endure it again, until something official is done about it?
Dudes*, if some donkey is showing disruptive behaviour in your community, speak up. And if they don't want to correct their behaviour, throw them out of your community. This has nothing to do at all with what the offical story is or not.
I can't fault any of that. However, I do feel that GW can assist in this process. It's not that I don't do anything anyway, but as seen, there's some people for who it's okay to say some pretty awful stuff and do some unpleasant things when they seen FSM because "the lore says so". Taking away that piece of ammunition is helpful in combating that, I'd appreciate the assistance.
*What's the "they" form for dude anyway?
Dudes is usually fine if referring to multiple people anyways, but calling someone a dude tends to depend on how you'd use it - if you were heterosexual male and use " dude" to refer to everyone, then I'd expect that to also refer to how many "dudes" you've slept with. For me, I tend to prefer using "folks".
Not Online!!! wrote:Yet, we see, priests (chaplains), knightly armour and swords, cross symbology, double headed eagles ala HRE/ Religious symbol on marines all the time....
Guardsmen also have priests, Knights are a faction, nearly all factions have swords, cross symbology only occurs on SOME Astartes, double headed eagles occur on EVERY Imperial force - so why aren't guardsmen and Imperial Knights also symbolic of warrior monks?
Eldar, Dark Eldar and tau also exist and are esthethiqually quite diverse, especialy if you consider corsairs or the differing subgroups of deldar and if you don't want to field PA then the guard and a whole slew of regiments to your liking exist and may only require slightly more effort to field..
Yeah - aesthetically diverse from the Imperium, but they too also suffer from a very homogenous aesthetic identity within their own faction. Space Marines don't have that issue. And as for Guardsmen - yet again, a very different type of army to what Space Marines are.
Unless you want to claim that all the aesthetics that Space Marines currently have can be done by every other faction, and that, if Space Marines didn't exist, all would be the same anyways, you're simply wrong here.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:So if a historical donkey cave is insulting your models it's fine because it's a valid battle, but not for fictional ones?
I never said it was "valid". I said that there's a hell of a difference between someone caring about an ACTUAL battle with ACTUAL facts, and gakking the bed over a FAKE battle with FAKE lore.
Does that sink in?
Canadian 5th wrote:Why would any space marine choose to identify as any gender at all and thusly, why would anybody bother using gendered terms for them?
Well, yes - exactly! Space Marines shouldn't use he/him pronouns, shouldn't refer to eachother as Brother, and should be entirely inhuman. They should be referred to as they/it.
He might just be the default gender for them in 40k because Marines are created from male genetic stock and have never expressed a desire to be addressed differently.
But then why do they need to be only made from male stock? That's an arbitrary restriction. And why would they even care to be called he - that's personalisation. They'd surely prefer to be called they/it.
And this is what I mean - I would actually PREFER this, alongside further disfiguring their faces. However, some people still like their heroic looking big burly dudes.
The Grim Dark future probably isn't a very inclusive space and people medically transitioning might be executed if they do so in a way that makes them less productive and less fecund and the Imperium needs breeders.
And that's why they... hire women as guardsmen, Inquisitors, Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, AdMech personnel, PDF, Navy ratings, etc etc?
No. There's plenty of room for women in 40k beyond being glorified wombs - and there always has been. 40k is awful, but in places, the Imperium is gender and sex-positive, and in others, can also be horrendous for both.
Table wrote:My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.
Sometimes its just about changing for the sake of changing and the psychological rewards for doing so.
As Crimson puts it:
Crimson wrote:If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.
As said - if Space Marines and Sisters were in any way equivalent factions, sure. But they aren't, and it's unfair to argue that they are.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
No they did, but no one wanted to buy them at the time so GW made an in universe reason they didn’t exist.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
No they did, but no one wanted to buy them at the time so GW made an in universe reason they didn’t exist.
Wasn't she just an adventurer in power armor, or was she actually called a marine?
Table wrote: What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only?
If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.
Agree. It's important to understand that they're not on equal footing. It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's part of the equation.
Wouldn't the solution then be to support other armies?
If Games Workshop follows the money, then supporting armies that aren't marines would get them to expand their focus, no?
Canadian 5th wrote: ... they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
It was nothing to do with their 'vision of the universe'. They did it because their initial foray into models of woman warriors didn't sell. Partly because it was the '80s and boys were still being told that playing with toys of girls was weird, and partly because they were really awful models. The bit about the process only working on males was added later to explain in-universe why there were no women. It was never part of the original plan.
Canadian 5th wrote:Why would any space marine choose to identify as any gender at all and thusly, why would anybody bother using gendered terms for them?
Well, yes - exactly! Space Marines shouldn't use he/him pronouns, shouldn't refer to eachother as Brother, and should be entirely inhuman. They should be referred to as they/it.
That would make sense to us, but I think in universe it makes sense to have propaganda that plays them up as manly men. Imprint that as part of their indoctrination and suddenly they use he/him and refer to one another as brothers so that the mask never slips.
He might just be the default gender for them in 40k because Marines are created from male genetic stock and have never expressed a desire to be addressed differently.
But then why do they need to be only made from male stock?
I would suspect that either there's something in the y chromosome that is essential to the process or that even prepubescent males simply react better to the hormonal cocktail that starts the process.
That's an arbitrary restriction.
Fiction always is. I'm simply for using as few retcons as possible to keep the lore as close to it's original impossibly grim and incredibly macho tone as possible.
The Grim Dark future probably isn't a very inclusive space and people medically transitioning might be executed if they do so in a way that makes them less productive and less fecund and the Imperium needs breeders.
And that's why they... hire women as guardsmen, Inquisitors, Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, AdMech personnel, PDF, Navy ratings, etc etc?
The Soviets also used female soldiers but were completely noninclusive in many other ways. It would be easy to see any modification that doesn't have a functional upgrade as wasteful while sending bodies out to die for the Emperor is glorious.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
No, they didn't. The Clans were an addition to the lore.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
No they did, but no one wanted to buy them at the time so GW made an in universe reason they didn’t exist.
insaniak wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote: ... they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
It was nothing to do with their 'vision of the universe'. They did it because their initial foray into models of woman warriors didn't sell. Partly because it was the '80s and boys were still being told that playing with toys of girls was weird, and partly because they were really awful models. The bit about the process only working on males was added later to explain in-universe why there were no women. It was never part of the original plan.
Then clearly in universe, something prevented the process from being sustainable. Female augmentation was tried briefly, failed, and went away.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Very true, but as noted it's a different case bacause that's been long eastablished.
Marines are a pretty special case. They're long established as an all male faction, which on it's own should be absolutely fine. The friction really comes from the fact that Marines are represented so heavily.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
No, they didn't. The Clans were an addition to the lore.
Table wrote: My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.
Do you really not see why someone could be ok with a single-gender tertiary faction but not feel the same way about the faction that dominates the lore, especially the lore that newbies are first presented with? Few people would care about female marines if marines had a share of the story comparable to SoB and guard/orks/etc dominated the setting. But if 75% of the lore and 95% of what GW presents to new players is going to be marine-focused then diversity of marines is going to be an issue.
HighLordRep: We need to talk about all these troops you have.
AdMinRep: The Adepta Sorortias! Glorious, aren't they! Devout followers. Expert fighters. True beacons of the Emperor's Grace.
HighLordRep: I distinctly remember saying-
AdMinRep: No men under arms, yes, we heard you. And, as you can see, we have none.
HighLordRep: Y'know, that's not really what we meant when we sai-
AdMinRep: Hey, buddy, you're the one who wrote the rules. We're just following them!
Actual response:
HighLordRep: We need to talk about all these troops you have.
AdMinRep: The Adepta Sorortias! Glorious, aren't they! Devout followers. Expert fighters. True beacons of the Emperor's Grace.
HighLordRep: I distinctly remember saying-
AdMinRep: No men under arms, yes, we heard you. And, as you can see, we have none.
HighLordRep: Cool story bro, the exterminatus fleet will be there shortly to deal with your treason.
The whole thing is just silly from an in-universe point of view. Higher authority in a totalitarian dystopia isn't going to just shrug and say "well, guess you found a loophole", they're going to immediately crush their rivals for power and do it with extra brutality as a lesson to anyone else who might think about finding a clever loophole in the law.
RaptorusRex wrote: Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.
Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.
No, they didn't. The Clans were an addition to the lore.
Aecus Decimus wrote: The whole thing is just silly from an in-universe point of view. Higher authority in a totalitarian dystopia isn't going to just shrug and say "well, guess you found a loophole", they're going to immediately crush their rivals for power and do it with extra brutality as a lesson to anyone else who might think about finding a clever loophole in the law.
Is it silly? You forget how slow things are in the Imperium. Chances are by the time anyone was in a position to do anything about it, the Adepta Sororitas was well spread (and well-liked by the populace), not to mention highly effective and doing the right kind of fighting, so they probably just let it go. Better to turn it into a propaganda win than attempt to curtail it. One gets you a win with zero effort, the other gets your Ministorum Civil War 2: War Harder.
There can't be any women because they're a brotherhood of warrior monks who live in a monastery, while the female counterpart to this are nuns in a convent otherwise known as the sisters of battle. This is obvious and completely self evident; the calls for female marines boil down to attempts to take political novelties invented barely five minutes ago and pretend it was always like that, forcing them into everything, or because you think it's cool. At least one side is honest.
Irkjoe wrote: There can't be any women because they're a brotherhood of warrior monks who live in a monastery, while the female counterpart to this are nuns in a convent otherwise known as the sisters of battle. This is obvious and completely self evident; the calls for female marines boil down to attempts to take political novelties invented barely five minutes ago and pretend it was always like that, forcing them into everything, or because you think it's cool. At least one side is honest.
Who says this is political? It’s only political because people keep trying to make it such.
Irkjoe wrote: There can't be any women because they're a brotherhood of warrior monks who live in a monastery, while the female counterpart to this are nuns in a convent otherwise known as the sisters of battle. This is obvious and completely self evident; the calls for female marines boil down to attempts to take political novelties invented barely five minutes ago and pretend it was always like that, forcing them into everything, or because you think it's cool. At least one side is honest.
If you're going to troll with a hyperbolic version of the side you dislike you need to make it more subtle. This is not provocative, it's just annoying.
Edit: wait, looking at your post history it looks like you're actually trying to be serious here. I don't think you have any credibility in this discussion when you post sexist nonsense like this:
I'm saying that the miniature hobby is overwhelmingly for men and that the situation where women can just wander into a group of men and game with them like a man is impossible. Women are more concerned with the social aspect while power gamer Timmy and old Gregor want to get granular about points, statistics, and why female marines break the fluff; they don't want to be bothered with her and she's repulsed by their behavior. Imagine if Timmy wanted to drink with the wine mums and watch american beauty, ha!
nope not only does it not fit the lore of the imperium's technology moving backwards. but makes zero sense logically. why when your greatest resource is manpower would you pick a weaker, less athletic, less aggressive and smaller frame to put resources into to make your super soldier. its the same reason you don't see women in the NFL/ NHL/NBA ect. despite it being an advertisers wet dream with like 4 billion women on earth you would be lucky if you could find a single one capable of being a bench warmer.
So please just stop posting this terrible idea every couple months and take these trash ideas to Disney's star wars
Asmodios wrote: nope not only does it not fit the lore of the imperium's technology moving backwards. but makes zero sense logically. why when your greatest resource is manpower would you pick a weaker, less athletic, less aggressive and smaller frame to put resources into to make your super soldier. its the same reason you don't see women in the NFL/ NHL/NBA ect. despite it being an advertisers wet dream with like 4 billion women on earth you would be lucky if you could find a single one capable of being a bench warmer.
So please just stop posting this terrible idea every couple months and take these trash ideas to Disney's star wars
They’re ideas worth discussing, whether or not you think they are terrible ideas others think differently.
Asmodios wrote: nope not only does it not fit the lore of the imperium's technology moving backwards.
Neither do primaris marines but here we are. GW has clearly retconned things so that the Imperium's technology is now progressing.
but makes zero sense logically. why when your greatest resource is manpower would you pick a weaker, less athletic, less aggressive and smaller frame to put resources into to make your super soldier. its the same reason you don't see women in the NFL/ NHL/NBA ect. despite it being an advertisers wet dream with like 4 billion women on earth you would be lucky if you could find a single one capable of being a bench warmer.
Because the whole point of power armor is that the strength/speed/etc of the user are irrelevant. If the user is physically weaker you turn up the gain on the servos to compensate. The comparison to a space marine isn't an NFL player, it's a Madden player sitting on their couch pressing buttons with all of the newbie assist cheats turned on.
But really the realism argument is kind of silly when space marines are running into melee with chainsaw swords, guard have tanks with zero ground clearance and a gun that can't be fired without cutting the commander in half, and literal demons from hell warp the laws of physics so thoroughly that guns are less effective against them than punching them to death with your bare hands because melee combat involves more emotions. Oh, and the entire Imperium is based around a 10,000 year old golden corpse that eats the souls of thousands of space wizards per day so it can scream really loudly and make a giant psychic beacon for the entire galaxy to navigate by as they travel through hell.
Asmodios wrote: nope not only does it not fit the lore of the imperium's technology moving backwards. but makes zero sense logically. why when your greatest resource is manpower would you pick a weaker, less athletic, less aggressive and smaller frame to put resources into to make your super soldier. its the same reason you don't see women in the NFL/ NHL/NBA ect. despite it being an advertisers wet dream with like 4 billion women on earth you would be lucky if you could find a single one capable of being a bench warmer.
So please just stop posting this terrible idea every couple months and take these trash ideas to Disney's star wars
As much as I dislike the idea of lore being changed, this wouldn't be an issue. The process starts right around when puberty does and before puberty men and women aren't all that different in terms of build or athletic ability. You might need girls who have dreams of becoming marines taking puberty blockers while waiting for their shot at the trials, but that shouldn't be an issue. Then, once the process starts the body is dominated by other processes and the limited differences in base hormone levels are unlikely to matter; if they do doubtless female reproductive organs could be removed and testes implanted for whatever length of time their presence might matter for.
Asmodios wrote: nope not only does it not fit the lore of the imperium's technology moving backwards. but makes zero sense logically. why when your greatest resource is manpower would you pick a weaker, less athletic, less aggressive and smaller frame to put resources into to make your super soldier. its the same reason you don't see women in the NFL/ NHL/NBA ect. despite it being an advertisers wet dream with like 4 billion women on earth you would be lucky if you could find a single one capable of being a bench warmer.
So please just stop posting this terrible idea every couple months and take these trash ideas to Disney's star wars
They’re ideas worth discussing, whether or not you think they are terrible ideas others think differently.
No they aren't worth discussing... its diversity for the sake of diversity which is just trash and adds nothing to a setting. you end up in one swift blow making space marines and sisters of battle less unique. stop trying to shove modern day politics into a space dystopia
Asmodios wrote: nope not only does it not fit the lore of the imperium's technology moving backwards. but makes zero sense logically. why when your greatest resource is manpower would you pick a weaker, less athletic, less aggressive and smaller frame to put resources into to make your super soldier. its the same reason you don't see women in the NFL/ NHL/NBA ect. despite it being an advertisers wet dream with like 4 billion women on earth you would be lucky if you could find a single one capable of being a bench warmer.
So please just stop posting this terrible idea every couple months and take these trash ideas to Disney's star wars
They’re ideas worth discussing, whether or not you think they are terrible ideas others think differently.
No they aren't worth discussing... its diversity for the sake of diversity which is just trash and adds nothing to a setting. you end up in one swift blow making space marines and sisters of battle less unique. stop trying to shove modern day politics into a space dystopia
Is it really so hard to accept that people might want female marines because it sounds like an interesting idea and not some deep-seated conspiracy to undermine democracy?
Lammia wrote: Sisters are normal humans. Nutty ones, but standard and not bio-enhanced people.
The only change is people would be able to say 'This model was afab and called Garr. They had a tough life that made their trials to become a fully fledged battle brother seem easy. They were my favourite Tac. Marine to paint.' And for no one to reply 'but the lore...'
Yeah, that doesn't answer any of my questions. But then you're also quick to lie that those questions are about "the Lore" and not many to all aspects of the game. Those questions are about the lore. And balance. And collections/already owned models. And the inevitable human reaction to greener grass.
Dudeface wrote: I'm not going to refuse to play against a female space marine army, I wouldn't bat an eyelid and would happily have a chat about their story etc. But I don't think it needs writing into the core fluff.
You're better than I am then. I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.
That’s a bit of a leap.
Because the Home Brew Mary Sue are built by strictly following the canon and codex? Or because we haven't already seen people who disagree about the Non-Transgender Male or Female marines called Transphobic, but get away with it because the MOD in here aligns with them more than the people being name called?
Asmodios wrote: nope not only does it not fit the lore of the imperium's technology moving backwards. but makes zero sense logically. why when your greatest resource is manpower would you pick a weaker, less athletic, less aggressive and smaller frame to put resources into to make your super soldier. its the same reason you don't see women in the NFL/ NHL/NBA ect. despite it being an advertisers wet dream with like 4 billion women on earth you would be lucky if you could find a single one capable of being a bench warmer.
So please just stop posting this terrible idea every couple months and take these trash ideas to Disney's star wars
The blood angels turn scrawny dregs into giant adonis's, creating a physical transformation far beyond what you object to in a naturally athletic and healthy woman becoming a marine.
If blood angel geneseed can remake dregs, then remaking a woman is comparatively trivial.
I don't think the issue is whether or not to add an Amazons chapter (I'd be for it), but instead making the brotherhoods co-ed.
Different people will have different issues based on their individual perspective. Mine is a health of the game standpoint. I don't think Social Justice in a giant chess game requiring model railroad skills is either effective, or important. I think being able to call all the people who call Marines "boring" and "bloated" a misogynist because they hate Marines and Marines are now female would be fun, but also not good for the health of the game. Neither are female marines. The most obvious reason: Trickle down to Sisters players and armies has already stymied anyone who avoided answering those questions. Trickle down everywhere else will just be further iterations of issues. If Bellisarius Cawl figured out how to induct women, why can't Mad Doc Grotsnik figure out how to implant geneseed in Ghaz?
The reason this doesn't make sense is the 55-80 genes that exist on the Y chromosome have very little effect.
Aside from the fact that fluff is entirely handwaving around MacGuffins, wouldn't the inert or nearly inert genes be the best place to work your magic?
Marines and sisters are not monks or nuns; monks and nuns are required to live in seclusion and never leave their cloisters. Marines are friars and sisters are religious sisters.
The most important thing is that they are all required to give up all earthly attachments by taking vows of poverty and chastity, so that most importantly they cannot have children,
Marines do not and cannot have children and do not or cannot have sexual partners. That is not at all a reason for marines to be sex segregated.
HighLordRep: We need to talk about all these troops you have.
AdMinRep: The Adepta Sorortias! Glorious, aren't they! Devout followers. Expert fighters. True beacons of the Emperor's Grace.
HighLordRep: I distinctly remember saying-
AdMinRep: No men under arms, yes, we heard you. And, as you can see, we have none.
HighLordRep: Cool story bro, the exterminatus fleet will be there shortly to deal with your treason.
The whole thing is just silly from an in-universe point of view. Higher authority in a totalitarian dystopia isn't going to just shrug and say "well, guess you found a loophole", they're going to immediately crush their rivals for power and do it with extra brutality as a lesson to anyone else who might think about finding a clever loophole in the law.
For the same reasons as marines don’t need to be sex segregated, sisters are an ideal outcome for the the other lords of the imperium.
Vows of chastity and poverty do two things. One they make very elite and loyal troops because of having nothing to do but train all day. For the second, it makes them much harder to recruit than frateris templars were. It’s very likely that the Frateris Templars could be infinitely expanded by mass inducting existing guard regiments, mercenaries or PDFs, equipping them extravagantly, and lavishing rewards on both the leaders and the troops. The Temple Tendency that established the Ministorum was founded by a wealth obsessed Guard officer and Vandire was originally lord of the Administratum for taking control of both organizations, of course they were capable of expanding the Templars this way.
The religious vows of the sisters are essential to preventing them from mass recruiting new units or mass inducting units from other branches. Unlike marines they aren’t sterile so they benefit from sex segregation and of course if they were AMAB brothers, it would be much easier to join up but start a secret family on the side.
The other high lords definitely want their former rival to have a military. Almost every time in history that one country has defeated another, they put a friendly local faction in charge and secretly begin rearming the military. They make their defeated rival into a proxy and use it against the next enemy. The lords of all the other institutions definitely want the ecclesiarchy to have a small powerful military, for totally selfish reasons.
The Imperium is based on the medieval church... its structures, various institutions and aesthetics; marines join monasteries, which is men only like the monks that they are based on. That's the whole point. Tech is irrelevant.
"The Imperium is based upon, among other things, the pop culture version of the medieval Catholic church" is not the same as "the Imperium must function exactly like the medieval Catholic church". 40k is not a history textbook.
PS: all that church stuff? That's a retcon. The original 40k setting drew much more inspiration from things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_AD_(comics) and marines used to be condemned criminals sent to die usefully, not warrior monks. So if you're going to be outraged at the idea of retcons you can't simultaneously argue that marines must be monks.
Space Marines are described as "warrior monks" in the original Rogue Trader, iirc.
But also, a lot of the very early stuff was pulled as 40k found it's footing. Which is why the "UM Librarian was half Eldar" argument doesn't work. There are aspects of the lore that were dropped, and aspects of the lore that were built upon and reinforced. Space Marines as "warrior monks" is one of those that stuck, and stuck hard.
"The Imperium is based upon, among other things, the pop culture version of the medieval Catholic church" is not the same as "the Imperium must function exactly like the medieval Catholic church". 40k is not a history textbook.
PS: all that church stuff? That's a retcon. The original 40k setting drew much more inspiration from things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_AD_(comics) and marines used to be condemned criminals sent to die usefully, not warrior monks. So if you're going to be outraged at the idea of retcons you can't simultaneously argue that marines must be monks.
Monks and Nuns are men and woman respectively, by definition. And It's not a retcon, chapters have always had fortress monasteries and Marines were not always condemned criminals it says they were recruited from feral worlds some of which were hive criminals.
Any reference to anything in rogue trader is a non-argument it isn't 40K and has nothing to do with 40K it was a parody based on WHFB. 40K wasn't even set up in lore until 2nd edition and they spent 3rd and 4th ed actually setting the lore in stone so to speak. it stayed effectively unchanged for the next 25 years. until the Cawl/primaris thing that was a direct result of the chapter house lawsuit in the real world.
Irkjoe wrote: Monks and Nuns are men and woman respectively, by definition. And It's not a retcon, chapters have always had fortress monasteries and Marines were not always condemned criminals it says they were recruited from feral worlds some of which were hive criminals.
Once again, 40k is not a history book. Marines are not medieval Christian monks. "Warrior monks", "nuns with guns", etc, are shorthand descriptions for some of the concepts GW borrowed from but they are in no way absolute laws. That's why you have "monks" that spend most of their time on crusade outside their monastery, returning only briefly to re-arm for the next campaign, instead of being a cloistered religious order dedicated entirely to serving God within their monastery. You can't simultaneously argue that space marines must strictly follow the precedent of real-world monks and accept their departures from the concept when it's something you personally like to see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: But also, a lot of the very early stuff was pulled as 40k found it's footing. Which is why the "UM Librarian was half Eldar" argument doesn't work. There are aspects of the lore that were dropped, and aspects of the lore that were built upon and reinforced. Space Marines as "warrior monks" is one of those that stuck, and stuck hard.
How well the argument works depends on how hard your line against retcons is. If your line is "the fluff as it stands now is good and this proposed change would make it worse" then it's a fine argument. Half-eldar marines are no loss and you aren't trying to argue that all retcons are automatically bad. But if your line is that all retcons are bad and a retcon must be rejected purely because it is a retcon then yes, the half-eldar Ultramarine is a very strong counter to that argument. You can't argue against all retcons while simultaneously supporting the retcons that you personally like.
Irkjoe wrote: There can't be any women because they're a brotherhood of warrior monks who live in a monastery, while the female counterpart to this are nuns in a convent otherwise known as the sisters of battle. This is obvious and completely self evident; the calls for female marines boil down to attempts to take political novelties invented barely five minutes ago and pretend it was always like that, forcing them into everything, or because you think it's cool. At least one side is honest.
Yeah, those political novelties or giving women equal rights and any representation in media.
Makes it pretty clear you'd like society to look like the Imperium, but even more repressive.
Once again, 40k is not a history book. Marines are not medieval Christian monks. "Warrior monks", "nuns with guns", etc, are shorthand descriptions for some of the concepts GW borrowed from but they are in no way absolute laws. That's why you have "monks" that spend most of their time on crusade outside their monastery, returning only briefly to re-arm for the next campaign, instead of being a cloistered religious order dedicated entirely to serving God within their monastery. You can't simultaneously argue that space marines must strictly follow the precedent of real-world monks and accept their departures from the concept when it's something you personally like to see.
How well the argument works depends on how hard your line against retcons is. If your line is "the fluff as it stands now is good and this proposed change would make it worse" then it's a fine argument. Half-eldar marines are no loss and you aren't trying to argue that all retcons are automatically bad. But if your line is that all retcons are bad and a retcon must be rejected purely because it is a retcon then yes, the half-eldar Ultramarine is a very strong counter to that argument. You can't argue against all retcons while simultaneously supporting the retcons that you personally like.
They call themselves monks, are organized like monks, live dedicated to their religion like monks... are male monastics which are monks. They are explicitly space monks, in a brotherhood, and you are writing all of that off as shorthand to be ignored because anything can be whatever you want? Can men be "Sisters"? Where's the line? This is very silly.
None of this was ever retconned.
@Stratigo
Hyperbolic nonsense, you people are taking modern movements and retroactively inserting them into something written when they didn't exist and pretending it was always that way. And to top it off it's an oppressive theocratic empire.
Irkjoe wrote: They call themselves monks, are organized like monks, live dedicated to their religion like monks... are male monastics which are monks. They are explicitly space monks, in a brotherhood, and you are writing all of that off as shorthand to be ignored because anything can be whatever you want? Can men be "Sisters"? Where's the line? This is very silly.
Except they don't live like historical monks. Real-world monks were a cloistered religious order focused on service to God in their monastery, with limited interaction with the outside world. Marines are a crusading order dedicated to warfare against the enemies of the state, spending most of their time away from their monastery on distant battlefields and returning home only to rearm and prepare for the next campaign. You're willing to accept this major departure from what defines a real-world monk, why is gender any different?
None of this was ever retconned.
Yet. That doesn't mean that it can't be. Marines hadn't been retconned to have air superiority fighters until GW decided it was time to sell space marine aircraft kits and changed the fluff to permit them.
Irkjoe wrote: They call themselves monks, are organized like monks, live dedicated to their religion like monks... are male monastics which are monks. They are explicitly space monks, in a brotherhood, and you are writing all of that off as shorthand to be ignored because anything can be whatever you want? Can men be "Sisters"? Where's the line? This is very silly.
Except they don't live like historical monks. Real-world monks were a cloistered religious order focused on service to God in their monastery, with limited interaction with the outside world. Marines are a crusading order dedicated to warfare against the enemies of the state, spending most of their time away from their monastery on distant battlefields and returning home only to rearm and prepare for the next campaign. You're willing to accept this major departure from what defines a real-world monk, why is gender any different?
The Catholic military orders of the Crusades will be shocked to hear this.
Breton wrote: The Catholic military orders of the Crusades will be shocked to hear this.
Irrelevant.
Facts that dont support my unsupported claim are irrelevant. As is the fact that Multi-chapter SM Forces are called Crusade Fleets. That they participated in The Great Crusade to liberate the holy lands of the Imperium from oppressors like independence, and the control of "others".
They call themselves monks, are organized like monks, live dedicated to their religion like monks... are male monastics which are monks. They are explicitly space monks, in a brotherhood, and you are writing all of that off as shorthand to be ignored because anything can be whatever you want? Can men be "Sisters"? Where's the line? This is very silly.
None of this was ever retconned.
@Stratigo
Hyperbolic nonsense, you people are taking modern movements and retroactively inserting them into something written when they didn't exist and pretending it was always that way. And to top it off it's an oppressive theocratic empire.
And of course they are still using the words wrong. Cenobitic brothers who do works in the world live in a canonry, friary, or convent. Monasteries are for seclusion. The purpose of being sex segregated even in a friary which interacts with the secular world is to prevent the forming of personal attachments like parenthood, and marines are not capable of conceiving children.
Any reference to anything in rogue trader is a non-argument it isn't 40K and has nothing to do with 40K it was a parody based on WHFB. 40K wasn't even set up in lore until 2nd edition and they spent 3rd and 4th ed actually setting the lore in stone so to speak. it stayed effectively unchanged for the next 25 years. until the Cawl/primaris thing that was a direct result of the chapter house lawsuit in the real world.
Since you are very visible about playing old editions I did not expect this meme from you.
The legions, primarchs, the four god aligned traitors, and duel between the primarch Horus and the Emperor are from three years prior to second edition. Marines having t4 is from two years and three months prior to second edition, and the nineteen organs of the gene seed are from February of 1987, five months after the release of Rogue Trader. All of these things have bylines with the same person, Priestley, except for the legions which are from Jervis’s epic games. Rogue Trader is 40k, 40k is rogue trader. By the release of third edition this was all very firm, there was no firming needed.
Most relevant to the thread, all of classic/true 40k exists in stasis. First through third editions have never been able to reach out and stop the bad decisions GW made since then. Try as they might, GW can’t truly erase all the paper and PDF copies of the classic editions.
Insectum7 wrote: But also, a lot of the very early stuff was pulled as 40k found it's footing. Which is why the "UM Librarian was half Eldar" argument doesn't work. There are aspects of the lore that were dropped, and aspects of the lore that were built upon and reinforced. Space Marines as "warrior monks" is one of those that stuck, and stuck hard.
How well the argument works depends on how hard your line against retcons is. If your line is "the fluff as it stands now is good and this proposed change would make it worse" then it's a fine argument. Half-eldar marines are no loss and you aren't trying to argue that all retcons are automatically bad. But if your line is that all retcons are bad and a retcon must be rejected purely because it is a retcon then yes, the half-eldar Ultramarine is a very strong counter to that argument. You can't argue against all retcons while simultaneously supporting the retcons that you personally like.
All you have to realize is that not all retcons have the same weight, and it does little good in pretending that they do in order to try and score a point.
Only an idiot would argue that retconning all-male Space Marines, and retconning a half-Eldar Librarian, have the same weight/inertia.
Any reference to anything in rogue trader is a non-argument it isn't 40K and has nothing to do with 40K it was a parody based on WHFB. 40K wasn't even set up in lore until 2nd edition and they spent 3rd and 4th ed actually setting the lore in stone so to speak. it stayed effectively unchanged for the next 25 years. until the Cawl/primaris thing that was a direct result of the chapter house lawsuit in the real world.
I wouldn't say RT wasn't 40k. Much that came into being then has stuck it out through the long haul. But yes, I do agree that there was a stabilization brought on in the years following it's introduction.
Breton wrote: Facts that dont support my unsupported claim are irrelevant. As is the fact that Multi-chapter SM Forces are called Crusade Fleets. That they participated in The Great Crusade to liberate the holy lands of the Imperium from oppressors like independence, and the control of "others".
And of course they are still using the words wrong.
Often intentionally. Sometimes its tongue-in-cheek throw away lines to demonstrate the evolution from 38,0000 years like the word Catheric. Often, it's because they (GW) weren't Doctors of History. Sometimes it's because they wanted to pilfer the surface aspects of the culture and not dive too deep. I mean if they were really trying to deep dive in their historical wink and a nod, Space Marines wouldn't be sterile, and they would occasionally be TDY to special Cloisters of the Order Propago where they would sire children which then belong to the state to generate more space marines.
Insectum7 wrote: All you have to realize is that not all retcons have the same weight, and it does little good in pretending that they do in order to try and score a point.
Of course not all retcons have the same weight, that's kind of the point. The half-eldar librarian argument is a response to the idea that female space marines are bad purely because they are a retcon, which relies on the premise that all retcons are always bad and the fluff can not be changed. If you accept that retcons have varying weight and merit then merely labeling female marines a retcon is saying nothing of substance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: Often intentionally. Sometimes its tongue-in-cheek throw away lines to demonstrate the evolution from 38,0000 years like the word Catheric. Often, it's because they (GW) weren't Doctors of History. Sometimes it's because they wanted to pilfer the surface aspects of the culture and not dive too deep. I mean if they were really trying to deep dive in their historical wink and a nod, Space Marines wouldn't be sterile, and they would occasionally be TDY to special Cloisters of the Order Propago where they would sire children which then belong to the state to generate more space marines.
But if you're going to accept that GW is using the words wrong and it's fine for space marines to be crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars it's also fine for GW to misuse the word "monk" to include women.
Breton wrote: Facts that dont support my unsupported claim are irrelevant. As is the fact that Multi-chapter SM Forces are called Crusade Fleets. That they participated in The Great Crusade to liberate the holy lands of the Imperium from oppressors like independence, and the control of "others".
Crusading knights =/= monks.
Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.
At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:
Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery
So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.
Insectum7 wrote: All you have to realize is that not all retcons have the same weight, and it does little good in pretending that they do in order to try and score a point.
Of course not all retcons have the same weight, that's kind of the point. The half-eldar librarian argument is a response to the idea that female space marines are bad purely because they are a retcon, which relies on the premise that all retcons are always bad and the fluff can not be changed. If you accept that retcons have varying weight and merit then merely labeling female marines a retcon is saying nothing of substance.
I think it's a sort of disingenuous read of the argument. Generally when people are upset by retcons it's just by retcons that are important to them. I think they say "retcons are bad" but it only really means "retcons that are important to me are bad".
Imo the time is better spent on discussing why a particular retcon is bad, rather than aiming for the absolutist "all retcons bad".
What I think is inarguable is that big retcons can be extremely disruptive, for better or for worse.
Breton wrote: Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.
At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:
Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery
So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.
Yes, and that's the point. The original claim was that marines must be men because that's what monks were historically and the historical concept may not be changed. Marines already diverge from the popular concept of a monk by being crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars, and by preaching an atheistic creed that explicitly rejects any claim to the divinity of the Emperor. If you're fine with diverging from the concept in those ways you can't simultaneously argue as a matter of principle that space marines must be men because Christian monks were always men. Marines draw inspiration from Christian monks but they are not Christian monks and 40k is not a history textbook.
And yes, there were religious orders of crusading knights. They aren't monks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the time is better spent on discussing why a particular retcon is bad, rather than aiming for the absolutist "all retcons bad".
I agree, but that's not what people do. They expect the argument to end at "retcons are bad" because that's their trump card to avoid having to discuss the merits of a particular retcon.
Breton wrote: Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.
At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:
Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery
So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.
Yes, and that's the point. The original claim was that monks must be men because that's what monks were historically and the historical concept may not be changed. Marines already diverge from the popular concept of a monk by being crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars, and by preaching an atheistic creed that explicitly rejects any claim to the divinity of the Emperor. If you're fine with diverging from the concept in those ways you can't simultaneously argue as a matter of principle that space marines must be men because Christian monks were always men.
And yes, there were religious orders of crusading knights. They aren't monks.
No, I think you missed the point. Likely intentionally.
Wikipedia wrote:Warrior monk
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Warrior monk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A warrior monk is a concept found in various cultures of a person who combines aspects of being a monk, such as deep religious devotion and an ascetic lifestyle, with being a warrior, trained to engage in violent conflict.
Spoiler:
Examples include:
Sant Sipahi is a Sikh ideology, inspired by the lives of Sikh gurus, of a saint soldier who would adhere one's life in strict discipline both in mind and body.
Sōhei, a type of Japanese warrior.
Righteous armies, Korean guerilla fighters, including monks
Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights, warriors during the Crusades.
Shaolin Monastery, a Chinese monastery renowned for monks who were experts in the martial arts.
Naga Sadhus, a militaristic sect of arms-bearing Hindu sannyasi.
In fiction:
The description of the ideal soldier in the manual of the First Earth Battalion.
The Jedi Order, a fictional monastic organization in the Star Wars epic space opera franchise
The Adeptus Astartes, Space Marines, are genetically altered super soldiers who serve the Imperium of Mankind in the Warhammer 40,000 universe[citation needed] alongside the Adepta Sororitas, Sisters of Battle, who are soldier-nuns serving directly under the command of the Imperium's church.
Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?
Insectum7 wrote: Imo the time is better spent on discussing why a particular retcon is bad, rather than aiming for the absolutist "all retcons bad".
I agree, but that's not what people do. They expect the argument to end at "retcons are bad" because that's their trump card to avoid having to discuss the merits of a particular retcon.
I would just save time and translate that as "major retcons are bad".
I also think that's not an invalid argument. Many people who invest in a setting would prefer if it was stable.
Breton wrote: Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?
Quibble over semantics, says the person insisting on pointing to the rare exceptions to the rule rather than the popular image of a monk: a dude in a robe cloistered in a monastery and spending his days praying, tending the monastery garden, and silently copying bibles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: I would just save time and translate that as "major retcons are bad".
I also think that's not an invalid argument. Many people who invest in a setting would prefer if it was stable.
You could translate it that way, but that raises the question of whether female space marines count as a "major retcon" in a setting where far larger changes are regularly made without nearly as much controversy.
And yeah, stability is desirable for some people, but I have no idea why they'd have any interest in 40k. GW has clearly established that this is a sprawling multi-author universe with no single canon and that they will change any part of the fluff on a whim if it means selling new models.
pelicaniforce
It isn't a meme, it is a fact During the rogue trader time period GW was just throwing anything and everything at the wall to see what would work. they had ideas that became hard lore later but most of what was rogue trader was a joke and wasn't carried over once they got serious and realized that a scifi setting could be as big for the company as the flagship fantasy setting.
Eldar with land raiders? because stealing inferior imperial tech was somehow better than eldar vehicles? the afore mentioned half eldar librarian, silly names stolen from other franchises back when GW was less concerned about their own position on the matter.
The lore was very well defined by the time i took serious interest in the game in late 3rd edition (2001). and it stayed that way up until 8th edition. that is the mid 1990s up until what 2017?
The emperor, primarchs, state of the imperium, the chaos gods, the horus heresy and yes the fact that space marines can only every be male was clear defined cannon.
The un-reliable narrator excuse doesn't work from our point of view because we have the overview of god (AKA the company and writers) telling us exactly what is canon even if inquisitor "X" in some short story set in universe is getting half truths handed down by the ecclesiarchy.
I am all for playing older editions because i find them more fun ( and GW isn't changing them and screwing things up anymore), however it doesn't mean i like them all, i have zero interest in RT and only passing interest in 2nd. i have a bunch of the old 2nd ed codexes and the main rule book to browse through but no interest in actually playing it. i like the kreigspeil inspired squad/army level game that 40K became with 3rd and it has a unique place and style of play different from other games i like to play.
Breton wrote: Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?
Quibble over semantics, says the person insisting on pointing to the rare exceptions to the rule rather than the popular image of a monk: a dude in a robe cloistered in a monastery and spending his days praying, tending the monastery garden, and silently copying bibles.
I just did point to the popular image of monks, and I did it using someone else's list of popular images, not one I made up on my own without any support then claimed it was "popular". Especially when you're wrong.
Breton wrote: I just did point to the popular image of monks, and I did it using someone else's list of popular images, not one I made up on my own without any support then claimed it was "popular". Especially when you're wrong.
Ask 100 people to describe a "monk". I bet you almost all of them give you a guy in a robe cloistered in a monastery and hardly anyone gives you a crusading knight, even if technically by some definition the knight has been called a monk somewhere.
It's funny though because the list of examples you quoted includes the Jedi Order, a group that has canon women in it. Guess monks aren't all-male after all!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aphyon wrote: The un-reliable narrator excuse doesn't work from our point of view because we have the overview of god (AKA the company and writers) telling us exactly what is canon even if inquisitor "X" in some short story set in universe is getting half truths handed down by the ecclesiarchy.
40k is the textbook example of an unreliable narrator. Not only has GW explicitly said that truth in 40k is lost and everything is conflicting points of view they allow each author to make their own works with very little effort given to maintaining a single canon. Two books by two different authors can have irreconcilable contradictions and the only way out is to accept that 40k has an unreliable narrator. And that's on top of the fact that GW will contradict their own lore on a whim if it means selling a new model kit.
Breton wrote: I just did point to the popular image of monks, and I did it using someone else's list of popular images, not one I made up on my own without any support then claimed it was "popular". Especially when you're wrong.
Ask 100 people to describe a "monk". I bet you almost all of them give you a guy in a robe cloistered in a monastery and hardly anyone gives you a crusading knight, even if technically by some definition the knight has been called a monk somewhere.
It's funny though because the list of examples you quoted includes the Jedi Order, a group that has canon women in it. Guess monks aren't all-male after all!
I never said they were. I was just enjoying your hypocrisy and cherry picking. Doubling down on it here with That's not a popular list of monks even though it's on that little known website named Wikipedia - except where it mentions Jedi because they had girls is outstanding.
Breton wrote: Doubling down on it here with That's not a popular list of monks even though it's on that little known website named Wikipedia
This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Breton wrote: Doubling down on it here with That's not a popular list of monks even though it's on that little known website named Wikipedia
This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Feel free to challenge it as not a list of popular images of warrior monks. But so far it's been accurate and popular enough to stay up unchallenged. And its still someone else's preexisting list, not one I made up myself to suit my own narrative. And you're wrong.
Trying to use history as a gotcha for things like this isn’t really that great, as even with a lot of history it’s very specific to time and place.
And exceptions are common with history as well, where a hard stance in lore becomes rather silly when you consider how big the galaxy is.
The big reason GW doesn’t really touch on it much, is all the interesting story to do with it would make marines and the imperium less cool to a lot of the fans most clambering for this lore bit to be upheld.
They really do just want to keep selling marines!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?
Just a thought?
considering your reaction, no i don't think so, i think bluntly and that sounds way ruder than it is intended, that this is an issue of your selfesteem and or your hobby skills and or hobby group.
And I think bluntly and this sounds ruder than it is intended, but that's an issue of your lack of empathy and self-centredness.
As you said, thinking bluntly.
Hmm, am i wrong then ? Frankly i think your reaction shows that i am right with my assessement, that either your hobby group is just bad or you feel particulary targeted for reasons that i can only assume the nature about.
Frankly no i am good. I wanted to make an serious attempt to help you i see it hasn't been welcome.
Is it against the lore? Yes.
Is that a valid reason to point out or even avoid a match against your army? yes, for people that value the setting and lore that is more than fair enough to decline but that can and will be done against any other army that doesn't fit 40k by some people.
I value the setting. I don't value ALL of it, because the setting is large enough that it's a sandbox and should be there to promote creativity.
I value the setting's ability to uplift and encourage people, not to gak on their work.
And besides - if someone "values" the setting and hates the idea of Space Marine aircraft before they became canon, do they then change their opinion to continue "valuing" the setting, or do they hold their beliefs, and now no longer "value" the setting?
A setting as a sandbox requires still limitations else you got the sand everywhere, normally the limitation is the IP holder, in combination with the community.
And yes, i don't like the SM aircraft, but in the context of the setting airsupport for marines makes atleast sense. A more and far bigger issue is Primaris which in the setting don't make sense and are there to resell the SM players their army. In fact they have been designed in a way that they are completly irrealistic from a military standpoint (mono equipment infantry) and break with multitudes of core asspects of the lore in a magnitude of ways that they are a massive detriment. NVM that their "great design " is a massive disadvantage for balance aswell but that is a whole other can of worms i am not going into.
if someone loses their gak then you didn't want to play them anyways because chances are they take themselves too serious anyways.
If someone loses their gak because they didn't like how someone's plastic soldiers had women heads, then we should all rightfully mock them and deride them for it. It's pathetic behaviour. Do you agree?
Pointing something out =/= mocking. Pointing out that 2.5 out of 4 of my R&H armies have non GW models as their basis is also not mocking. It's also not losing their gak and it is your potential game partners decision to play or don't against said armies.
Also stop tone trolling, it's tiresome and adds nothing to the discussion that is to be had.
Not Online!!! wrote:Yet, we see, priests (chaplains), knightly armour and swords, cross symbology, double headed eagles ala HRE/ Religious symbol on marines all the time....
Guardsmen also have priests, Knights are a faction, nearly all factions have swords, cross symbology only occurs on SOME Astartes, double headed eagles occur on EVERY Imperial force - so why aren't guardsmen and Imperial Knights also symbolic of warrior monks?
They are, to a lesser extent, insofar however that space marines also have the corresponding terminology, whilest guard and knights often don't and in their ogranisational structers aswell. Knights are just feudal knights but battlemech and guard has more in common with 30 years war infantrymen, very likely to fight for a religious reason but not dominated by religious personell but very much grounded in realpolitik.
SM on the other hand use the terminology, function as brotherhoods of crusaders, have the corresponding training methods etc.
Eldar, Dark Eldar and tau also exist and are esthethiqually quite diverse, especialy if you consider corsairs or the differing subgroups of deldar and if you don't want to field PA then the guard and a whole slew of regiments to your liking exist and may only require slightly more effort to field..
Yeah - aesthetically diverse from the Imperium, but they too also suffer from a very homogenous aesthetic identity within their own faction. Space Marines don't have that issue. And as for Guardsmen - yet again, a very different type of army to what Space Marines are.
Unless you want to claim that all the aesthetics that Space Marines currently have can be done by every other faction, and that, if Space Marines didn't exist, all would be the same anyways, you're simply wrong here.
Calling eldar homogenous, i guess, dark eldar already is a massive stretch, corsairs can be as distinct as you would want and nvm exodites. Indeed arguably SM are LESS diverse model wise than any of the above even though SM have MORE units than all of above and i am sorry but there's basically 3 types of SM, PA, TA and scouts. Eldar have the same ammount and DE have even more.
Further if theme is what you are concerned with, with a bit of effort it would be easy to achieve the themes that space marines cover with basically all other imperial armies, Custodes come to mind f.e. hell even space vikings can be done with SoB instead if you are willing to convert excessivly, a la shieldmaidens, with guard it is positivly easy considering we know about feral world regiments and even get the bits necessary still from gw in the AOS realm.
Breton wrote: Giant Armored Figures preaching the Atheistic Imperial Truth =/= Monks either.
At least, not YOUR definition. According to the actual definition:
Meriam Webster wrote: a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery
So I again point to Religious orders of knights from the Crusades of the Middle East like the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Teutonic Knights.
Yes, and that's the point. The original claim was that monks must be men because that's what monks were historically and the historical concept may not be changed. Marines already diverge from the popular concept of a monk by being crusading knights instead of cloistered farmers and scholars, and by preaching an atheistic creed that explicitly rejects any claim to the divinity of the Emperor. If you're fine with diverging from the concept in those ways you can't simultaneously argue as a matter of principle that space marines must be men because Christian monks were always men.
And yes, there were religious orders of crusading knights. They aren't monks.
No, I think you missed the point. Likely intentionally.
Wikipedia wrote:Warrior monk
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Warrior monk" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A warrior monk is a concept found in various cultures of a person who combines aspects of being a monk, such as deep religious devotion and an ascetic lifestyle, with being a warrior, trained to engage in violent conflict.
Spoiler:
Examples include:
Sant Sipahi is a Sikh ideology, inspired by the lives of Sikh gurus, of a saint soldier who would adhere one's life in strict discipline both in mind and body.
Sōhei, a type of Japanese warrior.
Righteous armies, Korean guerilla fighters, including monks
Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and Teutonic Knights, warriors during the Crusades.
Shaolin Monastery, a Chinese monastery renowned for monks who were experts in the martial arts.
Naga Sadhus, a militaristic sect of arms-bearing Hindu sannyasi.
In fiction:
The description of the ideal soldier in the manual of the First Earth Battalion.
The Jedi Order, a fictional monastic organization in the Star Wars epic space opera franchise
The Adeptus Astartes, Space Marines, are genetically altered super soldiers who serve the Imperium of Mankind in the Warhammer 40,000 universe[citation needed] alongside the Adepta Sororitas, Sisters of Battle, who are soldier-nuns serving directly under the command of the Imperium's church.
Do you think it actually helps your argument to obtusely quibble over semantics, especially when you're wrong about them?
No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.
You could translate it that way, but that raises the question of whether female space marines count as a "major retcon" in a setting where far larger changes are regularly made without nearly as much controversy.
Indeed.
I think taking, say, Space Wolves and changing the Nordic myth source material and wolf/claw/fang nomenclature and aesthetics (even if they are... overdone) to that of, say 17th century prussians would be a vastly greater 'retcon' than turning around and saying that Space Wolves now have a new character - Wolf Lord Aegartha*, who is female.
*who is an obvious nod to the historical figure Legartha (spelling), first wife of Ragnar Lofbrok (spelling) and a famous viking raider/warrior/Queen in her time. There's also the imagery of the Valkyries to easily draw on.
If you want some interesting greek/roman deities that knew how to 'throw down' and knew the pointy end of the bow n arrow to the quiver, Artemis/Diana is an easy reach (Diana herself being an obvious namesake to Wonder Woman). I'm sure there's plenty others.
And an obvious Matthew Reilly joke regarding 'mother' figures (because his most nadass character isnt Schofield, its Mother)- they're not maternal.figures, it's short for mother[bleep]ers.
No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.
That huge derail about monks is dumb as hell, especially when declaring religious knightly orders 'irrelevant' in the same breath - they existed for roughly 1000 years, at various times held significant military and wordly power, diplomatic power and whole kingdoms and territories and are overall much, much closer to what the Space Marines are in setting than generic 'monks'. Literally one of the officially supported chapters is called the 'Templars' and borrows its optics and heraldry from... the Knights Templar.
No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.
That huge derail about monks is dumb as hell, especially when declaring religious knightly orders 'irrelevant' in the same breath - they existed for roughly 1000 years, at various times held significant military and wordly power, diplomatic power and whole kingdoms and territories and are overall much, much closer to what the Space Marines are in setting than generic 'monks'. Literally one of the officially supported chapters is called the 'Templars' and borrows its optics and heraldry from... the Knights Templar.
No, really, no one cares about real world monks.
Some chapters are inspired by military orders. Most aren't.
No one gives a gak about monks. The whole argument is a red herring by a dude who opened with the idea that women's rights are a novel fad.
That huge derail about monks is dumb as hell, especially when declaring religious knightly orders 'irrelevant' in the same breath - they existed for roughly 1000 years, at various times held significant military and wordly power, diplomatic power and whole kingdoms and territories and are overall much, much closer to what the Space Marines are in setting than generic 'monks'. Literally one of the officially supported chapters is called the 'Templars' and borrows its optics and heraldry from... the Knights Templar.
No, really, no one cares about real world monks.
Some chapters are inspired by military orders. Most aren't.
I'm not even sure where that argument was supposed to lead. Some chapters are monks, others are templars, vikings, vampires, emos, batman or robots. None of that has any particular bearing on the question of allowing female marines.
I'm not even sure where that argument was supposed to lead. Some chapters are monks, others are templars, vikings, vampires, emos, batman or robots. None of that has any particular bearing on the question of allowing female marines.
All of them are monks. But some of them are Viking monks, Vampire Monks, Greco-Roman Senator monks, etc. Warrior Monk is the play by play wrapped around the Color Commentary
Just Tony wrote:The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Lizard people aren't real. Space Marines are trans-human, and look humanoid. Not the same thing.
Two fictional creations. Yep, the same thing. Trans-human genetically modified super soldiers don't exist.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
haha purple hair and pronouns, what a funny joke. /j
I didn't realize "nose rings" was a pronoun.
Oh, you mean when I referred to the totality of Slann models as a group by calling them "them". Does that mean any time someone uses the word "them" that they are transphobic dogwhistling?
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic?
I'm sorry, did you miss where Hec here asked for people to JUSTIFY trans ideology? Why the hell does that need justifying?
I reread it since you were oh, so kind enough to quote it by quoting me. NOWHERE is he asking people to justify trans ideology. He was referring explicitly toward your attitudes about the lore. Once again, this is you shoving yourself personally into an argument in an effort to stay professionally offended.
Just Tony wrote:You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Would you say that about Primaris Marines ten years ago? Aircraft? Grav-weapons? Centurions?
Seems a little weird, your fixation on participation trophies. Did you not get one, and all the other kids did?
No, I didn't, because they didn't exist. I also know how to accept that I don't get my way, and that the world doesn't revolve around me. You should try it sometime.
And gear being introduced without explicit lore reasons saying it SHOULDN'T EXIST is nowhere near the same thing.
And case in point on mocking transphobia. Do you get tired of this?
I pointed out someone whose verbiage inferred that fallacial arguments were male exclusive, and I corrected them. How is that mocking transphobia? Unless somehow I missed the straw specifying how it identified, you are making baseless accusations. AGAIN.
Just Tony wrote:There isn't an eyeroll emoji strong enough. I don't need official GW validation to have a Lithuanian/Irish descent based Marines chapter if I felt this overwhelming urge to be as self-fellating as some here, you don't need official GW validation to have FSM in your Chapter or a whole FSM chapter.
You can have that, but you'll find very few people kicking up a stink if you show up with Lithuanian/Irish inspired models. Meanwhile, we have Breton here in the thread outright saying that they'd be trying to refuse a game against someone who played FSM, and first hand experience from many of us here who have experienced people crying when they see a FSM about how "it doesn't fit with the lore".
This is the kind of stuff we mean by that FSM is apparently a bridge too far. No-one cares when people make their own homebrew chapters, as long as they don't include women - because then, all hell breaks loose.
My CSM force will be painted up as Ultramarines. Do you think the wailing and teeth-gnashing over that lore breaking will stop me from being able to run and play that army? No, because I have enough of a spine to not beta the second someone says something expressly not nice to me.
Breton wrote:I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.
One hell of an assumption. I have FSM, and am non-binary and queer. You think I'd call you that if you were winning?
Having seen your posting habits? I'd think you'd call someone that with LESS prompting. IN. THIS. VERY. THREAD.
Insectum7 wrote:Seems to me that an obvious counterpoint is that you didn't need GW to greenlight your cool conversions though. You're already free to personalize away without changing the setting.
It doesn't stop people from saying "COOL BUT THE LORE SAYS..."
If you haven't seen those sorts of comments, you're a lucky person. I've seen Crimson's art/conversions in various places across the interwebs, and they invariably have a comment like that left on them.
Do their comments make your work suddenly disappear? Do their comments erase your fabricated Chapter lore? If the answer to any of this is "Yes.", which would be the ONLY way their nitpickiing comments could even AFFECT your hobby, then you need to seek help for your demetia. Internet comments can't hurt you, and real world comments simply indicate which people you need to never play against. For every person you find like that I'm willing to bet you can find over 20 more that don't care what justifies your converted army as long as you are a pleasant person to play against. Given your... excitability, I'd gather you aren't.
a_typical_hero wrote:If somebody wants to be a dick about you or your models, they will find a way. No amount of officiall regulation from GW will change that.
But why let them have the ammunition? Why let them get away with "but the lore"?
Disarm them. Remove their veneer of legitimacy. Take away their ability to use the lore as a hammer to smash down people's ideas. They'll get the message.
Just like making things illegal makes people stop committing crimes.
Breton wrote:I'd already be looking for an escape route because chances are too great they're one of two people - some sort of home brew special character with Magnus' psychics, Mortarian's combat prowess, and Guilliman's force multiplication all for the exorbitant price of 100 points OR someone who's going to call me a misogynist transphobe for not letting them win.
One hell of an assumption. I have FSM, and am non-binary and queer. You think I'd call you that if you were winning?
Having seen your posting habits? I'd think you'd call someone that with LESS prompting. IN. THIS. VERY. THREAD.
Hell having already pointed it had already happened in this thread, and that it was as much about Home Brew Mary Sue syndrome - which was ignored in support of the aggrieved narrative and slipping in an implied Transphobe attack.. yeah.
It is completely relevant. The Holy Knights orders were monks.
The popular concept of those monks are fanatics who go out on crusades. You know, like marines, who literally call their military campaigns crusades.
I'm not even sure where that argument was supposed to lead. Some chapters are monks, others are templars, vikings, vampires, emos, batman or robots. None of that has any particular bearing on the question of allowing female marines.
All of them are monks. But some of them are Viking monks, Vampire Monks, Greco-Roman Senator monks, etc. Warrior Monk is the play by play wrapped around the Color Commentary
Breton wrote: The Catholic military orders of the Crusades will be shocked to hear this.
Irrelevant.
Facts that dont support my unsupported claim are irrelevant. As is the fact that Multi-chapter SM Forces are called Crusade Fleets. That they participated in The Great Crusade to liberate the holy lands of the Imperium from oppressors like independence, and the control of "others".
Well, here's a fact for you:
The KNIGHTS Templar were not called the MONKS Templar.
Nor were the KNIGHTS Hospitaller called the MONKS Hospitaller.
As it turns out, the "Knights" or fighting forces were about 10% of the total membership. The other 90% were involved in finance and logistics- none of them seem to have sworn vows of poverty or celibacy as a rule- though I'm sure that some certainly did. In any case, using these orders as examples of warrior monks really weakens your argument, because these orders included people with a great diversity of societal roles, and the fighters among them had far more in common with Knights than Monks, and reflected this in their own vocabulary and nomenclature.
To bring it back to 40k, it has been my view that Space Marine chapters are supposed to be diverse in nature- claiming that all must cleave to a monastic tradition in order to be legitimate is quite reductive. Some chapter certainly are Monk supreme. Others less so. Some likely behave nothing like monks, and have nothing resembling monasteries in their background.
