https://www.goonhammer.com/editorial-transphobic-language-and-the-horus-heresy/?fbclid=IwAR1gjmxXbRz6STPqTIaZGEkNW83gpnO5YhW39CbPKzWn7U_e5hEC5knqC4g

No

No

Yes, but probably not intentionally.

Couldn’t get the page to load, so I assume this is about the latest HH rulebook reprinting the old “Astartes can only be boys” fluff, which is more easily seen as misogynistic in my eyes. And I’d chalk it up to lazy copy-pasting rather than an agenda.

(If this article is about something else, please quote the relevant bits here.)

What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.

That the whole thing opens with a self-righteous attempt to paint themselves as above other community sites makes the whole thing even worse. Disgusting.

It is the language used. "Biological male" has become a common term in transphobic rhetoric.

Is it intentional? probably not, it is GW we are talking about, they routinely fail to proof read their rules so I doubt they would bother to think about the implications of the terms they use in their fluff.

No, that article is just someone looking for a reason to be outraged. Sex =/= gender, and the GW quote is very clearly referring to "males" not "men". Nothing about it suggests any intent to invalidate trans people, or that the subject of gender or identity or anything like that is even relevant.

(The whole male-only thing is still silly from a plausibility point of view, but we're talking about an organization that is in-universe explicitly a bunch of backwards idiots who don't understand their own technology. It's absolutely fluff-accurate for them to have a middle-school level understanding of sex and genetics.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Couldn’t get the page to load, so I assume this is about the latest HH rulebook reprinting the old “Astartes can only be boys” fluff, which is more easily seen as misogynistic in my eyes. And I’d chalk it up to lazy copy-pasting rather than an agenda.

Yep, that's what it is. The quote they're objecting to:

“The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

Nah.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.

I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

This is exhausting... I think the term/phrase 'Transphobic' has lost all meaning now as it so quickly gets thrown around, and does more to harm Trans individuals, as it makes them seem perpetually offended.

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft.

Edit.
I always took that old bit of fluff to highlight the dangers of an all male group. How it magnifies the worst of their attitudes as they are not being balanced by the other sex. It was meant as a warning of what happens when the 2 sexes don't work together.

 Tyran wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.

I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

How would you write the statement then?

For that matter, how would you rewrite 40k fluff to avoid any statements that could possibly offend any discriminated minority? Because that is the proposal at hand.

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

But remember that the lore is written from a semi-fictional point of view. The Imperium probably doesn't understand any of the nuances of sex or genetics, they're operating on a level of "if there's a bit sticking out give him space marine stuff". It would be completely out of place and awkward to get into those nuances and start talking about the very rare edge cases, especially given the fact that this is a brief throwaway line that isn't even the focus of the book.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

That's really reaching. Is it a simplified view of sex? Yes. Is it in a context where a more nuanced version of sex would be relevant to the topic? No. Does it claim that sex determines gender and that trans people are really their "biological sex"? Absolutely not.

It lays out the premise that the biological composition of a homo sapiens individual which is genetically male is a prerequisite for becoming a Space Marine. That is quite clearly not transphobic and even the writers of the article knew that, the argument is based that the wording of the statement is somehow transphobic, and because of one sentence they raise the question of all 40k being transphobic.

There is quite literally no better way to promote ongoing discrimination against transgender people than posting articles like this one.

These crybabies never stop complaining.

Absolutely insufferable.

I don't like the idea that everything these days has to be rewritten or fashioned to be politically correct. The 40k universe is fiction, I don't think it should have to pander to anybody, really. Remember these people will never be satisfied, they will push and push until what we are left with is something unrecognizable.

In the end I don't think art should have to tread an ideological line. It's a fictional universe, if you don't like it, don't partake in it. People these days seem soft, sensitive and frail of mind, sheesh.

 stonehorse wrote:
This is exhausting... I think the term/phrase 'Transphobic' has lost all meaning now as it so quickly gets thrown around, and does more to harm Trans individuals, as it makes them seem perpetually offended.

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft.

It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

Sure, you can argue there isn’t much harm here, but it’s definitely a “no gurlz” statement canonized into the fluff.

Edit.
I always took that old bit of fluff to highlight the dangers of an all male group. How it magnifies the worst of their attitudes as they are not being balanced by the other sex. It was meant as a warning of what happens when the 2 sexes don't work together.

I find this to be a stretch, although a valid interpretation of modern fluff. However, word from the designers is there were female space marines in the earliest days of the game, but they didn’t sell, and GW received complaints about them, so they changed the background to fit with their customers’ attitude.

No.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
This is exhausting... I think the term/phrase 'Transphobic' has lost all meaning now as it so quickly gets thrown around, and does more to harm Trans individuals, as it makes them seem perpetually offended.

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft.

It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

Sure, you can argue there isn’t much harm here, but it’s definitely a “no gurlz” statement canonized into the fluff.

Edit.
I always took that old bit of fluff to highlight the dangers of an all male group. How it magnifies the worst of their attitudes as they are not being balanced by the other sex. It was meant as a warning of what happens when the 2 sexes don't work together.

I find this to be a stretch, although a valid interpretation of modern fluff. However, word from the designers is there were female space marines in the earliest days of the game, but they didn’t sell, and GW received complaints about them, so they changed the background to fit with their customers’ attitude.

I see your point about 'That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft'. Was incorrect. It should have read:

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that this harms trans individuals in real life is just daft.

I vaguely remember those Female Space Marines. If I recall correctly that was during the Rogue Trader days, the background was all over the place back then. Sadly the GW fan base at the time was pretty much a sausage fest, things have improved, which is great.

Marines being all Male comes from a different time, I'd wager that most real world militaries at the time were pretty much all Male. Action films were dominated by Strong Males, being aggressive. The designers would have grown up in that world, so their views/ideas/etc would have been shaped by it.

Now I think it is good to reinterpretation it as a warning against single sexed communities/lodges/organisations/etc.

Edited because I can't type words tonight apparently!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

How would you write the statement then?

For that matter, how would you rewrite 40k fluff to avoid any statements that could possibly offend any discriminated minority? Because that is the proposal at hand.

To be honest I do not know, as the whole "male only Space Marines" is inherently bs* and inherently discriminatory, so I would simply not write it. Leaving aside complications with transphobic terms, it also reeks of misogyny.

*So you are telling me that the process requires hormones traditionally associated with the male gender, something we have been able to trivially replicate for more than a century by this point.

Moreover, my reply to you was because "dry scientific statement" is factually wrong, regardless if it is discriminatory or not.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

But remember that the lore is written from a semi-fictional point of view. The Imperium probably doesn't understand any of the nuances of sex or genetics, they're operating on a level of "if there's a bit sticking out give him space marine stuff". It would be completely out of place and awkward to get into those nuances and start talking about the very rare edge cases, especially given the fact that this is a brief throwaway line that isn't even the focus of the book.

There is the further issue is that it is hard to believe the Imperium can be that ignorant when it comes to biology, not when they go around with biologically enhanced super soldiers and deploying super biological weapons.

Specially when the Astartes were first created by the Emperor, and later modified by Cawl, who the text presents as scientific geniuses, so it is hard to accept they are that ignorant. But I guess that is one of the inherent issues of writing supposedly smart characters, the writers are rarely that smart.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

That's really reaching. Is it a simplified view of sex? Yes. Is it in a context where a more nuanced version of sex would be relevant to the topic? No. Does it claim that sex determines gender and that trans people are really their "biological sex"? Absolutely not.

Unlike goonhammer, I do not believe that the text is an example of intentional transphobia, but rather another example of writers writing stuff they are unfamiliar with. But the fact that simplified views of sex have been used to hurt trans people is sadly a reality of transphobia. If we didn't live in a world in which people use terms like "biological male" to attack transwomen, then I wouldn't have much of an issue with the text presented by GW, but yet sadly we do live in such world.

Also while we are at it, any simplified view of scientific concepts is likely wrong, a lot of times out of necessity of the sheer complexity of science. This is best shown when it comes to scientific journalism as depicted on this meme:



This isn't inherently bad, because science fiction is built on faulty science. Star Wars, Star Trek, 40k, Halo, Mass Effect, etc. Unless it is hard science fiction, it is likely built misusing scientific concepts.

But sex is a difficult topic, and thus should be approached with care. No one cares if you get the theory of relativity wrong when building your FTL drive, people do care if you try to present false statements regarding sex as science.

 Tyran wrote:
To be honest I do not know, as the whole "male only Space Marines" is inherently bs* and inherently discriminatory, so I would simply not write it. Leaving aside complications with transphobic terms, it also reeks of misogyny.

Just to confirm: you do know that the space marines are the bad guys, right? That they should not be expected to align with modern progressive views on gender/equality/etc?

*So you are telling me that the process requires hormones traditionally associated with the male gender, something we have been able to trivially replicate for more than a century by this point.

40k =/= real life. In real life we can do many things that are impossible for the Imperium.

There is the further issue is that it is hard to believe the Imperium can be that ignorant when it comes to biology, not when they go around with biologically enhanced super soldiers and deploying super biological weapons.

It's not hard to believe at all. The entire premise of the setting is that the Imperium is a bunch of ignorant fanatics looting the work of the greater civilization that preceded them. They don't really understand any of their technology, they can only attempt to follow the user manuals as best they can and hope nothing breaks. I could absolutely believe that female space marines (or similar genetically engineered soldiers) existed and were common in that greater civilization but now the Imperium only knows "put the mariney bits in the strongest boys".

Unlike goonhammer, I do not believe that the text is an example of intentional transphobia, but rather another example of writers writing stuff they are unfamiliar with. But the fact that simplified views of sex have been used to hurt trans people is sadly a reality of transphobia. If we didn't live in a world in which people use terms like "biological male" to attack transwomen, then I wouldn't have much of an issue with the text presented by GW, but yet sadly we do live in such world.

So how much detail is GW obligated to go into? Do they need to include a page-length explanation of how XX/XY is a simplified middle school science class version of sex determination and describe all of the various edge cases?

people do care if you try to present false statements regarding sex as science.

But nobody is presenting it as science! This is a rulebook, not a genetics textbook, and it is presenting the rules for a bunch of ignorant barbarians fighting genocidal holy wars against literal demons from hell, space elves who had so much kinky sex they tore a hole in reality and created a new chaos god, and rioting British soccer fans led by Margaret Thatcher. If you're treating anything ever said in 40k as truth then you are completely missing the point of the setting.

Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.


Adding a “no girls” phrase to what could be their next flagship product is an unnecessary error. No one would have reduced purchases due to a lack of “no girls” phrasing, but some people will reduce it due to the presence of such. And GW really just doesn’t need any more ill will at this point in time. Just seems like a needless own-goal to me.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.


Adding a “no girls” phrase to what could be their next flagship product is an unnecessary error. No one would have reduced purchases due to a lack of “no girls” phrasing, but some people will reduce it due to the presence of such. And GW really just doesn’t need any more ill will at this point in time. Just seems like a needless own-goal to me.

I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

If so, do people really need everything to represent them in order to enjoy it? Isn't the joy of escapism the act of escaping what, who, and when we are?

As for own goals, I doubt GW not having Female Space Marines is going to be their undoing, and we suddenly see people stop buying Space Marines. Heck, the Primaris always reminded me of that scene from the Simpson's where Malabo Stacey got a new hat and the kids went crazy for it... even more as the Primaris range has been peddled out.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Just to confirm: you do know that the space marines are the bad guys, right? That they should not be expected to align with modern progressive views on gender/equality/etc?

40k =/= real life. In real life we can do many things that are impossible for the Imperium.

It's not hard to believe at all. The entire premise of the setting is that the Imperium is a bunch of ignorant fanatics looting the work of the greater civilization that preceded them. They don't really understand any of their technology, they can only attempt to follow the user manuals as best they can and hope nothing breaks. I could absolutely believe that female space marines (or similar genetically engineered soldiers) existed and were common in that greater civilization but now the Imperium only knows "put the mariney bits in the strongest boys".

We both know that GW has often strayed from that premise, see the Primaris, see any piece of lore in which the Space Marines are shown as the heroic protagonists.

So how much detail is GW obligated to go into? Do they need to include a page-length explanation of how XX/XY is a simplified middle school science class version of sex determination and describe all of the various edge cases?

I would prefer they wouldn't go into it at all. There is plenty of lore that should be ignored and forgotten: this, that time Grey Knights bathed in the blood of Sisters of Battle (thankfully that one got retconned), the sheer stupidity that is the Tau's lack of FTL.

But nobody is presenting it as science! This is a rulebook, not a genetics textbook, and it is presenting the rules for a bunch of ignorant barbarians fighting genocidal holy wars against literal demons from hell, space elves who had so much kinky sex they tore a hole in reality and created a new chaos god, and rioting British soccer fans led by Margaret Thatcher. If you're treating anything ever said in 40k as truth then you are completely missing the point of the setting.

Perhaps, but GW's has often also completely missed that point, so I think I can be forgiven from missing it too. 40k does have the issue that GW's has been unable to decide if the setting is supposed to be purely satirical or something more serious. And that is actually quite problematic when it comes to satire.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

In no way, shape or form. People need to stop peddling this nonsense that representation matters in every single facet of our existence, least of all in fiction. It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports), and it's entirely the prerogative of any author to have a culturally/ethnically/sexually homogenous group of people depicted in their fiction for whatever reason they see fit. This does not infringe on anyone's rights, nor does it marginalize people in the real world. It's an absurd notion, to be quite frank.

 BertBert wrote:

It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports)

... have you ever watched the Olympics?

At most you can say that sports select towards certain biological qualities, but they are not homogeneous.

 Tyran wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports)

... have you ever watched the Olympics?

At most you can say that sports select towards certain biological qualities, but they are not homogeneous.

They are homogenous in the sense that they are separated into the categories men/women, which would be analogous to the Space Marine question.

 stonehorse wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.


Adding a “no girls” phrase to what could be their next flagship product is an unnecessary error. No one would have reduced purchases due to a lack of “no girls” phrasing, but some people will reduce it due to the presence of such. And GW really just doesn’t need any more ill will at this point in time. Just seems like a needless own-goal to me.

I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

Not exactly. Some women won’t buy them. Some men, too. And some will just buy into AOS instead because they feel more welcome, something I’ve seen happen with a few younger customers of both sexes.

Also, many existing customers will feel less welcome gaming at the store if they believe this attitude is widely held. As described in the many threads on GW’s decline during the Kirby years, the network effect is strong and discouraging people from gaming in communities hurts the game.

I am not saying the company will lose millions, the end is upon it. Just, this is not ideal for the company and could combine with other factors, like poor rules and price hikes, to hurt the company in the medium-long term. And it was totally unnecessary.

If so, do people really need everything to represent them in order to enjoy it? Isn't the joy of escapism the act of escaping what, who, and when we are?

Some people do. Many, maybe most, think it is nice to be represented yet don’t need it. And some don’t even care at all.

Remember that films like Black Panther and Wonder Woman received outsized success for finally serving people hungry for representation. Lots of people want representation and will pay to have it.

As for own goals, I doubt GW not having Female Space Marines is going to be their undoing, and we suddenly see people stop buying Space Marines. Heck, the Primaris always reminded me of that scene from the Simpson's were Malabo Stacey got a new hat and the kids went crazy for it... even more as the Primaris range has been peddled out.

Agreed for the most part. I still think they are leaving a significant chunk of money on the table and also showing their ass to potentially loyal customers.

 BertBert wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports)

... have you ever watched the Olympics?

At most you can say that sports select towards certain biological qualities, but they are not homogeneous.

They are homogenous in the sense that they are separated by men/women, which would be analogous to the Space Marine question.

Even then that doesn't apply to all sports.

And of course the analogy falls apart because Space Marines are not a sport, they are a military force, and military forces are not homogeneous when it come to gender.
We cannot even justify it as the IoM being sexists because the Imperial Guard has guardswomen.

 BertBert wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

In no way, shape or form. People need to stop peddling this nonsense that representation matters in every single facet of our existence, least of all in fiction. It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports), and it's entirely the prerogative of any author to have a culturally/ethnically/sexually homogenous group of people depicted in their fiction for whatever reason they see fit. This does not infringe on anyone's rights, nor does it marginalize people in the real world. It's an absurd notion, to be quite frank.

1. This is an insane misrepresentation of what I wrote. Ironic, considering. You even must have read my sentence about it not causing much harm before deleting it so you could pretend I said it did.

2. Rights? What the hell do you think we’re talking about here?

2. Authors are free to write stupid crap and customers are free to call it stupid crap and recommend other people don’t buy it. That is what we’re discussing here. To what extent is GW’s latest crap stupid, and how many people will decide not to buy it, with the particular stupid crap under discussion being the old “no girls” bit.

3. I think we have a different understanding of the term “marginalized”, and I admit that could be my error. I took is as meaning “to make unwelcome”, which has nothing really to do with rights, but more to do with telling women “no girls” here.

4. When people tell me representation matters to them, I believe them. When they pay big bucks to see representation on screen, company accountants should believe them.

Maybe people need some context behind why this is gaining traction.
In the UK there is currently a very loud and very visible anti-trans movement going on. I'm not talking about some wackos going on local radio, I'm talking about the national news circuit like the BBC bringing noted transphobes on as "experts" and not booking any actual trans folks, thereby stacking the opinion in favour of people who often want to see said trans folks dead.
Warhammer (like so much other nerd stuff) is a refuge for people who don't "conform" and for those people to see the stuff spouted by people who hate them in their hobby, it's not exactly brilliant.

As for GW specifically, the section that goes into "detail" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) hasn't been printed in a main GW publication for years. Apparently, it was printed in Betrayal (which came out 10 years ago BTW) but I don't have that to hand to check. The SM Codexes don't use it and only ever just acknowledge the fact that Marines are all dudes without going into pseudo-science that also happens to be used by transphobes.

It's not direct malice, and AFAIK nobody is claiming it is, rather it's harm caused by inaction or inadequacy.

 Gert wrote:
Maybe people need some context behind why this is gaining traction.
In the UK there is currently a very loud and very visible anti-trans movement going on. I'm not talking about some wackos going on local radio, I'm talking about the national news circuit like the BBC bringing noted transphobes on as "experts" and not booking any actual trans folks, thereby stacking the opinion in favour of people who often want to see said trans folks dead.

Hey Gert, do you have an actual example of the BBC doing this - from the news channel or shows, Today, PM, Newsnight, etc? The BBC isn't monolithic, and in fact is highly subdivided - so there probably are 100s of perspectives within it, some perhaps more critical than others. I know there was the Nolan Investigates podcast (not on the news, however), but it wasn't fully focused on conflict around trans identity and did feature trans and non-binary voices, who were lucid advocates for both movements.

In Scotland, there is a heated although often barely heard debate around Gender Recognition legislation, and more widely across the UK I am familiar with issues around the rupture between Stonewall and EHRC, a number of major organisations leaving Stonewall's exemplar training, etc. But a casual wander through trans-focused programming on the BBC in radio, tv and podcasting feels very positive to trans people, e.g. it has felt critical of certain positions put forward by the AG, for example, recently. I think the BBC really advocates that trans people are full members of our society and here to stay, and This isn't the US, thankfully!

Perhaps the main challenge is the conflict between sex-based rights and gender-based rights - I'm not sure this debate is actually happening publicly or in any meaningful way in the UK, although I guess Scotland will be a legal test of it if GR legislation becomes law. But I feel it is something that needs more case law and perhaps better legislation to navigate it.

But I really don't think the UK is a place where there is much acceptance of any violence towards trans people, who are protected under the 2010 act and other subsequent acts on hate speech. Sadly there are violent elements - but at least we do have strong security services whose particular foci are the main clusters of people likely to target trans people as part of their ideologies. In addition, there is online violent hate speech - both towards trans people and people considered to be TERFs online - which is distressing to see whatever one's position - people shouldn't be like that.

In terms of the Goonhammer article, I do have a problem with the Goonhammer editors' responses in the comments to questioning or critical responses, which feels like its repeating the problem that they are trying to stop of exclusion rather than dialogue and hopefully helping people actually change - although of course there is probably a Clarence Thomas-shaped reason for that especial hostility at the moment, based on his opinion published last friday.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


1. This is an insane misrepresentation of what I wrote. Ironic, considering. You even must have read my sentence about it not causing much harm before deleting it so you could pretend I said it did.

2. Authors are free to write stupid crap and customers are free to call it stupid crap and recommend other people don’t buy it. That is what we’re discussing here. To what extent is GW’s latest crap stupid, and how many people will decide not to buy it, with the particular stupid crap under discussion being the old “no girls” bit.

3. I think we have a different understanding of the term “marginalized”, and I admit that could be my error. I took is as meaning “to make unwelcome”, which has nothing really to do with rights, but more to do with telling women “no girls” here.

4. When people tell me representation matters to them, I believe them. When they pay big bucks to see representation on screen, company accountants should believe them.

1. I read all of it and I mostly agree with your conclusions, but I wanted to pick this particular notion out because it is often nonchalantly stated as a fact. Sorry if I came across as overly confrontational there.

2. Not quite, we are discussing whether or not whatever GW wrote is transphobic or marginalizing. There is quite a large gap between "stupid" and either of those attributes.

3. Marginalization (granted, as I understand it) is an observable process where people are purposefully excluded from participating. I believe it's fairly evident that GW is not engaging in this behaviour.

4. I'd also believe them, but that doesn't mean their feelings trump the artistic process. If it were such a no-brainer for GW to just make all armies 50% female and tap into that vast market, they would do it. The fact that they haven't means that they either don't believe in said untapped market or that there is some artistic argument preventing it. Maybe to them it's intrinsic to the lore and they are not willing to change it, which should be as good a reason as any.

 Tyran wrote:

Even then that doesn't apply to all sports.

And of course the analogy falls apart because Space Marines are not a sport, they are a military force, and military forces are not homogeneous when it come to gender.
We cannot even justify it as the IoM being sexists because the Imperial Guard has guardswomen.

It applies to all sports where the distinction matters. The point was to illustrate that homogeneity within a subset of people is not inherently harmful or marginalizing. Lightweight boxers are not marginalized because they can't compete in the heavyweight championship.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.


Adding a “no girls” phrase to what could be their next flagship product is an unnecessary error. No one would have reduced purchases due to a lack of “no girls” phrasing, but some people will reduce it due to the presence of such. And GW really just doesn’t need any more ill will at this point in time. Just seems like a needless own-goal to me.

I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

Not exactly. Some women won’t buy them. Some men, too. And some will just buy into AOS instead because they feel more welcome, something I’ve seen happen with a few younger customers of both sexes.

Also, many existing customers will feel less welcome gaming at the store if they believe this attitude is widely held. As described in the many threads on GW’s decline during the Kirby years, the network effect is strong and discouraging people from gaming in communities hurts the game.

I am not saying the company will lose millions, the end is upon it. Just, this is not ideal for the company and could combine with other factors, like poor rules and price hikes, to hurt the company in the medium-long term. And it was totally unnecessary.

If so, do people really need everything to represent them in order to enjoy it? Isn't the joy of escapism the act of escaping what, who, and when we are?

Some people do. Many, maybe most, think it is nice to be represented yet don’t need it. And some don’t even care at all.

Remember that films like Black Panther and Wonder Woman received outsized success for finally serving people hungry for representation. Lots of people want representation and will pay to have it.

As for own goals, I doubt GW not having Female Space Marines is going to be their undoing, and we suddenly see people stop buying Space Marines. Heck, the Primaris always reminded me of that scene from the Simpson's were Malabo Stacey got a new hat and the kids went crazy for it... even more as the Primaris range has been peddled out.

Agreed for the most part. I still think they are leaving a significant chunk of money on the table and also showing their ass to potentially loyal customers.

If someone doesn't buy a thing, that just means that it isn't for their taste, not every thing is made with everyone in mind. Nothing wrong with that, it helps create diversity, which I think is a lot better than turning everything into an homogeneous goop. Each to their own as long as it doesn’t actually hurt someone, if you don't like it, fine... but let those that like it enjoy it. The whole your freedom ends where my nose begins. I honestly can not get my head around this notion that things have to represent everyone, and/or appeal to everyone.

It just reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's 'Harrison Bergeron', a satirical dystopian science-fiction short story.

 PetitionersCity wrote:
Hey Gert, do you have an actual example of the BBC doing this - from the news channel or shows, Today, PM, Newsnight, etc? The BBC isn't monolithic, and in fact is highly subdivided - so there probably are 100s of perspectives within it, some perhaps more critical than others. I know there was the Nolan Investigates podcast (not on the news, however), but it wasn't fully focused on conflict around trans identity and did feature trans and non-binary voices, who were lucid advocates for both movements.

Well, there was this:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/01/bbc-article-trans-women-did-not-meet-accuracy-standards
Which then spiraled into this:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19695689.bbc-removes-lily-cade-article-transphobic-blog-posts/
And then there's this:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nv97/lgbtq-employees-are-quitting-the-bbc-because-they-say-its-transphobic
It's also not just the BBC but many newspapers, which while many don't read because they are disgusting rags (looking at you Daily Mail and The Sun), there are still a large number of people who do read them. The Sunday Times, for example, posted 300 anti-trans articles on its website in 2020, and it's not a small news "service". There might not be support for the anti-trans lobby in the wider public but the current government is doing a hell of a lot of work to lay the groundwork for removing trans folks (and many other minorities) rights, with the real kicker being the stall on the banning of conversion therapy despite huge support from the public, political parties and even religious groups for the ban. We now also have the government trying to withdraw the UK from the ECHR which places a lot of the LGBTQ+ legislation in the firing line. There have been constant resignations from the government's LGBTQ+ advisory boards over decisions made by ministers and we've now got to the point where an MP stood up in Parliament and said he didn't think women should have bodily autonomy.
I'd say things are pretty bad and are only going to get worse.
Oh yeah there's also been multiple instances where BBC show hosts have asked political leaders loaded questions about "biological males" and other related topics. The BBC ain't good my friend.

Anti-trans rhetoric (and not just rhetoric but also politics and government action) also seems dramatically on the rise in the USA. But, at least to me, that makes it clear that Space Marines being “all male” is not transphobia. Threatening people’s access to healthcare (or even criminalizing it), on the other hand, certainly is. It’s a complicated, sensitive set of issues where real people’s lives are really in danger and leveraging that to complain about Games Workshop does them no favors whatsover.

Honestly, a person could spend their entire life abusing transgender individuals, attending anti-trans rallies, etc. And it would do less harm. Such an abuser's harm is dramatic but ultimately limited to a small number of people affected, while an article like this undermines the cause as a whole.

This one article hurts trans people more than an abusive bigot would in their entire life, but because it is spread out to a little bit of damage to everyone people who ostensibly want to support trans rights will line up to actively defend damage to their own values.

What a joke. This looks like virtue signalling at its finest and just an attempt to drum up controversy to get internet brownie points and clickbait views. Goonhammer just dropped a LOT in my book. Leave politics and bad IRL takes on other blogs, damn.

 Gert wrote:

 PetitionersCity wrote:
Hey Gert, do you have an actual example of the BBC doing this - from the news channel or shows, Today, PM, Newsnight, etc? The BBC isn't monolithic, and in fact is highly subdivided - so there probably are 100s of perspectives within it, some perhaps more critical than others. I know there was the Nolan Investigates podcast (not on the news, however), but it wasn't fully focused on conflict around trans identity and did feature trans and non-binary voices, who were lucid advocates for both movements.

Well, there was this:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/01/bbc-article-trans-women-did-not-meet-accuracy-standards
Which then spiraled into this:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19695689.bbc-removes-lily-cade-article-transphobic-blog-posts/
And then there's this:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7nv97/lgbtq-employees-are-quitting-the-bbc-because-they-say-its-transphobic
It's also not just the BBC but many newspapers, which while many don't read because they are disgusting rags (looking at you Daily Mail and The Sun), there are still a large number of people who do read them. The Sunday Times, for example, posted 300 anti-trans articles on its website in 2020, and it's not a small news "service". There might not be support for the anti-trans lobby in the wider public but the current government is doing a hell of a lot of work to lay the groundwork for removing trans folks (and many other minorities) rights, with the real kicker being the stall on the banning of conversion therapy despite huge support from the public, political parties and even religious groups for the ban. We now also have the government trying to withdraw the UK from the ECHR which places a lot of the LGBTQ+ legislation in the firing line. There have been constant resignations from the government's LGBTQ+ advisory boards over decisions made by ministers and we've now got to the point where an MP stood up in Parliament and said he didn't think women should have bodily autonomy.
I'd say things are pretty bad and are only going to get worse.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, but honestly, I think you are catatrophising here - while the gov is slow on some things, and has been critiqued for some issues around trans activities, I really don't think moving from the ECHR to a "Bill of Rights" will take away from trans rites - the Supreme Court, the Lords and MPs will all help ensure we keep the trans rites from 2004 onwards we have. I might just not be as nihilistic as you, but I think we are quite solid in the equality project now, something really unthinkable compared to 20 years ago, before the 2004 act really changed our society for the better.

On the BBC article, it had flaws, especially one of its sources, but it was pulled and edited, the author - notably, a 20s female writer - was forced off Twitter, which isn't an ideal example of the way the internet work, but at least it led to internal review of BBC practices, which sounds like a good outcome in terms of BBC internal governance, and hopefully tackling some of those issues in the Vice article?

However, the article also raised a key question that I'm not sure those critiquing it managed to address - if you are a lesbian, should you be able to say no to dating or having sex with a trans woman, or not? (and if you are a gay man, should you also be able to say no to a trans man, or not?). Some of the reaction to the article suggested that to say "yes, you should be able to say no" was innately transphobic.

Nevertheless, I think the BBC is the furthest from a willing participant in the anti-trans movement in media, and possibly the largest proponent of trans identity in the UK today - certainly the one encountered by the most people. It's not perfect - but we are really lucky to have it. In contrast to that article, sensitive or trans-authored texts on the same issue include this BBC short (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0bqqgq8/disclosure-shorts-2-disclosure-should-i-tell-you-im-trans), among many others. Honestly, there are more trans voices on the BBC than I think most other UK media platforms, due to its sheer size.

I think I'd like to have a good definition of "anti-trans" in this context too, though, as I'm struggling to find a source for who said the Times published those 300 articles (I'm sure there were some or even many that would to me read as anti-trans, but I can't find a good source for it, not even on Pink News or Stonewall). On the Mail and the Sun, yes, and many of the other tabloids too - but it's a good question how much readers of those papers unthinkingly consume potential negative thoughts when their main televised media (the BBC, Channel 4, ITV, etc - anything other than possibly GB News?) is overwhelmingly pro-trans? That's a question - has trans rights since 2004 and protection under Equality since 2010 helped balance some of the phobic feelings people had prior to that, and helped neuter some of that idiotic tabloid nonsense - or do instead people take on anti-trans views from other sources? But again, a question is, what is "anti-trans" in this context?

On the other things, I think the delay on Transgender conversion therapy will be undone - it's clear there is a general revulsion towards the delay across Parliament, from conservatives, labour, libdem, and the snp. And I'm glad those advisors resigned to signpost the failings of the government (or rather, certain ministers - Truss, Badenoch, the AG, etc) - or in Iain Anderson's case, again the delay on conversion therapy bans. Again, I think the gov will u-turn on this - the Lords will hold them to account, ultimately.

Kruger is an idiot, although to be precise, he said "absolute right of bodily autonomy" rather than just "bodily autonomy". Anyway, as he should be, he has been roundly castigated by anyone with a voice, including even the rightwing msm (including the Telegraph and even the Mail). I think the only defender he's had is Tablet writer Melanie McDonagh writing in the Spectator an op-ed (probably commissioned to get clicks more than endorsement of her views).

Overall, I do think you are catastrophising - and reading too much into our incompetent, u-turning, flawed and tail-eating government.

But equally you a right - we need to care better. It is clear that through mental health, lack of support, problematic health care, rejection by families or lovers or friends, potential homelessness, wider social factors like deprivations, etc., that there are real dangers for UK trans people - and I'm glad this is stated again and again in parliament by MPs from across the house, and is present in diversity training across the civil service. Hopefully, hopefully, we keep expanding protections. But there is a lot of sensitive, conflicting, issues ahead - something that we need more communication around.

Thanks again Gert for sharing!

From what I gather, the people who really pick on trans people are just the people who can't openly get away with the things they'd used to say about women, different races and the wider gay community. You look at the language people use in these articles and it's the exact same tropes used to historically to gak on whichever community doesn't have a big enough voice to defend themselves.

As Gert pointed out, in the UK there's several journalists and similar who are vocally pushing an anti trans agenda and they have a lot of money backing them up. "These people are a threat to society". The BBC right now is a pile of crap, several good political journalists have left because they don't want to be bootlicking.

These people haven't done anything wrong and they just want to live their lives. The way they are vilified by a particular loud mouth group of tossers is appalling. How dare these people want to peacefully get on without being attacked for being who they are.

The GW thing is baffling to me, because why bother putting that in? That's what people are, quite rightly, complaining about here. It's a needless addition that uses language that pushes a certain negative agenda. Space Marines are androgynous anyway, why not just say that the surgery they undergo shrivels away whatever they had and turns them into Marines. Makes zero odds either way.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.

I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

How would you write the statement then?.

If it were up to me, I wouldn't, because it's nonsensical. I would remove it, and either move any gender bias amongst Marines to being a cultural thing that is entirely dependent on the Chapter and their recruiting base (just as it is for Imperial Guard and Knight legions) or re-write Marines as completely asexual agender as a result of all the genetic and hormonal tinkering, with their original gender being completely irrelevant.

 PetitionersCity wrote:
Thanks for your thoughts on this, but honestly, I think you are catatrophising here - while the gov is slow on some things, and has been critiqued for some issues around trans activities, I really don't think moving from the ECHR to a "Bill of Rights" will take away from trans rites - the Supreme Court, the Lords and MPs will all help ensure we keep the trans rites from 2004 onwards we have. I might just not be as nihilistic as you, but I think we are quite solid in the equality project now, something really unthinkable compared to 20 years ago, before the 2004 act really changed our society for the better.

The "Bill of Rights" has only one controller though, the government which is currently the most backward-looking and truly conservative since Thatcher. As for those things you say will keep people safe, the Courts have been massively defunded with barristers going on strike this week, the Lords can be stacked at any time by the current PM (which he did at the last honours including people who were noted as risks to national security by MI5) and they can be removed at any time by if the government (which BTW can outvote literally every other party) wants, and MPs will act in their own self-interest which just so happens to be whatever they think will keep them in a job. I wouldn't trust an MP further than I could throw the Titanic. And good luck protesting against said government because you can now be faced with up to 10 years in prison for, and I quote, "protesting noisily".

On the BBC article, it had flaws, especially one of its sources, but it was pulled and edited, the author - notably, a 20s female writer - was forced off Twitter, which isn't an ideal example of the way the internet work, but at least it led to internal review of BBC practices, which sounds like a good outcome in terms of BBC internal governance, and hopefully tackling some of those issues in the Vice article?

The BBC says it does internal reviews all the time, reviews that the public doesn't get to see the process of. I'm not saying the BBC doesn't provide a service but it's under the thumb of whoever is in power and has been doing pretty much nothing but pathetic shoddy journalism for the last 5 years. As a broadcaster, the BBC works but as a supposed independent news service it's abysmal.
I don't think looking at the catastrophe that is the current government and the slow drive into a replication of what we are seeing in the States is being nihilistic, just realistic about the utter insanity that is going on right now.

The relevant point about the passage in the HH rulebook is that it could have just not been put in. That's it. It doesn't serve a purpose because everyone already knows Astartes are all men, it's weird and we either get on with it or use the ambiguity in 40k to do what we want anyway. That it happened to coincide with a period of anti-trans fever is massively unfortunate but then again, sensitivity editors are a thing and have been for some time. With the fairly large LGBTQ+ presence in the wider Warhammer community, it's just strange that not a single person looked at it and thought "hmm maybe not".

 insaniak wrote:
If it were up to me, I wouldn't, because it's nonsensical. I would remove it, and either move any gender bias amongst Marines to being a cultural thing that is entirely dependent on the Chapter and their recruiting base (just as it is for Imperial Guard and Knight legions) or re-write Marines as completely asexual as a result of all the genetic and hormonal tinkering, with their original gender being completely irrelevant.

I assume you mean agender, not asexual, since sexuality has nothing to do with gender?

And why does it matter if it's nonsensical? Do you expect the Imperium's technology to make sense?

Have you guys (at least the UK guys and gals and anyone else) read the recent report on how average britains really aren't polarised on trans rites - that they tend to ignore the extreme views of media and be more nuanced?

https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/16/britons-not-bitterly-polarised-over-trans-equality-research-finds

Worth reading, as I do think things aren't as vitriolic in the UK as Twitter or the mail or whatever else makes it out to be.

 Tyran wrote:
And of course the analogy falls apart because Space Marines are not a sport, they are a military force, and military forces are not homogeneous when it come to gender.
We cannot even justify it as the IoM being sexists because the Imperial Guard has guardswomen.

Military forces are not homogeneous but remember that we're talking about the elite of the elite, the carefully chosen 0.000000001% of humanity. If you select the top 0.000000001% of humanity based on size, strength, and overall athletic ability you will get a set of people that is 100% male. It's the same reason you never see women in the NFL. Yes, women can play football and can do just fine in your town's local pickup football game but when you have millions of dollars to buy the absolute best 1696 football players (with some positions having only 32 people selected) in the entire world you will only select men. The top 32 quarterbacks in the entire world will all be men. The top 32 kickers in the entire world will all be men. The top 64 linebackers in the entire world will all be men. Etc. No amount of talent or determination will put a woman into that group because even 99.9999% of men can't even dream of getting there.

With guard/PDF now you're talking about a much wider pool of applicants. Cadia has 100% recruitment into military service so of course you're going to have women there, and you'll even have women in the fairly large percentage of that force that is deployed into direct combat. If you take the top 30% and put them into battle now it's no longer an all-male pool. But space marines don't do that. There are a million of them in the entire galaxy, chosen from a pool of uncountable trillions, and no women will ever make it into that far extreme of the long tail.

What a ridiculous article. Warhammer is larger than the astartes by huge magnitudes and there is plenty of space for representation in the universe as a whole. and to adress the implication of female Space marines; Space Marines ARE groups of knightly monastic orders that go on crusades. To change them into something else is to no longer make them space marines.

I just find it funny that this is the thing people are triggered over, given that the Imperium is by no means a "good guy" faction and they commit genocide on their own people and other species like it's another Monday, but god forbid that they mention the process of how only men become marines, hooo boy, they've gone too far now. Clutch those pearls harder.

 Tyran wrote:
It is the language used. "Biological male" has become a common term in transphobic rhetoric.

Is it intentional? probably not, it is GW we are talking about, they routinely fail to proof read their rules so I doubt they would bother to think about the implications of the terms they use in their fluff.

I mean it's also a scientific term, which seems appropriate for talking about a fictional biological modification technique.

Once again people not actually understanding the reason people are unhappy. Shocker that.
Its not pearl clutching to be mad when your hobby parrots the talking points of people who want you dead you absolute muppets.

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements

What statements?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

I assume you mean agender, not asexual, since sexuality has nothing to do with gender?

Or, you know, both.

And why does it matter if it's nonsensical? Do you expect the Imperium's technology to make sense?

There's a difference between 'This technology works because of made up gobbledegook' and 'this technology works because the guys who designed it didn't understand biology'. The former is fine. The latter results in people pointing out that the background is flawed.

The setting of a game doesn't have to be perfectly scientifically accurate, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to make easy changes where they can correct these sorts of issues.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
What a ridiculous article. Warhammer is larger than the astartes by huge magnitudes and there is plenty of space for representation in the universe as a whole. Space marines ARE groups of knightly monastic orders that go on crusades. To change them into something else is to no longer make them space marines.

That's not the point GH and the petition's authors are making, though. (I am fully for female and male space marines, tbh, and loved 28 mag's work around this last year).

They are, I think, sayingg that today certain elements of the scientific community argue we no longer understand humans as having just two sexes (or even the five thought of in the early 90s - there is a great 1993 NYT editorial on the future with five sexes) - as such there isn't a "hormonal" male sex. This means that there are no "males" from whcih only space marines can be drawn, but to present this is to be transphobic since it ignores new ideas of what sex is.

They also are emphasising that the term "biological male" is transphobic, as it is used by some gender critical or transphobic critics. So male in this context is negative towards trans people.

It isn't about the gender of marines, or even female marines; it's rather that the language in Betrayal and now the new AoD rulebook excludes the existence of trans men and/or non diamorphic understandings of human sex, and thus is exclusionary towards hobbyists and society in general.

By using that language, they argue, it will provide more fuel for actual transphobes, and thus GW are supporting transphobia. They argue GW should have sensitivity readers who help them not include language that leads to such situations in the future.

I might be slightly misunderstanding, but I think this is the gist?

 Grimskul wrote:
I just find it funny that this is the thing people are triggered over, given that the Imperium is by no means a "good guy" faction and they commit genocide on their own people and other species like it's another Monday, but god forbid that they mention the process of how only men become marines, hooo boy, they've gone too far now. Clutch those pearls harder.

If this is your take away from it, I suspect that you have misunderstood the article.

They're not saying that the Imperium can't be an evil, fascist regime. They're saying that the language used to describe things within the setting matters. The fact that you don't see an issue with something that presumably has zero impact on your life in no way lessens the way others who are affected by it may perceive it.

I mean, the upsurge in transphobic posts posting the passage in the new book across communities as some sort of explicit victory does suggest that there is perhaps something transphobic there.

Whether incidental or intentional.

Wait, so stating something as basic as biological male is seen as a dogwhistle for hate groups towards trans people? So if I mention this in the context of men not being able to pregnant, this is a problem? Keep in mind that this is a single line of 30 words that is an universe explanation for marines being made from men, there's no weird value proposition of what kind of men they are or implication of them being superior either.

It's like thinking that everytime the phrase "among us" is seen in a paragraph that it's a coded message from GW staff that they're in on the internet meme of "AMOGUS". Kind of a stretch and pretty unlikely and you reading into things you want to see than it's actually there.

It's honestly comes off as internet narcissism to think it's always about your identity in some way if you perceive something as little as this to be a direct attack on the group identity that is as nebulous of what trans is supposed to be (something I think they themselves can't really figure out to be honest given how many people say they're trans since it's trendy right now). If you think the people who wrote this want it to be tied to a message of wanting trans people to be dead, I highly suggest avoiding most of the internet for your sanity.

The best part of this is I guarantee you that all this virtue signalling won't stop people from buying GW's plastic crack or engaging in the warhammer hobby regardless of how much they vent about how this is a crime against trans people.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.

40k is appealing exactly *because* the in-universe characters are morally bankrupt. That's it's niche. The MCU is going to be better at doing what you want it to, probably.

Frankly I'd love to see less focus on Astartes; let's keep them male because the Emperor being needlessly gynophobic is in-character for him.

 Rihgu wrote:
I mean, the upsurge in transphobic posts posting the passage in the new book across communities as some sort of explicit victory does suggest that there is perhaps something transphobic there.

Whether incidental or intentional.

But where though, I honestly hadn't seen anything like this? Was it on 4chan? Or Arch? Were they genuinely being transphobic (trans people aren't real, or another position?) or just misogynist (men are best!)? I feel we need more evidence that the sentence is fueling transphobia today, although sadly I can imagine it doing so for sad weird arch-acolytes - which I guess is GH's point :(

The very idea of marines are problematic, absolutely. In a magic future I'm sure women and men could equally be marines (just as with stormcast), and I'm sad they didn't use primaris to change that and then work backwards.

But equally I understand also how - just as gender is important to monastic identities irl - there are rationales behind marines remaining male gender only - but it would be nice as said above if there was the technology to make any sex into a marine, but that like real world institutions, they chose to be a certain gender or sex only. That was a good post world-building wise.

 stonehorse wrote:
I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

I know women who play Astartes in 40k. They find the overwrought masculinity (of in this case of Space Wolves) to be hilarious.

 Rihgu wrote:
Whether incidental or intentional.

I mean, that's a question. The webstore has three images of the book - one of the cover, one of some rules stuff in it, one of a handful of lore pages.

The unfortunate statement in question is on the pages about the creation of a space marine displayed centrally on the lore page shot.

In a book that Goonhammer says has 334 pages.

The possibility this implies... Well, it makes marine fatigue and rules bloat seem like churlish issues in comparison.

 PetitionersCity wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
I mean, the upsurge in transphobic posts posting the passage in the new book across communities as some sort of explicit victory does suggest that there is perhaps something transphobic there.

Whether incidental or intentional.

But where though, I honestly hadn't seen anything like this? Was it on 4chan? Or Arch? Were they genuinely being transphobic (trans people aren't real, or another position?) or just misogynist (men are best!)? I feel we need more evidence.

The very idea of marines are problematic, absolutely. In a magic future I'm sure women and men could equally be marines (just as with stormcast), and I'm sad they didn't use primaris to change that and then work backwards.

But equally I understand also how - just as gender is important to monastic identities irl - there are rationales behind marines remaining male gender only - but it would be nice as said above if there was the technology to make any sex into a marine, but that like real world institutions, they chose to be a certain gender or sex only. That was a good post world-building wise.

I saw it on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and 4chan (indirectly, and could have been one of the other -chan sites with similar formats I guess, too). I don't watch a lot of Youtube, let alone Arch so I can't say what's going on over there.
The context varied but I'd say it was mostly in a "owned the libs" sense rather than specifically/explicitly transphobic/mysogynistic but did see completely unveiled anti-trans/anti-women rhetoric, too.

Not even slightly.

Ugh, snowflakes gonna snowflake, I guess. The really sad thing about this is that I bet not a single transgender person was actually offended; it was just a few cisgender "white knights" that just want to stir the pot and try to tell the trans people why they should be offended. All this getting offended over tiny things has got to stop; as was mentioned earlier in this thread, there is actual bigotry going on out there, and there's no need to point out every little thing that *might* be somehow offensive. That only hurts the people it's in theory supposed to support, as it makes them look like a bunch of crybabies.

Hecaton wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

I know women who play Astartes in 40k. They find the overwrought masculinity (of in this case of Space Wolves) to be hilarious.

It's also funny because it implies that people can't play things that provide a 1:1 representation of them in some way, which by that logic would eliminate a huge swathe of xenos races as viable choices. I play Orks, I'm nowhere near as buff, angry or fungally murderous as those lads (nor am I football hooligan, I'm not really into anything but racket sports) but I have no issues with playing them or finding them interesting. I would assume the same of a Nids player that they don't want to consume everything they see or want to be part of a Hive Mind.

 Olthannon wrote:
From what I gather, the people who really pick on trans people are just the people who can't openly get away with the things they'd used to say about women, different races and the wider gay community. You look at the language people use in these articles and it's the exact same tropes used to historically to gak on whichever community doesn't have a big enough voice to defend themselves.

Nah, in the UK specifically you've got a lot of people who are so pro-women that they view transwomen as interlopers in female spaces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimskul wrote:
I just find it funny that this is the thing people are triggered over, given that the Imperium is by no means a "good guy" faction and they commit genocide on their own people and other species like it's another Monday, but god forbid that they mention the process of how only men become marines, hooo boy, they've gone too far now. Clutch those pearls harder.

Part of the problem is that the segment of the 40k community that agrees with the article posted in the OP is overwhelmingly the segment of the community that likes to pretend that the Imperium is unironically heroic for some reason. See also: the people who think that Sororitas are the most moral faction in 40k because they have sexist and retrograde ideas about women being inherently more moral/good/kind.

 PetitionersCity wrote:
as such there isn't a "hormonal" male sex.

Sure there is. You can talk about percentile ranges on hormone levels and the typical male range. The fact that sex is a bimodal distribution not a binary one doesn't change the fact that there are two groups to refer to and the edge cases and overlap aren't relevant in this specific context.

They also are emphasising that the term "biological male" is transphobic, as it is used by some gender critical or transphobic critics.

But the term "biological male" isn't used here. Don't accuse the GW author of something they didn't say.

it's rather that the language in Betrayal and now the new AoD rulebook excludes the existence of trans men

No it doesn't. Nowhere in that statement does it say anything like "trans men are really women". The fact that a particular fictional technology requires XY genes and male-typical hormone levels to function does not say anything about the gender identity or validity of trans men.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 PetitionersCity wrote:
as such there isn't a "hormonal" male sex.

Sure there is. You can talk about percentile ranges on hormone levels and the typical male range. The fact that sex is a bimodal distribution not a binary one doesn't change the fact that there are two groups to refer to and the edge cases and overlap aren't relevant in this specific context.

They also are emphasising that the term "biological male" is transphobic, as it is used by some gender critical or transphobic critics.

But the term "biological male" isn't used here. Don't accuse the GW author of something they didn't say.

it's rather that the language in Betrayal and now the new AoD rulebook excludes the existence of trans men

No it doesn't. Nowhere in that statement does it say anything like "trans men are really women". The fact that a particular fictional technology requires XY genes and male-typical hormone levels to function does not say anything about the gender identity or validity of trans men.

I was summarising Goonhammer and the petition, not stating my own thoughts here

This is something looking for something to complain about, making something out of nothing.

It's utter insanity. And FFS, a petition?

 PetitionersCity wrote:
I was summarising Goonhammer and the petition, not stating my own thoughts here

Gotcha. Well, Goonhammer is completely off the deep end here.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is something looking for something to complain about, making something out of nothing.

It's utter insanity. And FFS, a petition?

I emailed GW to let them know that I disagree with this open letter. I'd suggest everyone else do the same.

 insaniak wrote:
There's a difference between 'This technology works because of made up gobbledegook' and 'this technology works because the guys who designed it didn't understand biology'. The former is fine. The latter results in people pointing out that the background is flawed.

The setting of a game doesn't have to be perfectly scientifically accurate, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to make easy changes where they can correct these sorts of issues.

But I'm still not seeing the issue here. "Space marine genetic modifications only work on XY males with male-typical hormone ranges" is just fine. Why does it only work that way? Who knows, it's completely fictional technology and even in the setting the people using it have no idea how it works. What exactly needs to be corrected?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 PetitionersCity wrote:
I was summarising Goonhammer and the petition, not stating my own thoughts here

Gotcha. Well, Goonhammer is completely off the deep end here.

This is definitely just something they want to build online clout over and I'd like to see if they would even do anything besides just put out internet puff pieces on their bad IRL takes in the hobby world if GW doesn't bother to respond to them (which I'm hoping they won't). Can't see Goonhammer giving up on all the inertia for the new HH 2.0 release.

When you get an atheist saying "Oh, Jesus fething Christ..." you know you've reached a new level.

On that note?


Oh, Jesus fething Christ...

 ZergSmasher wrote:
The really sad thing about this is that I bet not a single transgender person was actually offended; it was just a few cisgender "white knights" that just want to stir the pot and try to tell the trans people why they should be offended.

You would be wrong. Several transgender gamers I follow on twitter have spoken out fairly extensively on this issue.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
But I'm still not seeing the issue here. "Space marine genetic modifications only work on XY males with male-typical hormone ranges" is just fine. Why does it only work that way? Who knows, it's completely fictional technology and even in the setting the people using it have no idea how it works. What exactly needs to be corrected?

The thing is, it's not working on 'male typical hormone ranges' when it includes everything from the more or less perfect human specimens from Ultramar to the stunted and rad-damaged folk of Baal. And in at least one case, a guy who was even only half human.

And the idea that it only works on a specific hormone range when a part of that very process is to jack up the hormones just seems more than a little odd.

 Grimskul wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

I know women who play Astartes in 40k. They find the overwrought masculinity (of in this case of Space Wolves) to be hilarious.

It's also funny because it implies that people can't play things that provide a 1:1 representation of them in some way, which by that logic would eliminate a huge swathe of xenos races as viable choices. I play Orks, I'm nowhere near as buff, angry or fungally murderous as those lads (nor am I football hooligan, I'm not really into anything but racket sports) but I have no issues with playing them or finding them interesting. I would assume the same of a Nids player that they don't want to consume everything they see or want to be part of a Hive Mind.

I know right?

I refuse to play 40K until GW makes a Space Marine chapter that has every member as a disabled veteran from Indiana of Lithuanian/Irish descent who has SPD, plays guitar, and collects Transformers.


Make it happen, GW.





I swear, the self importance of some people is borderline nauseating...

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, it's not working on 'male typical hormone ranges' when it includes everything from the more or less perfect human specimens from Ultramar to the stunted and rad-damaged folk of Baal. And in at least one case, a guy who was even only half human.

And the idea that it only works on a specific hormone range when a part of that very process is to jack up the hormones just seems more than a little odd.

Do they talk specifically about hormone ranges? It could work via upregulation of genes that are only found on the y chromosome.

 Grimskul wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

I know women who play Astartes in 40k. They find the overwrought masculinity (of in this case of Space Wolves) to be hilarious.

It's also funny because it implies that people can't play things that provide a 1:1 representation of them in some way, which by that logic would eliminate a huge swathe of xenos races as viable choices. I play Orks, I'm nowhere near as buff, angry or fungally murderous as those lads (nor am I football hooligan, I'm not really into anything but racket sports) but I have no issues with playing them or finding them interesting. I would assume the same of a Nids player that they don't want to consume everything they see or want to be part of a Hive Mind.

Representation is about feeling included, not about needing a 1:1 representation of yourself specifically to play with.

 insaniak wrote:

Representation is about feeling included, not about needing a 1:1 representation of yourself specifically to play with.

For the record, I don't feel included by anything in the Imperium, since they're a bunch of degenerate baby-murdering religious nutjobs. And I find it weird that people would.

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, it's not working on 'male typical hormone ranges' when it includes everything from the more or less perfect human specimens from Ultramar to the stunted and rad-damaged folk of Baal. And in at least one case, a guy who was even only half human.

Why do you think those groups fall outside the typical male hormone range? Have you taken specific measurements on the fictional residents of Baal and analyzed the effects of their fictional radiation damage on their hormone production?

And the idea that it only works on a specific hormone range when a part of that very process is to jack up the hormones just seems more than a little odd.

Why? Maybe the process requires a certain minimum hormone level (and a body used to being at that level) as a catalyst for the process to begin. Maybe the process consumes the male reproductive organs and converts them to some of the new marine upgrades. You certainly can't say that this completely fictional technology can't work that way.

Hecaton wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Representation is about feeling included, not about needing a 1:1 representation of yourself specifically to play with.

For the record, I don't feel included by anything in the Imperium, since they're a bunch of degenerate baby-murdering religious nutjobs. And I find it weird that people would.

Pretty much the point I wanted to raise. Feeling included how? I have no issues with people in the local 40k or tabletop community doing whatever they want (within reason) to make it accomodating to different types of people. But the lore itself? Does that have to bend over backwards to make people feel more comfortable about their crazy murder faction? Where do you draw the line? What stops me from demanding that Games Workshop show off explicit genitalia for daemonettes to better represent the adrogynous nature of Slaanesh and intersex people as a whole, just so I feel included?

That kind of logic leads to stuff like the changes to LoTR by Amazon to change Tolkien's depiction of elves and dwarves to a more..."modern" (and frankly inaccurate) take on what their looks are due to ideas of being inclusive even though it is contrary to what Tolkien wrote and ignores options of other human races like the Harad or Easterlings if they wanted to have their diversity cake and eat it too.

Diversity is inaccurate to Tolkien but Space Marines are made by wonky arcane technology that is absolutely fiction so doesn't need to follow rules.

For me, the issue is not the opinion that was shared and its corresponding call to action. My issue and disappointment is that today Goonhammer crossed a line from being a site dedicated to publishing opinions and observations on how to play table top games, how to paint miniatures, analysis on the competitive aspect, etc. to a site that posts potentially inflammatory opinions on subjects that are very divisive. Before today, I did not associate Goonhammer as a place to see opinions on politics, pro-life vs. pro-choice, BLM, Alt-right, Islamophobia, Transphobia, Christianophobia, or whatever -phobia or -ism.

There are other places where I can and do visit to read or listen to other people’s opinions on those topics and groups.

I like to think of the tabletop hobby as a place where I can come share my enjoyment of the setting, miniatures, and gaming with other fans without needing to think if they are tory or labour, republican or democrat, LGBT+, Christian, Buddhist, or whatever identity someone claims and whether or not that identify offends me or if my assumed or claimed identity offends them.

Ultimately I am here to build, paint, and roll some dice celebrating what is good about the hobby and I think Goonhammer should stick to that ethos as well and leave the social commentary and politics to others.

I think it's important to grant some precision concerning the question, so let's break it down a bit.

Initial Concerns: I would imagine that the main terrain on which this debate operates, at least in the first instance, is one of i) psychology and ii) intention, which I group here as they overlap considerably. i) is a concern regarding whether a person, consciously, unconsciously, or non-consciously hates, fears, or has some particular negative disposition towards trans people. And ii) is a concern regarding whether the utterer of a statement intends to voice or propagate such a view, or harm trans people. Let's break these down:
Psychology: We of course cannot be certain, without any other evidence, I think the principle of charity demands that the statement in question from Horus Heresy was not one made by a person whom we have reason to think of as a transphobic.
Intention: The principle of charity similarly demands that we don't read this statement as such, again, at least without further evidence.

Accuracy: The next issue is a matter of the accuracy of the statement, and particularly it's reflection of the biology of sex. Here I begin with a story. In 2019 I was asked to help teach a course entitled The Philosophy of Sex at the University of Sydney, an area of philosophy with which I was unfamiliar (but I needed the money). It was a great subject, and one of the most enjoyable was given by Prof. Paul Griffiths, who is an expert in the Philosophy of Biology, and has published a considerable amount of work on the biology of sexual difference. His lecture was an anomaly, as it was not one with the intention of imparting any knowledge regarding the biology of sexual difference per se, nor one aimed at engaging students in any particular philosophical issues in this area (although other courses were available). Instead, this lecture had one goal: to demonstrate how little we all know about the biology of sex. We laymen know nothing. It was a tour de force of the most complex biology I have ever encountered. The purpose was to take as a foundation that our discourse on this matter must emerge from a recognition of our own thorough ignorance of the biology of the matter, such that we do not lend baseless dogmatism to our thinking about this. A link to a popular presentation of his view is here:
https://www.appliedphil.org/sap-public-lecture-australia-a-process-theory-of-biological-sex-paul-griffiths-university-of-sydney/
To summarise his position (and I may be wrong, here, so forgive): a) there are only two sexes; b) not all individuals possess one or the other; and c) for the most part, sexual difference, from a biological perspective, is more a species-level issue than an individual-level issue.

Initial Summary: From this, I think it's fair to say that the statement in question expresses a primary-school level understanding of the biology of sex, and is properly distortionary of the reality, and it is highly unlikely that this person made this statement from transphobia, or wielded it to transphobic end. But I think that there is one more point to make.

History: Whether we like it or not, and regardless of what our own intentions and psychology may be, it is the case that language has a history. Indeed, as Wittgenstein argues, it's necessary for language to operate as language - to communicate meaning - without this. That is to say, the meaning of the words, terms, and phrases we use has significance over and above our own use. So regardless of how the phrase in question was used, or was intended to be used, and what it was intended to communicate, there is a separate issue concerning the discourse(s) with which it engages - intentionally or unintentionally. And I think that the writer of the article has a point: It may not have been made as a hateful statement, but it is one that intersects with, and strongly resonates with, hateful discourse. Discourse evolves, and maybe the pseudo-scientific transphobic discourse with which this phrase resonates only arose after this claim was published. But we cannot deny the reality that it intersects with in now, and it is a discourse which does genuine harm to trans people - a vulnerable group even in the most progressive societies; a group over which hangs the very real possibility of death in less progressive ones.

Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

EDIT: Furthermore, I think that we as a community of wargamers have certain responsibilities to be as inclusive as possible. This may not demand that we write to GW to demand this change. But I think it requires us being receptive to concerns that emerge from the community. And in a way that has been unfortunately lacking in this thread, which has been overly ready to speak of 'snowflakes' and 'virtue-signalling', and characterise this as a non-issue, or one over which we should pass in silence because its 'divisive'. This means saying (and remember, you don't have to say anything at all), not just "no", but rather, "I understand that we are dealing with legitimate concerns of a marginalised group, and whether I agree with this statement or not, we are an inclusive community."

"40k Transphobic?"

Does this mean, is the company that makes 40k bigoted?

No.

Does this mean, is the fictional universe the game takes place in bigotted?

Yes.

Does this mean, the fictional scientific fact that space marines are males somehow, through emotional magic and pure non logical rationalization of the reader, justify outrage?

No.

The 40k universe is filled with rape, bigotry, murder, mass slaughter, torture, slavery and socialism. Some test tubes making men into collectivistic killing machines for a fascist dictatorship is the least of the in universe's problems. I mean, hell literally exists and 4 different types of Satans actually exist and walk around planets.

Also, Sister of Battle are female only. Where is the bigotry outrage there? Pure contradiction, worthy of ignoring.

This is akin to the argument that Video Games makes people evil, only it's plastic men and rolling dice. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

Check your premises.

 Rihgu wrote:
Diversity is inaccurate to Tolkien but Space Marines are made by wonky arcane technology that is absolutely fiction so doesn't need to follow rules.

Every (good) setting has in-universe rules. A biological process that only human males can be subjected to is perfectly plausible; I don't see any problem with depicting it.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Ultimately I am here to build, paint, and roll some dice celebrating what is good about the hobby and I think Goonhammer should stick to that ethos as well and leave the social commentary and politics to others.

Or maybe you could lose the entitlement and accept that the people running the site are not obligated to "stick to gaming" to satisfy your needs.

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

How is a statement made about the medical science of a fictional dystopia harming people in the real world?

Acknowledging that biologically male bodies are distinct from biologically female bodies in almost all cases in humans is not a transphobic statement, and it doesn't invalidate the central proposition of transgender people. Saying something is male in a biological context is not the same thing as saying it's a man.

 Grimskul wrote:
Does that have to bend over backwards to make people feel more comfortable about their crazy murder faction?

I feel like you're maybe overstating the difficulty involved in making this change.


To be clear, though... no, obviously they don't have to 'bend over backwards' to accommodate different people. But whether or not they have to, and whether or not it might be a good idea are not automatically the same thing.

And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes? Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

But what should it be changed to? What level of strict technical accuracy and explicit mention of the edge cases in sex determination needs to be included in a context where the precise nuances of sex and genetics have nothing to do with the topic of discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes? Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

What happens is that the lore changes from "marines are a male-only brotherhood of warrior monks" to "marines are often men but women are also marines". Whether or not you like that change it's pretty dishonest to suggest that it's a tiny edit and there's no reason to disagree with it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

But what should it be changed to? What level of strict technical accuracy and explicit mention of the edge cases in sex determination needs to be included in a context where the precise nuances of sex and genetics have nothing to do with the topic of discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes? Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

What happens is that the lore changes from "marines are a male-only brotherhood of warrior monks" to "marines are often men but women are also marines". Whether or not you like that change it's pretty dishonest to suggest that it's a tiny edit and there's no reason to disagree with it.

"Space Marines are created from human stock via Arcane Genomancy few if any understand"

Hecaton wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Diversity is inaccurate to Tolkien but Space Marines are made by wonky arcane technology that is absolutely fiction so doesn't need to follow rules.

Every (good) setting has in-universe rules. A biological process that only human males can be subjected to is perfectly plausible; I don't see any problem with depicting it.

Pretty much. I don't see anyone complaining this badly against female only groups or organizations in fiction. No one cares that the Gem race in Steven Universe is all (barring hybrids like Steven) designed to look/voiced almost exclusively female. No one cares that the Lodge of Sorceresses in the Witcher are all female. I don't see an issue of a faction being inherent exclusive in some way, and frankly it's more realistic considering that even now, with elite teams like NAVY SEALS being open to women, none have been able to become one yet.

Hecaton wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

How is a statement made about the medical science of a fictional dystopia harming people in the real world?

Acknowledging that biologically male bodies are distinct from biologically female bodies in almost all cases in humans is not a transphobic statement, and it doesn't invalidate the central proposition of transgender people. Saying something is male in a biological context is not the same thing as saying it's a man.

Two points:
1) The fictionality of the world is entirely besides the point. Song of the South is a fiction; Birth of a Nation is a fiction. But there's a reason why they don't play on Sunday Afternoon Disney.
2) Indeed, I see little issue in suggesting 'only men can do become space marines'. But that's not the problem here. The problem was that this statement said that what it is to be a man is a matter of 'chromosomes' and 'biological makeup'. Not only are such claims false and distortionary (see the lecture I posted above), but intersect worryingly (even if not intentionally) with established modes of hate-speech.

Hence problematic. Just say "Only men can become Space Marines". There you go. Then you're not even pretending to make a biological claim.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

But what should it be changed to? What level of strict technical accuracy and explicit mention of the edge cases in sex determination needs to be included in a context where the precise nuances of sex and genetics have nothing to do with the topic of discussion?

Something that doesn't resonate with the discourse of hate-speech. Same as the way we might speak of cultural difference without referring to people being more or less 'savage'. No-one is asking for the world here; nor even biological precision. But just be careful, if you are going to give a distortionary biological account (and, see the lecture above, it is distortionary), don't do it in a way that engages with hateful discourse. So, if anything, just be less precise: Only men can become Space Marines. Then you're not reven pretending to make a genuine statement of biology.

 insaniak wrote:
And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes?

The Emperor is no longer a suspiciously gynophobic donkey-cave. I think it's important to show that he's not free of biases or bigotry.

 insaniak wrote:
Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

Some people are attracted to Astartes *because* they're an all-male warrior brotherhood. If, say, the Ultramarines are no longer all-male, that definitely changes the context for people who bought into it for that reason.

I'd probably be down for the reasoning behind male Astartes to have more to do with the Emperor's psychic legacy than his biological one; let trans men become Astartes too, make it so a male soul is more important than a male body, but explicitly lock the door on female space marines forever (including transwomen).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Two points:
1) The fictionality of the world is entirely besides the point. Song of the South is a fiction; Birth of a Nation is a fiction. But there's a reason why they don't play on Sunday Afternoon Disney.

Importantly, however, GW explicitly *does not* endorse the universe depicted and the actions taken by the characters involved. It's supposed to be the Big Book of What Not to Do, not an instruction manual for society. The makers of Birth of a Nation explicitly endorsed the anti-black racism of the film. That's the difference; you can depict a racist or bigoted character and have the overall fictional work be anti-racist.

 TonyH122 wrote:
2) Indeed, I see little issue in suggesting 'only men can do become space marines'. But that's not the problem here. The problem was that this statement said that what it is to be a man is a matter of 'chromosomes' and 'biological makeup'. Not only are such claims false and distortionary (see the lecture I posted above), but intersect worryingly (even if not intentionally) with established modes of hate-speech.

Your assertion that such claims are "false and distortionary" vastly overstates itself. To put it bluntly, it would be very plausible that the people who don't fit into the traditional box of "male human" are probably the group for which the process of becoming an Astartes fails at one stage or another.

 TonyH122 wrote:


Something that doesn't resonate with the discourse of hate-speech. Same as the way we might speak of cultural difference without referring to people being more or less 'savage'. No-one is asking for the world here; nor even biological precision. But just be careful, if you are going to give a distortionary biological account (and, see above, it is distortionary), don't do it in a way that engages with hateful discourse.

The problem is you're making the argument that any attempt to make a biological process that only works on male humans inherently resonates "with the discourse of hate speech." Which is a thought-terminating cliché.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
What happens is that the lore changes from "marines are a male-only brotherhood of warrior monks" to "marines are often men but women are also marines".

Or, more accurately, the lore would change from 'Marines are a male-only brotherhood of warrior monks' (which isn't actually accurate, but let's go with it for now) to 'Some marine Chapters are male-only brotherhoods of warrior monks...'

Your all-male brotherhood is still there. They've just opened up the universe a little. Kind of like they did when they added dreadnoughts. And tanks. And renegades. And flyers. And super-heavies. And centurions. And Primaris Marines. Even this basic idea of marines as panhuman supersoldiers is itself a retcon of the original Marine background.

 Rihgu wrote:
"Space Marines are created from human stock via Arcane Genomancy few if any understand"

That's not just changing the wording, that's changing the fundamental concept of space marines.

 TonyH122 wrote:
2) Indeed, I see little issue in suggesting 'only men can do become space marines'. But that's not the problem here. The problem was that this statement said that what it is to be a man is a matter of 'chromosomes' and 'biological makeup'. Not only are such claims false and distortionary (see the lecture I posted above), but intersect worryingly (even if not intentionally) with established modes of hate-speech.

No it didn't. Read the actual quote:

“The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

The quote very clearly uses the word "male", not "man". And nowhere does it say that all men must be male with XY chromosomes and male-typical phenotypes.

Something that doesn't resonate with the discourse of hate-speech.

We already have this. None of that in any way resonates with hate speech. You have to really reach to find the slightest superficial connection to a particular form of hate speech and then build that superficial connection into layers of meaning that are simply not found in the GW quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Or, more accurately, the lore would change from 'Marines are a male-only brotherhood of warrior monks' (which isn't actually accurate, but let's go with it for now) to 'Some marine Chapters are male-only brotherhoods of warrior monks...'

Your all-male brotherhood is still there. They've just opened up the universe a little. Kind of like they did when they added dreadnoughts. And tanks. And renegades. And flyers. And super-heavies. And centurions. And Primaris Marines. Even this basic idea of marines as panhuman supersoldiers is itself a retcon of the original Marine background.

And, again, you can argue all you like that it is a desirable change. But it is dishonest to argue that this is a trivial change that no reasonable person can object to. It would be a major retcon and reasonable people can absolutely oppose it without being sexist/transphobic/etc.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
"Space Marines are created from human stock via Arcane Genomancy few if any understand"

That's not just changing the wording, that's changing the fundamental concept of space marines.

 TonyH122 wrote:
2) Indeed, I see little issue in suggesting 'only men can do become space marines'. But that's not the problem here. The problem was that this statement said that what it is to be a man is a matter of 'chromosomes' and 'biological makeup'. Not only are such claims false and distortionary (see the lecture I posted above), but intersect worryingly (even if not intentionally) with established modes of hate-speech.

No it didn't. Read the actual quote:

“The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

The quote very clearly uses the word "male", not "man". And nowhere does it say that all men must be male with XY chromosomes and male-typical phenotypes.

Something that doesn't resonate with the discourse of hate-speech.

We already have this. None of that in any way resonates with hate speech. You have to really reach to find the slightest superficial connection to a particular form of hate speech and then build that superficial connection into layers of meaning that are simply not found in the GW quote.

My response:
1) 'Male' vs 'man' seems to me like a distinction without a difference. A man is male, a male is a man. The question is what constitutes 'maleness' or 'man-ness'. And that is exactly what the sentence goes on to specify. And so my next point:
2) As mentioned in the article, the discussion of 'hormones' and 'biological make-up' very much is the language used by transphobes in relation to what constitutes male/man. And it's just factually inaccurate (see linked lecture). Hence the issue.

That's not just changing the wording, that's changing the fundamental concept of space marines.

Uhhh... how, exactly? Even if you think being a fraternal brotherhood of men is part of the fundamental concept nothing about that rewording signifies that that's not the case.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:
Does that have to bend over backwards to make people feel more comfortable about their crazy murder faction?

I feel like you're maybe overstating the difficulty involved in making this change.


To be clear, though... no, obviously they don't have to 'bend over backwards' to accommodate different people. But whether or not they have to, and whether or not it might be a good idea are not automatically the same thing.

And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes? Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

Right, but then you start diluting their background for the sake of modern popular ideology or takes on things rather than it being based around the established narrative and telling a story. This always doesn't age well. Would you be fine if BL books started using modern slang in their dialogue? What confuses me is this focus towards marines because they're the flagship faction but part of their identity is that they are largely divorced from their origins as humans and as living weapons they don't have the perspective or often lack the humanity of regular people. So if women that change into Astartes would functionally be the same (and arguably look as masculine after the changes from all the hormonal changes) as male astartes, it doesn't provide any real differences in terms of aesthetic options beyond mayyyybe some facial differences (again not likely if the changes make everyone look inhuman) AND it doesn't provide any unique female perspective because marines are sterile and act as living weapons, you're back down to it being purely there because people want it to, which IMO is not a good enough reason to change something. There are a lot of Harry Potter fans that want Malfoy and Harry to go boink uglies, you don't see JK Rowling going back and retconning to give them their BL love flick.

If they were making the faction from scratch now, I doubt any of us would bat an eye. But with over 20 years of lore built up over the years, that's actually a fairly large retcon. Where are all the female space marines prior to this? Are we just going to say that Cawl said, "Let's use women, make it so" and that's all that was needed this whole time? Either way, it smacks of lazy pandering and adds nothing to the actual setting.

We live in a world were people are upset that make believe space super soldiers that are genetically altered to have their ribs fuse together, spit acid, and put on more muscle than a silver back gorilla. A setting where people are killed by the billions in the blink of an eye, where your only release from this living hell is death, and people are brinigng real life issues because someone hug out a sign that says "Boys only"

Ladies and gentlemen and anyone in between, we are a collection a adults, if anything by age at least, that push around plastic dollies on a table while makining pew pew noises and CHOOM sounds.
We play with our action figures in a setting that has dozens and dozens of races and characters spanning gender, race, species and even what you would call "Life form"

If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

We welcoem anyone and everyone who wants to join our table and make pew pew noises and dakkadakkadakkadakka sounds. But the imperiam is a dark reflection of humanity that has ascended in technology, yet decnded into techno fudilism. It is not meant to be a representation of reality, and trying to inject any form of reality into it outside of the established does not add to it in any way.

The story and setting is what it is. Space marines are what they are, if you do not enjoy that, the answer to the problem is, find another army out of the many that are here, if you dont want ot accept that answer, then i think it would be best for your health, our health, and the hobby health to find another hobby.

 TonyH122 wrote:
1) 'Male' vs 'man' seems to me like a distinction without a difference. A man is male, a male is a man. The question is what constitutes 'maleness' or 'man-ness'. And that is exactly what the sentence goes on to specify. And so my next point:

It's absolutely not the same thing. It's not the same thing in a scientific context, it's not the same thing in a linguistic context. And the entire point of being transgender as a concept is that gender and sex are not the same thing. You can't just substitute in words and then claim that your substitution is offensive.

But really, what's hilarious here is that "sex and gender are the same" is a standard transphobe talking point. You claim to be fighting against transphobia in the GW quote but in doing so you're parroting the exact things transphobes love to argue.

2) As mentioned in the article, the discussion of 'hormones' and 'biological make-up' very much is the language used by transphobes in relation to what constitutes male/man. And it's just factually inaccurate (see linked lecture). Hence the issue.

It's also the language of a lot of other things. "Male" is defined by a particular region on a bimodal distribution that includes things like external phenotypes, hormone levels, etc. Whether it fits your ideological purity test or not talking about "male" and "female" in a very superficial mention of sex is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with transphobes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rihgu wrote:

That's not just changing the wording, that's changing the fundamental concept of space marines.

Uhhh... how, exactly? Even if you think being a fraternal brotherhood of men is part of the fundamental concept nothing about that rewording signifies that that's not the case.

It's changing it because you've removed the entire "male only" limit. Please do not pretend that this is not a major change.

 TonyH122 wrote:
My response:
1) 'Male' vs 'man' seems to me like a distinction without a difference. A man is male, a male is a man. The question is what constitutes 'maleness' or 'man-ness'. And that is exactly what the sentence goes on to specify. And so my next point:

Just to be pedantic, but being a Man is a combination of factors that's different than just being male. For example, a 5 year old human male is not considered a Man by society. So depending on societal norms, a Man and male are two different things.

Hecaton wrote:


I mean it's also a scientific term, which seems appropriate for talking about a fictional biological modification technique.

It is not really a scientific term, as science has been moving away from a binary understanding of sex.

 TonyH122 wrote:

My response:
1) 'Male' vs 'man' seems to me like a distinction without a difference. A man is male, a male is a man. The question is what constitutes 'maleness' or 'man-ness'. And that is exactly what the sentence goes on to specify. And so my next point:

Speaking as a biologist, these are very different terms.

 TonyH122 wrote:

2) As mentioned in the article, the discussion of 'hormones' and 'biological make-up' very much is the language used by transphobes in relation to what constitutes male/man. And it's just factually inaccurate (see linked lecture). Hence the issue.

It's not really that factually inaccurate; you'd actually say it's a surface level take. GW can't pack an entire human endocrinology lecture into their books.

Removed comment because i said my piece and dont even wanna be a part of this.

Remember when GW made that public statement about "The Imperium are a bunch of fascist jerks, that's a BAD THING, people" ?

Because the simplest thing for GW, if this particular statement is deemed to be a problem, is to issue a statement pointing out that this is what the tech priests in the Imperium believe to be true, inaccuracies and mistaken principles included. Do they need to hire someone to write a story about Fabius Bile turning a family of apes* and a pack of monkeys* into Space Marines to prove a point or something? (* Please assume that any errors in terminology in this statement are deliberate and in character.)

I think the addition by GW was unnecessary and only really served the purpose of satisfying the overly vocal purists. It does nothing to enhance the lore or the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think the addition by GW was unnecessary and only really served the purpose of satisfying the overly vocal purists.

It's not an "addition". It's simply part of the fluff, and has been for longer than most people have been playing.

All Space Marines are Female to Male trans. They are the strongest of all genders.

Alternatively, Space Marines are Male to Alpha Male trans.

I listen to BBC radio and podcasts on a daily basis. They do interview trans folks or people from trans supporting groups on a regular basis.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
All Space Marines are Female to Male trans. They are the strongest of all genders.

You may joke, but the way it is described there is actually no in-universe against transmen Space Marines.

It may actually be the only way to explain GW's obsession with keeping Space Marines boy only in a way that kinda makes sense.

Oh ffs not this. Christ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
We live in a world were people are upset that make believe space super soldiers that are genetically altered to have their ribs fuse together, spit acid, and put on more muscle than a silver back gorilla. A setting where people are killed by the billions in the blink of an eye, where your only release from this living hell is death, and people are brinigng real life issues because someone hug out a sign that says "Boys only"

Ladies and gentlemen and anyone in between, we are a collection a adults, if anything by age at least, that push around plastic dollies on a table while makining pew pew noises and CHOOM sounds.
We play with our action figures in a setting that has dozens and dozens of races and characters spanning gender, race, species and even what you would call "Life form"

If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

We welcoem anyone and everyone who wants to join our table and make pew pew noises and dakkadakkadakkadakka sounds. But the imperiam is a dark reflection of humanity that has ascended in technology, yet decnded into techno fudilism. It is not meant to be a representation of reality, and trying to inject any form of reality into it outside of the established does not add to it in any way.

The story and setting is what it is. Space marines are what they are, if you do not enjoy that, the answer to the problem is, find another army out of the many that are here, if you dont want ot accept that answer, then i think it would be best for your health, our health, and the hobby health to find another hobby.

Well said.

 Tyran wrote:
It may actually be the only way to explain GW's obsession with keeping Space Marines boy only in a way that kinda makes sense.

No, you could definitely explain it without that.

 solkan wrote:
Remember when GW made that public statement about "The Imperium are a bunch of fascist jerks, that's a BAD THING, people" ?

Because the simplest thing for GW, if this particular statement is deemed to be a problem, is to issue a statement pointing out that this is what the tech priests in the Imperium believe to be true, inaccuracies and mistaken principles included. Do they need to hire someone to write a story about Fabius Bile turning a family of apes* and a pack of monkeys* into Space Marines to prove a point or something? (* Please assume that any errors in terminology in this statement are deliberate and in character.)

GW should do this more often, especially with things like this.

In its current state, it’s rather trashy lore. But if you do push it into the way the imperium is, and as often quite a horrific thing. It can be used to add interesting flaws.
Hell it’s better to have the emperor state only men, and it’s just that. The only reasons men are used is that the emperor said so, is better here as a flaw as some scientific statement with the lore.
The issue also comes from the narrative of these men as super intelligent, but really kind of stupid. 40k can do better than dredge up its worst lore.

It also has been picked up by some of the worst people I have seen, you can in fact write villains and interesting story’s why not supporting there points of view with Language used to harm. Or using that language carefully within character.

Can a space marine transition?
I'm a trans woman. The fething "biologically male" crap gets thrown at me constantly. The whole "only men can be Space Marines" thing has always made me uncomfortable, not because of the setting, but because of the intensity of Space Marine players.

If I ever make a marine force, they'll probably wind up as Heretics for allowing all the marines to transition.

Hormones do AMAZING things to the body.

 Blndmage wrote:
Can a space marine transition?

Can a space marine voluntarily adjust their hormone levels to female-standard ranges instead of the off-the-scale mix of testosterone and steroids they normally have, thereby degrading their performance as weapons in service to the Emperor and prioritizing their own desires above the efficient destruction of the Emperor's enemies? I'm going to go with "no".

 Grimskul wrote:
Right, but then you start diluting their background for the sake of modern popular ideology or takes on things rather than it being based around the established narrative and telling a story. This always doesn't age well. Would you be fine if BL books started using modern slang in their dialogue? What confuses me is this focus towards marines because they're the flagship faction but part of their identity is that they are largely divorced from their origins as humans and as living weapons they don't have the perspective or often lack the humanity of regular people. So if women that change into Astartes would functionally be the same (and arguably look as masculine after the changes from all the hormonal changes) as male astartes, it doesn't provide any real differences in terms of aesthetic options beyond mayyyybe some facial differences (again not likely if the changes make everyone look inhuman) AND it doesn't provide any unique female perspective because marines are sterile and act as living weapons, you're back down to it being purely there because people want it to, which IMO is not a good enough reason to change something. There are a lot of Harry Potter fans that want Malfoy and Harry to go boink uglies, you don't see JK Rowling going back and retconning to give them their BL love flick.

If they were making the faction from scratch now, I doubt any of us would bat an eye. But with over 20 years of lore built up over the years, that's actually a fairly large retcon. Where are all the female space marines prior to this? Are we just going to say that Cawl said, "Let's use women, make it so" and that's all that was needed this whole time? Either way, it smacks of lazy pandering and adds nothing to the actual setting.

The fact that some concepts don't age well is precisely why it's a good idea to update a 20+ year old franchise occasionally...

 Blndmage wrote:
Can a space marine transition?
I'm a trans woman. The fething "biologically male" crap gets thrown at me constantly. The whole "only men can be Space Marines" thing has always made me uncomfortable, not because of the setting, but because of the intensity of Space Marine players.

If I ever make a marine force, they'll probably wind up as Heretics for allowing all the marines to transition.

Hormones do AMAZING things to the body.

I will also add that it makes me uncomfortable, it’s pervasive in a lot of groups.

It’s the justification of it, within the setting and allowing so many groups to justify it externally.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

This really should be the final word in this thread.

[EDIT]: And it will be mine...

Apple fox wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Can a space marine transition?
I'm a trans woman. The fething "biologically male" crap gets thrown at me constantly. The whole "only men can be Space Marines" thing has always made me uncomfortable, not because of the setting, but because of the intensity of Space Marine players.

If I ever make a marine force, they'll probably wind up as Heretics for allowing all the marines to transition.

Hormones do AMAZING things to the body.

I will also add that it makes me uncomfortable, it’s pervasive in a lot of groups.

It’s the justification of it, within the setting and allowing so many groups to justify it externally.

As opposed to having a fictional story be required or expected to validate one's group identity? I think people are overstating and giving far too much power to one line in a faction's backstory. If something this little is seen as a weapon to be wielded by other people to "hate" on certain groups, I have no idea how you've survived on the internet for this long, never check youtube comments or anything on twitter.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Can a space marine transition?

Can a space marine voluntarily adjust their hormone levels to female-standard ranges instead of the off-the-scale mix of testosterone and steroids they normally have, thereby degrading their performance as weapons in service to the Emperor and prioritizing their own desires above the efficient destruction of the Emperor's enemies? I'm going to go with "no".

Space marines have there own chapter culture, transition could be so many things. They could within a chapter support it without any necessary changes to hormones or other things.
Being that a lot of space marines get described as sexless, it could be as simple as some marines have different rites and preparations, or hobby’s to keep the mind sharp in relaxation.

Congratulations, you've turned this from being a legitimate concern over language being shared with that of transphobes to a discussion about whether Marines should be girls. Way to go.

I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

 Grimskul wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Can a space marine transition?
I'm a trans woman. The fething "biologically male" crap gets thrown at me constantly. The whole "only men can be Space Marines" thing has always made me uncomfortable, not because of the setting, but because of the intensity of Space Marine players.

If I ever make a marine force, they'll probably wind up as Heretics for allowing all the marines to transition.

Hormones do AMAZING things to the body.

I will also add that it makes me uncomfortable, it’s pervasive in a lot of groups.

It’s the justification of it, within the setting and allowing so many groups to justify it externally.

As opposed to having a fictional story be required or expected to validate one's group identity? I think people are overstating and giving far too much power to one line in a faction's backstory. If something this little is seen as a weapon to be wielded by other people to "hate" on certain groups, I have no idea how you've survived on the internet for this long, never check youtube comments or anything on twitter.

Literally my post above, how have you survived… it’s perfectly possible to write this things by writers who are understanding of what they are writing about!
It’s not about validating identity, it’s about understanding the people you are writing about.
Things like this, can be part of the identity of 40k if people that understand them are writing about them.

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

Excellent point.

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

They're too tight with the AdMech to do anything nonbinary.

Hecaton wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

They're too tight with the AdMech to do anything nonbinary.

There are so many non-binary and binary trans programmers. So many computer jokes!

Apple fox wrote:
Space marines have there own chapter culture, transition could be so many things. They could within a chapter support it without any necessary changes to hormones or other things.
Being that a lot of space marines get described as sexless, it could be as simple as some marines have different rites and preparations, or hobby’s to keep the mind sharp in relaxation.

I suppose if by "transition" you mean "make no physical changes but choose that as their way to spend their 5 minutes of social time they are allocated per day between prayer and training" then I suppose there's nothing preventing them from doing it. It would seem fairly unlikely though, as the recruitment process selects for the kind of hyper-masculinity that a trans woman (even one who hasn't figured it out yet) is unlikely to have.

 Gert wrote:
Congratulations, you've turned this from being a legitimate concern over language being shared with that of transphobes to a discussion about whether Marines should be girls. Way to go.

Good point on the importance of language. Its easy to dehumanize a group via language. I remember like 15-20 years ago where I grew up people used to casually say "gay" to mean essentially "that is stupid". Same with all these "trans scares" that dehumanizes trans people. Language matters, and casually punching down at already in danger groups just normalizes the idea that those groups perhaps 'deserve' to be in that position.

I doubt any malice was intended with this, but language does matter. It is in part the problem with how normalized this kind of language is - its easy to just slip it without even thinking.

"Biological male" is normalized because it means someone is male, biologically. Transphobes use the term, but it is not a trasnphobic term.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Biological male" is normalized because it means someone is male, biologically. Transphobes use the term, but it is not a trasnphobic term.

I do not think I have heard it used medically in the last 20 years, not even in Biology here. Only ever within discussions of transphobic groups or used by those groups.
Other terms are used as they are often more relivent, if needed.

Let me once again remind people that the transphobe-specific term "biological male" is not used in the GW quote:

“The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

And the GW quote absolutely does not contain anything like the transphobe use of "biological male" to mean "male who is claimed to be something else but is actually male".

I feel the reason it's not used much in biology is because it's more of a layman's term, rather than a specific biology term. But being a male. biologically, is a thing. I'm a male biologically. My girlfriend is a biological male. One of my best friends is a biological female. I wouldn't tell them "You're a biological fe/male" because that's just mean. But the idea that it's only used by transphobes, or is purely a transphobic term is really weird. I remember talking to a lot of trans people when it was becoming more acceptable to come out, talking about how they were biologically a different sex to their gender. Are you saying all of my trans friends are transphobic? Are you saying my girlfriend is transphobic?

I see nothing "phobic" about this. No fear, no attack, zero references to our reality, just describing an aspect of imaginary settings. Saying that all Space Wolves eat meat and drink beer isn't veganphobic or abstinentphobic, a half-hidden attack on something the author fears or abhores (as I understand "-phobic" behaviours) it's who they are in the setting.

What does biological male and female even means though?

A chromosome definition doesn't work, because XX males and XY females are a thing.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I feel the reason it's not used much in biology is because it's more of a layman's term, rather than a specific biology term. But being a male. biologically, is a thing. I'm a male biologically. My girlfriend is a biological male. One of my best friends is a biological female. I wouldn't tell them "You're a biological fe/male" because that's just mean. But the idea that it's only used by transphobes, or is purely a transphobic term is really weird. I remember talking to a lot of trans people when it was becoming more acceptable to come out, talking about how they were biologically a different sex to their gender. Are you saying all of my trans friends are transphobic? Are you saying my girlfriend is transphobic?

This could be a difference in use of language, or even changing language in different parts of the world.

I thought politics was banned?

Apple fox wrote:
I do not think I have heard it used medically in the last 20 years, not even in Biology here. Only ever within discussions of transphobic groups or used by those groups.
Other terms are used as they are often more relivent, if needed.

I dunno about medically, but I've heard the term used by people in the biological sciences, including trans people who are involved in research.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
What does biological male and female even means though?

A chromosome definition doesn't work, because XX males and XY females are a thing.

Depends on the case, but usually, for animals, it means "capable of reproducing through sperm in the adult state" and "capable of reproducing through ova in the adult state."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

This really should be the final word in this thread.

[EDIT]: And it will be mine...

Funny that. Because there's* a 70 page thread in another part of this forum with people whinging about what constitutes a "Space Dwarf". People seem very happy to demand that the new Leagues of Votann be altered to fit their real life outlook. These people want to change those Dwarves into something they currently aren't. So they must not be here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby. Because they want these Space Dwarves to look a certain way and aren't happy with how GW portrays them. So they must just be here to cause problems.

 Togusa wrote:
I thought politics was banned?

Well then ban OP lol

 Togusa wrote:
I thought politics was banned?

Ah yes, the two genders: 'Male' and 'Political'.

The discussion is relevant to gaming, and is therefore fine so long as it stays civil and on track.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

Excellent point.

We certainly have examples - from the novel Imperator - of mechanicus characters who've done just that. The skitari commander who's one of the main protagonists considers themself non-gendered.

Of course since their combat chassis turns out to include both grav-repulsor units and rather a lot of automatic weaponry, they're one of the few individuals who could take the tasteless old joke and say "you know what, actually I DO identify as an attack helicopter...."

It’s generally okay to talk about hobby (therefore, on topic) subjects even if they have political dimensions. But don’t forget Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Let me once again remind people that the transphobe-specific term "biological male" is not used in the GW quote:

“The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

And the GW quote absolutely does not contain anything like the transphobe use of "biological male" to mean "male who is claimed to be something else but is actually male".

As a person that's been targeted by transphobes, frequently. That's the way they talk about trans women.

I'm not male.
I was forced to play that role until I realized I didn't have to anymore.
I've had "male biology" thrown at me like a weapon.

The intensity with which fandom folks dig into this like a lifeline makes the community so scary to interact with.

If they can do what they do to create Space Marines, the AGAB (assigned gender at birth) wouldn't stand in their way at all.
The lore was written in a different time, updates won't destroy it.

 Blndmage wrote:
If they can do what they do to create Space Marines, the AGAB (assigned gender at birth) wouldn't stand in their way at all.

No, there's plenty of reasons it could. If it required upregulation of genes that are on a y chromosome, for example, it wouldn't be able to be performed on people without one.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
If they can do what they do to create Space Marines, the AGAB (assigned gender at birth) wouldn't stand in their way at all.

No, there's plenty of reasons it could. If it required upregulation of genes that are on a y chromosome, for example, it wouldn't be able to be performed on people without one.

Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you male. Also, you're adding to it

This right here is what I mean.
Your adding justifications that don't exist in the lore.

When it was written, dna sequencing wasn't really a thing. We've learned a lot since then,and if GW doesn't want that game to seen as toxic, let alone the community, they need to update things.

Do Sororitas accept MtFTrans? That's an even better question.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Do Sororitas accept MtFTrans? That's an even better question.

Good point.

 Blndmage wrote:
Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you male. Also, you're adding to it

In almost all cases it does so for humans. The cases where it doesn't are rare enough that they probably aren't relevant to the Astartes creation process; moreover, a whole bunch of aspirants fail during the process, which probably excludes people who don't fit a certain fairly strict biological profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Do Sororitas accept MtFTrans? That's an even better question.

I like the idea that they don't, only as it reinforces the dystopian theme. Whereas Riot Grrls in Infinity *do* let trans women into their "sisterhood." As long as you also believe in anarchism.

General Hobbs wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/editorial-transphobic-language-and-the-horus-heresy/?fbclid=IwAR1gjmxXbRz6STPqTIaZGEkNW83gpnO5YhW39CbPKzWn7U_e5hEC5knqC4g

Warhammer started in the late 80s, before hormone therapies were a big thing.
The universe has become so popular that there is a small subset who actually think hate wars are a good thing and fail to see the irony in the story.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

This really should be the final word in this thread.

[EDIT]: And it will be mine...

One day I sincerely hope it WILL be the final word on the subject, but I don't have that kind of faith in people anymore...

You know there basically no public places on the internet having a discussion about this; Goonhammer certainly weren't, and 4chan isnt. Here is a good discussion, in which we can learn from one another. No one has - I think yet - been offensive, in part because I think there is a lot of naivety or not-knowingness around this subject.

I think it's important that medicine does emphasise the reality of a male sex or sexes, and a female sex or sexes. We saw that during the pandemic again - and find it in academic articles around understanding infection by sex (not gender). This includes publications in the BMJ's open access journal, the Canadian Journal of Public Health and others - no one I think would argue these are transphobic, even if of course transphobes can use that language. While there are sexes (or types of sexual characteristics), there are also genders, and it's really important also to accept and support people in finding and expressing the latter, but also understand that the former remains significant too.

There is also an important discussion to be had publicy around where rights do not mesh well. But as shared before it's important to read the largest survey of UK people on trans issues as it's a good sign overall - https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/ - a context in which GW itself is representative.

 Just Tony wrote:

One day I sincerely hope it WILL be the final word on the subject, but I don't have that kind of faith in people anymore...

Assuming that anyone calling for change is just trying to cause problems seems a bit of a stretch. It's possible for people to like something while also thinking there are things about it that can be improved.

 insaniak wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

One day I sincerely hope it WILL be the final word on the subject, but I don't have that kind of faith in people anymore...

Assuming that anyone calling for change is just trying to cause problems seems a bit of a stretch. It's possible for people to like something while also thinking there are things about it that can be improved.

That's a fair statement.

But I do get the sense that the goonhammer article mostly motivated to stir the pot.

 Tyran wrote:
What does biological male and female even means though?

A chromosome definition doesn't work, because XX males and XY females are a thing.

My dog had a uterus until she was fixed. I don't think there's a human alive who wouldn't call her female unless it was for self-serving political reasons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

This really should be the final word in this thread.

[EDIT]: And it will be mine...

And people wonder why people say 40k comes across as hostile and non-inclusive lmao. Imagine thinking a statement like that is bs when you unironically state anyone who brings up an issue they have with the setting doesn't actually care about the hobby and are just trying to cause trouble.

Which is exactly what the bigots on places like 4chan say, curious...

But go on, and continue to pretend the 40k community isn't disproportionately bereft of anyone who isn't a cisgendered straight white male (not that there's anything wrong with being a cisgendered straight white male) without ever wondering why that is.

I have discussed this bit of trivial “lore” a lot and have always thought it needed to go. I have never looked at it from a trans angle (always a sexism angle) and it’s clear from the experiences discussed in this thread that I will double down on it needing to go. There’s no argument to keep it that out weighs the harm it does to the community, and worse, the harm the community does when it attempts to defend this bit of outdated fluff.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But I do get the sense that the goonhammer article mostly motivated to stir the pot.

When serious topics are treated at such a superficial level as this, the line between pot-stirring and sincere concern becomes almost imperceptible. Was recently reading about Poe’s Law, and this situation may be a kind of variant.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
But go on, and continue to pretend the 40k community isn't disproportionately bereft of anyone who isn't a cisgendered straight white male (not that there's anything wrong with being a cisgendered straight white male) without ever wondering why that is.

Considering here in the US, black people are less likely to be accepting of trans people than white people are, this seems like a weird statement to make.

There have always been nonwhite people in my gaming groups; I live in a diverse state (California). There have been game nights down at my LGS where the *majority* of the players were black. When I lived in Santa Cruz the majority of the players in my Infinity group were Latino.

Truthfully, minis gaming skews towards men above all else. Racially, I find it can be pretty inclusive.

Andykp wrote:
I have discussed this bit of trivial “lore” a lot and have always thought it needed to go. I have never looked at it from a trans angle (always a sexism angle) and it’s clear from the experiences discussed in this thread that I will double down on it needing to go. There’s no argument to keep it that out weighs the harm it does to the community, and worse, the harm the community does when it attempts to defend this bit of outdated fluff.

It's defended due to nostalgic sentimentality. There's no especially compelling reason to keep it around. It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh. I can't even really blame GW here though, because there really might be a lot of current players who would swear off any future GW products purely for making the Space Marines able to be recruited from any human sex or gender.

 Blndmage wrote:
Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you male.

The vast majority of the time it absolutely does. XY is male. XXY (0.16% of the population) is male with some potential health and fertility issues. XYY (0.1% of the population) is male and most people don't even know they have non-typical chromosomes. XY with androgen insensitivity syndrome does give a female phenotype, but is only 0.005% of the population. And beyond that we're getting into extreme edge cases that aren't even close to worth mentioning in a brief note that space marines need to start from a male body. This is a game rulebook, not an advanced-level college textbook on genetics and sexual development.

We've learned a lot since then,and if GW doesn't want that game to seen as toxic, let alone the community, they need to update things.

Why? What exactly does this "update" need to be?

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh.

The face of the setting being segregated for no good reason is perfect for 40k/The Imperium. What part of "dystopia" don't you understand?

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It's defended due to nostalgic sentimentality. There's no especially compelling reason to keep it around. It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh. I can't even really blame GW here though, because there really might be a lot of current players who would swear off any future GW products purely for making the Space Marines able to be recruited from any human sex or gender.

So maybe instead of changing the fluff GW should stop making space marines the overwhelming face of the setting. Give each faction its equal share and space marines being all-male is no more of an issue than SoB being all-female. And as a nice bonus we break up the monotony of endless space marine stuff.

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh.

The face of the setting being segregated for no good reason is perfect for 40k/The Imperium. What part of "dystopia" don't you understand?

This I agree with.

I'm totally pro female Custodes though, I think that would be a nice counterpoint.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

So maybe instead of changing the fluff GW should stop making space marines the overwhelming face of the setting. Give each faction its equal share and space marines being all-male is no more of an issue than SoB being all-female. And as a nice bonus we break up the monotony of endless space marine stuff.

I do find it interesting that the female space marine crew has used this issue to justify female space marines. They'll use anything to justify it lol. What about, only men (cis and trans) space marines? But no women (cis or trans? Like I suggested upthread... but apparently that's not what they want, so they're veering this thread off topic.

Hecaton wrote:

Considering here in the US, black people are less likely to be accepting of trans people than white people are, this seems like a weird statement to make.

Almost as weird as this completely irrelevant statement you just made that didn't address anything I said at all.

I never at any point indicated white people's acceptance of white people relevant to other races my friend of extremely poor reading comprehension.

There have always been nonwhite people in my gaming groups; I live in a diverse state (California). There have been game nights down at my LGS where the *majority* of the players were black. When I lived in Santa Cruz the majority of the players in my Infinity group were Latino.

That's nice. No one gives a single gak about your anecdotes regarding your gaming group my friend. No one. Not a single soul.

Also, why would you bring up Infinity, a game I know almost nothing about except that from what I can tell most ethnic groups get a faction or two representing them and tend to have female members, when I was talking exclusively about 40k?

Truthfully, minis gaming skews towards men above all else. Racially, I find it can be pretty inclusive.

And yet Age of Sigmar by pretty much every account I have read or heard (I couldn't find any actual data on 40k or Age of Sigmar's demographics, do you have any?) tends to attract more women And POC from pretty much any account I've heard, but let's just focus on women for now. Minis gaming might indeed skew towards men, but do you feel that women are particularly averse toward 40k? Frankly that's the impression I've gotten from a rather large amount of the women who know of the setting I've spoken to. Why do you think that might be?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It's defended due to nostalgic sentimentality. There's no especially compelling reason to keep it around. It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh. I can't even really blame GW here though, because there really might be a lot of current players who would swear off any future GW products purely for making the Space Marines able to be recruited from any human sex or gender.

So maybe instead of changing the fluff GW should stop making space marines the overwhelming face of the setting. Give each faction its equal share and space marines being all-male is no more of an issue than SoB being all-female. And as a nice bonus we break up the monotony of endless space marine stuff.

Yes please also this ffs.

 Blndmage wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
If they can do what they do to create Space Marines, the AGAB (assigned gender at birth) wouldn't stand in their way at all.

No, there's plenty of reasons it could. If it required upregulation of genes that are on a y chromosome, for example, it wouldn't be able to be performed on people without one.

Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you male. Also, you're adding to it

This right here is what I mean.
Your adding justifications that don't exist in the lore.

When it was written, dna sequencing wasn't really a thing. We've learned a lot since then,and if GW doesn't want that game to seen as toxic, let alone the community, they need to update things.

What makes someone male if I remember correctly is a functional SYR gene,the SYR gene is found almost exclusively on the Y chromosome. Some Females can be born with XXY chromosome, yet still be female as the Y chromosome doesn't have a functional SYR gene.

Intersex is a thing, and sadly gets labeled as a different sex. It is an umbrella term to describe several genetic mutations relating to the Sex chromosomes, that cause those who are born this way a lot of pain and suffering. I think they are almost all infertile, and it is not uncommon for other genetic mutations to be present.

Genetics is a complex thing, and as such a lot can go wrong at conception, leading to people having deformities.

What I don't understand is the idea that as things are not 100% that we need to remove all preconceptions. It is like saying that the number of limbs people have is not 4, but anything from 0.

I look at the word Man and it says Adult Human, Male. To me all three are related to biology. Adult, physical maturity, the body has reached maturity, and can reproduce.
Human, I hope that explains ot self. We are Homo Sapiens.
Male, a body that has a functional SYR gene which has developed the body to be one that produces lots of small gametes and as such will alter the body accordingly.

Hecaton wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:
It's not something I've ever felt particularly strongly about personally but the Spess Mehreens are in fact the face of the setting and it's off-putting to exclude over half of the population for being represented in them for such childish reasons tbh.

The face of the setting being segregated for no good reason is perfect for 40k/The Imperium. What part of "dystopia" don't you understand?

Oh thanks for reminding me, I forgot to mention that people don't want it changed because it might ruin their headcanon, like Hecaton here's headcanon that the Emperor did it deliberately because he's a raging misogynist (when every bit of fluff that addresses the issue at all states its a biological issue).

The Femarine thing seems like a weird red herring here, as in it not being relevant to the author’s argument but at the same time that’s where it seems to lead.

'Conform with the hobby or else you're just here to cause problems and should leave' really isn't the stellar take that a number of people in this thread seem to think it is.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Almost as weird as this completely irrelevant statement you just made that didn't address anything I said at all.

I never at any point indicated white people's acceptance of white people relevant to other races my friend of extremely poor reading comprehension.

Oh, so you're not even making coherent statements then.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
That's nice. No one gives a single gak about your anecdotes regarding your gaming group my friend. No one. Not a single soul.

No one gives a gak about the fact that you find male-majority hobbies icky, but that's neither here nor there.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Also, why would you bring up Infinity, a game I know almost nothing about except that from what I can tell most ethnic groups get a faction or two representing them and tend to have female members, when I was talking exclusively about 40k?

Well, funny you should mention that; Infinity *also* is overwhelmingly male in terms of its playerbase. It's almost like representing women in depictions in minis *doesn't* suddenly bring them running to the hobby and the people claiming that it does are speaking in bad faith.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

And yet Age of Sigmar by pretty much every account I have read or heard (I couldn't find any actual data on 40k or Age of Sigmar's demographics, do you have any?) tends to attract more women And POC from pretty much any account I've heard, but let's just focus on women for now. Minis gaming might indeed skew towards men, but do you feel that women are particularly averse toward 40k? Frankly that's the impression I've gotten from a rather large amount of the women who know of the setting I've spoken to. Why do you think that might be?

Absent any actual data that AoS has a different playerbase than other minis games I don't have an opinion on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Oh thanks for reminding me, I forgot to mention that people don't want it changed because it might ruin their headcanon, like Hecaton here's headcanon that the Emperor did it deliberately because he's a raging misogynist (when every bit of fluff that addresses the issue at all states its a biological issue).

It can be both. Also, I used the term "gynophobe," not misogynist. Like, the Emperor designed the process that creates Astartes to only work with males because he didn't want females to become Astartes.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you male.

The vast majority of the time it absolutely does. XY is male. XXY (0.16% of the population) is male with some potential health and fertility issues. XYY (0.1% of the population) is male and most people don't even know they have non-typical chromosomes. XY with androgen insensitivity syndrome does give a female phenotype, but is only 0.005% of the population. And beyond that we're getting into extreme edge cases that aren't even close to worth mentioning in a brief note that space marines need to start from a male body. This is a game rulebook, not an advanced-level college textbook on genetics and sexual development.

We've learned a lot since then,and if GW doesn't want that game to seen as toxic, let alone the community, they need to update things.

Why? What exactly does this "update" need to be?

First by numbers you give for XY androgen insensitivity 0.005%. that means if the Imperium has 4-8 quadrillion people, the low end according to Google with arguments for 15qad, or multiple quintillion people, let's average that to 6 quadrillion people, Wich means there are 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people in the Imperium at the MINIMUM.
How many Space Marines are there?

 Manchu wrote:
The Femarine thing seems like a weird red herring here, as in it not being relevant to the author’s argument but at the same time that’s where it seems to lead.

I've talked about this before, but any sort of protected identity the femarine crew can use to justify their demand for female Astartes is used i.e. give us female Astartes or you're a bigot/you're hurting the women/the children/the trans folk.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

And yet Age of Sigmar by pretty much every account I have read or heard (I couldn't find any actual data on 40k or Age of Sigmar's demographics, do you have any?) tends to attract more women And POC from pretty much any account I've heard, but let's just focus on women for now. Minis gaming might indeed skew towards men, but do you feel that women are particularly averse toward 40k? Frankly that's the impression I've gotten from a rather large amount of the women who know of the setting I've spoken to. Why do you think that might be?

Fantasy seems to resonate with a wider demographic than sci-fi, is more or less what I've seen. Also 40ks sci fi is particularly violent, bleak, and faschistic, even if a lark at the same time. That may also have something to do with it. Are there "good guys" in AoS? I don't really know.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


So maybe instead of changing the fluff GW should stop making space marines the overwhelming face of the setting.

This will never happen. I don't know why there's this idea that Spess Mehreens are only the most popular faction by a landslide because of GW's favoritism when in reality it's the other way around: GW shows them favoritism because they became by far the most popular faction.

What you want as a guardsman player is unfortunately for you (and me I suppose, being a Daemons/Custodes player primarily) does not align with what the majority of players want and I don't know why this is so hard for people to accept.

Give each faction its equal share and space marines being all-male is no more of an issue than SoB being all-female. And as a nice bonus we break up the monotony of endless space marine stuff.

I could even agree with this in theory. If, say, guardsmen were the face of 40k and GW made sure to emphasize that guardsmen can come from every walk of life (and also probably play it for tragedy given the brutal and often short lives being a gear in the Imperium's war machine brings, everyone is equal in misery here) then sure. Spess Mehreens being all dudes wouldn't really be an issue (though as much as I bullied Hecaton for his fanfiction I really would prefer it be for the reason of the Emperor being a gynophile than dumb "muh male biological muffucker" gak it currently is).

But that's not the reality we live in and bluntly I doubt it ever will be. The escapism and heroic fantasy elements of Mehreens is too strong. It's a more appealing and honestly juvenile form of escapism than the Imperial Guard can have. I won't fully discount the possibility but bluntly turning the focus down from Marines would be a much more financially risky move than just letting girls put on their beak helmets.

 Blndmage wrote:
First by numbers you give for XY androgen insensitivity 0.005%. that means if the Imperium has 4-8 quadrillion people, the low end according to Google with arguments for 15qad, or multiple quintillion people, let's average that to 6 quadrillion people, Wich means there are 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people in the Imperium at the MINIMUM.
How many Space Marines are there?

What if XY-androgen insensitivity is one of the failure conditions for the Astartes creation process?

Even allowing for 'grandfather rights' on this rather argument-inciting bit of lore for Astartes, I'd have zero issues with female Custodes because their genetic enhancements are supposed to be custom-made to each recruit.

The fundamental changes to the gene-seed technology with Primaris also offers a narrative opportunity - though obviously that's irrelevant in the case of this question which is talking about heresy era.

Fortunately GW rather sensibly ducked the issue with the much more recent Age of Sigmar lore: since Stormcast are essentially an idealised version of the person built around a disembodied soul, and definitely have female and male members, narrative 'space' for a stormcast essentially transitioning at their first reforging is implicitly possible in the lore whether articulated or not.

I’ve also noticed very few women interested in Infinity. By contrast, I notice many more interested in Malifaux. Perhaps this related to Insectum7’s point.

And yes there are quite clear good guys in AOS compared to 40k, even with Stormcast getting a thin coat of grimdark over the last few years.

 Void__Dragon wrote:


This will never happen. I don't know why there's this idea that Spess Mehreens are only the most popular faction by a landslide because of GW's favoritism when in reality it's the other way around: GW shows them favoritism because they became by far the most popular faction.

What you want as a guardsman player is unfortunately for you (and me I suppose, being a Daemons/Custodes player primarily) does not align with what the majority of players want and I don't know why this is so hard for people to accept.

Isnt this line of logic a good reason why Marines are the way they are? They are so popular why would anyone change them? Why is this so hard for people to accept?

 Void__Dragon wrote:
This will never happen. I don't know why there's this idea that Spess Mehreens are only the most popular faction by a landslide because of GW's favoritism when in reality it's the other way around: GW shows them favoritism because they became by far the most popular faction.

Chicken or the egg. If they're in every starter set and they're pushed for people to buy them as their first army, and the overwhelming amount of fiction for the setting portrays them as the protagonists... you can't say that GW isn't putting their finger on the scaler here.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I could even agree with this in theory. If, say, guardsmen were the face of 40k and GW made sure to emphasize that guardsmen can come from every walk of life (and also probably play it for tragedy given the brutal and often short lives being a gear in the Imperium's war machine brings, everyone is equal in misery here) then sure. Spess Mehreens being all dudes wouldn't really be an issue (though as much as I bullied Hecaton for his fanfiction I really would prefer it be for the reason of the Emperor being a gynophile than dumb "muh male biological muffucker" gak it currently is).

The Emperor was definitely not a gynophile; the only way he'd let women into his throne room is if they stood at the far end of it and didn't talk.

And there are perfectly good reasons why it might only work on male subjects.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
But that's not the reality we live in and bluntly I doubt it ever will be. The escapism and heroic fantasy elements of Mehreens is too strong. It's a more appealing and honestly juvenile form of escapism than the Imperial Guard can have. I won't fully discount the possibility but bluntly turning the focus down from Marines would be a much more financially risky move than just letting girls put on their beak helmets.

I disagree, especially in the long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

locarno24 wrote:
Even allowing for 'grandfather rights' on this rather argument-inciting bit of lore for Astartes, I'd have zero issues with female Custodes because their genetic enhancements are supposed to be custom-made to each recruit.

The fact that both these groups are all-male leaves me with the Occam's razor solution of "the Emperor was a gynophobe" tbh.

 Blndmage wrote:
First by numbers you give for XY androgen insensitivity 0.005%. that means if the Imperium has 4-8 quadrillion people, the low end according to Google with arguments for 15qad, or multiple quintillion people, let's average that to 6 quadrillion people, Wich means there are 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people in the Imperium at the MINIMUM.
How many Space Marines are there?

That's a ridiculous argument and you know it. You were talking about the validity of saying "Y chromosome = male", the total number of people in the fictional 40k universe has nothing to do with the fact that if you take a random person with a Y chromosome there is a 99.995% chance that person is in fact male. And for purposes of a game rulebook (which is, once again, not a genetics textbook) making a brief description of the space marine creation process it is absolutely reasonable to say that 99.995% likely is close enough to 100% to not bother talking about the extreme edge cases.

Whilst the level of space-marine-centric has varied the marines have absolutely been the poster boys since day 1 of rogue trader.

Yes there's obviously a reinforcing loop from market share but in no way has pushing them as the iconic image of 40k not also been a conscious choice from GW.

 Manchu wrote:
I’ve also noticed very few women interested in Infinity. By contrast, I notice many more interested in Malifaux. Perhaps this related to Insectum7’s point.

It's also a much less militarized-looking setting. It does have plenty of pinup minis, though... I guess the idea that those scare women off must have been a mistake...

And actually it's funny you mention it, most of the women I know who are into wargaming are current or ex-military or come from military families. So they're more comfortable with the aesthetic/milieu.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
The escapism and heroic fantasy elements of Mehreens is too strong. It's a more appealing and honestly juvenile form of escapism than the Imperial Guard can have. I won't fully discount the possibility but bluntly turning the focus down from Marines would be a much more financially risky move than just letting girls put on their beak helmets.

And yet other fictional settings and games succeed just fine without having space marines. Your theory is simply not reasonable.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And yet other fictional settings and games succeed just fine without having space marines. Your theory is simply not reasonable.

Yup. It's not like women are all over BattleTech; it's seen as being for the nerdiest of the nerds *because of the game*, not because of the setting (which has a number of significant female characters).

Hecaton wrote:

Oh, so you're not even making coherent statements then.

I accept your concession little buddy.

No one gives a gak about the fact that you find male-majority hobbies icky, but that's neither here nor there.

A strawman my friend, but because I'm such a nice guy I'll allow you a second chance to try again.

Well, funny you should mention that; Infinity *also* is overwhelmingly male in terms of its playerbase. It's almost like representing women in depictions in minis *doesn't* suddenly bring them running to the hobby and the people claiming that it does are speaking in bad faith.

Sorry friend, I'm not going to get distracted by getting bogged down in a discussion about a game I'm not very familiar with.

I do know for absolute certainty that Riot has done demographic analysis and found that women are extremely more likely to play female champions in League of Legends. Men by comparison are more diverse in their tastes on average. So this shows that for female League players at least they are far more likely to play female champions.

Now, would this be the same for 40k? Gut feeling is yes. You seem to believe that the hobby is inherently on average offputting towards women. Why do you think that my friend?

Absent any actual data that AoS has a different playerbase than other minis games I don't have an opinion on the subject.

Yet you'll make a definitive statement on Infinity's playerbase despite also as far as I can tell lacking those statistics. Curious...

It can be both. Also, I used the term "gynophobe," not misogynist. Like, the Emperor designed the process that creates Astartes to only work with males because he didn't want females to become Astartes.

But it's not both and you pretending it is is completely irrelevant my friend. Your head canon is not so.

Goonhammer comment sections are one of gods gifts to the internet.

Just read the article. Didn't expect that. I added a comment even if i don't know if he will show up because desagreeing on a subject is often see as a sin today.

First: fluff about space marines had always stated they have to be male so nothing new here. I for myself don't see anything in the lines quoted offensive..

Second: for someone like me who has traveled a lot (something like 15 countries so far) and see poverty, injustice, misery, and cruel other stuff all this transphobic/pronouns-thing appear to me like a "richpeople-problem" when there is so much to worry about in our today-world. (But that's my opinion. You don't have to share it.)

Worst : it's so much matraqued all over the media and its community is so ever obnoxious about it that it actually go against its original message : accept everybody. I even know people which had turn really transphobic because of that.

For myself I would prefer to remain in my dark futur universe where anything is ******-up and where everyone is hated equally and deserve to be purged in extreme (but fancy) brutal ways.

Have good games and fun with everybody.

Swastakowey wrote:

Isnt this line of logic a good reason why Marines are the way they are? They are so popular why would anyone change them? Why is this so hard for people to accept?

If you read my previous post with any comprehension you'd have the answer my friend.

And the answer is indeed that there is a good chance that there's no financially sound reason for GW to do so because the outcry might outweigh the benefits.

Psychocouac wrote:
extreme (but fancy)

Ha, that is an entertaining turn of phrase.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I accept your concession little buddy.

I ain't conceding gak.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
A strawman my friend, but because I'm such a nice guy I'll allow you a second chance to try again.

No, I know what's up with you. That anxiety you feel when your female friends, family and acquaintances look at your minis collection... it's not going to go away if you have female space marines lol.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I do know for absolute certainty that Riot has done demographic analysis and found that women are extremely more likely to play female champions in League of Legends. Men by comparison are more diverse in their tastes on average. So this shows that for female League players at least they are far more likely to play female champions.

But that doesn't tell you if they're going to play LoL or not in the first place. So that study doesn't actually answer the question put forth.

Besides, we know that most women who play 40k play Tyranids.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
You seem to believe that the hobby is inherently on average offputting towards women. Why do you think that my friend?

It's competitive and models (fantastical) combat. Many women are not comfortable with directly competitive games or sports, or at least participating in them themselves. Women are traditionally not interested in, say, military science fiction, which is the kind of novel that's most like 40k.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Yet you'll make a definitive statement on Infinity's playerbase despite also as far as I can tell lacking those statistics. Curious...

Because one, I'm very familiar with Infinity, and two, we both agreed that wargaming was overwhelmingly male. You proposed an exception, which I took issue with.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

But it's not both and you pretending it is is completely irrelevant my friend. Your head canon is not so.

I agree it's headcanon. The canon is that the Astartes creation process only works on male humans.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Fantasy seems to resonate with a wider demographic than sci-fi, is more or less what I've seen. Also 40ks sci fi is particularly violent, bleak, and faschistic, even if a lark at the same time. That may also have something to do with it. Are there "good guys" in AoS? I don't really know.

Yet franchises like Star Wars (a space fantasy like 40k though yes different in tone) as well as Mass Effect (a much harder science fiction setting) have from what I can gather more notable female fanbases. I'm not incredibly convinced by this line of reasoning, especially when fantasy is also still largely more popular among men and 40k is closer to a fantasy series in space than a straight science fiction.

Transphobia in the community is bad enough that, locally, I was threatened with violence if I ever entered our FLGS, the patrons and owner backed the person threatening me, when I had his explicit threat in writing, after saying they're inclusive and would back me (I approached the owner before starting to play there).

Since then another FLGS has opened, but the folks playing are the exact same group.

It's same here.

People are refusing to answer the basic question of "do you think trans women [my example as a trans woman] are valid as women?".

If you're not willing to answer, regardless of what that answer may be, you're part of the problem.

The hobby is only as bigoted as it's community. The 40k community is pretty bigoted already.

If you want to play female marines, or trans marines, go nuts. I'm sure some people will go "nooo my fluff" - but overwhelmingly people won't care.

I however feel getting upset that established lore is reprinted is crazy.

 blood reaper wrote:
Goonhammer comment sections are one of gods gifts to the internet.

Considering they don't allow discussion... nah, it's pretty pointless. Just a circlejerk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Yet franchises like Star Wars (a space fantasy like 40k though yes different in tone) as well as Mass Effect (a much harder science fiction setting) have from what I can gather more notable female fanbases. I'm not incredibly convinced by this line of reasoning, especially when fantasy is also still largely more popular among men and 40k is closer to a fantasy series in space than a straight science fiction.

There's also the accessibility of the media - there hasn't been a 40k game as high-profile as Mass Effect, and Star Wars is obviously film, which you just watch. 40k is much less well-known than Star Wars, you have to go seek it out, more or less. In my experience men are more willing to participate in niche fandoms.

Tyel wrote:
If you want to play female marines, or trans marines, go nuts. I'm sure some people will go "nooo my fluff" - but overwhelmingly people won't care.

I however feel getting upset that established lore is reprinted is crazy.

Theyve retconned entire factions (ie Necrons). This isn't nearly has big a shift in the lore. feth, have it be possible due to new Marines.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


And yet other fictional settings and games succeed just fine without having space marines. Your theory is simply not reasonable.

You're kind of missing the point, I'm saying that chicken or egg the inertia of Marines being the face of the setting is too strong at this point IMO. It may be that GW has forced them to become that way but at this point the Marine players probably outnumber the rest of the playerbase combined so GW has a financial incentive to both keep them happy and buying merchandise. Hard to do that if they aren't releasing marine kits and books regularly. It sucks, but it is what it is IMO.

I read the article several times to understand it better, but I still cannot make sense of it.

I'm one of the people the article mentions who might see the sentence with no issue, if you are not part of the ongoing debate.

"There is no specific hormonal or biological make-up of a human male"

I understand hormonal and biological make-up of a male as "having way more testosteron than a biological female" and "born with testicles and a penis instead of breasts, ovaries and a vagina". Thus, the claim that there is no specific make-up does not make sense to me.

Could somebody please elaborate to help me understand what the fuzz is about?

I get there is a semi different discussion going on here right now wether SM should be changed to be made up of females as well, but that does not seem to be the author's issue.

Hecaton wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Goonhammer comment sections are one of gods gifts to the internet.

Considering they don't allow discussion... nah, it's pretty pointless. Just a circlejerk.

Yeah I should've added the /s to my post to make it clear - it's hysterical how there is no discussion permitted and that the mods/site authors respond to everything with this incredibly snide tone.

 Blndmage wrote:
People are refusing to answer the basic question of "do you think trans women [my example as a trans woman] are valid as women?".

If you're not willing to answer, regardless of what that answer may be, you're part of the problem.

Nah. I just don't think that you're asking that in good faith, like I said upthread.

Psychocouac wrote:

Second: for someone like me who has traveled a lot (something like 15 countries so far) and see poverty, injustice, misery, and cruel other stuff all this transphobic/pronouns-thing appear to me like a "richpeople-problem" when there is so much to worry about in our today-world. (But that's my opinion. You don't have to share it.)

You are aware that trans people can live in poverty as well and are in fact far more likely to be the victims of violence when doing so?

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
First by numbers you give for XY androgen insensitivity 0.005%. that means if the Imperium has 4-8 quadrillion people, the low end according to Google with arguments for 15qad, or multiple quintillion people, let's average that to 6 quadrillion people, Wich means there are 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people in the Imperium at the MINIMUM.
How many Space Marines are there?

What if XY-androgen insensitivity is one of the failure conditions for the Astartes creation process?

Then that means there are SO MANY MORE, you picked one of the rarer things the others would be way more common. You're not going to get out of this by ignoring it.

 Blndmage wrote:

Theyve retconned entire factions (ie Necrons). This isn't nearly has big a shift in the lore. feth, have it be possible due to new Marines.

And there's some of us who think the change to the Necron lore in 5th was a bad move.

 Blndmage wrote:
People are refusing to answer the basic question of "do you think trans women [my example as a trans woman] are valid as women?"

Are you arguing this question is fundamental as to whether GW is transphobic?

This seems like it could be a tangent but I’m not sure that question is quite as simple as you seem to imply. To put it mildly, there is a lot of disagreement among transwomen about who is valid and not.

 Blndmage wrote:
Theyve retconned entire factions (ie Necrons).

And a lot of people hated it. The difference is that Necrons were a dead army with a model line just one step short of "throw this embarrassment in the trash with the squats" so there was really nothing to lose. Changing space marines, the core of their brand, to appease a minority who want women in this one specific faction (and ignore all the others) would be a much larger risk.

 Blndmage wrote:

Then that means there are SO MANY MORE, you picked one of the rarer things the others would be way more common. You're not going to get out of this by ignoring it.

So many more what? Failure conditions? So? It's clear in the fluff that not everyone makes it through the process.

Hecaton wrote:


Nah. I just don't think that you're asking that in good faith, like I said upthread.

I actually do think her overtly accusing you of such was out of line but now your refusal to answer the question at all is interesting when it would cost you nothing to affirm "trans women are women". Why do you hesitate to do so?

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Psychocouac wrote:

Second: for someone like me who has traveled a lot (something like 15 countries so far) and see poverty, injustice, misery, and cruel other stuff all this transphobic/pronouns-thing appear to me like a "richpeople-problem" when there is so much to worry about in our today-world. (But that's my opinion. You don't have to share it.)

You are aware that trans people can live in poverty as well and are in fact far more likely to be the victims of violence when doing so?

*Raises hand*
Disabled, in poverty trans girl from a provincial capital
Ya, we're at risk constantly, being yelled at by bigots gets EXHAUSTING.

 Blndmage wrote:
Transphobia in the community is bad enough that, locally, I was threatened with violence if I ever entered our FLGS, the patrons and owner backed the person threatening me, when I had his explicit threat in writing, after saying they're inclusive and would back me (I approached the owner before starting to play there).

That is unfortunate and those people should be in prison for their actions, and certainly should not be tolerated in the 40k community. But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

People are refusing to answer the basic question of "do you think trans women [my example as a trans woman] are valid as women?".

What does that have to do with the topic of space marines having to start from a male body? Nothing in that GW quote in any way says that trans women are not women.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Theyve retconned entire factions (ie Necrons). This isn't nearly has big a shift in the lore. feth, have it be possible due to new Marines.

And there's some of us who think the change to the Necron lore in 5th was a bad move.

I agree, I'm really unhappy with what they did to my faction.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

I actually do think her overtly accusing you of such was out of line but now your refusal to answer the question at all is interesting when it would cost you nothing to affirm "trans women are women". Why do you hesitate to do so?

Because Blndmage has repeatedly been trying to accuse people of all sorts of things lately, and I'm not trying to play that game. Moreover, in the context the question was brought up in, it's a pointless question; whether or not someone is "valid as a woman" is not a matter of biology. The Inquisition can stay in 40k, I'm not LARPing it.

 blood reaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Goonhammer comment sections are one of gods gifts to the internet.

Considering they don't allow discussion... nah, it's pretty pointless. Just a circlejerk.

Yeah I should've added the /s to my post to make it clear - it's hysterical how there is no discussion permitted and that the mods/site authors respond to everything with this incredibly snide tone.

Ummmmmm build your own website?



It's disturbing how some people behave with just a crumb of power.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Could somebody please elaborate to help me understand what the fuzz is about?

The specific phrase "biological male" is used by transphobes to mean "someone who claims to be not-male but we all know they're really a man", because using the term "trans woman" would mean accepting the enemy's assertion that trans women are women. They'll talk about things like "biological males being allowed in women's sports".

This has nothing to do with the GW quote. The GW quote does not use this specific phrase, and the context of it is obviously something entirely different from the transphobe use. Goonhammer is just looking to farm outrage clicks, nothing more.

I really don't understand the attitude of "I don't see the problem with this, ergo there is no problem." – it's totally ok to not be informed on this stuff, or be new to it or whatever, but if the people affected by it see the problem, particularly when those people are from a traditionally marginalised group, then you should probably take their word for it, rather than either dismissing it because you don't understand the nuances of something they get subjected to every day, or assuming they're acting in bad faith for some reason.

 Blndmage wrote:

People are refusing to answer the basic question of "do you think trans women [my example as a trans woman] are valid as women?".

Because Dakka is basically just multiple threads of people arguing at great length, and if you do something enough you get good at it and we know someone asking a trap question to divert the thread when we see one.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Transphobia in the community is bad enough that, locally, I was threatened with violence if I ever entered our FLGS, the patrons and owner backed the person threatening me, when I had his explicit threat in writing, after saying they're inclusive and would back me (I approached the owner before starting to play there).

That is unfortunate and those people should be in prison for their actions, and certainly should not be tolerated in the 40k community. But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

People are refusing to answer the basic question of "do you think trans women [my example as a trans woman] are valid as women?".

What does that have to do with the topic of space marines having to start from a male body? Nothing in that GW quote in any way says that trans women are not women.

It has everything to do with this thread, can't you see that?

If the hobby scene, local, online, wherever is actively harmful to transfolks, we're not going to be involved, no matter how much we want to be.

The toxicity of the community can tank this game.

 Blndmage wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Transphobia in the community is bad enough that, locally, I was threatened with violence if I ever entered our FLGS, the patrons and owner backed the person threatening me, when I had his explicit threat in writing, after saying they're inclusive and would back me (I approached the owner before starting to play there).

That is unfortunate and those people should be in prison for their actions, and certainly should not be tolerated in the 40k community. But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

People are refusing to answer the basic question of "do you think trans women [my example as a trans woman] are valid as women?".

What does that have to do with the topic of space marines having to start from a male body? Nothing in that GW quote in any way says that trans women are not women.

It has everything to do with this thread, can't you see that?

If the hobby scene, local, online, wherever is actively harmful to transfolks, we're not going to be involved, no matter how much we want to be.

The toxicity of the community can tank this game.

It hasn't so far.

 Blndmage wrote:
It has everything to do with this thread, can't you see that?

If the hobby scene, local, online, wherever is actively harmful to transfolks, we're not going to be involved, no matter how much we want to be.

The toxicity of the community can tank this game.

The topic of this thread is a specific quote by GW and the Goonhammer article objecting to it. Your experiences are awful and those people deserve to be kicked out of the 40k community just like the Nazi guy but the donkey-caves at your local store have nothing to do with the topic here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand the attitude of "I don't see the problem with this, ergo there is no problem." – it's totally ok to not be informed on this stuff, or be new to it or whatever, but if the people affected by it see the problem, particularly when those people are from a traditionally marginalised group, then you should probably take their word for it, rather than either dismissing it because you don't understand the nuances of something they get subjected to every day, or assuming they're acting in bad faith for some reason.

So if a trans person says "this is not transphobic" you should take their word for it and let the discussion end there?

Anyway, I think the article was a considered, measured and thoughtful one, and I hope that at least some of the people who read it reconsider their positions on this stuff as a result.

As just about the most stereotypical Warhammer Guy from back in the day (straight, white, male, etc etc) who's been at this for well over thirty years now, I don't see any issue at all with GW being sensitive to the fact that they have a much broader audience nowadays, and I think that they have some sort of responsibility of inclusivity towards people who've often, whether by accident or design, felt excluded from the hobby.

Swastakowey wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Goonhammer comment sections are one of gods gifts to the internet.

Considering they don't allow discussion... nah, it's pretty pointless. Just a circlejerk.

Yeah I should've added the /s to my post to make it clear - it's hysterical how there is no discussion permitted and that the mods/site authors respond to everything with this incredibly snide tone.

Ummmmmm build your own website?



It's disturbing how some people behave with just a crumb of power.

I mean I think he's totally within his right to do this I just think it's immensely funny and infantile.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Considering here in the US, black people are less likely to be accepting of trans people than white people are, this seems like a weird statement to make.

Almost as weird as this completely irrelevant statement you just made that didn't address anything I said at all.

I never at any point indicated white people's acceptance of white people relevant to other races my friend of extremely poor reading comprehension.

There have always been nonwhite people in my gaming groups; I live in a diverse state (California). There have been game nights down at my LGS where the *majority* of the players were black. When I lived in Santa Cruz the majority of the players in my Infinity group were Latino.

That's nice. No one gives a single gak about your anecdotes regarding your gaming group my friend. No one. Not a single soul.

Also, why would you bring up Infinity, a game I know almost nothing about except that from what I can tell most ethnic groups get a faction or two representing them and tend to have female members, when I was talking exclusively about 40k?

Truthfully, minis gaming skews towards men above all else. Racially, I find it can be pretty inclusive.

And yet Age of Sigmar by pretty much every account I have read or heard (I couldn't find any actual data on 40k or Age of Sigmar's demographics, do you have any?) tends to attract more women And POC from pretty much any account I've heard, but let's just focus on women for now. Minis gaming might indeed skew towards men, but do you feel that women are particularly averse toward 40k? Frankly that's the impression I've gotten from a rather large amount of the women who know of the setting I've spoken to. Why do you think that might be?

The relevance to the post you quoted is because you YOURSELF tossed the "cis white het" bomb into the conversation in some sort of attempt to shame people into ending discourse. Their response is a refutation of your claim. You brought race into this, you have nobody to blame but yourself if the conversation gets continued.

 Blndmage wrote:
The toxicity of the community can tank this game.

Bluntly, 40k won’t live or die depending upon transwomen joining or leaving, or even based on what most 40k players think about trans issues. On the other hand, the toxicity around dogmatic parsing of fluff does create bigger issues. That’s arguably what is objectionable about the article, just as to 40k. There are some bigger issues with it, vis a vis trans issues (in a nutshell, exploitative and trivializing).

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand the attitude of "I don't see the problem with this, ergo there is no problem." – it's totally ok to not be informed on this stuff, or be new to it or whatever, but if the people affected by it see the problem, particularly when those people are from a traditionally marginalised group, then you should probably take their word for it, rather than either dismissing it because you don't understand the nuances of something they get subjected to every day, or assuming they're acting in bad faith for some reason.

So if a trans person says "this is not transphobic" you should take their word for it and let the discussion end there?

Well no, not if others are saying it is. You're not ever going to get a complete consensus, but if significant numbers of people from a certain demographic group are saying there's a problem with something, then I think it's reasonable that people from outside that group should be at the very least willing to consider that there may well be a problem.

 Nazrak wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand the attitude of "I don't see the problem with this, ergo there is no problem." – it's totally ok to not be informed on this stuff, or be new to it or whatever, but if the people affected by it see the problem, particularly when those people are from a traditionally marginalised group, then you should probably take their word for it, rather than either dismissing it because you don't understand the nuances of something they get subjected to every day, or assuming they're acting in bad faith for some reason.

So if a trans person says "this is not transphobic" you should take their word for it and let the discussion end there?

Well no, not if others are saying it is. You're not ever going to get a complete consensus, but if significant numbers of people from a certain demographic group are saying there's a problem with something, then I think it's reasonable that people from outside that group should be at the very least willing to consider that there may well be a problem.

I mean what is a significant number in this case?

Something also worth reading around this issue (which I think Gert has?), is Shon Faye's The Transgender Issue:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Transgender-Issue-Argument-Justice/dp/0241423147

You can read many very positive and some positive critical reviews google

 PetitionersCity wrote:
Something also worth reading around this issue (which I think Gert has?), is Shon Faye's The Transgender Issue:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Transgender-Issue-Argument-Justice/dp/0241423147

You can read many very positive and some positive critical reviews google

Can you summarize what this book has to say about the GW quote in specific or 40k in general?

So it begins, the destruction of this hobby by the woke community.

That is so pathetic, so much outrage just because a bunch of sentences which propably don't have any "transphobic" meaning behind it.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Isnt this line of logic a good reason why Marines are the way they are? They are so popular why would anyone change them? Why is this so hard for people to accept?

If you read my previous post with any comprehension you'd have the answer my friend.

And the answer is indeed that there is a good chance that there's no financially sound reason for GW to do so because the outcry might outweigh the benefits.

The problem is, you lambast someone for bringing up race AFTER you did, you then dismiss someone's anecdotes while bringing up your own, all the while being oddly combative and then at the same time arguing over a self admitted losing position after complaining that people just dont get that their position is a losing one? It's all so circular.

 Nazrak wrote:
I really don't understand the attitude of "I don't see the problem with this, ergo there is no problem." – it's totally ok to not be informed on this stuff, or be new to it or whatever, but if the people affected by it see the problem, particularly when those people are from a traditionally marginalised group, then you should probably take their word for it, rather than either dismissing it because you don't understand the nuances of something they get subjected to every day, or assuming they're acting in bad faith for some reason.

Is it not ok to also see something as not a problem? How far do you take this logic? Schizophrenics are marginalized but that does not mean you believe their delusions. You should only believe that they believe those delusions. Thats why you should probably argue your point to justify it instead of the silly line of thinking you just stated. Whenever you say something like this you should honestly put that logic to work in other scenarios to see how silly it can get. What about if someone from said group said it wasn't a problem?

The inclusion of this one sentence in the HH book feels like a cut & paste moment, not an action caused by malice.

+ + +

With that out of the way, it's interesting to take a quick look at the ranges currently on sale by GW for 40k, and observe whether there are obviously-female (or intended to be female) sculpts present.

Space Marines (including most sub-varieties due to shared ranges) - No
Grey Knights - No
Adeptus Custodes* - No
Sisters of Silence* - Yes
Sisters of Battle - ...yes.
Adeptus Mechanicus - No? Hard to tell with all the cybernetics. There are female adepts in the background, though (see Cain books for one example).
Imperial Guard - No***
Imperial Knights - No****
Inquisition - Yes
Officio Assassinorum - Yes
Leagues of Votann - Yes (definitely seen on hover-trike pilot, at least).

Chaos Space Marines - No**
Chaos Daemons - Maybe? Hard to tell with Slaanesh. Also, most non-Slaanesh Daemons can be argued to be free of gender, too.
Chaos Knights - No****
Death Guard - No
Thousand Sons - No
World Eaters - Probably not.

Craftworld Eldar - Yes
Dark Eldar - Yes
Harlequins - Yes, I think?
Genestealer Cults - Yes
Necrons - No gender at all, based on sculpts
Orks - ...no? Could be argued to be genderless, too.
Tau - Yes
Tyranids - No gender at all, based on sculpts

* - I'd argue these two should be merged as Talons of the Emperor, but hey.
** - I'm saying No, but I haven't had a close enough look at the new Cultist sculpts to rule out female models there.
*** - Severina Raine has "rotated out", that Catachan Sergeant was a limited ed release, and I can't see if there are female heads on the Cadian upgrade sprue. If there are, amend to Yes, but could definitely do better.
**** - The only human model is a bloke, but can we really say either way what gender the pilot of a Big Stompy Robot is? Don't recall female pilots being excluded in the IK background, at the very least.

Hecaton wrote:

I ain't conceding gak.

You already have my son.

No, I know what's up with you. That anxiety you feel when your female friends, family and acquaintances look at your minis collection... it's not going to go away if you have female space marines lol.

I'm too poor to afford an actual minis collection my friend, nor do I, despite not finding any of the arguments against their inclusion (except the GW POV financial one) compelling, feel particularly strongly about the subject. But I do like that I've gotten under your skin enough to make you resort to attacks on my personal life you know nothing about.

But that doesn't tell you if they're going to play LoL or not in the first place. So that study doesn't actually answer the question put forth.

Do you think the women who refuse to play non-female champions (which is apparently like 97% of them btw) would have given the game a second look if there was no female representation?

Besides, we know that most women who play 40k play Tyranids.

What is the source for that btw? Because I can't find one but it's a common 40k anecdote.

It's competitive

So is League of Legends.

Many women are not comfortable with directly competitive games or sports,

On average true.

or at least participating in them themselves.

You almost touched on what I wanted to bring up which is that the hobby isn't actually inherently competitive. Modeling and painting are another very big part of it and one that stereotypically at least shouldn't be offputting to women, correct? Even if the game doesn't appeal to women on average they could still be part of the community through other ways. Yet aren't, at least as far as 40k goes. And I don't find the idea that it's just because science fiction appeals less to women compelling, as said.

Women are traditionally not interested in, say, military science fiction, which is the kind of novel that's most like 40k.

I've not seen data on this but I do expect this is likely true.

I agree it's headcanon. The canon is that the Astartes creation process only works on male humans.

Ah good I'm glad you conceded your preferences for the Astartes are primarily rooted in headcanon, my thanks!