Look, I’m not trying to start anything. I just want to know what people think about it. It wouldn’t be that hard to say that scientists or whatever fixed the process so it works on women. Don’t even need to make new models or anything, maybe just some female heads. Yet I know a lot of people seem incredibly opposed to the idea and just want to get an idea of where the community stands on this. Please be civil..
In lore? Nope. The Imperium is supposed to be backwards and nearly incapable of progress, so "it wouldn't be hard to say that they fixed it" is a bit of a cop-out. Especially given we have Caul and the Primaris. If it was a simple fix, it probably would've been discovered over 10k years of research and improvement.
On the tabletop? Feth yeah. I'm in the midst of making a female marine praetor / chapter master with a few bits a friend got me. Do whatever you want on the table top, it doesn't matter.
I'd be fine with it. Say that Cawl, having successfully fulfilled his promise of "improving" marines by creating primaris, has since shifted his focus to doubling the recruitment pool for marines.
Notably, Harrowmaster features some transhuman women with thick armor and big guns. One of the Alpha Legion characters gets snappy about them not being actual astartes. To which their creator basically goes, "Yeah yeah. Whatever."
First off: I'd 100% play against someone's female space marines.
Second? This thread will end as all "female space marines" threads end: locked. Due to the "pro-female space marines" side accusing everyone on the opposing side as being misogynists, and the real misogynists actually showing up and, well, being misogynistic.
Gadzilla666 wrote: First off: I'd 100% play against someone's female space marines.
Second? This thread will end as all "female space marines" threads end: locked. Due to the "pro-female space marines" side accusing everyone on the opposing side as being misogynists, and the real misogynists actually showing up and, well, being misogynistic.
This never ends well.
Good to know for the future since I’ve never seen one on here, but if it’s as decisive as mandatory painting, this will be okay for a little while.
In my headcanon they exist, but between hormonal and surgical treatments since before puberty really set in and growing up in a more or less genderless society of battle-brothers you'd have no way to tell unless you got in their pants. Astartes are largely sex- and genderless anyway, and at their size and muscle mass people start to look same-ish no matter what.
Neither for nor against, though I don't particularly see the need. There's a male only faction, a female only faction, several factions that can have both, and several factions that have neither or you can't tell any way.
If they do it, it won't really affect me either way. Assuming that a fe-marine has the same rules as a he-marine it's a purely aesthetic choice that has no bearing on the game. I'd still play against an army of them.
Kcalehc wrote: Neither for nor against, though I don't particularly see the need. There's a male only faction, a female only faction, several factions that can have both, and several factions that have neither or you can't tell any way.
If they do it, it won't really affect me either way. Assuming that a fe-marine has the same rules as a he-marine it's a purely aesthetic choice that has no bearing on the game. I'd still play against an army of them.
An issue is that (one of) the male-only factions is Space Marines, who make up approximately half the entire game.
Whereas the two female-only factions are Sisters of Battle, who aren't nearly as prevalent as Marines, and Sisters of Silence, who are literally the smaller half of the Custodes book.
As for Lady Marines in general, I'm all for it. Cawl saying "I managed to double the recruitment pool" is a good explanation, and it will help some people make their models more aligned with what they want.
If people could stick to the topic and avoid derailing the thread by constantly predicting its doom, that would be helpful.
morganfreeman wrote: In lore? Nope. The Imperium is supposed to be backwards and nearly incapable of progress, so "it wouldn't be hard to say that they fixed it" is a bit of a cop-out. Especially given we have Caul and the Primaris. If it was a simple fix, it probably would've been discovered over 10k years of research and improvement..
In which case the background angle is 'Over the course of 10k years of research and improvement, Caul tested the process and found that, despite widespread belief that it only worked on males, the process actually worked fine on female subjects, particularly prior to the onset of puberty.' In an Imperium where tinkering with established processes is commonly regarded as Heresy 'Nobody thought to try it until now' is a perfectly valid explanation, particularly when the in-universe reason for it not being done is nonsense.
I'm all for female Astartes. More options are always a good thing.
insaniak wrote: If people could stick to the topic and avoid derailing the thread by constantly predicting its doom, that would be helpful.
morganfreeman wrote: In lore? Nope. The Imperium is supposed to be backwards and nearly incapable of progress, so "it wouldn't be hard to say that they fixed it" is a bit of a cop-out. Especially given we have Caul and the Primaris. If it was a simple fix, it probably would've been discovered over 10k years of research and improvement..
In which case the background angle is 'Over the course of 10k years of research and improvement, Caul tested the process and found that, despite widespread belief that it only worked on males, the process actually worked fine on female subjects, particularly prior to the onset of puberty.' In an Imperium where tinkering with established processes is commonly regarded as Heresy 'Nobody thought to try it until now' is a perfectly valid explanation, particularly when the in-universe reason for it not being done is nonsense.
I'm all for female Astartes. More options are always a good thing.
The Imprrium turns a blind eye when it works in its favor. Otherwise they probably would’ve destroyed Krieg.
In principal I agree. Space marines are the closest faction we have to a protagonist. And in a game with some mild role playing elements, it feels unfair to make your protagonist faction exclusionary in some fashion.
But in terms of practicality, I just feel like it would be a little too difficult. After thirty years I think people have strongly internalized the standard space marine. even the primaris received some lukewarm reactions and they were a fairly mild change.
I guess the best example of successful lore changes would be the newcrons? I feel like most people have warmed up to it once some interesting characters were introduced.
I'm surprised more people aren't neutral on the subject. I guess it's more polarized than I thought. That would explain why all these threads end the way they do...
But in terms of practicality, I just feel like it would be a little too difficult. After thirty years I think people have strongly internalized the standard space marine. even the primaris received some lukewarm reactions and they were a fairly mild change.
Many people dislike change. If Primaris had just been a model update to rescale marines, there would have been far fewer complaints about them. But they changed things in a way people didn't expect, and so some people grumbled about it. And then, as has happened with pretty much every other background change over the last 30 years, it eventually just became the way things are. For most players now, Primaris are just marines. The same would happen here... there would be some initial complaints, and then it would just become a part of the way things are.
People could still build male-only armies if they so choose. They could still continue using their existing armies. But it would give more choice to those who want it, which would be a good thing.
And, honestly, it would fit with the current direction of the fluff... With the Imperium split in half, and the Primarchs returning and bringing a less theology-bound worldview, increasing the recruiting pool seems like a no-brainer.
Tsagualsa wrote: In my headcanon they exist, but between hormonal and surgical treatments since before puberty really set in and growing up in a more or less genderless society of battle-brothers you'd have no way to tell unless you got in their pants. Astartes are largely sex- and genderless anyway, and at their size and muscle mass people start to look same-ish no matter what.
If 40k was better nuanced, or if you wanted to do a different series with 40k-esque aesthetics, you could absolutely have the Astartes as finding gender and sex confusing (hell, make any social interaction outside of combat or fellow Astartes confusing and awkward). What's the point of providing a gender identity to a weapon, especially one that's been brainwashed into servitude from before they hit puberty and, from the lessons of the Horus Heresy, shouldn't be allowed to interact with the Imperium at large? Remove their overt religious aspects, like the Primaris have mostly done.
You could make the same change to the Sister of Battles, making them the Ecclesiarchy as a whole. Nuns with guns was a fun concept, but I don't see the problem of adding men in power armor to the ranks with Sisters and Brothers. You can still keep the ostentatious religious decoration.
Doing so lets you preserve three "flavors" of Imperial (theocratic, fascist) armies. Space Marines are no-nonsense, "point us at what you want to die", tacticool transhumans. The Ecclesiarchy is fervently religious and has enough weight to equip its soldiers well, but not to the degree of the Astartes. And the Guard serves as the horde aspect, the least equipped and worst morale (comparatively) but the most numerous.
Being fond of the Stormcasts in AoS, I'm actually fine with this.
Come to think of it I came across a charming anime-style fan art of a female Sanguinius having a head ache over Bobbie and Lion not speaking to each other, and would love to see a proper GW licensed model based on it.
Adeptekon wrote: Much like Adeptus Sororitas is a sorority, the chapters are a Fraternity... a.k.a. Brotherhood, and referred to as such.
I'm not sure why the criticism side steps this simple fact.
If you want female space marines then it will have to be a sisterhood to fit the lore, not co-ed, but again, there already is a Sisterhood...
so maybe people are asking the wrong question?
Do you understand the difference between Space Marines and Sisters of Battle?
It’s more than just gender. A lot more.
Edit: and why couldn’t Marines be co-ed?
I think I just explained it, and to end. I asked what do you really want from this? Sounds like you want implants, better armor, and so on and so forth.
If it's just to add co-ed marines, then why? I guess all the books will have to be scrubbed of references to "brotherhood".
As far as gender I don't care how a male space marine identifies.
Adeptekon wrote: Much like Adeptus Sororitas is a sorority, the chapters are a Fraternity... a.k.a. Brotherhood, and referred to as such.
I'm not sure why the criticism side steps this simple fact.
If you want female space marines then it will have to be a sisterhood to fit the lore, not co-ed, but again, there already is a Sisterhood...
so maybe people are asking the wrong question?
Do you understand the difference between Space Marines and Sisters of Battle?
It’s more than just gender. A lot more.
Edit: and why couldn’t Marines be co-ed?
I think I just explained it, and to end. I asked what do you really want from this? Sounds like you want implants, better armor, and so on and so forth.
If it's just to add co-ed marines, then why? I guess all the books will have to be scrubbed of references to "brotherhood".
As far as gender I don't care how a male space marine identifies.
The Sisters of Battle are the Ecclesiarchy's military force. Not their ONLY one, but their main one.
Marines are independent forces, though they do sometimes have ties to Forgeworlds, Inquisition, the Ecclesiarchy, or other such forces in the Imperium.
Sisters are human. Marines are transhuman.
And, for an out of universe reason, Marines are much more open to customization in terms of lore than Sisters are.
And no-you can leave old books as they are. But new books could easily change it.
And no-you can leave old books as they are. But new books could easily change it.
I get all that, I might be new here, but not to the franchise. So back to my question why are we not asking why the Sisters can't be changed? Because lore?
If we can change the lore of the brotherhood, why not the sisterhood?
Adeptekon wrote: Much like Adeptus Sororitas is a sorority, the chapters are a Fraternity... a.k.a. Brotherhood, and referred to as such.
I'm not sure why the criticism side steps this simple fact.
If you want female space marines then it will have to be a sisterhood to fit the lore, not co-ed, but again, there already is a Sisterhood...
so maybe people are asking the wrong question?
There are real-life societies and groups where 'brother' or other terms are a title that is independent of the bearer's sex and/or gender, mostly because their role contains an element of seperation from the mundane world to some degree. There's no reason why Marines should not operate on such rules, once you accept the mantle of battle-brother you leave behind all worldly ties and concerns, no matter what you have been before. It's already a thing in the lore for e.g. familial ties or noble titles and such, it does not tax the imagination too much to extend that to social and gender roles as well.
And no-you can leave old books as they are. But new books could easily change it.
I get all that, I might be new here, but not to the franchise. So back to my question why are we not asking why the Sisters can't be changed? Because lore?
If we can change the lore of the brotherhood, why not the sisterhood?
The sisterhood has that huge foundational thing in their background that they basically only exist to exploit a loophole that forbids the ecclesiarchy from employing ''Standing armies of Men at Arms''. You could of course easily erase that.
I don’t mind Misters of Battle.
I would, if they get included, add something that they’re all LEGALLY female. Just to keep skirting that line.
For some, it’d be a tightly-kept secret that they aren’t a woman.
For others, it’d be a weird footnote that they have to be legally women to enlist.
But including men in the Sisters, not a big deal. Especially since you already can, with Ministorum.
Stop feeding the "We already have Female SM, the SoB" crowd of trolls. I really want this to happen, but this entire thread is just troll bait to make the hardcore no crowd get all riled up and start a flame battle.
Custodes would've been the place to introduce a force of both genetically modified men and women. Like, almost no lore for them existed, so added that bit wouldn't have made anyone care. I would've even supported it.
For Marines? Nah, it's been like that for decades. I'm not in the interest of catering to a few people on Twitter.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Look, I’m not trying to start anything. I just want to know what people think about it. It wouldn’t be that hard to say that scientists or whatever fixed the process so it works on women. Don’t even need to make new models or anything, maybe just some female heads. Yet I know a lot of people seem incredibly opposed to the idea and just want to get an idea of where the community stands on this. Please be civil..
Yes, you are. Yesterday a Youtuber posted an offensive video about female space marines. The backlash has already been significant. No need to bring it here to Dakka Dakka.
This conversation has made the rounds in a lot of circles. I'm going to give my perspective on it as best I can, since I've seen the arguments from both sides and how they often devolve.
Ultimately, let's remember we're talking about a fictional setting where nothing is concrete. GW are well known for ret-conning and changing the lore as it suits their business model or future plans. They've done it before and will do it again. Nothing is written in stone, no piece of text is gospel, it is FICTION and it is fiction surrounding plastic toy soldiers.
From what I've seen, most people fall into 3 groups in this discussion.
A. People that want female space marines
B. People that do not want female space marines
C. The vast majority of reasonable people that do not really care either way
This particular topic is gaining traction only because the small groups from A and B are getting MIGHTY HEATED. They're slinging a lot of hate, lots of name-calling, lots of political dog-whistling.
I've spoken to people on both sides of the argument, and here's the summary of their tactics on places like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit: Make the other person look like an idiot.
Is it about building communities where people hobby as they please? No. Is it about expressing your creativity however you wish, or staying faithful to established lore? Nope.
It is about trying to out the other person as X, Y, or Z label.
It doesn't matter which side you're in favor of, it is almost inevitable that someone from the *other* side will get an itch up their butt to respond and argue, and once that happens, congratulations, you're feeding the algorithm. You're clicking on videos, you're following tweets, you're giving the 'content creators' and 'influencers' what they want in terms of ad revenue.
Do I think that GW is going to make female space marines? If it suits their business plans, sure.
Let's think about something real quick: I met a guy who had no idea who Firstborn marines were. He ONLY knew Primaris, because he joined the hobby recently. I'm not going to hate on that guy, it's not his fault, 40k is full of lore nuggets that take years to absorb. The difference between Firstborn and Primaris is simply another one of those lore nuggets. As we get closer to whatever show Henry Cavill and Amazon make, and as GW spreads their IP into different sectors via games, toys, and other content, more people will join the hobby that will have never seen a Firstborn model release that wasn't part of 30k.
GW's plan is always new recruitment. As much as you might hate new players that come in, wide-eyed and ignorant at the game and lore, the fact remains: new players fuel and grow the hobby and community. Every day someone is coming in and asking "can I make my space marines yellow instead of blue like on the box?" and that is a GOOD THING.
Someday in the future, GW may decide to codify female space marines, and then a few years down the road there will be new hobbyists entering the community that will have never known space marines to be only male. That part of the community will grow, and those of us that have been around a longer time will shrink. There will be arguments and hate, just as when Primaris were introduced or when the cover of an Ultramarine book featured a black Ultramarine, and we'll do it all over again if they decide to add female space marines, but eventually those will fall by the wayside and the fanbase will continue to grow regardless, and new players wont know a world that was different.
Again, in my mind, that is a good thing, because without new ideas, new hobbyists, and the money that they bring along, GW stops producing the models that we all love to hate to love.
So let's not beat the dead horse that is... this topic. From what I've seen, most people really just don't care, and most reasonable people will stay out of topics like this. All you're doing is welcoming an argument, political dog-whistling and outing, and a lot of name-calling as soon as someone gets a little too steamed.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Look, I’m not trying to start anything. I just want to know what people think about it. It wouldn’t be that hard to say that scientists or whatever fixed the process so it works on women. Don’t even need to make new models or anything, maybe just some female heads. Yet I know a lot of people seem incredibly opposed to the idea and just want to get an idea of where the community stands on this. Please be civil..
Yes, you are. Yesterday a Youtuber posted an offensive video about female space marines. The backlash has already been significant. No need to bring it here to Dakka Dakka.
I don’t watch Warhammer videos so I’ve never seen it. I was intrigued about the question because a friend posted a really old (what turned out to be) clickbait video about “10 steps to make female space marines”, it triggered a discussion and I wanted to know what the community thought.
On the table, I really couldn't care less about your headcanon or if you put female heads on your Marines. I'd give you a pass if you'd show up with a collection of pin-up models because that would be too immersion breaking for me.
In the lore... no. I've read most if not all of the past threads about this topic here on Dakka and haven't seen a single post how women could be added to Space Marines in a way that feels organic and not like a forced decision because of reasons.
If your best/strongest argument for this change is that it promotes inclusivity or that it better reflects the modern world, then the past and present Hollywood adaptions of established franchises and their abysmal viewer scores should be a big red flag to you. Forced change without a good script behind it will only alienate long time fans and it is questionable whether more girls are now into Ghostbusters, as an example, after the massive flop movie a few years ago.
I can see how some imperial Cardinal wants to have his own Space Marines but can't get a chapter to follow him. So he would order experiments on willing Sisters to become stronger and faster and all that. First it would result in some kind of freak berserker experiment not unlike Arco flagellants, and, given some time and resources, finally produce some kind of copy Sister Marine. But since Sisters are a more or less completely new line of models, I think "Primaris Sisters" would feel out of place or look weird next to regular seized ones. Especially as they would use the same weapons and armour. They would just be bigger. So I don't see enough design space.
If we want the game to be more inviting for girls and women, I'd rather see female models expanded in armies where it makes sense. Eldar, Guard, Sisters, Inquisition, Squats, Demons, ...
Some novels, animated series, comics and so on with a strong female lead and proper advertisement would go a long way here, imho.
I'm happy enough with the lore. I strongly dislike the Necron retcon, and I see no need for change. I accept that others want it: I don't. I do have other female figures (dark eldar in particular) but what does female marines gain? Nothing that I see... but if you want it, go for it.
I'm happy enough with the lore. I strongly dislike the Necron retcon, and I see no need for change. I accept that others want it: I don't. I do have other female figures (dark eldar in particular) but what does female marines gain? Nothing that I see... but if you want it, go for it.
What do we lose if we do? Stuff has been changed before and stuff will get changed again, so there really isn’t a reason this can’t happen
The Imprrium turns a blind eye when it works in its favor. Otherwise they probably would’ve destroyed Krieg.
I'm not sure why this myth is so pervasive, maybe because of the wording on the wikis?
Some within the Adeptus Mechanicus Biologis deem Krieg reproductive practices heretical. They clearly are not a sufficiently powerful faction to act on that. Other members of the Mechanicus run the program on Krieg. It is also clearly widespread technology- humans are vat-grown across the Imperium: Krieg, House Goliath on Necromunda, many servitors, cherubim, it is even the default method for raising a new Chapter of Firstborn- using vat-grown humans to propagate geneseed into a Chapter-strength.
Clearly those hardliners within the Biologis are a minority.
stroller wrote: "What do we lose if we do? Stuff has been changed before and stuff will get changed again, so there really isn’t a reason this can’t happen"
You're right - there isn't. But you asked how do people feel about it? That's how I feel.
I think retcons are bad for a universe - because if you start to feel the facts you are learning will change the next time a GW writer looks at the subject, you are disincentivised to learn them.
Or I am anyway. I have lost interest in other franchises where it became clear the writers did not care about what they had done in the past. There are no rules - its just writer's whim all the way down. If A is going to B but will go to C next time, who cares about learning B, or imagining yourself in that world?
There clearly have been major retcons in 40k's past - and there probably will be again. But you don't want to completely unhinge things.
But equally, its a story for toy soldiers at the end of the day. If GW went "Cawl's cracked it, next Primaris Intercessor box has a couple of female heads" I'm hardly going to get up in arms. How about where's the female Orks? I guess if they retconned it so half the Marines in the Horus Heresy were female - heck, half the Primarchs - well, I'd probably laugh.
Kcalehc wrote: Neither for nor against, though I don't particularly see the need. There's a male only faction, a female only faction, several factions that can have both, and several factions that have neither or you can't tell any way.
If they do it, it won't really affect me either way. Assuming that a fe-marine has the same rules as a he-marine it's a purely aesthetic choice that has no bearing on the game. I'd still play against an army of them.
An issue is that (one of) the male-only factions is Space Marines, who make up approximately half the entire game.
Whereas the two female-only factions are Sisters of Battle, who aren't nearly as prevalent as Marines, and Sisters of Silence, who are literally the smaller half of the Custodes book.
.
Yeah, this is the main thing for me. Because marines are the poster boy faction that gets placed in the protagonist role for a lot of the video games, books, etc., they're a lot of folks' first impression of the game/universe. And I just worry that having a boys-only club so prominently featured might discourage some people from taking an interest in the hobby.
That's pretty much all it boils down to for me. If guard or skitarii or orks or the inquisition were the "main faction," I'd be fine with marines being a boys-only club the same way I'm fine with Sisters being a girls-only club.
There is no convincing rhyme or reason to bring "female marines" into the setting. Instead, hammer home the inhumanity of the Astartes. They aren't male, they aren't female, they aren't even able to relate to humanity at large in many instances.
The biggest downfall of the setting is the continued insistence on calling them "Space Marines". They're too humanized.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Look, I’m not trying to start anything. I just want to know what people think about it. It wouldn’t be that hard to say that scientists or whatever fixed the process so it works on women. Don’t even need to make new models or anything, maybe just some female heads. Yet I know a lot of people seem incredibly opposed to the idea and just want to get an idea of where the community stands on this. Please be civil..
That part of the 'Lore' needs to die in a bin fire.
Other than that, Space Marines are Trans-humans. And thus should be post Gender.
Tyel wrote: How about where's the female Orks? I guess if they retconned it so half the Marines in the Horus Heresy were female - heck, half the Primarchs - well, I'd probably laugh.
Tyel wrote: How about where's the female Orks? I guess if they retconned it so half the Marines in the Horus Heresy were female - heck, half the Primarchs - well, I'd probably laugh.
Aren’t Orks gender less anyway?
In-universe, yeah. They probably don't really understand the concept of gender. The prevailing theory is that they reproduce via spores and possibly some warp shenanigans.
For it. "But the lore" ceased to be a valid argument when GW took a giant all over the existing lore by introducing primaris marines. If you can accept the retcons involved in making primaris marines female marines are no more of a change.
TBH though the real issue is that marines have a gender at all. They are not men, they are as far from a human male as a human male is from a jellyfish. Compared to a space marine the differences between a man and a woman are negligible. So let's acknowledge that space marines are warped abominations suitable only for use as expendable slaughter-beasts and they are no more human than a bolter shell. Remove their names, remove their gender, they are simply Company 3 Squad 7 Marine 2, pronouns it/its.
I'm neutral on the subject. I don't really care if female Space Marines become a thing, and don't care otherwise. I don't understand what it achieves, but if it's included, nothing really changes.
But, I think it would be really funny if the first female Space Marine was trans.
It seems like the kind of corporate fig leaf diversity pandering that every company does. It's too hard to make a real change so just slap a token gesture into a small slice of your product range so you have something to point to. It's smart but scummy.
Not all chapters of space marines are documented (nor should they ever be). There could be some out there that recruit females and have figured out how to make them marines. They may come into contact with established chapters and some will adopt the practice. Sorted.
Personally I don't mind either way; it's a big galaxy and there's room for everyone's take on it. A small 'official' (big air quotes here, it's 40K innit) throwaway mention of female space marines would be nice I reckon, for a start... and no one should bother with what it says in the Heresy rulebook, that's ancient history, probably myth
Wyldhunt wrote: Yeah, this is the main thing for me. Because marines are the poster boy faction that gets placed in the protagonist role for a lot of the video games, books, etc., they're a lot of folks' first impression of the game/universe. And I just worry that having a boys-only club so prominently featured might discourage some people from taking an interest in the hobby.
That's pretty much all it boils down to for me. If guard or skitarii or orks or the inquisition were the "main faction," I'd be fine with marines being a boys-only club the same way I'm fine with Sisters being a girls-only club.
We don't need to worry about that - other miniatures games have gender-integrated flagship factions and you don't see a rush of women joining those games. If you're serious, anyway, that's my reply - you might be concern trolling.
This is kind of hilarious because space Marines have more in common with Orks than they do with humans after all the implants and indoctrinations. So if you had a 'female" Space Marine how would anyone even know. So really there never would be a female Space Marine.
But put what ever heads you want on your models if it makes you feel better. It can't hurt the trash fire that 40K has become any more than anything else GW is currently doing. You have nothing to loose except maybe your money.
Weirdly, GW's policy of no model no rules probably prevents female Space Marines.
Wyldhunt wrote: Yeah, this is the main thing for me. Because marines are the poster boy faction that gets placed in the protagonist role for a lot of the video games, books, etc., they're a lot of folks' first impression of the game/universe. And I just worry that having a boys-only club so prominently featured might discourage some people from taking an interest in the hobby.
That's pretty much all it boils down to for me. If guard or skitarii or orks or the inquisition were the "main faction," I'd be fine with marines being a boys-only club the same way I'm fine with Sisters being a girls-only club.
We don't need to worry about that - other miniatures games have gender-integrated flagship factions and you don't see a rush of women joining those games. If you're serious, anyway, that's my reply - you might be concern trolling.
I'll just say the same thing I say every time this crops up (and before the thread gets locked):
The fluff is arbitrary. GW will change it however they need to increase sales. As such, there is no such thing as a female Space Marine right up until GW says there is.
I think for me is less about marines themselves, I don’t mind all male things in fiction when done well and interesting.
But that it cannot be a flaw of the imperium of the emperor himself.
No mistakes, no comments about it possible a hindrance.
The emperor being a bit of a idiot and doing things he thinks are somehow good fits his charecter and no ability to change it in the imperium fits.
But GW probably can’t solidify it as lore that way, since the bad lore is more important than a good story to a lot of these players anyway.
Instead someone there should have done a smart thing, and let custodes take up some of that place. At least giving that Avenue, rather than yet another sisterhood that gets ignored for a long time.
Male-only Space Marines are unchangeable facet of 40k.
Partially for the machismo aspect to them - 40k has ridiculous amounts of hypermasculinity and always has. It's fun, cool, and a little silly - and despite the feelings of people who don't like it, it's not hurting anyone.
Lorewise though, it would violate a couple foundational themes of 40k.
The first is the religious theme of 40k: the Imperium is an ecclesiastical fascistic empire based heavily on the Christian faith, with it's two elite fighting units (the Marines and the SoBs) mirroring the Christian gender-divided monastic system. Remove that gender division and 40k loses that monastic allusion, and becomes more boring for it.
The second is the stagnation and regression of the setting: 40k is set in the Dark Ages of an empire, where enlightenment has devolved back into ignorance and superstition, and technological progress is impossible. It's probably the most important theme of 40k, this great and terrible irony that this grand empire has fallen back to it's most human of behaviours, worshipping the corpse of the man who tried to elevate them.
My point with this being that there is no path forward for creating feMarines, no one (outside of Chaotic aligned characters) has the mindset nor the intelligence to devise such a method. The only way to get around this is the ol' "it was here the entire time but IN SECRET" (such as Cawl and the Primaris), a very hamfisted and hack method to introduce things of such importance into the setting - and if such hokey methods are needed, it shouldn't be there at all.
That all being said, what people do with their models is of no concern to me. I'll gladly play against anyone with an army like that in casual play, and converted models are always worthy of respect. I won't see them as anything beyond a neat modelling project though.
There are 2 legions out there that no one knows anything about. It could be that they are "undercover" or they were destroyed for being unstable or who knows what else. My point is that they could be/have been female marines.
I'm in the couldn't care less camp regarding seeing female marines on the board.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Look, I’m not trying to start anything. I just want to know what people think about it. It wouldn’t be that hard to say that scientists or whatever fixed the process so it works on women. Don’t even need to make new models or anything, maybe just some female heads. Yet I know a lot of people seem incredibly opposed to the idea and just want to get an idea of where the community stands on this. Please be civil..
I'm not trying to start anything, and Please be Civil bookending your post suggests otherwise. But sure. I'll play along. The guys who made the game were even less thorough then than they are now. Had they been more thorough Marines wouldn't be gendered and American Gladiator fetishists who would to be carried around by bodybuilder women - among others - wouldn't be wondering about female marines. Had they known what was coming, and put in the research for their coming popularity they would have looked at Israel, and the USSR among others and figured out that a nihilistic and dystopian world like the Imperium, and/or the Age of Strife would be drafting both genders for combat
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Look, I’m not trying to start anything. I just want to know what people think about it. It wouldn’t be that hard to say that scientists or whatever fixed the process so it works on women. Don’t even need to make new models or anything, maybe just some female heads. Yet I know a lot of people seem incredibly opposed to the idea and just want to get an idea of where the community stands on this. Please be civil..
I'm not trying to start anything, and Please be Civil bookending your post suggests otherwise. But sure. I'll play along. The guys who made the game were even less thorough then than they are now. Had they been more thorough Marines wouldn't be gendered and American Gladiator fetishists who would to be carried around by bodybuilder women - among others - wouldn't be wondering about female marines. Had they known what was coming, and put in the research for their coming popularity they would have looked at Israel, and the USSR among others and figured out that a nihilistic and dystopian world like the Imperium, and/or the Age of Strife would be drafting both genders for combat
No. I'd rather not change the lore nor the models.
What we NEED to have happen is for GW to show focus equally to all factions. Bonus points if they leaned heavily on the SOB to have them as the frontrunners for a while.
I'd also rather they make SOB fuction exactly like Marines as far as stat lines and equipment loadout. Take out those two things, eliminate the logical portion of the argument, and then watch as the same people pushing for female Marines don't stop pushing as it is not what they really want.
Nor is the single fetish I pointed to the only way of being one. In fact the main point I made includes some of my own ways that I am i.e. immersion. Had the designers really been on the ball, Marines already would have been mixed company though perhaps not mixing IN the company. We have entirely too many examples of this in history. Someone somewhere pointed out that if we were thinking, we'd conscript the menopausal women first, then the elderly men, then the young men, then the pre-menopausal women (or something similar) based on the ability for society to replenish itself after the war. But we're (in game/theory) past that, and we're also past the Israeli/Soviet model of conscripting everyone of a certain age. And the technology level - even as hit and miss as the Imperium is - would not have been stymied by some sort of hormonal requirement for Space Marine indoctrination. If you can build new organs, you can give people a hormone shot. That fact that Sisters don't have a Black Carapace, Omophagea, or Geneseed is a bigger symptom than all male Space Marines.
So were many things, right up until GW changed them to sell new model kits. If the lore can accept primaris marines then it can accept female marines.
The lore can support abnormally short yet burly humanoids somewhat reminiscent of Scottish gingers swinging two handed Gimli axes. GW ego could not support calling them Squats. Sisters will get Geneseed before Marines get women.
Gunna copy and paste one of my main points here since it seems people haven't yet gotten it:
"Ultimately, let's remember we're talking about a fictional setting where nothing is concrete. GW are well known for ret-conning and changing the lore as it suits their business model or future plans. They've done it before and will do it again. Nothing is written in stone, no piece of text is gospel, it is FICTION and it is fiction surrounding plastic toy soldiers."
And furthermore, don't base your personality on lore from any fictional setting. It's not a good thing to beat your chest about.
Thumpingbear wrote: The second is the stagnation and regression of the setting: 40k is set in the Dark Ages of an empire, where enlightenment has devolved back into ignorance and superstition, and technological progress is impossible.
Primaris Marines say 'Hi!'
Even before Primaris, technological progress was never impossible, just slow. The setting has seen any number of technological advancements through innovation, or improvements based on finding lost technology.
If we're going to oppose women Marines on the basis of technological advancement being 'impossible' then we also need to be complaining about Mk8 armour, modern-era plasma guns, man-portable multimeltas, Razorbacks, the Spartan (which was originally just a modified Land Raider with Rhino parts) and any number of other things in the current Marine line-up.
I find it really, really bizarre that of all of the things that have been added over the years, women specifically are one bridge too far.
My point with this being that there is no path forward for creating feMarines, no one (outside of Chaotic aligned characters) has the mindset nor the intelligence to devise such a method. The only way to get around this is the ol' "it was here the entire time but IN SECRET" (such as Cawl and the Primaris), a very hamfisted and hack method to introduce things of such importance into the setting - and if such hokey methods are needed, it shouldn't be there at all.
It really isn't. As I mentioned earlier, the easiest was to do it is just to say 'Hey, we tried it on a woman, and despite what we previously believed to be true, it worked.' It's not only a simple solution, but fits perfectly within the bounds of the technological constraints of the setting... It was always possible, but nobody previously thought to try it because they were told not to, because it supposedly didn't work and would be a waste of resources.
I find it really, really bizarre that of all of the things that have been added over the years, women specifically are one bridge too far.
From the players, sure its a little weird. From the company? Makes total sense. Any RetCon now would pretty much be an admission of "fault" on their part. As I pointed out just above, they didn't even bring back Squats after a silly crusade against anyone who even mentioned the word, they brought out the Legion of Votann.
It really isn't. As I mentioned earlier, the easiest was to do it is just to say 'Hey, we tried it on a woman, and despite what we previously believed to be true, it worked.' It's not only a simple solution, but fits perfectly within the bounds of the technological constraints of the setting... It was always possible, but nobody previously thought to try it because they were told not to, because it supposedly didn't work and would be a waste of resources.
But that exposes GW to "Why didn't you do that in the first place" issues. I wholeheartedly agree any society that grows new and genetically improved hearts, ears and eyeballs among other internal organs while simultaneously lobotomizing other people into mechanized computer-controlled observer-assistants could figure out how and when to give people a hormone shot or slow-release implant so the process would work on nearly anyone. The stumbling block is not the fluff. The stumbling block is the PR. Cawl will make Primaris Sisters before GW makes female Marines. That gives them all the "credit" and nearly none of the "blame". They will have made Superwoman without angering Superman fans, or without having to explain why they never made Superwoman before angry mobs were breaking down their door.
Breton wrote: From the players, sure its a little weird. From the company? Makes total sense. Any RetCon now would pretty much be an admission of "fault" on their part. As I pointed out just above, they didn't even bring back Squats after a silly crusade against anyone who even mentioned the word, they brought out the Legion of Votann.
The point is that it doesn't have to be a retcon. The time when the timeline just marched in place and any new thing was something that is now suddenly 'was always there' are long gone. Introducing female marines as an advancement rather than a retcon would cause considerably less friction.
But that exposes GW to "Why didn't you do that in the first place" issues.
It really doesn't. They didn't do it in the first place because the when they tried it the first time female models didn't sell. Times change.
I've put that I don't care one way or the other, because I'm both for and against it.
1. I don't care how people paint or model their minis, as long as its not offensive in any way (like that guy that painted a certain skull on his Knights a while back claiming he thought it was just a "cool skull"). If you want marines with boobs, marines with two heads, eldar with 30 legs and neon pink skin, go for it. As long as it doesn't effect the gameplay, you do you.
2. In the lore, there's no female marines. I can't remember the justification why, but it's in the lore. We've also already got a faction of females in power armour that are the halfway between AM and SM, so there's no need to step on their toes. Instead of retconning stuff, just keep it how it is (unless it's obviously bad or offensive or whatever). I don't want much innovation from my supposedly backward Imperium.
Afrodactyl wrote: 2. In the lore, there's no female marines. I can't remember the justification why, but it's in the lore.
The justification in the background is that the process is keyed to 'male hormones'... which is the sort of throwaway comment that was fine back in the early '90s despite not actually making any sense because nobody took this stuff particularly seriously.
These days, it's harder to take 'hormones' as a serious impediment to the process.
In the lore there were no primaris marines until suddenly there were. In the lore there was an explicit separation of powers agreement that marines had no combat aircraft and had to rely on navy support until GW decided marine aircraft would sell and gave them a bunch of air superiority fighters. In the lore 30k stuff was long-forgotten relics until someone found a whole vault of volkite contemptors to issue to every chapter. In the lore marines were cannon fodder shock troops recruited from convicted criminals until suddenly they were warrior-monk heroes. In the lore the Ultramarines had a half-elf chief librarian until GW decided that was a bit too heretical. GW constantly changes the lore to suit business needs or some random author's whim so why is female marines the one line that can never be crossed?
Breton wrote: From the players, sure its a little weird. From the company? Makes total sense. Any RetCon now would pretty much be an admission of "fault" on their part. As I pointed out just above, they didn't even bring back Squats after a silly crusade against anyone who even mentioned the word, they brought out the Legion of Votann.
The point is that it doesn't have to be a retcon. The time when the timeline just marched in place and any new thing was something that is now suddenly 'was always there' are long gone. Introducing female marines as an advancement rather than a retcon would cause considerably less friction.
Sure it is. Going from "It doesn't work that way" to "We only thought it doesn't work that way" is a retcon.
But that exposes GW to "Why didn't you do that in the first place" issues.
It really doesn't. They didn't do it in the first place because the when they tried it the first time female models didn't sell. Times change.
They didn't do it that way in the first place because it was 40+ years ago and nobody even considered it. GW didn't put a lot of DEEP thought into the fluff. They picked a bunch of different societal/cultural eras and molded them onto their factions. Imperium? Germanic, with a little Italian thrown in. High Elves? Elizabethan era Brits. Tomb Kings and Necrons? Walk like an Egyptian. Ultramarines? Greco Romans. Space Viking Wolves? They didn't even really consider female combatants beyond a one-off historical wink and nod here and there like the French Aurthurian legends of Repanse de Lyonese praying to the Lady of the Lake.
Then they didn't do it because they just got rid of the D12's and D20's and didn't want another reason for Moms to tell little Timmy he can't play. Then they were stuck. Now people are vandalizing statues of Washington and Lincoln. I don't think the designers care either way and would most prefer it to go away or that they weren't already locked into a position. After that, the best solution in the one with the least fall out - and that's upgrading Sisters. It the Venn Diagram of people who don't want female marines, the people who don't want female combatants, the people who want Super Women that don't HAVE to be Marines, and the people who specifically want female Marines, they get the best results catering to the two likely biggest groups: the people who don't want female marines and the ones who want a Super Woman that doesn't have to be a marine. People who don't want female combatants are already next to nil - they would have quit with Sisters. People who specifically want Female Marines will likely be smaller in number than the remaining two groups.
In the lore there were no primaris marines until suddenly there were. In the lore there was an explicit separation of powers agreement that marines had no combat aircraft and had to rely on navy support until GW decided marine aircraft would sell and gave them a bunch of air superiority fighters. In the lore 30k stuff was long-forgotten relics until someone found a whole vault of volkite contemptors to issue to every chapter. In the lore marines were cannon fodder shock troops recruited from convicted criminals until suddenly they were warrior-monk heroes. In the lore the Ultramarines had a half-elf chief librarian until GW decided that was a bit too heretical. GW constantly changes the lore to suit business needs or some random author's whim so why is female marines the one line that can never be crossed?
Some changes remain unnecessary and dumb. Such as Primaris, Centurions, and Air Superiority Fighters.
I don't think female marines is dumb, mind you, but it's certainly unnecessary.
- - - -
On the "all female faction and all male faction" issue, the problem with Marines being overrepresented is a real one. However even in the theoretical world where Sisters had equal representation, you still get the "boy" army with extra strength, toughness and wounds over the "girl" army, which doesn't feel great.
Decrease the amount of Marine exposure, and make female Custodes. Female Custodes would be rad.
Qualified yes. Make no mistake if it doesn't change I'll still enjoy marines but I'd like to see female astartes, even if it is just cawl.scoffing 'it could always be done'. I mean, marines are the protagonist and the 'public face' of 40k and grossly over represent when compared to the other factions. They 'are' 40k, everything else is a sideshow. They're sold as a blank canvas and can be coloured wuth whatever theme, culture or background you can conceive. Except, you know, gurls. Seems a bit silly.
My 'yes' is qualified because if it was done, I'd want to see it done well. I'd want good models as priority. Even if its just a headsprue and for the female 'lines' and 'curves' be more subtle rather than over the top boobplate, cheesecake or fan service models for example. Lets keep that rubbish out. Preferably keep the models themselves more neutral so a bare head is all that would show what gender it was*. ^to those saying youd not be able to tell the difference, yoirr half right, i think. look at female crossfitters. you can still be built epic and still.have your femininity.would you see all that under power armour? Probs not though. I'd still want female astartes to be pretty monstrous individuals rather than care bears.
* yes, they'te post-humans dumped with astartestosterone. What they were when they were human is irrelevant
I think if 40k was 'just' conceived or marines were a 'new' faction (coughstormcast) - we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Having female, or post-female astartes would just be a thing. Its only Male-only because of the supposed 'weight' of 40 years of history behind it, which is fair enough. But so have plenty other things and as the tau say, the one constant in the universe is change, the wise adapt. I have no problem with lore changes just like I have no problems with a lot of culture changes. Sometimes things need to change and gw doesn't hold their lore to be sacrosanct. It's not a hill I'll die on, thank you very much.
I'd have more concern about the deadbeats in the dark corners if the community writing awful fetish fanfics and whatever, but that's a different discussion.
I'd have more concern about the deadbeats in the dark corners if the community writing awful fetish fanfics and whatever, but that's a different discussion.
I’m probably going to regret asking, but is that a large issue in the community?
Tsagualsa wrote: In my headcanon they exist, but between hormonal and surgical treatments since before puberty really set in and growing up in a more or less genderless society of battle-brothers you'd have no way to tell unless you got in their pants. Astartes are largely sex- and genderless anyway, and at their size and muscle mass people start to look same-ish no matter what.
This. That's one thing I imagine most people don't seem to understand. It's not just someone in power armour like the Adeptus Sororitas. Space marines are surgically and chemically altered, so much so it changes their biology to be beyond human.
It really isn't. As I mentioned earlier, the easiest was to do it is just to say 'Hey, we tried it on a woman, and despite what we previously believed to be true, it worked.' It's not only a simple solution, but fits perfectly within the bounds of the technological constraints of the setting... It was always possible, but nobody previously thought to try it because they were told not to, because it supposedly didn't work and would be a waste of resources.
You can do this elegant-ish-ly: we all know that the Emperor cut a lot of corners and operated under time pressure for the start of the Great Crusade due to his grand plan; make it so that female marines were possible, but not as well-developed as males. Say that instead 1 in 10 potential candidates being suitable for all implants it's 1 in 30 or 1 in 50, and maybe the progenoids are extra problematic and the least likely to 'fit'. So, due to the need to expand the legions rapidly and get the Crusade going, the Emperor decided to go with all males for now and put it on the fix-it-later pile, which of course ran into the whole heresy problem. So, 10 millenia later, general degradation of knowledge and the stuck routines of the imperium have turned 'it can be done, but it is overly expensive and not economical' into a flat 'can not be done', until wonderboy Cawl actually invested the centuries of development time necessary to iron out the flaws in the process.
It ties into the whole theme of the Emperor operating on a much grander scheme and due to constraints nobody else had the faintest idea, and not really caring about the individual human tools he needed to achieve his goals.
I'd have more concern about the deadbeats in the dark corners if the community writing awful fetish fanfics and whatever, but that's a different discussion.
I’m probably going to regret asking, but is that a large issue in the community?
Depends very much on what part of the community you frequent. Certain parts of reddit are certainly very 'ripe' with the stuff, to the point that 'famous' users have devoted communities that follow their works.
I'd have more concern about the deadbeats in the dark corners if the community writing awful fetish fanfics and whatever, but that's a different discussion.
I’m probably going to regret asking, but is that a large issue in the community?
How large of an issue depends on how much it bothers you, I'd say. I'd also say you probably wouldn't have to look very far for a fanfic of the forbidden but torrid love affair between Captain Fabios Harlequinn and Colonel Emma Weinstein of Planetary Defense Forces, or a description of the bathing rituals of Celestine and her handmaidens in their Saintly Citadel located on the historical location of the Isle of Lesbos in what used to be the Aegean Sea. And that's just what I made up - there was an actual cartoon about some guy who was dating a girl from I think the Steel Legion and the comic foibles of her training vs civilian life.
Tsagualsa wrote: In my headcanon they exist, but between hormonal and surgical treatments since before puberty really set in and growing up in a more or less genderless society of battle-brothers you'd have no way to tell unless you got in their pants. Astartes are largely sex- and genderless anyway, and at their size and muscle mass people start to look same-ish no matter what.
This. That's one thing I imagine most people don't seem to understand. It's not just someone in power armour like the Adeptus Sororitas. Space marines are surgically and chemically altered, so much so it changes their biology to be beyond human.
You say that, but the ultimate goal is boob plates on supermodels in Primaris armor.
Tsagualsa wrote: In my headcanon they exist, but between hormonal and surgical treatments since before puberty really set in and growing up in a more or less genderless society of battle-brothers you'd have no way to tell unless you got in their pants. Astartes are largely sex- and genderless anyway, and at their size and muscle mass people start to look same-ish no matter what.
This. That's one thing I imagine most people don't seem to understand. It's not just someone in power armour like the Adeptus Sororitas. Space marines are surgically and chemically altered, so much so it changes their biology to be beyond human.
You say that, but the ultimate goal is boob plates on supermodels in Primaris armor.
I think most would settle simply for acknowledgement that they exist, and maybe some head pieces.
Afrodactyl wrote: 2. In the lore, there's no female marines. I can't remember the justification why, but it's in the lore.
The justification in the background is that the process is keyed to 'male hormones'... which is the sort of throwaway comment that was fine back in the early '90s despite not actually making any sense because nobody took this stuff particularly seriously.
These days, it's harder to take 'hormones' as a serious impediment to the process.
Taking things seriously nowadays is the root of this problem.
I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Then I take a step back and realise a lot of this is likely why they keep the entirely fictional setting as it is. It's easier to maintain the consistency and not step on toes by sticking to what they have.
I'm all for inclusiveness and representation, I just don't think it has to be forcibly introduced to every scenario if the setting doesn't need or call for it.
Dudeface wrote: I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Given that this isn't an issue for stories involving Guard, or Eldar, or Mechanicus, or the Inquisition, or Votann, I feel like you might be reaching, here.
Dudeface wrote: I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Given that this isn't an issue for stories involving Guard, or Eldar, or Mechanicus, or the Inquisition, or Votann, I feel like you might be reaching, here.
OK, an astartes named "Mary" enters the dialogue, how do you identify them as an astartes? How do you identify them as a person without a long explanation of their appearance etc. Are they a "sister" in the event they're a female marine? If so how does a dialogue with a sister of battle play out? What about a "brother" of the bloodied rose speaking to an iron hand?
For those stories you'll also note the characters are generally confrom to gender norms, they're females with female names and female appearances. I don't recall any black library with a trans gender eldar for example. If there is it was not done in a way it was obvious enough someone could identify with them.
Breton wrote: From the players, sure its a little weird. From the company? Makes total sense. Any RetCon now would pretty much be an admission of "fault" on their part. As I pointed out just above, they didn't even bring back Squats after a silly crusade against anyone who even mentioned the word, they brought out the Legion of Votann.
The point is that it doesn't have to be a retcon. The time when the timeline just marched in place and any new thing was something that is now suddenly 'was always there' are long gone. Introducing female marines as an advancement rather than a retcon would cause considerably less friction.
He says, as people still gripe about Primaris.
It really doesn't. They didn't do it in the first place because the when they tried it the first time female models didn't sell. Times change.
Yes, which is why they redid the Sisters line and are actually supporting them, as well as showing off more guardswomen. Which is great, display those parts of the fluff and let the Marines remain battle brothers and monastic knights, that's where their theming and inspiration comes from.
Do you really want GW to push marines even harder and put Sisters to the side? If female marines become a thing you can bet that Sisters are getting thrown back into the Oubliette.
Dudeface wrote: I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Given that this isn't an issue for stories involving Guard, or Eldar, or Mechanicus, or the Inquisition, or Votann, I feel like you might be reaching, here.
OK, an astartes named "Mary" enters the dialogue, how do you identify them as an astartes? How do you identify them as a person without a long explanation of their appearance etc. Are they a "sister" in the event they're a female marine? If so how does a dialogue with a sister of battle play out? What about a "brother" of the bloodied rose speaking to an iron hand?
For those stories you'll also note the characters are generally confrom to gender norms, they're females with female names and female appearances. I don't recall any black library with a trans gender eldar for example. If there is it was not done in a way it was obvious enough someone could identify with them.
How is a Brother Balthasar that used to be a Amazon in the jungle tribes of Sambesi III different to Brother Eradicus that was a fierce warrior on the plains of Vandal Prime? They are remade through the process of becoming an astartes, leave their old roles and ties behind and for all intents and purposes adapt a totally new identity. 'Astartes' is the core, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, the entirety of their personality.
As for the Eldar, both Harlequins and Aspect Warriors regularly change their gender presentation when performing a role or walking a specific path.
If we could ask stick to discussing the actual topic rather than casting aspersions on those with different opinions, that would help keep the thread on track, folks.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Custodes would've been the place to introduce a force of both genetically modified men and women. Like, almost no lore for them existed, so added that bit wouldn't have made anyone care. I would've even supported it.
For Marines? Nah, it's been like that for decades. I'm not in the interest of catering to a few people on Twitter.
Indeed, Wraight (I believe) Wanted to introduce female custodes in his books but was told it was not allowed because the models were all male already.
Mostly I headcanon it by the emperor being a bronze age warlord and thus a turbo misogynist. I mean, he literally made the female special order NEVER TALK.
Tyel wrote: How about where's the female Orks? I guess if they retconned it so half the Marines in the Horus Heresy were female - heck, half the Primarchs - well, I'd probably laugh.
Aren’t Orks gender less anyway?
THey're not mammalian. They don't have sex organs
But orks are also obviously all male. They are an extremely, deliberately, gendered faction
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jehan-reznor wrote: In current lore it's a nono, what i never understood is in chaos. There anything is possible, and female chaos marines should be around.
Chaos as represented by chaos marines is the imperium but even worse. It's not anti imperium, it's the excesses of the imperium taken to the logical extreme
Wyldhunt wrote: Yeah, this is the main thing for me. Because marines are the poster boy faction that gets placed in the protagonist role for a lot of the video games, books, etc., they're a lot of folks' first impression of the game/universe. And I just worry that having a boys-only club so prominently featured might discourage some people from taking an interest in the hobby.
That's pretty much all it boils down to for me. If guard or skitarii or orks or the inquisition were the "main faction," I'd be fine with marines being a boys-only club the same way I'm fine with Sisters being a girls-only club.
We don't need to worry about that - other miniatures games have gender-integrated flagship factions and you don't see a rush of women joining those games. If you're serious, anyway, that's my reply - you might be concern trolling.
Afrodactyl wrote: 2. In the lore, there's no female marines. I can't remember the justification why, but it's in the lore.
The justification in the background is that the process is keyed to 'male hormones'... which is the sort of throwaway comment that was fine back in the early '90s despite not actually making any sense because nobody took this stuff particularly seriously.
These days, it's harder to take 'hormones' as a serious impediment to the process.
If you read the actual justification that priestley penned in 1988 (notably, after there were actual female space marine models produced. Yeah, they used to exist), it's a whole lot of biotruth nonsense by a guy who doesn't know biology and makes up words to go "And girls have cooties so they aren't allowed to be space marines."
It reads REAL bad in 2023.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: From what I've seen over the last few years, most of those asking for female marines very specifically don't want boob plate.
Which is just one of the reasons SoB aren't a valid substitute.
SoB were created by a guy with a fetish and haven't ever fully escaped that original fetish.
I'm against it mainly as I haven't yet seen a concrete reason why there should be female marines besides "we need to be inclusive", which to me isn't a good enough reason. Don't fix something that isn't broken.
Some people in here stated that they are okay with the change because GW already did change something that they disliked so much that they don't care about further changes like this.
Which is a good argument against female Space Marines. The chance that it will lead to more people caring less about the lore is there. And only because GW did something unpopular in the past with their fluff doesn't mean they should do it again.
The setting as a whole is not a big monolithic piece, it consists of hundreds or thousands of smaller and bigger stories, lore pieces and throw away mentionings. Changing a single thing among those would not alter the setting 180° around, but it will take away some uniqueness about it, if not done carefully.
I like my Salamanders to be obsidian black with red eyes. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having non-obsidian skin colors in that chapter.
I like my Blood Angels to turn their feral aspirants into vampire super models during initiation. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having "normal looking" dudes dorning the red armour.
I like my Sisters to be female only. The decree is an essential and memorable part of the faction identity. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having men at arms fighting for the Imperial church.
If female Space Marines would be introduced, it has to feel natural and organic in a way that would make the setting overall better. As I said before, if the main concern is "let's be more inclusive" instead of "this is good for the lore", then it probably should be reconsidered. I can see an angle to do it if the perspective on Space Marines would change from heroic individuals to basically just "every able body is transformed into a personality lacking murder machine. Every Space Marine is a tool to be used until it is broken". But this is not the 40k today. And quite honestly, people seem to like their Marine heroes and villains.
we aren't talking rouge trader here where they were throwing everything out there to make a parody of the big GW flagship game at the time-WHFBs between 2nd and 4th ed the lore was fixed and stayed fixed until Cawl. and many of us hate that change to the lore.
There is plenty of representation in the universe of 40K SOB are the most obvious thing that everybody points to, but there are female guardsmen, arbities, assassins, inquisitors etc... just in the imperium alone. the in universe lore is very specific that women cannot be space marines as the process to make a space marine are literally genetic copies of the primarch who are male.
The lore is the lore, it is why things like rings of power bombed so badly and Peter Jacksons LOTRs movies are so loved. one tried to wear the universe as a skin suit to make some personal train wreck, while the other was trying to make a movie for the creator and his fans. It wasn't about himself or his personal ideas it was about the universe that has it's own rules.
It occurs to me that the easiest way for GW to address this is the create lore for the first female Space Marine and explain how She died a hero of the Imperium ...on the operating table as a failed experiment. GW should just put the nails in the coffin and get it over with. I doubt it would hurt sales.
I should probably elaborate on my earlier post, as I posted early morning before my brain cells kicked in.
Female marines don't exist in the lore, so they shouldn't be introduced without an organic and plausible reason. It shouldn't just be "it suddenly works" or "we had them hidden under a tarp out back all this time".
My main gripe with female marines is that it steps on the toes of Sisters as a faction.
Afrodactyl wrote: Female marines don't exist in the lore, so they shouldn't be introduced without an organic and plausible reason. It shouldn't just be "it suddenly works" or "we had them hidden under a tarp out back all this time".
It would actually add to the grim dark nicely if female Space Marines would be perfectly viable with the existing procedure already. It's just when the first tests were done a few thousand years ago, somebody messed up, killing the test subject in question and to cover their own failure it was claimed that women are not compatible. The Imperium could easily double their SM output, but due to some incidenct that nobody alive today is even able to remember anymore, they simply never try.
Afrodactyl wrote: Female marines don't exist in the lore, so they shouldn't be introduced without an organic and plausible reason. It shouldn't just be "it suddenly works" or "we had them hidden under a tarp out back all this time".
It would actually add to the grim dark nicely if female Space Marines would be perfectly viable with the existing procedure already. It's just when the first tests were done a few thousand years ago, somebody messed up, killing the test subject in question and to cover their own failure it was claimed that women are not compatible. The Imperium could easily double their SM output, but due to some incidenct that nobody alive today is even able to remember anymore, they simply never try.
You could also link it to the Selenar and their involvement in the legion-making process - maybe they held the secret of making female marines back for their own purposes and gave the Emperor only a sub-optimal or even sabotaged version of the refined process while they kept the optimal version hidden. It's not like they're especially trustworthy.
My main gripe with female marines is that it steps on the toes of Sisters as a faction.
I disagree. Unless their lore was 'militant church military arm' with a hard-on for penitence, faith and miracles, and aesthetics were ott fleur-de-lis spamming ornate gothic armour, they are not stepping on their toes.
Marines are a blank slate. They can be anything. Despite the 'crusading warrior monk' schtick, they dont even have to be that - my Raptors say hi, for example. Val the bloody hander slayer of arcturus from the Nordic themed Thor's Hammers chapter of Astartes has as much crossover with Sororitas as an ork.
Afrodactyl wrote: Female marines don't exist in the lore, so they shouldn't be introduced without an organic and plausible reason. It shouldn't just be "it suddenly works" or "we had them hidden under a tarp out back all this time".
It would actually add to the grim dark nicely if female Space Marines would be perfectly viable with the existing procedure already. It's just when the first tests were done a few thousand years ago, somebody messed up, killing the test subject in question and to cover their own failure it was claimed that women are not compatible. The Imperium could easily double their SM output, but due to some incidenct that nobody alive today is even able to remember anymore, they simply never try.
The Imperium doesn't want to double their Space Marine output. The whole point of Chapter organisation is that the numbers of Marines are limited.
There isn't a lack of suitable male recruits as it is; and if there was, the entry requirements could just be lowered slightly.
Limiting a single Chapter to 1000 brothers is not in conflict with simply having more Chapters in total. They still wouldn't get a proper navy for example, to keep them in check if they decide to rebel.
No idea how to proof it, but I'd say if they could do it, then the Imperium would like to have more Marines and Chapters.
Afrodactyl wrote: Female marines don't exist in the lore, so they shouldn't be introduced without an organic and plausible reason. It shouldn't just be "it suddenly works" or "we had them hidden under a tarp out back all this time".
It would actually add to the grim dark nicely if female Space Marines would be perfectly viable with the existing procedure already. It's just when the first tests were done a few thousand years ago, somebody messed up, killing the test subject in question and to cover their own failure it was claimed that women are not compatible. The Imperium could easily double their SM output, but due to some incidenct that nobody alive today is even able to remember anymore, they simply never try.
The Imperium doesn't want to double their Space Marine output. The whole point of Chapter organisation is that the numbers of Marines are limited.
There isn't a lack of suitable male recruits as it is; and if there was, the entry requirements could just be lowered slightly.
Even if they slightly lowered the standards for male recruits AND allowed females, the amount of female recruits that could pass the bar would most likely be miniscule anyway.
Space Marines are a bit like Strongmen and Bodybuilders taken to the extreme. Even among men you need to have top grade genetics for both putting on muscle and to responding to drugs. If the marines only recruited people that could compete in the top of those sports and then were to lower the standards to be able to recruit elite women you would still have thousands (if not tens or hundreds of thousands) of amateur gym bros before you are down to the first elite woman. Even if they could recruit women, why would they spend energy on that for such a specialist unit like the Adeptus Astartes? There are trillions of potential male recruits for the Space Marines that should out perform the top 0,00001% of women in the Imperium if they needed more marine bodies just due to how at the extreme ends of things physical and combat related men outperform women vastly.
If we had female space marines, would it even reach a wider audience and become more popular among women? The setting is dark and violence enough as it is and I don't think most women care if the protagonist death machine on the cover was born with or without a penis. It being a male rather than a female or unknown is probably not even in the top 20 of things that is hindering them from starting 40k. Surprisingly enough for some there is also a lot of women who don't want female representation everywhere and rather want to play as the "male powerfantasy" too from time to time. They like that the setting have all male spacemarines and having female space marines wouldn't be a positive (perhaps not always a negative either but not all women want it) for them.
Trying to reach out to a wider audience while doing core changes to the lore is usually a lose lose situation if not done extremely carefully. You fail to reach more people and lose those you already had by betraying their expectations. There is a reason their existing fanbase came to exist and that is most likely because it is different from other IPs in a way they like. One of the reasons people might not like it is also due to it being very different from other IPs in ways they don't like. It is fine to keep it like this.The thing you risk when you try to cater to more people is that you dilute your own IP and trying to chase the widest audience possible might in the end just make you bleed fans over to other IPs. When all IPs are very inclusive in-setting and none of them try to be in any way upsetting etc the difference between them risk disappearing in the hunt for pulling down the barriers to entry and in the end why would you even bother with 40k when Star Wars is bigger and have more fans you can talk to? People have different tastes and if it becomes bland enough that anyone feel they would want to try it then it is probably bland enough that people don't bother continue with it.
Conversation packs on the tabletop? sure! Kitbashes are fine. Have a buzzlight year star command themed space marine army with mixed troops or a CSM army thats all Khorne Berserker chicks. You're allowed to convert your models however you want depending on the event.
Even if they slightly lowered the standards for male recruits AND allowed females, the amount of female recruits that could pass the bar would most likely be miniscule anyway.
Miniscule is the rate of initiation survivours for all non DA and BA chapters. Trying to do the entire pre training and then basic implanation process with females, would be a gigantic waste of resources. On top of that, because unmatured glands are hard to impossible to recover, any aspirant lost is a very bad thing for any chapter, as most marine chapters already operate on a very fine edge between being able to be efficient in the field and face attricion that kills a chapter. And all of this is before any pure genetical based problems of having to create a new type of gene seed that would work one females. Something the creation of required golden age tech, the emperor and team of scientists gene smiths no longer existing within the empire.
Tsagualsa 808558 11481264 wrote:
You could also link it to the Selenar and their involvement in the legion-making process - maybe they held the secret of making female marines back for their own purposes and gave the Emperor only a sub-optimal or even sabotaged version of the refined process while they kept the optimal version hidden. It's not like they're especially trustworthy.
That would be some serious changes to a 4 decade lore of the setting. Considering the DA gene seed and method of implantation is perfect. Or the fact that the BA and their succesor do not require geneticaly pure aspirants to have their recruits survive the implantation proceses. It is already a huge stretch that a "mother" of space marines was added out of no where to the lore.
Afrodactyl wrote: Female marines don't exist in the lore, so they shouldn't be introduced without an organic and plausible reason. It shouldn't just be "it suddenly works" or "we had them hidden under a tarp out back all this time".
It would actually add to the grim dark nicely if female Space Marines would be perfectly viable with the existing procedure already. It's just when the first tests were done a few thousand years ago, somebody messed up, killing the test subject in question and to cover their own failure it was claimed that women are not compatible. The Imperium could easily double their SM output, but due to some incidenct that nobody alive today is even able to remember anymore, they simply never try.
The limiting factor on number of space marines is the amount of gene seed and resources for the project, not number of candidates.
Certainly not all, but definitely some small minority. I've seen the images from Deviant Art.
I've also seen the images of other factions too. Shouldn't we then just say that there's a "small minority" of *40k players* who are fetishists? Why are we focusing on the FSM art when we could talk about Eldar art?
Just Tony wrote:You say that, but the ultimate goal is boob plates on supermodels in Primaris armor.
Who's ultimate goal? Or is this a strawman?
Dudeface wrote:I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Absolutely not.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
a_typical_hero wrote:I like my Salamanders to be obsidian black with red eyes. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having non-obsidian skin colors in that chapter.
I like my Blood Angels to turn their feral aspirants into vampire super models during initiation. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having "normal looking" dudes dorning the red armour.
I like my Sisters to be female only. The decree is an essential and memorable part of the faction identity. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having men at arms fighting for the Imperial church.
So YOUR Salamanders, Blood Angels, and Sisters can be all those things. Making exceptions and alternative options in the setting doesn't stop you doing what you want with your own models. If you want purely male Astartes, you can leave all your Astartes as male only.
Lammia wrote: Other than that, Space Marines are Trans-humans. And thus should be post Gender.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise because being transhuman has nothing to do with gender.
Not strictly true. Gender is a human construct. Therefore, being transhuman would thereby also implying being beyond such constructs as gender and suchlike.
If human = gender, then transhuman =/= gender, which stands that Astartes should be post- or agender.
Dudeface wrote:I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Absolutely not.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
OK, so looking at this as an acceptance and inclusiveness topic. What do they look like? How can we know that Quintus is of a biological female form, or is infact someone born biologically male but identifies differently.
Ironically as when this topic comes up is breaks down to "female space marines", what do we define as a "female space marine" and do you identify them as a "she"?
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
Cool not translate it in to any language where each word has a specific gender ending and check how that works. Especialy when the things don't over lap with each other. And it gets even better when you jump around languages. For example in german the knife is an it, the spoon is a he and the fork is a she. In slavic languages the knife is a he, the spoon is a she, and the fork is a he too. Makes ad hoc fast conversation EXTREMLY stressful, if someone tries to change them on top of that.
Dudeface wrote:I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Absolutely not.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
OK, so looking at this as an acceptance and inclusiveness topic. What do they look like? How can we know that Quintus is of a biological female form, or is infact someone born biologically male but identifies differently.
Ironically as when this topic comes up is breaks down to "female space marines", what do we define as a "female space marine" and do you identify them as a "she"?
Generally, I'd imagine a female space Marine is someone who was a girl before she was turned into a Marine. And then kept the same pronouns because that's what she was used to. Same for a male Marine.
A non-binary Marine, though, could easily be an older Marine, one who's moved past the human notions of gender and is just a tool for war.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
Cool not translate it in to any language where each word has a specific gender ending and check how that works. Especialy when the things don't over lap with each other. And it gets even better when you jump around languages. For example in german the knife is an it, the spoon is a he and the fork is a she. In slavic languages the knife is a he, the spoon is a she, and the fork is a he too. Makes ad hoc fast conversation EXTREMLY stressful, if someone tries to change them on top of that.
What language do they speak in 40k?
And does Germany, where they speak German, have problems with a mixed-gender military?
JNAProductions wrote: What language do they speak in 40k?
And does Germany, where they speak German, have problems with a mixed-gender military?
How often do you actually have a need to talk about someone in the third person where you can use neither their name nor their rank/designation in a military context? I don't think it's often enough to actually cause problems. Ranks just get the appropriate suffix for female officers, e.g. someone is a Major or Majorin, or the rank is coupled with the gender-appropiate appelation, i.e. it's a Herr Generalmajor or Frau Generalmajor.
Dudeface wrote:I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Absolutely not.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance." Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
OK, so looking at this as an acceptance and inclusiveness topic. What do they look like? How can we know that Quintus is of a biological female form, or is infact someone born biologically male but identifies differently.
It doesn't matter in that story. They're an Astartes now. They are bald, have thick dark eyebrows, and tanned skin. Who they were before being an Astartes isn't relevant to the story. Quintus is Astartes. We don't NEED to know unless it's important to the story, in the same way we don't need to know the appearance of every Space Marine who shows up in a book, which planet they were recruited on, at what age, and what their life was like before being an Astartes.
If it was relevant to the story we wanted to tell about Quintus, we could discuss how she was once the firstborn daughter of a prodigious house of knights (lower case k), and chose to become an Astartes to bring glory to her family - upon her rebirth as Quintus, they instead took a new identity, and pronouns.
If it was relevant to the story we wanted to tell about Aphis, we could discuss how she was a gutter rat on *insert planet here*, and accidentally stumbled into an Astartes training operation, and proved her capabilities unwittingly to an Astartes observer. Aphis kept her pronouns, despite her newfound appearance and identity.
If it was relevant to the story we wanted to tell about Gariel, we could discuss how she was once the daughter of a Chapter serf and an Administratum adept, and was earmarked for progress within the recruitment of the Chapter as the progeny of a Chapter serf. Succeeding in her tests, due to increased rations being smuggled to her during development, she chose to become Gariel, and used he/him pronouns upon his ascension.
But the thing is that this only needs to be told IF the story requires it - in the same way I don't need to know what hair colour *insert random Space Marine* has.
Ironically as when this topic comes up is breaks down to "female space marines", what do we define as a "female space marine" and do you identify them as a "she"?
It depends. Either all Astartes are referred to as "it/they", or they have male and female pronouns. I'd prefer they be made post-gender/non-binary, but that might be too much - so he/him and she/her would be acceptable.
I define a "female Space Marine" as someone who was biologically female upon implantation. How she looks after that is irrelevant, because there's plenty of variance within existing canon as to how Astartes can look post-implantation anyways.
JNAProductions wrote: What language do they speak in 40k?
And does Germany, where they speak German, have problems with a mixed-gender military?
How often do you actually have a need to talk about someone in the third person where you can use neither their name nor their rank/designation in a military context? I don't think it's often enough to actually cause problems. Ranks just get the appropriate suffix for female officers, e.g. someone is a Major or Majorin, or the rank is coupled with the gender-appropiate appelation, i.e. it's a Herr Generalmajor or Frau Generalmajor.
I mean there were female space marines in the very beginning before there was much lore so maybe there's a story there. Otherwise I think it's more about insertion than what it actually adds to the present game/lore.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
Cool not translate it in to any language where each word has a specific gender ending and check how that works. Especialy when the things don't over lap with each other. And it gets even better when you jump around languages. For example in german the knife is an it, the spoon is a he and the fork is a she. In slavic languages the knife is a he, the spoon is a she, and the fork is a he too. Makes ad hoc fast conversation EXTREMLY stressful, if someone tries to change them on top of that.
That's a conversation to be had about non-binary and trans- identities that extends beyond 40k and into wider linguistics.
That is not a conversation for this forum, as it WILL be off-topic.
Suffice to say, use the gender neutral pronoun that your language uses to describe how you'd tell a person they dropped their wallet.
Dudeface wrote:I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Absolutely not.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
OK, so looking at this as an acceptance and inclusiveness topic. What do they look like? How can we know that Quintus is of a biological female form, or is infact someone born biologically male but identifies differently.
It doesn't matter in that story. They're an Astartes now. They are bald, have thick dark eyebrows, and tanned skin. Who they were before being an Astartes isn't relevant to the story. Quintus is Astartes. We don't NEED to know unless it's important to the story, in the same way we don't need to know the appearance of every Space Marine who shows up in a book, which planet they were recruited on, at what age, and what their life was like before being an Astartes.
If it was relevant to the story we wanted to tell about Quintus, we could discuss how she was once the firstborn daughter of a prodigious house of knights (lower case k), and chose to become an Astartes to bring glory to her family - upon her rebirth as Quintus, they instead took a new identity, and pronouns.
But the thing is that this only needs to be told IF the story requires it - in the same way I don't need to know what hair colour *insert random Space Marine* has.
Ironically as when this topic comes up is breaks down to "female space marines", what do we define as a "female space marine" and do you identify them as a "she"?
It depends. Either all Astartes are referred to as "it/they", or they have male and female pronouns. I'd prefer they be made post-gender/non-binary, but that might be too much - so he/him and she/her would be acceptable.
I define a "female Space Marine" as someone who was biologically female upon implantation. How she looks after that is irrelevant, because there's plenty of variance within existing canon as to how Astartes can look post-implantation anyways.
I appreciate the detailed response but you're already at them looking the same because their gender identity and appearance don't matter, so why bother changing it in the first place?
Adeptekon wrote: I mean there were female space marines in the very beginning before there was much lore so maybe there's a story there. Otherwise I think it's more about insertion than what it actually adds to the present game/lore.
I think that female Space Marines don't add much to the setting, and neither does their lack detract from it substantially. All the elements of it already exist: there are professional fighting women of all stripes in the setting, there are women in power armour, both in the shape of Battle-Sisters as well as rarer examples like Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, non-Imperial petty human Empires, and so on, there are gene-modded women and much more - you could brew up a baker's dozen of count-as female Space Marines if you wanted to. All is missing is an official 'canonical' statement that there are female Space Marines, and that is the one thing people are probably not gonna get in the next decade. For some reason, the community starts to get weirdly argumentative and compelled to take a principled stand around that specific issue on the regular...
Dudeface wrote:I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Absolutely not.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
OK, so looking at this as an acceptance and inclusiveness topic. What do they look like? How can we know that Quintus is of a biological female form, or is infact someone born biologically male but identifies differently.
It doesn't matter in that story. They're an Astartes now. They are bald, have thick dark eyebrows, and tanned skin. Who they were before being an Astartes isn't relevant to the story. Quintus is Astartes. We don't NEED to know unless it's important to the story, in the same way we don't need to know the appearance of every Space Marine who shows up in a book, which planet they were recruited on, at what age, and what their life was like before being an Astartes.
If it was relevant to the story we wanted to tell about Quintus, we could discuss how she was once the firstborn daughter of a prodigious house of knights (lower case k), and chose to become an Astartes to bring glory to her family - upon her rebirth as Quintus, they instead took a new identity, and pronouns.
But the thing is that this only needs to be told IF the story requires it - in the same way I don't need to know what hair colour *insert random Space Marine* has.
Ironically as when this topic comes up is breaks down to "female space marines", what do we define as a "female space marine" and do you identify them as a "she"?
It depends. Either all Astartes are referred to as "it/they", or they have male and female pronouns. I'd prefer they be made post-gender/non-binary, but that might be too much - so he/him and she/her would be acceptable.
I define a "female Space Marine" as someone who was biologically female upon implantation. How she looks after that is irrelevant, because there's plenty of variance within existing canon as to how Astartes can look post-implantation anyways.
I appreciate the detailed response but you're already at them looking the same because their gender identity and appearance don't matter, so why bother changing it in the first place?
Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
Dudeface wrote: I appreciate the detailed response but you're already at them looking the same because their gender identity and appearance don't matter, so why bother changing it in the first place?
Because they *do* matter, in that people are saying that they can't be XYZ. Their gender and appearance don't matter, in that ANYTHING* should be fine. However, with how Astartes are male coded, this isn't currently an accurate reality.
*anything being, yanno, obvious things - I'm not talking Orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa wrote: There are professional fighting women of all stripes in the setting, there are women in power armour, both in the shape of Battle-Sisters as well as rarer examples like Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, non-Imperial petty human Empires, and so on, there are gene-modded women and much more - you could brew up a baker's dozen of count-as female Space Marines if you wanted to.
There's men in powered armour too - Custodes, Inquisitors, Rogue Traders, non-Imperial petty human empires and so on, there are gene-modded men, and so much more. So, we don't need male Space Marines, right? I hope you see the point I'm making here.
Sisters of Battle aren't the same as Space Marines, in the same way Space Marines aren't the same as Inquisitors or Custodes.
They are different factions, and "count as" just isn't going to cut the mustard.
Dudeface wrote:I'd love to see the black library guys try and include it in the fluff. You'd have to explain the biological form and gender identity of characters in power armour each time they're introduced to make it clear, define the pronouns for each character in conversation. The conversation between marines of all genders and sisters of battle of all genders would be a minefield.
Absolutely not.
"Sergeant Aphis, take your squad down the left flank," Captain Quintus exclaimed, as a stray round clipped their helmet. "Gariel says his unit is meeting unexpected resistance."
Aphis nodded curtly, although Quintus could feel her lust to engage the foe under her helm. "Aye, Captain."
Huh. Three characters mentioned, with three sets of pronouns. That didn't take much effort. I mean, surely a discussion between characters with the SAME pronouns would just just as difficult - hence why the author can use names to differentiate characters!
OK, so looking at this as an acceptance and inclusiveness topic. What do they look like? How can we know that Quintus is of a biological female form, or is infact someone born biologically male but identifies differently.
It doesn't matter in that story. They're an Astartes now. They are bald, have thick dark eyebrows, and tanned skin. Who they were before being an Astartes isn't relevant to the story. Quintus is Astartes. We don't NEED to know unless it's important to the story, in the same way we don't need to know the appearance of every Space Marine who shows up in a book, which planet they were recruited on, at what age, and what their life was like before being an Astartes.
If it was relevant to the story we wanted to tell about Quintus, we could discuss how she was once the firstborn daughter of a prodigious house of knights (lower case k), and chose to become an Astartes to bring glory to her family - upon her rebirth as Quintus, they instead took a new identity, and pronouns.
But the thing is that this only needs to be told IF the story requires it - in the same way I don't need to know what hair colour *insert random Space Marine* has.
Ironically as when this topic comes up is breaks down to "female space marines", what do we define as a "female space marine" and do you identify them as a "she"?
It depends. Either all Astartes are referred to as "it/they", or they have male and female pronouns. I'd prefer they be made post-gender/non-binary, but that might be too much - so he/him and she/her would be acceptable.
I define a "female Space Marine" as someone who was biologically female upon implantation. How she looks after that is irrelevant, because there's plenty of variance within existing canon as to how Astartes can look post-implantation anyways.
I appreciate the detailed response but you're already at them looking the same because their gender identity and appearance don't matter, so why bother changing it in the first place?
Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
I think this is the big hurdle, I'm against a fluff change as noted previously but I have 0 issues with someone making a lovingly converted/painted army to represent what they want and would never tell them they were wrong.
But this is a very delicate topic that means different things to different people as we're all showing, even the people on either side of the conversation I'd largely say its not mallicious in any way which is refreshing.
If they want to have a converted female space marine army most players won't mind. I wouldn't mind that at all. I am all for being inclusive to the hobby through being nice and welcoming. Those that are acting obnoxious about it in real life aren't really going to stop being a problem just because there is now female space marines. That is trying to cure the symptoms rather than the root cause.
People don't need full representation and inclusion for everything. Especially in a setting like 40k. I would actually be more concerned if people did relate more to stuff in the imperium. Most guys don't really relate to Space Marines either since most of what they are and do aren't actually relatable to a normal fully functional human in a western society.
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
Lord Damocles wrote: It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
In before the Death Guard jokes!
Anyhow, the Stormcast range has shown that GW is perfectly able to do female quasi-marines that do not degenerate into hugely overblown boob plate and chainmail bikinis. So one fear of the anti-WoMarines crowd should be alleviated by that example.
Who cares, let people have what they want. If space marines can survive in space, spit acid, eat peoples brains to gain their memories, and are essentially castrated. They lose all form of identity and become a space marine.
A female space marine would just be a battle brother. No different from any other marine. The amount of augmentations they would go through would strip all identity of the warrior. So one being a space marine formerly men or women wouldn't matter.
In the end they would only serve the emperor and all association does not matter.
In ye old rogue trader days we had female space marines, but GW was horrible at making female models. So in order to just hyper focus on stuff they just got rid of the female space marines cause they were atrocious. Space Marines are the posterboys of the 40k universe, some marines happening to be female would be interesting, but how? Well we know that 1. that the imperium misrepresents history, (like Robute Guilliman said in Dark Imperium it frequently did.) 2. That the horus heresy in universe is largely falsified mythos.
Again we know all this, the 40k universe is largely fables, myths, and tall tales told over and over again. And history written far after the events were over. I mean for one we know for certain it is the 42nd Millenia, the Imperium not knowing that some space marines are female wouldn't really change anything it would just be more. "Yeah that makes sense."
Why waste potential aspirants just based on gender. Cause really its only a few horomones that can easily be editted away. So this idea of their being SIGNIFICANT differences goes away if someone is just boosted by gene editting which the imperium has in spades. Again these tests and trials happen often that more recruits and variety might be benefical for marines, cause once you become a Space Marine, that is whom you are. You stop being human female or human male. You become a Marine an Angel of Death.
For those worried about SOB, SOB have always been more equalivent to the Tempestus Scions than the Space Marines. Other than the two sharing power armor. Thats the only real similarity. As SOB have a completely different modus operandi. Both share similarities like most imperial factions do. But just giving female space marines won't really change anything significantly. I understand peoples hyper protectiveness of the matter, as I was on the fence of no female space marines till I realized. Marines really don't care about their gender... And how insignificant hormonal changes are if you can make a space marine.
So it might be controversial but I just don't see the Imperium being 'regressive' when it comes to gender roles, When they literally have not made that distinction when it comes to anything else. Overtime as 40k has matured as a universe, you can notice that GW has slowly started to drop this "no women in stories" or even mentioning skin color more often .Cause the Imperium is Millions of Worlds. The idea of a regressionist state refusing soldiers, or bodies for its warfronts is part of what the imperium does. They don't care. Thats what is terrifying about the Imperium. They just want bodies on the field and they wouldn't care if it was a child, a grandfather, or grandmother, whomever. They will send you to the front with a gun on hand to fight for the God Emperor. So I don't really see this idea as some people brought up a regressive Imperium.
Now Something I do agree with is that the Space Marines get way too much screen time, to the point they are just everywhere... But thats because as people have pointed out, half of all armies played by people are space marines. And they make half of all sales. I don't think they were would be any drop in sales, or anything like that. Infact it would encourage people to buy more bits, which female space marines would be like we have with stormcasts.
I am also highly resistant to the idea that we should shoot down the idea. I've always found the hobby very toxic online, but in real life people largely don't care. For the terminally online people don't see past their computer screens or really talk to people. Or see people that play the hobby. Many women are interested in warhammer, but they see the online culture not being inclusive and walk away. Yet many do enjoy the lore and history. And some of them are more than likely to be part of the camp of "Let marines be female." And I can say with certainity that these worries about it being a drastic change clearly has not served or just don't read history. How many times have we found out in recent memory of a 'male' historic figure turning out to be female.
How many times have we had massive historical changes that literally changed how we knew about a subject. Like discovering advanced native civilizations in South America.(IE big cities which was largely thought to be very improbable). Or helk the discovery of how we are Heliocentric star system, and that the earth is not revolved around by the sun and moon. Again these were massive events in our way of thinking. So the Imperium turning out to be largely forgetting history, and glossing over details or historical figures, would happen. Cause thats the imperium it is ten thousands of years of history and literally anything could happen during that time.
It doesn't matter what language is spoken in w40k "the setting", when you read Tolkien I have my doubts you read the lines in specific elven, dwarf and human dialects. The problems is with how humans speak in the real world.
And does Germany, where they speak German, have problems with a mixed-gender military?
Define being a problem. According to all metric, the german army is in deep trouble for many things, ranging from recruitment, to quality of the recruits, to problems with resources. But in general the problems of any organisation like military or police are decided by the governing body, and those, in general, are outside entities. So If the german politicians decided that, what ever is happening to the Bundeswehr, is the problem, then it is the problem. And politicians can litteraly picky anything to be the thing. In general, if one were to trust one of the biggest and longest standing army that uses mass number of female recruites, mixed units are very bad for efficiency, casuality both durning training and in combat sitaution, and create problems that generaly don't exist in forces where the sexs are separate or one is not used as a source of recruit. Considering how efficiency focused the IDF is, I relegate my opinion to their expertise in that matter.
Who cares, let people have what they want.
Because saying who cares is to the first step to say I don't care, which replicated over a large enough group turns in to no one cares, and suddenly people from the outside totaly change everything that made the thing great. And they will use the arguments of , well no one cares on and on and on. And when one day you try to do your thing, the way you wanted, they will not tell you that no one cares. No you will be informed that now there are strickt rules and regulations you have to follow, and that the new people very much care, they care about it so much, that they will only let you do your thing, the way you do it, and as a bonus you being unhappy about it or voicing an opposit opinion will brand you as one of the -isms. Then you just have to waith another 25-50 years and the circle turns again. So yeah if at the begining people don't say, we don't want to have X in here, the thing they had will change very fast and very rapidly.
Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
So you are puting forth an argument for changing the in setting lore of a 4 decades frenchise, in order to placete a group of people, who are not even playing, collecting and by virtue of that participating in large enough numbers to matter? And you can bet your head, that if you tried to enter a women dominated hobby or activity, and tried to advocate for more beer, rough housing in both the verbal and physical form, you would find a staunch opposition to that.
So you are puting forth an argument for changing the in setting lore of a 4 decades frenchise, in order to placete a group of people, who are not even playing, collecting and by virtue of that participating in large enough numbers to matter? And you can bet your head, that if you tried to enter a women dominated hobby or activity, and tried to advocate for more beer, rough housing in both the verbal and physical form, you would find a staunch opposition to that.
Sadly Karol you've given exactly the sort of ass about face toxic masculinity example that shows these conversations are worth having. I'm a cis hetero male and I don't by definition want more beer and rough housing in my day to day life, I also don't consider it a measure of a hobbies "manliness".
a_typical_hero wrote:I like my Salamanders to be obsidian black with red eyes. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having non-obsidian skin colors in that chapter.
I like my Blood Angels to turn their feral aspirants into vampire super models during initiation. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having "normal looking" dudes dorning the red armour.
I like my Sisters to be female only. The decree is an essential and memorable part of the faction identity. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having men at arms fighting for the Imperial church.
So YOUR Salamanders, Blood Angels, and Sisters can be all those things. Making exceptions and alternative options in the setting doesn't stop you doing what you want with your own models. If you want purely male Astartes, you can leave all your Astartes as male only.
You ignored the rest of my argument. Those are merely examples given, as they are some of the most prominent in universe things that come to my mind where the looks of a person are very set in stone. Those are examples of small fluff tidbits that - by themselves - really don't matter all that much in the great scheme of things. But together they form the unique and interesting bits of their respective (sub)factions. This is what makes 40k40k. After the initial opening of "in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war" people delve deeper into the lore and this is what keeps them interested.
If we go all in and would say that every race and every faction can be represented by everyone , 40k would lose a lot of its character.
Male, female and trans Necrons*, Orks, Tyranids, just don't feel right. There are factions where it is very suitable like (Dark) Eldar, AdMech and Guard, among others. Again.. if there is a good story that enhances the lore and implements female Marines into the setting without it feeling forced, be my guest and go ahead. If the main point is inclusivity, no thank you.
*I'm well aware that higher Necrons keep their personality. Mostly talking about the model part here, as robot-boobs would be...weird.
a_typical_hero wrote:I like my Salamanders to be obsidian black with red eyes. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having non-obsidian skin colors in that chapter.
I like my Blood Angels to turn their feral aspirants into vampire super models during initiation. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having "normal looking" dudes dorning the red armour.
I like my Sisters to be female only. The decree is an essential and memorable part of the faction identity. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having men at arms fighting for the Imperial church.
So YOUR Salamanders, Blood Angels, and Sisters can be all those things. Making exceptions and alternative options in the setting doesn't stop you doing what you want with your own models. If you want purely male Astartes, you can leave all your Astartes as male only.
You ignored the rest of my argument. Those are merely examples given, as they are some of the most prominent in universe things that come to my mind where the looks of a person are very set in stone. Those are examples of small fluff tidbits that - by themselves - really don't matter all that much in the great scheme of things. But together they form the unique and interesting bits of their respective (sub)factions. This is what makes 40k40k. After the initial opening of "in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war" people delve deeper into the lore and this is what keeps them interested.
If we go all in and would say that every race and every faction can be represented by everyone , 40k would lose a lot of its character.
Male, female and trans Necrons*, Orks, Tyranids, just don't feel right. There are factions where it is very suitable like (Dark) Eldar, AdMech and Guard, among others. Again.. if there is a good story that enhances the lore and implements female Marines into the setting without it feeling forced, be my guest and go ahead. If the main point is inclusivity, no thank you.
*I'm well aware that higher Necrons keep their personality. Mostly talking about the model part here, as robot-boobs would be...weird.
These are your own words.
"If the main point is inclusivity, no thank you."
Direct quote from your post.
Do you see why that's an issue? This is not in-universe, Imperium is inclusive and happy and fun. This is a real-world concern.
Then what do you want? An example from academic, if you don't like the men in women space example? The moment you let people use physical violance to stop people from speaking out, which depending on country in the western world happened around the end of 60s and in the non western world a bit later, but not by a lot of time. You suddenly have physical violance enter the academical discourse. Suddenly just not being okey with someones opinion is not enough. And soon all sides of the academical world have to deal with the fact, that if you put forth a research, someone may blow up your lab, beat you up, threaten your family and kids. If someone in the 60s said, no you can not use violance as part of academical discourse and everyone who will be doing it or supporting it will be removed from academia, science would be in much better shape then it is now.
Not very representative of real quadriplegics though is it. Pretty exclusionary really to have all your disabled members as giant boxes which sleep 90% of the time.
If we go all in and would say that every race and every faction can be represented by everyone , 40k would lose a lot of its character.
Male, female and trans Necrons*, Orks, Tyranids, just don't feel right. There are factions where it is very suitable like (Dark) Eldar, AdMech and Guard, among others. Again.. if there is a good story that enhances the lore and implements female Marines into the setting without it feeling forced, be my guest and go ahead. If the main point is inclusivity, no thank you.
This. If everything can be everything, then everything is nothing. It also greatly diminishes any exemption. If every space marine , or even just BA can be and is "Mephistoned", then the character of Mephiston loses most reason to exist. If men can be SoB and women can be space marines or Custodes, then what is the next step? peaceful pro human xenos. Non animal instinctive behaviour tyranids. Chaos gods being good. What is the reason for w40k, as a setting at all, if everyone is just doing his own thing. This way is chaos, no pun intended, and lack of order. Any frenchise that tried it, and there were some bigger then warhammer 40000, ended up worse or dead for it. We don't need the rings of pała, warhammer 40000 version.
Karol wrote: Then what do you want? An example from academic, if you don't like the men in women space example? The moment you let people use physical violance to stop people from speaking out, which depending on country in the western world happened around the end of 60s and in the non western world a bit later, but not by a lot of time. You suddenly have physical violance enter the academical discourse. Suddenly just not being okey with someones opinion is not enough. And soon all sides of the academical world have to deal with the fact, that if you put forth a research, someone may blow up your lab, beat you up, threaten your family and kids. If someone in the 60s said, no you can not use violance as part of academical discourse and everyone who will be doing it or supporting it will be removed from academia, science would be in much better shape then it is now.
What does this have to do with Female Space Marines? Either you are not explaining your opinion well, or I am misreading.
If you have read history you know for certain nothing is concrete. Nothing in history can be taken for 100% accuracy. Again because history is as flawed as the people who helped write or lived it.
This idea of the 40k universe's lore being biblical in terms of importance or holy text. Is largely just bad, it doesn't help you, or I or anyone in this matter to discuss lore. It just becomes a slinging mass back and forth with no one gaining any understanding. 40k's lore has always been more equalivent to real life history than not. That many of its historical accounts in lore are largely false, myth or a legend. They are not first hand sources they are largely reports or narrative driven bias. Characters who have no understanding of situations or just characters who in universe survived long after the fact of the war rewriting the history based on some third or second hand accounts. Like... Real history.
So there being Space Marines being female wouldn't be that far of a leap. Especially if gene editing is so commonly used in the Imperium.
Not very representative of real quadriplegics though is it. Pretty exclusionary really to have all your disabled members as giant boxes which sleep 90% of the time.
JNAProductions wrote: Do you see why that's an issue? This is not in-universe, Imperium is inclusive and happy and fun. This is a real-world concern.
I stand by these words and I don't see a problem with them. Please don't ignore the rest of the post. I'm against a change to the lore if you do it for the sake of inclusivity. If your lore change is making 40k more interesting than before, you have my blessing to include as many groups and minorities as possible. I don't consider watering down faction identity as more interesting. But that is a subjective topic.
If we go all in and would say that every race and every faction can be represented by everyone , 40k would lose a lot of its character.
Male, female and trans Necrons*, Orks, Tyranids, just don't feel right. There are factions where it is very suitable like (Dark) Eldar, AdMech and Guard, among others. Again.. if there is a good story that enhances the lore and implements female Marines into the setting without it feeling forced, be my guest and go ahead. If the main point is inclusivity, no thank you.
This. If everything can be everything, then everything is nothing. It also greatly diminishes any exemption. If every space marine , or even just BA can be and is "Mephistoned", then the character of Mephiston loses most reason to exist. If men can be SoB and women can be space marines or Custodes, then what is the next step? peaceful pro human xenos. Non animal instinctive behaviour tyranids. Chaos gods being good. What is the reason for w40k, as a setting at all, if everyone is just doing his own thing. This way is chaos, no pun intended, and lack of order. Any frenchise that tried it, and there were some bigger then warhammer 40000, ended up worse or dead for it. We don't need the rings of pała, warhammer 40000 version.
If you start down that slope, when will you stop?
There's clearly absolutely no way to allow for something reasonable without also allowing anything that might technically follow from it.
Not very representative of real quadriplegics though is it. Pretty exclusionary really to have all your disabled members as giant boxes which sleep 90% of the time.
Or in case of the primaris and some of the leviathan dreadnought, slowly burned down in both body and soul in the processes of using a wheel chair. Unless we go really metaphysical, in which case, I yield the field as I have no expiriance or enough knowladge in it.
Not very representative of real quadriplegics though is it. Pretty exclusionary really to have all your disabled members as giant boxes which sleep 90% of the time.
Because the humanity has largely removed disabled people from having issues, they have spinal surgeries, and robotic parts that largely remove the idea of there really being Quadriplegics. Comparing that to Women being space marines potential is hilarious. Its not even comparable and really just a horrible take.
This. If everything can be everything, then everything is nothing. It also greatly diminishes any exemption. If every space marine , or even just BA can be and is "Mephistoned", then the character of Mephiston loses most reason to exist. If men can be SoB and women can be space marines or Custodes, then what is the next step? peaceful pro human xenos. Non animal instinctive behaviour tyranids. Chaos gods being good. What is the reason for w40k, as a setting at all, if everyone is just doing his own thing. This way is chaos, no pun intended, and lack of order. Any frenchise that tried it, and there were some bigger then warhammer 40000, ended up worse or dead for it. We don't need the rings of pała, warhammer 40000 version.
This is largely based on what fear? This is largely incorrect. Anyone can be a stormcast does that mean that they have removed everything or diminished the setting? No. Cause Stormcasts lose their personalities, and they become servants of Sigmar and are chosen because of being a hero. From a hospice worker defending children, to a accountant picking up their blade to protect their family, to a woman protecting her child from a chaos warrior. They become part of Sigmar's armies of Stormcasts. Does that diminish them or make them more interesting? It makes super interesting. The best character in the stormcasts, is the hospice worker, the guy who not only died protecting children but has largely stayed the same even through his reforgings.
A space Marine being male or female does not matter. It has never mattered because Marines by all accounts are just one thing, Angels of Death. Them being female doesn't change their chemistry or how they would act. Both Genders having the potential to be a space marine would add to the setting. And this stealing of children narrative that Space Marines actively engaged in.
Peaceful Pro Humans Xenos existed for ages. The Imperium largely spoiled this with the great crusade. The Interex Exist my friend. Non Animal Tyranids, already Exist Hive Tyrants. Chaos Gods can be good and BECAUSE THEY ARE CHAOS, they don't have an alliegance to evil, just like the imperium is not good. There is no good or evil in warhammer, because everyone is shades of grey.
40k has always been about chaos it always been a setting where any story can happen. From a simple tale about a daughter and father escaping a war, to a character have philisophical debate with a pastor about the nature of religion. Again this 40k, this a setting not a story. The setting changes almost every edition and is recontextualized as GW continuely updates its lore or gives it new meaning. the Badab for ages was nothing but a simple short story. Then it was expanded upon in the Black Books by forgeworld and they are wonderfully detailed. Where people before said there is no way there could be space marine chapters who could only do this. We had a space marine chapter that get possessed by demons and are able to resist the taint of chaos and become expert demon hunters. Then we have a space marine faction, that is largely regenade that works for hte imperium and has the coolest aesthetic out of most space marine chapters and is based largely on Māori Myth and Pacific Islanders but have the skin color of sharks.
Not very representative of real quadriplegics though is it. Pretty exclusionary really to have all your disabled members as giant boxes which sleep 90% of the time.
Because the humanity has largely removed disabled people from having issues, they have spinal surgeries, and robotic parts that largely remove the idea of there really being Quadriplegics. Comparing that to Women being space marines potential is hilarious. Its not even comparable and really just a horrible take.
But how will somebody in a wheelchair see themselves represented by the posterboy faction of 40K if there aren't Marines in wheelchairs? I'm just trying to allow all those wheelchair-bound folks who totally want to get into the hobby but can't because they're not physically represented by Marines to do so.
Saying that there's an in-universe reason for why there aren't wheelchair Marines is the exact sort of rhetoric that drives the disabled away from tabletop gaming.
Certainly not all, but definitely some small minority. I've seen the images from Deviant Art.
I've also seen the images of other factions too. Shouldn't we then just say that there's a "small minority" of *40k players* who are fetishists? Why are we focusing on the FSM art when we could talk about Eldar art?
I didn't "focus" on fetishistic FSM art. I merely aknowledged it existed. And your misguided projectionism is part of why I have you on ignore. Do better.
Not very representative of real quadriplegics though is it. Pretty exclusionary really to have all your disabled members as giant boxes which sleep 90% of the time.
Because the humanity has largely removed disabled people from having issues, they have spinal surgeries, and robotic parts that largely remove the idea of there really being Quadriplegics. Comparing that to Women being space marines potential is hilarious. Its not even comparable and really just a horrible take.
But how will somebody in a wheelchair see themselves represented by the posterboy faction of 40K if there aren't Marines in wheelchairs? I'm just trying to allow all those wheelchair-bound folks who totally want to get into the hobby but can't because they're not physically represented by Marines to do so.
Saying that there's an in-universe reason for why there aren't wheelchair Marines is the exact sort of rhetoric that drives the disabled away from tabletop gaming.
No one would say that. As someone who is disabled the idea, of parts of me being not a problem in the future that can easily remedieds. Make me feel normal. Not only makes me hopeful but happy that its not a problem in the future. So do tell me how that doesn't represent me?
How the idea that being fethed over by my birth and genes isn't easily fixed in the future? Not appealing?
This take of yours is so largely devoid of any experience with any human beings. Stop it.
Space Marines can be disabled, infact we have many whom are. They are called dreadnoughts or have cybernitics and struggle with the fact they are cybernetics, or largely lost their limbs or were made that way by horrible events. Again that is relatable and many people like these stories because it shows the marines being flawed...
The point where they should have introduced female super-persons was the Custodes: They had almost no consistent background outside of some Collectible Card Game artwork, they're 'handmade' unique masterworks of genhancement and alchemy without a standardized process, and their selection process seems to be more esoteric than the processes and rituals the marines use. Missed opportunity right there.
It is a tricky one, on the one hand its not really needed since the concept has already been filled by sisters of battle, the nuns to the warrior monks theme.
On the other hand more variety in head sculpts could be interesting.
I did see the Templin video on the subject and it was terrible due to being poorly reasoned and thought out, shame since most of their videos are pretty decent, just came across as click bait to me honestly.
Not very representative of real quadriplegics though is it. Pretty exclusionary really to have all your disabled members as giant boxes which sleep 90% of the time.
Because the humanity has largely removed disabled people from having issues, they have spinal surgeries, and robotic parts that largely remove the idea of there really being Quadriplegics. Comparing that to Women being space marines potential is hilarious. Its not even comparable and really just a horrible take.
But how will somebody in a wheelchair see themselves represented by the posterboy faction of 40K if there aren't Marines in wheelchairs? I'm just trying to allow all those wheelchair-bound folks who totally want to get into the hobby but can't because they're not physically represented by Marines to do so.
Saying that there's an in-universe reason for why there aren't wheelchair Marines is the exact sort of rhetoric that drives the disabled away from tabletop gaming.
As a point of detail, there actually IS a Marine in a wheelchair (or analagous device) in the Ian Watson Space Marine novel. The Marine had been captured, tortured, and at least his legs amputated. He remained in "service" on the IF Cruiser as an advisor or some such. He talked briefly to the main characters in between deployments iirc.
Asherian Command wrote: [
This take of yours is so largely devoid of any experience with any human beings. Stop it.
Oh, but it's not my take, is it? That's the beauty you see - it's literally the pro-female Marine argument: If you're not directly physically represented in [Marine] model form you can't identify with them, and are being actively excluded from the hobby.
Tsagualsa wrote: The point where they should have introduced female super-persons was the Custodes: They had almost no consistent background outside of some Collectible Card Game artwork, they're 'handmade' unique masterworks of genhancement and alchemy without a standardized process, and their selection process seems to be more esoteric than the processes and rituals the marines use. Missed opportunity right there.
Out of interest, a question towards everybody, regardless of the side you are taking:
How would you feel if GW acknowledges in general that women are compatible, but for some reason the Imperium won't do it. Leaving open the possibility that your homebrew chapter's Apothecary does take in female initiates? (Or your Chaos warband, if you are on of those weirdos.)
a_typical_hero wrote: Out of interest, a questions towards everybody, regardless of the side you are taking:
How would you feel if GW acknowledges in general that women are compatible, but for some reason the Imperium won't do it. Leaving open the possibility that your homebrew chapter's Apothecary does take in female initiates? (Or your Chaos warband, if you are on of those weirdos.)
I'd be OK with that, have a little manuscript/log style entry from a magos stating they'd tried it and whilst they'd had some success the dogma of the imperium was against upsetting historic legacy and stats quo basically, which is also a direct analogy to the fan base in a lot of ways.
a_typical_hero wrote: Out of interest, a questions towards everybody, regardless of the side you are taking:
How would you feel if GW acknowledges in general that women are compatible, but for some reason the Imperium won't do it. Leaving open the possibility that your homebrew chapter's Apothecary does take in female initiates? (Or your Chaos warband, if you are on of those weirdos.)
That's yet another reasonable way GW could slowly introduce the concept, and would fit the way the Imperium operates. It suffers a bit from the 'Special Snowflake Syndrome', but homebrew forces often do.
a_typical_hero wrote: Out of interest, a questions towards everybody, regardless of the side you are taking:
How would you feel if GW acknowledges in general that women are compatible, but for some reason the Imperium won't do it. Leaving open the possibility that your homebrew chapter's Apothecary does take in female initiates? (Or your Chaos warband, if you are on of those weirdos.)
I prefer not changing established lore, so my vote is against.
There's more thematic reasons that I prefer the current paradigm too, being that the Imperium could have been doomed to fail from the start, and the shortcuts made in its founding are the reasons for it's failure. The idea of the hyper-patriarchy of it's founding leading almost directly to it's greatest flaws holds worthwhile resonance.
a_typical_hero wrote: Out of interest, a questions towards everybody, regardless of the side you are taking:
How would you feel if GW acknowledges in general that women are compatible, but for some reason the Imperium won't do it. Leaving open the possibility that your homebrew chapter's Apothecary does take in female initiates? (Or your Chaos warband, if you are on of those weirdos.)
If you're homebrewing your background anyway, GW saying 'yeah fem-Marines are a thing, but we're not going to make any, and all of the canon Chapters are total sausage parties' isn't going to change anything from the current status.
Unless of course those who want the canon to be changed to cater to female Marines are for some reason so concerned by canon that they won't deviate from it at all. Which they're obviously not.
The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
a_typical_hero wrote:I like my Salamanders to be obsidian black with red eyes. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having non-obsidian skin colors in that chapter.
I like my Blood Angels to turn their feral aspirants into vampire super models during initiation. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having "normal looking" dudes dorning the red armour.
I like my Sisters to be female only. The decree is an essential and memorable part of the faction identity. The setting - imho - would not benefit from having men at arms fighting for the Imperial church.
So YOUR Salamanders, Blood Angels, and Sisters can be all those things. Making exceptions and alternative options in the setting doesn't stop you doing what you want with your own models. If you want purely male Astartes, you can leave all your Astartes as male only.
You ignored the rest of my argument. Those are merely examples given, as they are some of the most prominent in universe things that come to my mind where the looks of a person are very set in stone. Those are examples of small fluff tidbits that - by themselves - really don't matter all that much in the great scheme of things. But together they form the unique and interesting bits of their respective (sub)factions. This is what makes 40k40k. After the initial opening of "in the grim darkness of the far future, there is only war" people delve deeper into the lore and this is what keeps them interested.
I think you've missed the point of my comment. YOU can keep your stuff how you like it. If you like your Necrons as unknowable inhuman annihilators ruled by C'Tan, you can still do that! If you want your Space Marines to not use aerial superiority fighters, you can! If you want your Space Marines to be recruited from ex-convicts, you can!
What 40k *should* be is a sandbox, where nothing is impossible, and where somewhere, somehow, it's possible to have something different from whatever "normal" is. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be a "this is what normally happens", it's to say that there should always be a "things COULD be like this", and that that's also okay! You can still have the bits of 40k that you like - but you don't need to stop someone else from doing what they want.
If we go all in and would say that every race and every faction can be represented by everyone , 40k would lose a lot of its character.
Male, female and trans Necrons*, Orks, Tyranids, just don't feel right. There are factions where it is very suitable like (Dark) Eldar, AdMech and Guard, among others. Again.. if there is a good story that enhances the lore and implements female Marines into the setting without it feeling forced, be my guest and go ahead. If the main point is inclusivity, no thank you.
*I'm well aware that higher Necrons keep their personality. Mostly talking about the model part here, as robot-boobs would be...weird.
There already ARE male, female and trans Necrons! They don't need new models because they don't look human, and have no identifiable gendered aspects. Space Marines, likewise, if helmeted, would be the same - except that all unhelmeted Astartes are male-coded, and are therefore men. Tyranids aren't gendered, because they aren't humanoid. Orks are gendered, but caricatured so.
And again - how am I supposed to take you seriously with a statement like "inclusivity, no thank you" - what does that say to me, as someone who is feeling increasingly excluded by prevailing attitudes on this site and in 40k overall?
Asherian Command wrote:If you have read history you know for certain nothing is concrete. Nothing in history can be taken for 100% accuracy. Again because history is as flawed as the people who helped write or lived it.
This idea of the 40k universe's lore being biblical in terms of importance or holy text. Is largely just bad, it doesn't help you, or I or anyone in this matter to discuss lore.
Very well put. History isn't even fact. It's reportage of events and contextualising in a way that depends on what sources survive/are allowed to be shared.
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm against a change to the lore if you do it for the sake of inclusivity. If your lore change is making 40k more interesting than before, you have my blessing to include as many groups and minorities as possible.
Great. Adding FSM makes 40k more interesting, as far as I'm concerned. Do I have your blessing? Or do I need your subjective approval?
Certainly not all, but definitely some small minority. I've seen the images from Deviant Art.
I've also seen the images of other factions too. Shouldn't we then just say that there's a "small minority" of *40k players* who are fetishists? Why are we focusing on the FSM art when we could talk about Eldar art?
I didn't "focus" on fetishistic FSM art. I merely aknowledged it existed. And your misguided projectionism is part of why I have you on ignore. Do better.
You focus on it by failing to aknowledge that there's fetishy art about ALL of 40k, not just the FSM. If you want to claim that FSM is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishistic art, then you are also claiming that 40kAS A WHOLE is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishists across all of 40k.
Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.
Formosa wrote:It is a tricky one, on the one hand its not really needed since the concept has already been filled by sisters of battle, the nuns to the warrior monks theme.
Space Marines aren't all warrior monks - therefore, the concept isn't matched with the SoB. Astartes are transhuman super-soldiers who have a vast array of aesthetic designs to call upon and as many more ways of waging war. Sisters are religious warrior fanatics who draw near exclusively on a single cultural design and style of warfare.
If anything, we should be deleting the Black Templars, if we're worried about them occupying the same concept.
It feels like you don't want to understand my point deliberately to make me look like I'm attacking you. Which is weird, as going by this thread, I'm more in the "No, but if done right" camp compared to some others who categorically refuse the idea.
"Inclusivity" is a neutral concept. It is not good or even desirable by itself. It needs other factors for an evaluation. Being inclusive by allowing men, women and trans to become pilots is good. Forcing inclusivity by giving a man the job of a pilot instead of a more skilled trans person because otherwise some quota wouldn't be met is bogus.
And it is the same with this nice little hobby that we all share. Not being represented (for the sake of representation!) by a Space Marine should not make you feel any more insecure / offended / or whatever than not being represented by an Orc, a Tyranid, a Tau, a Demon.
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say. It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
That "flagship army" is also composed of heavily modified, highly exceptional individuals who can barely be considered human anymore. They are, by their very nature, an "exclusive" army. Just like the sisters, whose members can only be women and are drawn from Schola graduates, who, unless I'm mistaken, are also exceptional (yet human) individuals. The Sisters are also an army that's getting quite of exposure these days. Your efforts would be better spent moving the focus away from them and instead towards the Imperial Guard. You know, ordinary humans who do have men and women in their ranks, and are the ones doing most of the fighting. That would be "inclusive."
It feels like you don't want to understand my point deliberately to make me look like I'm attacking you. Which is weird, as going by this thread, I'm more in the "No, but if done right" camp compared to some others who categorically refuse the idea.
The issue I'm having is with this idea of "done right".
What is "done right"? Who determines it? On what criteria is something "done right"? What's "done right" to one person might not be for someone else.
As I've said - I want you to enjoy what YOU want - your Salamanders being red eyed and with jet-black skin, or so on. Why does someone having something else matter to you?
"Inclusivity" is a neutral concept. It is not good or even desirable by itself. It needs other factors for an evaluation. Being inclusive by allowing men, women and trans to become pilots is good. Forcing inclusivity by giving a man the job of a pilot instead of a more skilled trans person because otherwise some quota wouldn't be met is bogus.
So why do you say "inclusivity, no thank you", when you could instead be saying "I don't want my stuff to be taken away".
You can't blame people for getting their backs up when your actual words ("inclusivity, no thank you") aren't what you mean, and then get mad about it! If you mean something, say that, and not "inclusivity, no thank you" - which is bound to cause a concern.
If you mean "I don't want something I like to be taken away from me in the name of inclusivity" - good news! You don't need to change your army or models if you like them as they are. Let people enjoy the new stuff.
Not being represented (for the sake of representation!) by a Space Marine should not make you feel any more insecure / offended / or whatever than not being represented by an Orc, a Tyranid, a Tau, a Demon.
I don't think I need to take your advice on how representation "should" and "should not" make me feel, and I think you need to understand that. Why is it hard to understand/empathise that someone might find enjoyment in a Space Marine being representative of the other ~50% of the population.
Again - Space Marines aren't aliens. They're made from humans - and as much as we want to call them transhuman, either we lean further into their transhumanity and remove their male-ness, or we make their human origins more fair. Which one should we do?
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
That "flagship army" is also composed of heavily modified, highly exceptional individuals who can barely be considered human anymore.
And yet, they look human, use human gender, and are allegedly still a "boys" club.
Which are they? Genderless weapons of war, or symbolic of hypermasculinity?
Your efforts would be better spent moving the focus away from them and instead towards the Imperial Guard. You know, ordinary humans who do have men and women in their ranks, and are the ones doing most of the fighting. That would be "inclusive."
No, it wouldn't. It would be equitable, not "inclusive".
Furthermore, we all know that GW won't abandon Astartes as their main selling point. That's simply not going to happen, and we all know it. Adding in the possibility of women Astartes? Now that's more likely, and much more brand-friendly.
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
Presumably these hypothetical bigots would just use something else to be bigoted against others with.
Besides which, what are they actually doing? 'Ha ha these toy soldiers can't be women, so go make me a sandwich Stacy'; 'girls can't be Marines so you totally can't play with these toys'? I've never seen anybody actually advocating that women can't partake in the hobby; and I don't really see how not having female Marines would give anything that they said to that effect any more weight with anyone else?
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
Just ignore the bigots! Bigots will keep bigoting regardless of female marines. While using bigots as a reason to have female marines . . . sure seems like the wrong sort of reason.
Arguments about inclusivity pretty much always wind up with one side saying 'Inclusion is good' and another side saying 'Inclusion is unnecessary' over and over again. It seems unlikely that this pattern is going to change here, and I don't think that any amount of explaining the merits of inclusion is going to change anyone's mind.
The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
Certainly not all, but definitely some small minority. I've seen the images from Deviant Art.
I've also seen the images of other factions too. Shouldn't we then just say that there's a "small minority" of *40k players* who are fetishists? Why are we focusing on the FSM art when we could talk about Eldar art?
I didn't "focus" on fetishistic FSM art. I merely aknowledged it existed. And your misguided projectionism is part of why I have you on ignore. Do better.
You focus on it by failing to aknowledge that there's fetishy art about ALL of 40k, not just the FSM. If you want to claim that FSM is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishistic art, then you are also claiming that 40kAS A WHOLE is guided by fetishism because of a handful of fetishists across all of 40k.
Find where I made that claim.
Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.
I'm just trying to help you be a better poster You should feel honored.
insaniak wrote: The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.
And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.
insaniak wrote: The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
insaniak wrote: Arguments about inclusivity pretty much always wind up with one side saying 'Inclusion is good' and another side saying 'Inclusion is unnecessary' over and over again. It seems unlikely that this pattern is going to change here, and I don't think that any amount of explaining the merits of inclusion is going to change anyone's mind.
The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
I'd argue that's one of the points that makes it meritable. The Imperium doesn't see "pink and blue", sure. But the founder of the Imperium either seemed to think that way, or just went with the shortcut, and it precipitated the biggest calamity ever to happen to the human race, the Horus Heresy. There's a nice thematic tension there.
Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.
I'm just trying to help you be a better poster You should feel honored.
None of that is helpful. The fetish argument adds nothing productive to the thread. Move on, both of you.
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
That "flagship army" is also composed of heavily modified, highly exceptional individuals who can barely be considered human anymore.
And yet, they look human, use human gender, and are allegedly still a "boys" club.
Which are they? Genderless weapons of war, or symbolic of hypermasculinity?
At no point did I refer to them as genderless, unless you mean to tell me that only humans can have a gender.
They are certainly weapons of war though, I'll give you that.
insaniak wrote: The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.
And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.
insaniak wrote: The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
Furthermore, we all know that GW won't abandon Astartes as their main selling point. That's simply not going to happen, and we all know it.
Oh, I wonder why. It's almost as if they'll keep pushing Marines because people keep buying them. And then the fanbase wonder why Sororitas was in an oubliette for over a decade and Eldar still have models from 3rd ed. Yeah no, I'd rather not give GW an excuse to sell even more marines and abandon non-Marine armies even more, especially not when they've just learnt to give non-marine armies some more screen time.
Lammia wrote: The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?
It's not even that anybody makes a decision in-universe to exclude women:
'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.' 'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7
Lammia wrote: The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?
It's not even that anybody makes a decision in-universe to exclude women:
'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.' 'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7
It's just a thing that isn't possible.
I mean, ever heard about transwomen, or just gender hormonal therapy in general?
Male hormones aren't the exclusive domain of men, and it is something that can be further modified with 21th century tech.
I like the fact that the anti-fem space marine debate has so far been people who act like the lore is sacred texts.
When its repeatedly been shown by GW it doesn't care.
And continues to do so with every lore updates. From Primaris, to the return of the Voltann, to the recontextualizing of the Eldar / Aeldari, and the possible return of the Primarchs.
I get it that many people have an identity with this hobby. But that doesn't help with the discussion here. No one is telling anyone here that your hobby changes will effect you completely. When from its history space marine kits will always produced more and make up half of all Gamesworkshop sales. And the idea of expanding that audience to have nerdy women or transwoman or even transman to enjoy the hobby by having something that represents the 40k setting isn't a bad thing. There are issues in over representation but just adding female space marines is not that. When we have in the past ten or twenty years changed the face of space marines to be multicultural, along with most of 40k as well... There is no reason not to be fine with it other than just being toxic on the discussion platform here or anywhere for not wanting it cause 'girls' can't be a space marine.
When we know for certain that a female space marine would be indistinguishable from a male one, in both performance and role.
40k History is not 'sacred' nor is it static, it is constantly changing with each edition. Every edition changes up the setting and the history. We've had so many intrepretations of just the horus heresy, that each one is radically different from the other in presentation.
Gav Thrope wrote:"With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. [...] Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong."
Gav Thorpe, Lead Designer GW
And Hoare wrote: "It all stems from the assumption that there's a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or 'true' representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth."
Andy Hoare, Game Designer GW (in the comments)
Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote:"There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP."
Aaron Dembski-Bowden, co-author Horus Heresy series
Marc Gascogne wrote:"Here's our standard line: Yes it's all official, but remember that we're reporting back from a time where stories aren't always true, or at least 100% accurate. If it has the 40K logo on it, it exists in the 40K universe. Or it was a legend that may well have happened. Or a rumour that may or may not have any truth behind it."
Marc Gascogne, chief editor Black Library
Essentially lore 'canon' and history of warhammer is a set series of historical accounts that are deeply flawed. And often times more mythical and legend than actual historical fact. We have to sparse the truth when we read 40k and not accept everything at face value. So there being female space marines would only add to this interpretation by the studio even more.
Also, you're doing a great job of Ignoring me. Really selling the point, when I know you're reading my comments and responding. Good job boss. I'm very impressed.
I'm just trying to help you be a better poster You should feel honored.
None of that is helpful. The fetish argument adds nothing productive to the thread. Move on, both of you.
Lammia wrote: The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
What's problematic about "The Emperor said no (even when his advisors said it was a mistake)"?
It's not even that anybody makes a decision in-universe to exclude women:
'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.' 'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7
It's just a thing that isn't possible.
I mean, ever heard about transwomen, or just gender hormonal therapy in general?
Male hormones aren't the exclusive domain of men, and it is something that can be further modified with 21th century tech.
Sure, but even hormonal therapy doesn't change cells from XX to XY, which could be covered under "tissue" in the quote.
Who knows what the future holds? (Robots, most likely) But the in-universe explanation still works, curt as it is.
On a more meta level, I think GW should avoid it (at least this decade) because of the gakstorm a decent number people would throw over it. And no, it wouldn't all be because of sexism.
I disagree. I think GW wanting to change its lore frequently and completely just adds to the settings. Age of Sigmar is competently written and better written than most of 40kIMO. As its far more character / nation driven than Fantasy was.
So them making it so stormcasts could be female only made sense. When before they only had male models in the beginning of AOS. And now we have some of the most gorgeous models GW has produced have been Stormcast Female Characters from the Vindicators to Greatsword Stormcasts to Yndrasta. They are all stormcasts all that matters is that they fight for sigmar. As the process of becoming a Stormcast is basically the same as a Space Marine. As they are imbued with impossibly large amount of organs that they have to grow into.
Space Marines being female, or male realy doesn't take away from anything. I still don't get how it would take away from the setting when it would only reinforce how far the imperium has fallen and that they don't even remember their historical figures being female. It would only add to that sadness that the Imperium has fallen as much as it had that its Angels of Death rarely seen by outsiders outside of their Power Armor turned out to have some female members or even entire chapters of Female Space Marines.
The idea that female space marines exist only adds to the setting and gives more character to the chapters, and the idea that the horus heresy is largely mythologized. And that many characters being female or male really didn't make a difference to the character because they are just Space Marines.
I think anyone who says "oh there will a gakstorm" will completely forget that Primaris did the same change over and most people accept it now. Most people see that Marines exist in twospheres now even further. And now most people who play marines will have both firstborn and primaris in their lists or their armies. Because it was a huge lore shakeup probably more than the female space marines would cause. And people still stayed over that. Because as much as we like to think this poll is indicative of anything its that people who are terminally online are so deeply disconnected and non-representative of the actual player base. Again many of the anti-crowd do not represent the majority of the population who either don't care or more than willing to agree to see what happens. If a vocal minority is not in favor of it so be it.
The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.
The original piece about male hormones comes from a section in the holly lore of 1st edition that says new chapters can only be made when the emperor says they can and he has examined the test slaves and sanctioned them??? How does he do that??
Also another snippet from that is the test selves them selves, that’s been dropped, no longer do 3 slaves have to live miserable conscious lives as experimental meat sacks knowing fully what is happening to them and suffering immeasurably to make a marine! (I really like that bit of lore but you won’t find it in a book today).
Speaking of not finding lore in books, you won’t find this sacred snippet about having to be all male in any marine codex ever or in print today, it was released in WD some years again but nowhere else since index Astartes.
So I will say it again, the sacred lore that cannot be changed or moved in ANYWAY isn’t in any codex background and isn’t in print at all today. Sounds like GW really like this bit of fluff and are super proud of it.
Now stop being silly and let’s allow people who female marines have them without everyone getting all upset about their “lore” changing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: I disagree. I think GW wanting to change its lore frequently and completely just adds to the settings. Age of Sigmar is competently written and better written than most of 40kIMO. As its far more character / nation driven than Fantasy was.
So them making it so stormcasts could be female only made sense. When before they only had male models in the beginning of AOS. And now we have some of the most gorgeous models GW has produced have been Stormcast Female Characters from the Vindicators to Greatsword Stormcasts to Yndrasta. They are all stormcasts all that matters is that they fight for sigmar. As the process of becoming a Stormcast is basically the same as a Space Marine. As they are imbued with impossibly large amount of organs that they have to grow into.
Space Marines being female, or male realy doesn't take away from anything. I still don't get how it would take away from the setting when it would only reinforce how far the imperium has fallen and that they don't even remember their historical figures being female. It would only add to that sadness that the Imperium has fallen as much as it had that its Angels of Death rarely seen by outsiders outside of their Power Armor turned out to have some female members or even entire chapters of Female Space Marines.
The idea that female space marines exist only adds to the setting and gives more character to the chapters, and the idea that the horus heresy is largely mythologized. And that many characters being female or male really didn't make a difference to the character because they are just Space Marines.
I think anyone who says "oh there will a gakstorm" will completely forget that Primaris did the same change over and most people accept it now. Most people see that Marines exist in twospheres now even further. And now most people who play marines will have both firstborn and primaris in their lists or their armies. Because it was a huge lore shakeup probably more than the female space marines would cause. And people still stayed over that. Because as much as we like to think this poll is indicative of anything its that people who are terminally online are so deeply disconnected and non-representative of the actual player base. Again many of the anti-crowd do not represent the majority of the population who either don't care or more than willing to agree to see what happens. If a vocal minority is not in favor of it so be it.
Andykp wrote: The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.
The original piece about male hormones comes from a section in the holly lore of 1st edition that says new chapters can only be made when the emperor says they can and he has examined the test slaves and sanctioned them??? How does he do that??
Also another snippet from that is the test selves them selves, that’s been dropped, no longer do 3 slaves have to live miserable conscious lives as experimental meat sacks knowing fully what is happening to them and suffering immeasurably to make a marine! (I really like that bit of lore but you won’t find it in a book today).
Speaking of not finding lore in books, you won’t find this sacred snippet about having to be all male in any marine codex ever or in print today, it was released in WD some years again but nowhere else since index Astartes.
Horus Heresy Rulebook. Recent.
Also your entire post is "The lore shouldn't matter and nobody should care" Which is an interesting view but one that is.. quite terrible. We should accept whatever just because? If Space Marines were turned into furry rabbits tomorrow it shouldn't matter?
Andykp wrote: The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.
That's not the argument. Nice strawman though.
Andykp wrote: Speaking of not finding lore in books, you won’t find this sacred snippet about having to be all male in any marine codex ever or in print today, it was released in WD some years again but nowhere else since index Astartes.
So I will say it again, the sacred lore that cannot be changed or moved in ANYWAY isn’t in any codex background and isn’t in print at all today. Sounds like GW really like this bit of fluff and are super proud of it.
The 'all dudes all the time' was repeated last year in the Horus Heresy rulebook. People were flinging excrement around over it and everything:
'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'
Ah, ninja'd.
I bet that Ninja was a dude too. Hrmf!
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Also your entire post is "The lore shouldn't matter and nobody should care" Which is an interesting view but one that is.. quite terrible. We should accept whatever just because? If Space Marines were turned into furry rabbits tomorrow it shouldn't matter?
It is interesting that the background seemingly doesn't and shouldn't really matter to anybody; but simultaneously it's very important that the background should be changed...
Lord Damocles wrote:Presumably these hypothetical bigots would just use something else to be bigoted against others with.
And? Why make it easier on them?
Insectum7 wrote:Just ignore the bigots! Bigots will keep bigoting regardless of female marines.
But why give them the ammunition to do so? Sure, they *might* find another thing to latch onto - but by removing that one, GW is at least saying "yeah nah, we don't support your kind of bigotry, take a hike". Delegitimising bigots is cool.
Lord Damocles wrote:
insaniak wrote: The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.
And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.
Well, yeah. Maybe it's like the entire thing is made up, and what matters is that we can push around our little war dolls and play games with them.
Marines DON'T exist. The only things that exist are pieces of resin, plastic, and metal that we push around on tables, and words on pages. Space Marines don't exist.
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
That "flagship army" is also composed of heavily modified, highly exceptional individuals who can barely be considered human anymore.
And yet, they look human, use human gender, and are allegedly still a "boys" club.
Which are they? Genderless weapons of war, or symbolic of hypermasculinity?
At no point did I refer to them as genderless, unless you mean to tell me that only humans can have a gender.
Yes, I do. Gender is not the same as sex, and gender is explicitly a human/anthropomorphic construct. If you make Space Marines inhuman, you make them agender, but because Space Marines are still identifiably human, they have identifiable gender.
They are certainly weapons of war though, I'll give you that.
That's because that's what they are. The question is, do we lean harder into "Space Marines are biological weapons of war with no other purpose", in which case we need to make them less "male" and more "inhuman" looking, or we lean into the "these are super-humans" and have a range of "humans" shown?
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Furthermore, we all know that GW won't abandon Astartes as their main selling point. That's simply not going to happen, and we all know it.
Oh, I wonder why. It's almost as if they'll keep pushing Marines because people keep buying them. And then the fanbase wonder why Sororitas was in an oubliette for over a decade and Eldar still have models from 3rd ed. Yeah no, I'd rather not give GW an excuse to sell even more marines and abandon non-Marine armies even more, especially not when they've just learnt to give non-marine armies some more screen time.
Take that up with GW, but you KNOW as well as I do that they won't be taking Marines off the pedestal any time soon - if we're talking about feasible realities here, GW is more likely to change a few lines of fluff and release some heads than they are to completely restructure how 40k is marketed.
Andykp wrote: The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.
This is largely incorrect. Anyone can be a stormcast does that mean that they have removed everything or diminished the setting? No. Cause Stormcasts lose their personalities, and they become servants of Sigmar and are chosen because of being a hero. From a hospice worker defending children, to a accountant picking up their blade to protect their family, to a woman protecting her child from a chaos warrior. They become part of Sigmar's armies of Stormcasts. Does that diminish them or make them more interesting? It makes super interesting. The best character in the stormcasts, is the hospice worker, the guy who not only died protecting children but has largely stayed the same even through his reforgings.
Space marines are not stormcast eternals, and storm cast eternals are not space marines. If lets say Marvel decides to change the way magic works in their comic or movie universe, the argument against it, can not be made with the proposition that DC does it different. Also space marines and w40k are an established brands. They already existed for decades. GW is making up stormcast and AoS lore as they go. But I am sure that if suddenly GW decided to say that Nagash was an Ork all along, people would not like it.
A space Marine being male or female does not matter. It has never mattered because Marines by all accounts are just one thing, Angels of Death. Them being female doesn't change their chemistry or how they would act. Both Genders having the potential to be a space marine would add to the setting. And this stealing of children narrative that Space Marines actively engaged in.
A female can not be an "angel of death" aka space marine. If GW decided it was possible, then why not make abhuman space marines too, or even xeno space marines.
Peaceful Pro Humans Xenos existed for ages. The Imperium largely spoiled this with the great crusade. The Interex Exist my friend. Non Animal Tyranids, already Exist Hive Tyrants. Chaos Gods can be good and BECAUSE THEY ARE CHAOS, they don't have an alliegance to evil, just like the imperium is not good. There is no good or evil in warhammer, because everyone is shades of grey.
One thing is not human and tries to kill humans. Other thing tries to stop the other things from killing all humans. One thing is there for good and the other thing is bad.
40k has always been about chaos it always been a setting where any story can happen. From a simple tale about a daughter and father escaping a war, to a character have philisophical debate with a pastor about the nature of religion. Again this 40k, this a setting not a story. The setting changes almost every edition and is recontextualized as GW continuely updates its lore or gives it new meaning. the Badab for ages was nothing but a simple short story. Then it was expanded upon in the Black Books by forgeworld and they are wonderfully detailed. Where people before said there is no way there could be space marine chapters who could only do this. We had a space marine chapter that get possessed by demons and are able to resist the taint of chaos and become expert demon hunters. Then we have a space marine faction, that is largely regenade that works for hte imperium and has the coolest aesthetic out of most space marine chapters and is based largely on Māori Myth and Pacific Islanders but have the skin color of sharks
What does this have to do with four decades of space marine lore? There were no female space marines, and there should be no female space marines. Changing in setting things, on basis of some outside of the setting paradigmas, which do not enhance, but dimnish the setting is not the way to go. If female space marines were to exist, then SoS and SoB make no sense to be in the setting or they should go the way of the primaris and made in to space marines ASAP.
Dudeface wrote:Just to clarify, if we get femarines, do we also get misters of battle please?
I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.
By virtue of that there are also females in the space marines, because there are female serfs and slaves and crew members on space marines home worlds and in the ships of their fleets.
The fact that the church has merc companies on permanent hire, and entire fleets of ships of rogue traders helping them ferry their dignitaries does not make any of those SoB. Because there can not be any male SoB, the imperial charter clearly says it "no man under arms".
Andykp wrote: The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.
That's not the argument. Nice strawman though.
What is the arguement then?
It's almost like I've addressed this already
Lord Damocles wrote: The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
Dudeface wrote:Just to clarify, if we get femarines, do we also get misters of battle please?
I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.
Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.
Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).
The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.
Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.
What does this have to do with four decades of space marine lore? There were no female space marines, and there should be no female space marines. Changing in setting things, on basis of some outside of the setting paradigmas, which do not enhance, but dimnish the setting is not the way to go. If female space marines were to exist, then SoS and SoB make no sense to be in the setting or they should go the way of the primaris and made in to space marines ASAP.
Ah I see you missed the point which I have repeatedly said : Lore is not static, Lore is not sacred, lore changes all the time under GW's purview. And because of that it only adds to the setting. You are using a lot of conjecture when we know why SoS are not space marines, and neither are the SoB. As they occupy very different opus operandi. And because of this they are not similar at all to one another. SoB are protectors of temples and holders of shrineworlds, SoS hunt down rogue psykers and bring them on blackships. They occupy no similarities to space marines other than having power armor.
So this comparision falls flat if you know anything about the imperium and its factions. A Space Marine happening to be male or female doesn't take away from anything as much as you have tried to make a point of. I have seen no evidence to suggest they would be different from one another. And seeing a gross simplification of imperial factions is par of the course for many in this discussion so far.
Marines DON'T exist. The only things that exist are pieces of resin, plastic, and metal that we push around on tables, and words on pages. Space Marines don't exist.
The lore exists, and it is more real, then then some claims that being male is a construct. If we were to go that road, then nothing is real, nothing exist, all argument is futile, and then only one thing matters. Who can force he others to do what you want. And then the gloves are off, and in case of of w40k. The chance that there is a large number of buyers, a crucial element to why GW does things, who want marines to be men is more probable. But I don't think people want to enter the world where what decides things is brute power and forcing others to do what the minority wants. We had that in the past, a few times, and it was never good.
Dudeface wrote:Just to clarify, if we get femarines, do we also get misters of battle please?
I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.
Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.
Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).
The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.
Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.
Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.
It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.
Dudeface wrote:Just to clarify, if we get femarines, do we also get misters of battle please?
I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.
By virtue of that there are also females in the space marines, because there are female serfs and slaves and crew members on space marines home worlds and in the ships of their fleets.
Codex. I said Codex. Where are these serfs in the codex?
The fact that the church has merc companies on permanent hire, and entire fleets of ships of rogue traders helping them ferry their dignitaries does not make any of those SoB. Because there can not be any male SoB, the imperial charter clearly says it "no man under arms".
So, priests, arco-flagellants, Crusaders, and other such models don't exist?
Men are in the SoB Codex. The same doesn't apply to Astartes.
Dudeface wrote:Just to clarify, if we get femarines, do we also get misters of battle please?
I mean, there's already men in the Sisters codex.
Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.
Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).
The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.
Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.
Absolutely so. And yet, just because Sisters wear power armour (not even the only faction to do so!), they're considered the same as Astartes. It's genuinely laughable how much of a reductive take it is.
What next? Space Wolves and Votann being considered the same because they have Norse theming?
Lord Damocles wrote: The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.
Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.
Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).
The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.
Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.
Crusaders are not SoB. They do not count as military, the same way police in our world doesn't count as one. Power armour, or weapons do not make you a SoB or a marine. Neither is it, being bio modified. Goliaths in necromunda are more or less redesigned thunder warriors. Assasins can and are more gene moded then marines. They can also run around in power armour. What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers. That is why the primaris were such a big problem for some chapters. Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.
It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.
Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.
It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.
Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.
Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.
It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.
Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.
Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
Karol wrote: What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers.
Sorry, what sort of weird nonsense is this? You need to be respected to be considered a Space Marine?
Sweet lordy that's a new one.
Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.
Yeah - and the Flesh Tearers were stupid. No-one looks at the Flesh Tearers and says "oh yes, what a reasonable and enlightened Chapter" - they're known even within the Blood Angels successors to be a bit loopy and backwards. The Flesh Tearers are an awful example of what Astartes consider to be reasonable or standard.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Except the men aren't part of the Adepta Sororitas. Whether it be the Orders Militant, the Order Famulous, the Orders Dialogus, and the Orders Hospitaller.
It's a bit like claiming the Chapter Serf is a Space Marine because they work near or alongside them which you can claim the Space Marines have women in them because they have both bondsman and bondswoman.
Yet, I can have a Priest leading Sisters of Battle on the tabletop. The same can't be said for a Chapter serf.
Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?
All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?
Karol wrote: What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers.
Sorry, what sort of weird nonsense is this? You need to be respected to be considered a Space Marine?
Sweet lordy that's a new one.
Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.
Yeah - and the Flesh Tearers were stupid. No-one looks at the Flesh Tearers and says "oh yes, what a reasonable and enlightened Chapter" - they're known even within the Blood Angels successors to be a bit loopy and backwards. The Flesh Tearers are an awful example of what Astartes consider to be reasonable or standard.
Yes. Other space marines have to accept you to be a space marine for you to be one. It always works like that in w40k and in real life. What does backwards mean in this situation? Because I don't understand the argument.
A female can not be an "angel of death" aka space marine. If GW decided it was possible, then why not make abhuman space marines too, or even xeno space marines.
I mean, there used to be a half-Eldar Librarian...
If female space marines were to exist, then SoS and SoB make no sense to be in the setting or they should go the way of the primaris and made in to space marines ASAP.
This is like saying that Guard make no sense in the setting because Marines exist. They're different military organisations entirely. The existence of one has no bearing on the validity of the other.
Yep they are called crusaders. and they are some badass models.
Sisters of Battle are just one part of arm of Ministorium, Zealots exist. Hell they even power armor in some cases. They are just monks, just like how there are nuns (sisters of battle).
The closest analogue to the Sisters of Battle are the Tempestus Scions. Who are the arm of the Imperial Army and Scholastica.
Again people who don't know their lore will probably not realize that.
Crusaders are not SoB. They do not count as military, the same way police in our world doesn't count as one. Power armour, or weapons do not make you a SoB or a marine. Neither is it, being bio modified. Goliaths in necromunda are more or less redesigned thunder warriors. Assasins can and are more gene moded then marines. They can also run around in power armour. What makes someone a space marine is the physical, the mental, the biological and the acceptance of your peers. That is why the primaris were such a big problem for some chapters. Till the manifestation of the black rage, the Flesh Tearers didn't consider primaris to be Flesh Tearers, or even space marines. At best they were different coloured wierd version of ultramarines.
I am sorry did I say Crusaders were SoB or is everyone around me putting words in my mouth? Where did I claim that?
Taking the flesh tearers one of the most insane and out of whack chapters of the blood angels and their opinions is Ludicrous. Maybe the flesh tearers are not the ones we should listen to for stately advice. Especially when we know most chapters were quite accepting... Including the Dark Angels.
So again the idea is that there is no difference at that level of gene editting marines had that your hormones would make any difference.Hormones are just chemicals so saying that a chemical is somehow overriding all of the gene editting you get is crazy. Would it be painful, it already is. Most aspirants don't survive. So one happening to be a female wouldn't make much of a difference other than increasing the number who survive.
Lord Damocles wrote: The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.
Yeah the designers can say what they like, but having canon changing on a whim is bad - for the reasons I stated.
'Oh you modelled your female Ultramarines to represent those who took part in the battle of Ursis VI? That's cool. But we've changed the background so that the Ultramarines weren't on Ursis VI anymore. Also Calgar is a bear now. Deal with it'.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?
All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?
Oh that's mostly because I refuse your actual FSM idea's completely. Adding additional content that is close to fulfilling things is alright, but the whole "Lore is completely meaningless but I need this specific bit forced in" I also refuse.
Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.
I went to a sports high school. I am not in my first year of sports collage. My major is wrestling. Do you want to hear what happened to some team tournaments, student exchanges etc, when some countries decided to go very fluid on the term what is considered to be a male and female wrestler? Because those things are 100% real, with 100% application to life of someone doing professional and school sports. Such changes always come slow, and everyone says that they are not going to hurt anyone and that they are made to be inclusive. And then when they happen and you speak against them, suddenly the world isn't inclusive and you are being told that the new is the norm, to be follow without and exeptions or diviation.
I've known female military members who can outrun and deal with pain better than most men. So again. this comparision falls flat on its face. Yet milage may vary based real life experiences so again, no barring on this discusion there mate. There really is only hormone differences but other than that, this arguments falls apart when you remember "space marines are gene editted and are pumped full of so many different organs they are no longer human."
How many times are Marines referred to as Human? Trick question most times they aren't! They are transhuman. They no longer have gender or really any identity other than being a battle brother or a space marine. Thats what they are. So comparing real life situations to a fantasy situation where a girl can be editted and pumped full of so many organs they are no longer human by all accounts. So their gender identity and hormones stop really mattering at all.
Lord Damocles wrote: The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.
Yeah the designers can say what they like, but having canon changing on a whim is bad - for the reasons I stated.
'Oh you modelled your female Ultramarines to represent those who took part in the battle of Ursis VI? That's cool. But we've changed the background so that the Ultramarines weren't on Ursis VI anymore. Also Calgar is a bear now. Deal with it'.
Okay so your discounting everyones opinion, including sources of authority because your more right than them? How can we take any discussion or any opinion you espouse seriously if you don't want to hear them.
I've never seen someone so easily and effortlessly just shoot their opinions in the foot by saying "I don't acknowledge other people opinions exist and my opinion matters more."
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?
All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?
What is the flagship faction of four decades suppose to change in its in setting lore, to represent some outside of the setting aspects of life. And if the argument is used to force female marines in to space marines, why wouldn't it be used to also force males or xeno in to something else. Why can't there be orc space marines ? I mean if anything goes, then anything goes. But somehow the thing that has to change is always the space with males in them. They have to become inclusive. GW is high scifi. Stuff like implants, gene therapies are a common things on anything, but the most back world planets. Even if humanity dropped from the tech level of the golden age, one could expect any irregularities to be fixed probably even pre birth.
Andykp wrote: The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.
That's not the argument. Nice strawman though.
What is the arguement then?
It's almost like I've addressed this already
Lord Damocles wrote: The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
But lore changes with every codex release anyway. Dropping a throw away point from 40 years ago that has the bad luck of being republished when someone cares enough to remind us that it existed isn't going to ruin someones enjoyment of 40k. It might just add to a few people's fun.
Karol wrote: And if the argument is used to force female marines in to space marines, why wouldn't it be used to also force males or xeno in to something else. Why can't there be orc space marines ?.
To paraphase some comedian or other - Remember when we gave women the vote... and then we couldn't stop ourselves, and gave the vote to dogs, and cows, and lawnmowers?
Making a change doesn't automatically mean that nothing matters and everything else should also change.
Having said that, a chapter of experimental Marines bred from Orks sounds like a fantastic story hook, to be honest.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The issue I'm having is with this idea of "done right".
What is "done right"? Who determines it? On what criteria is something "done right"? What's "done right" to one person might not be for someone else.
As I've said - I want you to enjoy what YOU want - your Salamanders being red eyed and with jet-black skin, or so on. Why does someone having something else matter to you?
So why do you say "inclusivity, no thank you", when you could instead be saying "I don't want my stuff to be taken away".
You can't blame people for getting their backs up when your actual words ("inclusivity, no thank you") aren't what you mean, and then get mad about it! If you mean something, say that, and not "inclusivity, no thank you" - which is bound to cause a concern.
If you mean "I don't want something I like to be taken away from me in the name of inclusivity" - good news! You don't need to change your army or models if you like them as they are. Let people enjoy the new stuff.
I don't think I need to take your advice on how representation "should" and "should not" make me feel, and I think you need to understand that. Why is it hard to understand/empathise that someone might find enjoyment in a Space Marine being representative of the other ~50% of the population.
Again - Space Marines aren't aliens. They're made from humans - and as much as we want to call them transhuman, either we lean further into their transhumanity and remove their male-ness, or we make their human origins more fair. Which one should we do?
"Done right" is subjective, but I expect a fitting way to introduce female Marines. I gave some examples myself in this thread. Others did likewise. If they want to introduce this concept, it is GW's responsibility to get it right. Just as an example for my personal preference: I expect more than a "Cawl did it" or "the original lore was written in a different age and time. In order to better represent the world of today we reactively retcon every mentioning of this and it was always possible.".
"inclusivity, no thank you" does not stand in my other post by itself. It is accompanied by several lines and posts of explanation to put it into context.
If you want to argue with "it does not hurt you to have it changed" then I throw the ball back at you and tell you it doesn't hurt you if female Marines only exist in your headcannon. You can kitbash your Marines as much as you want, GW is not policing wether you put female heads on your miniatures and even the anti-fem posters here stated several times that they would play with you. I find this a silly way of arguing. And on an abstract level: Yes I do lose something. The setting loses something. What does the Galactic Empire in Star Wars lose from being open to Xenos (apart from that one Admiral)? What does a medieval fantasy setting based on Africa lose from having the majority of its characters being caucasian and asian? What do Japanese studios lose from including a western exchange student in every anime so I can better relate and identify with them?
I even wrote something about Space Marines being less "humanised" and relatable, less heroic individuals in the setting as an angle to introduce female bodies into the meatgrinder in an earlier post. If I have to choose: Make them less human.
Asherian Command wrote: I like the fact that the anti-fem space marine debate has so far been people who act like the lore is sacred texts.
When its repeatedly been shown by GW it doesn't care.
And continues to do so with every lore updates. From Primaris, to the return of the Voltann, to the recontextualizing of the Eldar / Aeldari, and the possible return of the Primarchs.
I get it that many people have an identity with this hobby. But that doesn't help with the discussion here. No one is telling anyone here that your hobby changes will effect you completely. When from its history space marine kits will always produced more and make up half of all Gamesworkshop sales. And the idea of expanding that audience to have nerdy women or transwoman or even transman to enjoy the hobby by having something that represents the 40k setting isn't a bad thing. There are issues in over representation but just adding female space marines is not that. When we have in the past ten or twenty years changed the face of space marines to be multicultural, along with most of 40k as well... There is no reason not to be fine with it other than just being toxic on the discussion platform here or anywhere for not wanting it cause 'girls' can't be a space marine.
When we know for certain that a female space marine would be indistinguishable from a male one, in both performance and role.
40k History is not 'sacred' nor is it static, it is constantly changing with each edition. Every edition changes up the setting and the history. We've had so many intrepretations of just the horus heresy, that each one is radically different from the other in presentation.
1. Misrepresenting the other side in an argument does not help your argument, like.. at all.
2. Neither does "everybody who is against my opinion is toxic".
3. "GW doesn't care so why should you as a fan" isn't as strong as an argument as you think it is.
Same goes for you and the part about it not being mentioned anywhere recently is wrong. A Horus Heresy book had it printed in it. Release: Last year. GW not mentioning something in a book every now and then is not a proper way how to distinguish between "lore that is still valid" and otherwise.
Lord Damocles wrote: The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
Thats been addressed several times by people. Where we even have posted quotes from designers and developers saying that lore is fluid and not static. Lore will consistently change based on the whims of GW. Treating it like sacred text and that adding female space marines somehow harms the universe at large is one a gross simplification, and two hyperbole. It would not change anything, it would not hurt anything but only would add to the setting because of how real history works. Again this has be debated at length.
Yeah the designers can say what they like, but having canon changing on a whim is bad - for the reasons I stated.
'Oh you modelled your female Ultramarines to represent those who took part in the battle of Ursis VI? That's cool. But we've changed the background so that the Ultramarines weren't on Ursis VI anymore. Also Calgar is a bear now. Deal with it'.
Okay so your discounting everyones opinion, including sources of authority because your more right than them? How can we take any discussion or any opinion you espouse seriously if you don't want to hear them.
I've never seen someone so easily and effortlessly just shoot their opinions in the foot by saying "I don't acknowledge other people opinions exist and my opinion matters more."
I acknowledge that their opinions exist. They're just bad arguments for changing canon.
You making an argument from authority is a bad argument.
The supposed authorities (I'm guessing we wouldn't be taking Goto's word on anything?) [supposedly] saying that lore is fluid is a bad argument in support of changing things.
I've known female military members who can outrun and deal with pain better than most men. So again. this comparision falls flat on its face. Because there is hormone differences but other than that, this arguments falls apart when you remember "space marines are gene editted and are pumped full of so many different organs they are no longer human."
I spent all my life in sports schools. I am now at a sports collage now. There is no woman in the world, that could win majority of 10 bouts with me in my age and weight class. The arguments doesn't come apart, because space marines do not take the avarge men. They don't take all men. They take the best of the best BOYS, and most of those fail. If you took the 10 best wreslers , which is my major, 2 from each weight class and made them fight 10 best wrestlers from same weight classes that were women. All women would lose. And in higher weight classes it would be actualy life threatning considering the difference in power.
How many times are Marines referred to as Human? Trick question most times they aren't! They are transhuman. They no longer have gender or really any identity other than being a battle brother or a space marine. Thats what they are. So comparing real life situations to a fantasy situation where a girl can be editted and pumped full of so many organs they are no longer human by all accounts. So their gender identity and hormones stop really mattering at all.
You don't have to mention the fact that a dog is an animal in every second sentance about a book or movie about dogs. Everyone knows that dogs are humans. Space marines are made out of boys, this makes them human.
Also, I see you don't know much about hormon and steroids, if you tried to pump women with the amounts of steroids men can and are willing to take, they die. Their body can't survive the stress. You don't go If I pump X amount of Y in to a woman I will get a female the size of Ronnie Coleman. That is a biological reality. In the w40k world, this means that if a space marine chapters has a 100 to 1 aspirant survival rate, and some chapters like the GK have much lower, a female aspirant, assuming they would somehow survive the implantation and gene theraphy would have to be a litteral mutant to survive or achive it through divine intervention. And there is already a faction for females in w40k who do divine interventions. Those are the Sisters of Battle.
Yes, I do. Gender is not the same as sex, and gender is explicitly a human/anthropomorphic construct. If you make Space Marines inhuman, you make them agender, but because Space Marines are still identifiably human, they have identifiable gender.
Really? Because Orks aren't human, and yet they are "boyz" and are "masculine", even though sexually they reproduce via spores. Are those not gendered terms?
Pretty sure Tau have male and female too, and use gendered terms.
They are certainly weapons of war though, I'll give you that.
That's because that's what they are. The question is, do we lean harder into "Space Marines are biological weapons of war with no other purpose", in which case we need to make them less "male" and more "inhuman" looking, or we lean into the "these are super-humans" and have a range of "humans" shown?
They already look monstrous. Most humans don't have marine proportions and statures, not to mention some of the more esoteric mutations. If it weren't for their direct connection to the Emperor they'd most likely be branded as Abhumans.
If anything what needs to be more "inhuman" is how they act; less heroes, more butchers.
That's not to say that I would be opposed to more...extreme phenotypes.
1. Misrepresenting the other side in an argument does not help your argument, like.. at all.
I have not once misrepresented anyones opinions. I have made fun of opinions for their anti-logical takes, and quoting me out of context and jumping to conclusions. But that quote of "They accept the lore as holy texts." When by all accounts that is how they are representing it. And not explaining how or why it would change the entire setting if someone like a space marine happened to be female.
2. Neither does "everybody who is against my opinion is toxic".
Hmm? Where? Nice read.
3. "GW doesn't care so why should you as a fan" isn't as strong as an argument as you think it is.
Not my quote! My point is that they change based on whim and lore editions and just because they don't see it being trustworthy. I have said this so many times in this thread, I have no idea how you can read my opinion and not come across it. And when I post opinions and objectively higher sources it is ignored for nonsense because people here on this thread assume that 40k is a core part of their identity. So they are more likely to act toxic and make up horrible comparisions like comparing humans to dogs. When we call space marines more than human, when they are.
GW does care abouts IP and will change it because they have shown repeatedly throughout most of their stories, that history in 40k is largely mythologized. I hate repeating this point because at this time for how many times I've said it. And they have recontextualized their lore many times now, and will continue to do so. this constant back and forth against anti and pro is just the Anti-crowd not facing the reality that Female Space Marines will be a thing. It will be a part of the lore and it will be a change that really doesn't make as big of a splash as many have said it would.
It won't change characters, it won't change events, it won't change critical parts of this universe. It wouldn't do anything but add to it.
Lore in 40k is fluid, it always has been from its earliest edition, to its latest. Having people in authority who repeat this phrasing quite often is an example of that. Its not this nihilistic nothing matters and everything written has no meaning, but more of all history should be taken with a grain of salt. As I have mentioned before, for a long time, many players were convinced, either by not reading the stories they come from or taking the wiki's as 100% fact. And not historical accounts that are deeply flawed. We were convinced for ages, that the Ultramarines had elements of the lost legion, people were convinced Sigisimund was from the Lost Legion. Yet when you read those passages, you learn that one, the person who said it was a word bearer talking about an ultramarine, so highly suspect source of whom said it. Or the one who suggested about the First Captain of the Imperial Fists, was an out of context quote about Sigisimund. So again lore is such a subject of narrative bias, or just being myth or legend. We don't know what really happened in most of these circumstances, neither does the imperium.
So we must take everything in 40k with a grain of salt. And with the idea that we might be being lied to. Especially if the source who says it might not be at all trustworthy.
Yes, I do. Gender is not the same as sex, and gender is explicitly a human/anthropomorphic construct. If you make Space Marines inhuman, you make them agender, but because Space Marines are still identifiably human, they have identifiable gender.
Really? Because Orks aren't human, and yet they are "boyz" and "masculine", even though sexually they reproduce via spores. Are those not gendered terms?
Pretty sure Tau have male and female too, and use gendered terms.
Even Necrons have girls, and they don't even have dangly bits anymore.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?
All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?
What is the flagship faction of four decades suppose to change in its in setting lore, to represent some outside of the setting aspects of life.
Yes. Women exist. Why aren't they part of the flagship faction?
And if the argument is used to force female marines in to space marines, why wouldn't it be used to also force males or xeno in to something else. Why can't there be orc space marines ?
Do xenos and orks exist in real life?
But somehow the thing that has to change is always the space with males in them.
That's not true, and you know it. You're being hyperbolic.
They have to become inclusive. GW is high scifi. Stuff like implants, gene therapies are a common things on anything, but the most back world planets. Even if humanity dropped from the tech level of the golden age, one could expect any irregularities to be fixed probably even pre birth.
And this has to do with the subject because...
Also, brilliant! So you're saying that the Imperium could fix, say, the fact that gene-seed allegedly doesn't work on women? Because, you know, "GW is high scifi" (which, pssst, isn't true).
a_typical_hero wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The issue I'm having is with this idea of "done right".
What is "done right"? Who determines it? On what criteria is something "done right"? What's "done right" to one person might not be for someone else.
As I've said - I want you to enjoy what YOU want - your Salamanders being red eyed and with jet-black skin, or so on. Why does someone having something else matter to you?
So why do you say "inclusivity, no thank you", when you could instead be saying "I don't want my stuff to be taken away".
You can't blame people for getting their backs up when your actual words ("inclusivity, no thank you") aren't what you mean, and then get mad about it! If you mean something, say that, and not "inclusivity, no thank you" - which is bound to cause a concern.
If you mean "I don't want something I like to be taken away from me in the name of inclusivity" - good news! You don't need to change your army or models if you like them as they are. Let people enjoy the new stuff.
I don't think I need to take your advice on how representation "should" and "should not" make me feel, and I think you need to understand that. Why is it hard to understand/empathise that someone might find enjoyment in a Space Marine being representative of the other ~50% of the population.
Again - Space Marines aren't aliens. They're made from humans - and as much as we want to call them transhuman, either we lean further into their transhumanity and remove their male-ness, or we make their human origins more fair. Which one should we do?
"Done right" is subjective, but I expect a fitting way to introduce female Marines. I gave some examples myself in this thread. Other did likewise. If they want to introduce this concept, it is GW's responsibility to get it right. Just as an example for my personal preference: I expect more than a "Cawl did it" or "the original lore was written in a different age and time. In order to better represent the world of today we reactively retcon every mentioning of this and it was always possible.".
Okay, but that is still a subjectivity. The main point is that there IS a solution, fundamentally.
"inclusivity, no thank you" does not stand in my other post by itself. It is accompanied by several lines and posts of explanation to put it into context.
However, it DOES stand as the end of a sentence, as a closing remark. Again, it couldn't have hurt to have used a different phrase. It's still plenty fine to say "hey, yeah, my bad, I worded that badly".
If you want to argue with "it does not hurt you to have it changed" then I throw the ball back at you and tell you it doesn't hurt you if female Marines only exist in your headcannon. You can kitbash your Marines as much as you want, GW is not policing wether you put female heads on your miniatures and even the anti-fem posters here stated several times that they would play with you. I find this a silly way of arguing.
Except I'm still putting up with the endless stream of "NON CANON!!!" or "WOW SO WOKE" from those same anti-FSM individuals (not that I would play them) in a way that I don't face when I play a homebrew colour scheme, which is equally non-canonical.
Why does legitimacy hurt you?
And on an abstract level: Yes I do lose something. The setting loses something. What does the Galactic Empire in Star Wars lose from being open to Xenos (apart from that one Admiral)? What does a medieval fantasy setting based on Africa lose from having the majority of its characters being caucasian and asian? What do Japanese studios lose from including a western exchange student in every anime so I can better relate and identify with them?
The setting in 40k is also EXPLICITLY massive, and that it's not a comprehensive universe.
And like you say, Star Wars breaks their rule when convenient. Why is that tolerable?
I even wrote something about Space Marines being less "humanised" and relatable, less heroic individuals in the setting as an angle to introduce female bodies into the meatgrinder in an earlier post. If I have to choose: Make them less human.
And I actually agree with that! I would much prefer that Space Marines be made even more inhuman and monstrous, and entirely get rid of their "male"-ness.
I've actually given that same offer to anti-FSM folks - and none of them have addressed it.
Yes, I do. Gender is not the same as sex, and gender is explicitly a human/anthropomorphic construct. If you make Space Marines inhuman, you make them agender, but because Space Marines are still identifiably human, they have identifiable gender.
Really?
Yes. Please, read a textbook on the idea of gender and phenomenology.
Because Orks aren't human, and yet they are "boyz" and "masculine", even though sexually they reproduce via spores. Are those not gendered terms?
They are gendered terms because we, humans, created them - and when I talk about that, I mean that we created them, as the fictional creatures they are.
They are gendered because humans are gendered.
Pretty sure Tau have male and female too, and use gendered terms.
Because they are written to be humanoid - humanoid not as in "bipedal four limbs and head", but as in "human-like". Meanwhile, Space Marines are supposed to be described as inhuman, beyond humanity and the human experience - such as gender.
How can a Space Marine be a transhuman, post-humanity killing machine, when it has a gender. Why would it have a gender?
They are certainly weapons of war though, I'll give you that.
That's because that's what they are. The question is, do we lean harder into "Space Marines are biological weapons of war with no other purpose", in which case we need to make them less "male" and more "inhuman" looking, or we lean into the "these are super-humans" and have a range of "humans" shown?
They already look monstrous.
Nonsense. Space Marine heads are heroic, rugged, arguably handsome. They're not inhuman. They're not freakish to look at. They're functionally so normal they can be used for human conversions!
Most humans don't have marine proportions and statures, not to mention some of the more esoteric mutations. If it weren't for their direct connection to the Emperor they'd most likely be branded as Abhumans. If anything what needs to be more "inhuman" is how they act; less heroes, more butchers.
I'm talking about their models. The way their models are portrayed, with handsome features, heroic gazes, and steely grimaces. They're not monstrous looking. They're action heroes.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?
All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?
Oh that's mostly because I refuse your actual FSM idea's completely. Adding additional content that is close to fulfilling things is alright, but the whole "Lore is completely meaningless but I need this specific bit forced in" I also refuse.
So, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
Stay strong, you'll get there in the end.
Lore is meaningless, and I want it forced in so that you know it. /jk
You refuse anything that isn't "Female Space Marines in 40k" and your arguments are there to get to that point whether logic or emotion. You have been arguing in bad faith for ages on that account that's for sure. As you said "Women exist, why aren't they part of X?" Because there's lore that says otherwise. Which is a disingenuous argument from you of "Everything has to have both or else it's wrong and must be forced to change".
ZebioLizard2 wrote:I refuse your actual FSM idea's completely. Adding additional content that is close to fulfilling things is alright, but the whole "Lore is completely meaningless but I need this specific bit forced in" I also refuse.
So, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
Stay strong, you'll get there in the end.
Lore is meaningless, and I want it forced in so that you know it. /jk
You refuse anything that isn't "Female Space Marines in 40k" and your arguments are there to get to that point whether logic or emotion. You have been arguing in bad faith for ages on that account that's for sure.
Bad faith? I'm simply waiting to see a compelling argument - and you ain't got one.
Ironically, it's actually the other way around. I *used* to parrot the same "no, FSM would suck, Sisters of Battle are the same thing, the lore is important!!" stuff - and then I realised that I was so, so, so very wrong. I was convinced by actually good arguments that I was mistaken.
As you said "Women exist, why aren't they part of X?" Because there's lore that says otherwise.
And why does that matter? What value does that lore have? Why does lore mean more than this?
Which is a disingenuous argument from you of "Everything has to have both or else it's wrong and must be forced to change".
I’ve only been looking at this thread a little while and it’s exhausting, I think it’s because we have the same inane arguments from people all the time.
The only up side is each time we do it, it gets a little better. Te numbers go up, the thread lists longer, the horrible comments seem to get less frequent and less horrible.
3 or 4 years ago this thread would have been killed off instantly, now the mods let it happen and keep it civil, that’s progress. Last we did this thread by this many posts there were some really hateful things been said, now the counter arguments against female marines come across more as childish or laughable as opposed to insulting of hateful. That’s another little bit of progress.
What we are talking about here is making it a bit easier for a kid to be able to look at the hobby and think “I want to do that” and not be scared off. That kid may or may not be a girl, but them seeing a huge poster of a woman in power armour looking bad ass as feth might interest them, and it might stop donkey caves in the shop saying that this hobby isn’t for them.
You all accepted lore changes every edition when they brought out new units and vehicles marines had never had before, when whole new races appeared, new characters, new gods. What’s so scary about a female marine?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Right then. We add Chapter Serfs and that fixes the problem of not having females in the Space Marines. I'd agree to that.
Why? I never said that it would fix that problem. What gave you that impression?
All I stated was that there already men in the Sororitas codex. Not that it had anything at all to do with my feelings on FSM. Why would anything to do with Sisters, a completely different faction, have to do with my thoughts on Astartes, the flagship faction?
Oh that's mostly because I refuse your actual FSM idea's completely. Adding additional content that is close to fulfilling things is alright, but the whole "Lore is completely meaningless but I need this specific bit forced in" I also refuse.
So, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
Stay strong, you'll get there in the end.
Lore is meaningless, and I want it forced in so that you know it. /jk
You refuse anything that isn't "Female Space Marines in 40k" and your arguments are there to get to that point whether logic or emotion. You have been arguing in bad faith for ages on that account that's for sure. As you said "Women exist, why aren't they part of X?" Because there's lore that says otherwise. Which is a disingenuous argument from you of "Everything has to have both or else it's wrong and must be forced to change".
Lore that is highly suspect and is the first one of its kind to ever say it and comes from a horus heresy rulebook from a legion which is highly suspect. Again not all lore is 'holy text' its flawed and the lore in general must be taken with grains of salt. As it is highly subjective bias by the writers in 40k, there is no omniprescent narrator but subjects of opinion from characters who might've not even been there. Again 40k and 30k are largely mythologized. So He is right.
Women do exist, and its weird that the space marines for as little as they are human wouldn't have female intiates / neophytes. But at that point they are no longer a female human they are a Space Marine. They won't change. And this idea that it changes everything and that it will irreputably harm the lore is very illogical and hyperbole. No one here has come up with reasons why a space marine can't be female. Without going into actual sexist language based on old science. When we know for all intents and purposes the biological science that goes into making a space marine renders the neophyte no longer human. By all accounts the idea of it only be 'males' is just glossing over how little difference genetically there are between male and female when all it is a chromosome.
It is very easy to forget that not only is sex a spectrum but many people live their lives not knowing how close they are to the other gender or how many people have to take gender reaffirming care that helps deal with hormonal imbalances. So the idea that its only men is very old and antiqued and really doesn't make any logical sense if you know anything about the human body. Female or Male if they are put on the operating table and are given these organs for a space marine, they are no longer human by any account, they are space marines, which has been repeated by Every single space marine character for the last 40 years.
1. Misrepresenting the other side in an argument does not help your argument, like.. at all.
I have not once misrepresented anyones opinions. I have made fun of opinions for their anti-logical takes, and quoting me out of context and jumping to conclusions. But that quote of "They accept the lore as holy texts." When by all accounts that is how they are representing it. And not explaining how or why it would change the entire setting if someone like a space marine happened to be female.
That would be a misrepresentation of my opinion, for one.
I think Space Marines are best set as all-male, but at the same time I advocate for female Custodes, which, to my knowledge, would be a lore change. So no, lore is not a holy text.
Andykp wrote: I’ve only been looking at this thread a little while and it’s exhausting, I think it’s because we have the same inane arguments from people all the time.
The only up side is each time we do it, it gets a little better. Te numbers go up, the thread lists longer, the horrible comments seem to get less frequent and less horrible.
3 or 4 years ago this thread would have been killed off instantly, now the mods let it happen and keep it civil, that’s progress. Last we did this thread by this many posts there were some really hateful things been said, now the counter arguments against female marines come across more as childish or laughable as opposed to insulting of hateful. That’s another little bit of progress.
What we are talking about here is making it a bit easier for a kid to be able to look at the hobby and think “I want to do that” and not be scared off. That kid may or may not be a girl, but them seeing a huge poster of a woman in power armour looking bad ass as feth might interest them, and it might stop donkey caves in the shop saying that this hobby isn’t for them.
You all accepted lore changes every edition when they brought out new units and vehicles marines had never had before, when whole new races appeared, new characters, new gods. What’s so scary about a female marine?
IDK
I think lot of it boils down to how people tie their identity to 40k. For one we see this in modern media, when they change a characters skin color by all accounts doesn't mean crap, when all they are doing is changing the pigment. There is no differences between the two, but the fact they do it is better because in modern media it only helps people in general. Like a black space marine appearing on the Dawn of Fire books is great, we need more of that representation. We have changed characters 'race' in 40k because the imperium is a million worlds, there is no way in hell that everyone looks the same. This change is because GW has seen "Oh wait people actually like this and doesn't hurt us to do it."
Female marines wouldn't change anything really drastically its why I've been asking "Okay how does it change the entire lore." How is it butchering established lore? And most times we get no answers other jumping around the question and avoiding that question at all costs because they don't have one. They don't have answer for it, because they don't want to give it. Its been constant avoidance, and so far its mostly been very reasonable arguments from the Pro Side mostly because as someone who hated the idea of Female Space Marines, its because I grew up. And realized that it really doesn't matter.
If a little girl is happy to have a female space marine army. Or helk a friend of mine starting 40k because she gets to play a heroic band of space marines based on Mayan Culture with a famous Female Space Marine character then I think thats cool.
Its why AOS is great and a lot more accepting about change than the 40k fans are. Which is one of the major reasons i left the 40k community in general is for how toxic it is about any subject about change, like Primaris, or any change that 'hurts the sacred texts'.
1. Misrepresenting the other side in an argument does not help your argument, like.. at all.
I have not once misrepresented anyones opinions. I have made fun of opinions for their anti-logical takes, and quoting me out of context and jumping to conclusions. But that quote of "They accept the lore as holy texts." When by all accounts that is how they are representing it. And not explaining how or why it would change the entire setting if someone like a space marine happened to be female.
That would be a misrepresentation of my opinion, for one.
I think Space Marines are best set as all-male, but at the same time I advocate for female Custodes, which, to my knowledge, would be a lore change. So no, lore is not a holy text.
How would 'Female' Custodes work? They are basically post genetic constructs. Not Transhumans.
insaniak wrote: The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.
And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.
insaniak wrote: The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
Andykp wrote: The usual arguments again, YOU CANT CHANGE THE LORE, IT SACRED! From the same people who will buy all the gear and kits that have never been mentioned before in lore, and don’t seem to realise that the very lore they are so protective of has already been changed massively.
The original piece about male hormones comes from a section in the holly lore of 1st edition that says new chapters can only be made when the emperor says they can and he has examined the test slaves and sanctioned them??? How does he do that??
Also another snippet from that is the test selves them selves, that’s been dropped, no longer do 3 slaves have to live miserable conscious lives as experimental meat sacks knowing fully what is happening to them and suffering immeasurably to make a marine! (I really like that bit of lore but you won’t find it in a book today).
Speaking of not finding lore in books, you won’t find this sacred snippet about having to be all male in any marine codex ever or in print today, it was released in WD some years again but nowhere else since index Astartes.
Horus Heresy Rulebook. Recent.
Also your entire post is "The lore shouldn't matter and nobody should care" Which is an interesting view but one that is.. quite terrible. We should accept whatever just because? If Space Marines were turned into furry rabbits tomorrow it shouldn't matter?
The Horus Heresy is a different matter. The lore there is largely set in stone, unless GW introduces time travel shenanigans. 40K is ongoing, so its easier to change the lore because it can be tailored to reflect events currently going on in story.
insaniak wrote: The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.
And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.
insaniak wrote: The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
Unrealistic? In 40k?? OMG not that!
The key words were 'deeply problematic'. But focus on that, I guess.
Adeptekon wrote: I mean there were female space marines in the very beginning before there was much lore so maybe there's a story there. Otherwise I think it's more about insertion than what it actually adds to the present game/lore.
People keep repeating this, it's not accurate. They were female humans in power armor, not space marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
You won't attract more women to the hobby by doing this, so what's your real reason for supporting it?
Adeptekon wrote: I mean there were female space marines in the very beginning before there was much lore so maybe there's a story there. Otherwise I think it's more about insertion than what it actually adds to the present game/lore.
People keep repeating this, it's not accurate. They were female humans in power armor, not space marines.
But I thought that Sisters (humans in power armor) were the same as Marines?
Edit: You think it won’t. I think it would help-it won’t be immediate, but it can help shift attitudes to be more accepting.
There's more thematic reasons that I prefer the current paradigm too, being that the Imperium could have been doomed to fail from the start, and the shortcuts made in its founding are the reasons for it's failure. The idea of the hyper-patriarchy of it's founding leading almost directly to it's greatest flaws holds worthwhile resonance.
That's so much more thoughtful than "I want my space turbofascists to be gender-integrated!" lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But I thought that Sisters (humans in power armor) were the same as Marines?
If you think that that's on you.
JNAProductions wrote: Edit: You think it won’t. I think it would help-it won’t be immediate, but it can help shift attitudes to be more accepting.
Nah, other miniatures games don't have lots of women playing them. You know what game had the most women playing? Malifaux. You know what makes the difference? The setting isn't militarized, it's bands of adventurers and stuff fighting with each other. Most women don't want to play with sci-fi army men, not because they're men, but because they're *army.*
That was a reference to earlier in this thread-people who are against female Marines were saying that Sisters are basically that already.
I disagree.
And why are you calling me a liar? I honestly think that female Marines would have a positive impact on the hobby. You can disagree, but that doesn’t change my thoughts.
Lord Damocles wrote:rather than valuing it for and of itself.
It's a piece of fiction about toy soldiers. What value does it have "for and of itself"?
You don't think that stories or settings can have value simply *as* stories?
As works of art? (admittedly not very good art/literature in most of GW's output, but the point stands)
Not everything has to be driving an agenda or seeking to create or mirror some change in the real world.
As an aside, since you've now begun the phase of assigning me positions which I don't hold (thanks btw): I have no problem with 'women in my super soldiers' (or women in my wargames, or women in my xenos etc.). My issue is with changing or adding to canon (particularly - although by no means specifically - in order to meet an out-of-universe agenda) in ways which damage the cohesion/quality of the universe. This isn't a fem-Marines issue specifically, but since this is a thread about female Space Marines, that's what we're discussing here. I have the exact same fundamental objection to Calgar stealing someone else's identity when he was an aspirant, Doomscythes being FTL capable, human children being able to pilot Tau battlesuits, seemingly commonplace single crew warp-capable ships, and any number of other - individually possibly quite minor - changes which damage the overall universe/characters/story.
There's more thematic reasons that I prefer the current paradigm too, being that the Imperium could have been doomed to fail from the start, and the shortcuts made in its founding are the reasons for it's failure. The idea of the hyper-patriarchy of it's founding leading almost directly to it's greatest flaws holds worthwhile resonance.
That's so much more thoughtful than "I want my space turbofascists to be gender-integrated!" lol
ZebioLizard2 wrote:I refuse your actual FSM idea's completely. Adding additional content that is close to fulfilling things is alright, but the whole "Lore is completely meaningless but I need this specific bit forced in" I also refuse.
So, you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.
Stay strong, you'll get there in the end.
Lore is meaningless, and I want it forced in so that you know it. /jk
You refuse anything that isn't "Female Space Marines in 40k" and your arguments are there to get to that point whether logic or emotion. You have been arguing in bad faith for ages on that account that's for sure.
Bad faith? I'm simply waiting to see a compelling argument - and you ain't got one.
Ironically, it's actually the other way around. I *used* to parrot the same "no, FSM would suck, Sisters of Battle are the same thing, the lore is important!!" stuff - and then I realised that I was so, so, so very wrong. I was convinced by actually good arguments that I was mistaken.
As you said "Women exist, why aren't they part of X?" Because there's lore that says otherwise.
And why does that matter? What value does that lore have? Why does lore mean more than this?
Which is a disingenuous argument from you of "Everything has to have both or else it's wrong and must be forced to change".
I have no idea what this means.
If you were convinced by good arguments then you certainly are not presenting any of them.
What matter does that lore have? That's an easily turnaroundable statement given that if you want it changed so badly. There is no point to changing it if it isn't important, but it clearly is given how often you want it to change
1. Misrepresenting the other side in an argument does not help your argument, like.. at all.
I have not once misrepresented anyones opinions. I have made fun of opinions for their anti-logical takes, and quoting me out of context and jumping to conclusions. But that quote of "They accept the lore as holy texts." When by all accounts that is how they are representing it. And not explaining how or why it would change the entire setting if someone like a space marine happened to be female.
That would be a misrepresentation of my opinion, for one.
I think Space Marines are best set as all-male, but at the same time I advocate for female Custodes, which, to my knowledge, would be a lore change. So no, lore is not a holy text.
How would 'Female' Custodes work? They are basically post genetic constructs. Not Transhumans.
Genuinely I don't know specifics about Custodes, other than that they appear to be all-male. My impression was that they were just another version of "souped up human", but individually tailored, rather than the SM "standardized process".
But as I said, I'm also up for tweaking the lore there.
Insectum7 wrote: [Genuinely I don't know specifics about Custodes, other than that they appear to be all-male. My impression was that they were just another version of "souped up human", but individually tailored, rather than the SM "standardized process".
That's essentially it.
I also wouldn't have minded female Custodes; although with Sisters of Silence being re-integrated, I don't really think that it adds anything much beyond the meta inclusion of 'super women'.
insaniak wrote: The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.
And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.
insaniak wrote: The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
Unrealistic? In 40k?? OMG not that!
The key words were 'deeply problematic'. But focus on that, I guess.
Why? I was mocking yet another argument of "realism" in this (or in pretty much any other fantasy/sci-fi) game.
I also don't agree that it's problematic that there's no FM SM. You want a FM SM? Go glue some SoB heads on your minis.
It comes across as extremely arbitrary an exclusion.
As in, genetically, it would be MORE difficult to design things that DON'T work in women, than things that do. There are very few genes on the Y chromosome, and they don't do very much,
Women generate Testosterone without a Y, so you can't really tie it to that with a straight face.
Organ donations happen across chromosomal lines.
If it had a sensible context then that's one thing, but if when you look at it you had to go out of your way to create a no girls allowed sign, then it's pretty pointless.
The most laughable example is the blood angels. Their geneseed is so extreme it can reshape an entire person, making them look nothing like they originally did. But somehow it can't do that to XX people...
Of course, that says nothing about XXY people...
The sisters of battle can become the warriors of battle with the flick of a pen.
The primaris project would have been a perfect opportunity for them to 'discover' the original designs that worked on all people.
It would also be a great opportunity to show what a 'real' gengineered monster woman would look like - ie not a waif.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: As you said "Women exist, why aren't they part of X?" Because there's lore that says otherwise.
And why does that matter? What value does that lore have? Why does lore mean more than this?
You evidently place great value on the lore if you're so invested in changing it.
No, I see *your* value in it's use as a cudgel to batter people who want women in their super soldiers.
I see its value as an inspiration in promoting creativity. If it stops inspiring creativity, then it's not fit for purpose.
Yeah; so what I said was true. You just decided to be weirdly aggressive in confirming it for some reason. Thanks; I guess.
I'm outlining that we place different values on it. You use the lore as a hammer. I use it as a ladder. I genuinely do mean "what value does the lore have" as a question - a question that you confirmed to be as a tool of destruction as you see fit, not to freely empower players.
I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with that usage of creative fiction.
Lord Damocles wrote:rather than valuing it for and of itself.
It's a piece of fiction about toy soldiers. What value does it have "for and of itself"?
You don't think that stories or settings can have value simply *as* stories?
As someone who's life tends to revolve around storytelling, there's no such thing as "just stories", as I will explain below.
As works of art? (admittedly not very good art/literature in most of GW's output, but the point stands) Not everything has to be driving an agenda or seeking to create or mirror some change in the real world.
And that's where you're wrong - because art DOES mirror the real world, art DOES have agenda. The best art does, it's not some kind of facile "art for the sake of art" BS - even art that DOES choose to make that statement does so IN CONTRAST to other art. There is no such thing as apolitical art, and the fact you don't know that tells me that you have enough media literacy to adequately argue that a story should exist for its own sake.
As an aside, since you've now begun the phase of assigning me positions which I don't hold (thanks btw):
Like which? That you use the lore to demonise people's inspirations? You're doing just that.
I have no problem with 'women in my super soldiers' (or women in my wargames, or women in my xenos etc.). My issue is with changing or adding to canon (particularly - although by no means specifically - in order to meet an out-of-universe agenda) in ways which damage the cohesion/quality of the universe. This isn't a fem-Marines issue specifically, but since this is a thread about female Space Marines, that's what we're discussing here. I have the exact same fundamental objection to Calgar stealing someone else's identity when he was an aspirant, Doomscythes being FTL capable, human children being able to pilot Tau battlesuits, seemingly commonplace single crew warp-capable ships, and any number of other - individually possibly quite minor - changes which damage the overall universe/characters/story.
And lucky you, those are canon now. So, what's important? The lore, or YOUR lore?
ZebioLizard2 wrote:If you were convinced by good arguments then you certainly are not presenting any of them.
Alternatively, some folks just aren't going to be convinced. I never claimed to be a good orator either.
What matter does that lore have? That's an easily turnaroundable statement given that if you want it changed so badly. There is no point to changing it if it isn't important, but it clearly is given how often you want it to change
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
Hellebore wrote: As in, genetically, it would be MORE difficult to design things that DON'T work in women, than things that do. There are very few genes on the Y chromosome, and they don't do very much,
You're making some assumptions about biology from a very ignorant viewpoint. the Astartes creation process is such sci fi tech that when they say "it only works on male humans" that's fairly plausible.
As a story arc,it would increase the Space Marines army 100 fold or more to fight off a losing battle.
However, why? Is this a woke thing? Or a way to make GW sell women space marines in a hobby that is 95% male and thus have males fantasize about play them?
Personally, I am neutral on it. So, why not and see where it goes.
Hellebore wrote: As in, genetically, it would be MORE difficult to design things that DON'T work in women, than things that do. There are very few genes on the Y chromosome, and they don't do very much,
You're making some assumptions about biology from a very ignorant viewpoint. the Astartes creation process is such sci fi tech that when they say "it only works on male humans" that's fairly plausible.
Not really, because the people who wrote that had no understanding of genetics, how it works, or how little difference there is between men and women. They just started from the phenotype.
Scifi tech would make it easier to make all people this way, not harder. That's my point. There is no logical way you could go about designing augmentation and engineering of the human body in such a way that 'naturally' resulted in only men being compatible. Because women are compatible with everything men are already. You would have to deliberately exclude them in the design process.
My argument isn't whether you could or couldn't exclude women. My argument is that it's not a 'shucks genetics is a bitch' moment where they just ended up that way. It would have had to be a deliberate design decision.
No amount of scifi tech hand waving can generate a naturally exclusionary outcome.
And so, because it would need to be deliberate to happen in the first place, it can also be undone.
I only want female Custodes if I can also get Females of Iron! No wait, Womyn of Iron. And please give my Sisters of Silence the ability to put chemicals in the water, that turn the friggin frogs gay.
I've pruned a lot of inappropriate chatter out of the thread. Once again, folks, the 'fetish' discussion adds nothing productive here. Further posts along that line, or continued personal digs at other posters, will result in suspensions.
insaniak wrote: I've pruned a lot of inappropriate chatter out of the thread. Once again, folks, the 'fetish' discussion adds nothing productive here. Further posts along that line, or continued personal digs at other posters, will result in suspensions.
It's the elephant in the room that you're not acknowledging, I'll be honest. Also, there have been plenty of atrocious things said by the pro-female space marine side that I reported that you didn't do anything about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hellebore wrote: Not really, because the people who wrote that had no understanding of genetics, how it works, or how little difference there is between men and women. They just started from the phenotype.
Did you get your knowledge of human endocrinology from a biology course or a gender studies one?
Is it really so hard to believe that the imperium could have a breakthrough in tech that allows the process to work on females? Add it on as part of a new story so that it doesn’t destroy the lore. Seems like a win-win
Did you get your knowledge of human endocrinology from a biology course or a gender studies one?
Sounds like you have a particular position on gender studies you don't like and have made many assumptions about arguments put forward as a result. This question clearly implies that bias based on what answer I give.
I have no need to give a justification of my qualifications, as argument from authority is fallacious.
Testosterone interacts with XX people's bodies just as it interacts with XY bodies, regardless of gonad differentiation (ovaries and testes both produce testosterone and the body interacts with it the same way, muscle/hair growth etc).
https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/24/4/466/2424411?login=false
The SRY gene protein causes testes differentiation of primordial gonads. That is the single biggest difference and effect between male and female genetics.
To clarify my position.
I have no issue with the fictional inequality of excluding women from the process of becoming a space marine.
I have an issue with the argument that women can't be space marines, because 'science', as if it in any way actually supports that position.
Human genetics is not any kind of defense for this position.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Is it really so hard to believe that the imperium could have a breakthrough in tech that allows the process to work on females? Add it on as part of a new story so that it doesn’t destroy the lore. Seems like a win-win
That would work, but then you've got the 'why?'
Why would they want to increase the recruitment pool when the majority of Chapters have plenty of male aspirants already?
Why would any significant number of women be likely to pass the trials ahead of almost certainly physically stronger males?
Why would the Imperium want to risk Marines being able to reproduce?
Why would the Imperium want to change the status quo when one of the central themes of the Imperium is stagnation and slow regression? (/why would the writers want this narratively?)
Why would the Chapters accept such meddling with their precious gene-stock?
The reason for doing it would be almost entirely a meta reason.
Hellebore wrote: I have an issue with the argument that women can't be space marines, because 'science', as if it in any way actually supports that position.
Human genetics is not any kind of defense for this position.
Huh? Male and female human bodies are different, they can react differently to the same stimulus, *especially* with respect to hormones. It's very plausible to imagine a process that works successfully on male humans but not on female humans.
There are ways to support that argument with what we know of human biology; the fact that it frustrates you is beside the point.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Is it really so hard to believe that the imperium could have a breakthrough in tech that allows the process to work on females? Add it on as part of a new story so that it doesn’t destroy the lore. Seems like a win-win
That would work, but then you've got the 'why?'
Why would they want to increase the recruitment pool when the majority of Chapters have plenty of male aspirants already?
Why would any significant number of women be likely to pass the trials ahead of almost certainly physically stronger males?
Why would the Imperium want to risk Marines being able to reproduce?
Why would the Imperium want to change the status quo when one of the central themes of the Imperium is stagnation and slow regression? (/why would the writers want this narratively?)
Why would the Chapters accept such meddling with their precious gene-stock?
The reason for doing it would be almost entirely a meta reason.
Because more marines = more forces to fight threats again at the imperium?
insaniak wrote: The more obvious argument in favour of FSM, to me, remains that it doesn't really make much sense for them to not exist.
There is an explanation for why they don't exist though.
And if we immediately jump to 'well that explanation is pseudo-sciency and doesn't work in real life probably'; well then Marines shouldn't exist at all.
insaniak wrote: The main argument against (aside from the dislike of change) is the deep seated idea that Marines being an all-boy's club is somehow intrinsic to their identity... which makes some sense when so much of the world today still divides things into pink and blue, but makes much less sense in a future society that doesn't.
Is that/those the main argument(s)? The main argument which I see is that changing canon [for out of universe reasons or otherwise] is generally bad for the coherency of a universe and for player investment (and often for general quality).
It isn't just that people 'dislike change' arbitrarily or because they're all dinosaurs who can't get with the hip new thing.
The so called 'reason' is deeply problematic and unrealistic. So the solution would be to replace it.
If players can't adapt to an altering lore, especially one that changes nothing. We have so many more problems than just Femarines.
Unrealistic? In 40k?? OMG not that!
The key words were 'deeply problematic'. But focus on that, I guess.
Why? I was mocking yet another argument of "realism" in this (or in pretty much any other fantasy/sci-fi) game.
I also don't agree that it's problematic that there's no FM SM. You want a FM SM? Go glue some SoB heads on your minis.
The in universe explaination is deeply problematic for reasons I'm struggling to explain within the confines of this discussion. But you can find the key points elsewhere on the internet.
Marines don't need a head swap. They just need a paragraph of lore to not exist.
Lammia wrote: ]The in universe explaination is deeply problematic for reasons I'm struggling to explain within the confines of this discussion. But you can find the key points elsewhere on the internet.
Marines don't need a head swap. They just need a paragraph of lore to not exist.
"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
Then give more support to the other armies with models and fluff. It's not rocket science.
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
Then give more support to the other armies with models and fluff. It's not rocket science.
In my experience, most female collectors/players seem to gravitate towards Eldar and/or Tyranids; so they're not even going for the game's 'female faction'.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Is it really so hard to believe that the imperium could have a breakthrough in tech that allows the process to work on females? Add it on as part of a new story so that it doesn’t destroy the lore. Seems like a win-win
That would work, but then you've got the 'why?'
Why would they want to increase the recruitment pool when the majority of Chapters have plenty of male aspirants already?
Why would any significant number of women be likely to pass the trials ahead of almost certainly physically stronger males?
Why would the Imperium want to risk Marines being able to reproduce?
Why would the Imperium want to change the status quo when one of the central themes of the Imperium is stagnation and slow regression? (/why would the writers want this narratively?)
Why would the Chapters accept such meddling with their precious gene-stock?
The reason for doing it would be almost entirely a meta reason.
Because more marines = more forces to fight threats again at the imperium?
Marines is just one branch of many, though, and the branches that actually do most of the fighting (Guard, Navy, Admech) are all integrated.
Again, a big part of the issue is the vast overrepresentation of Space Marines.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
Lammia wrote: ]The in universe explaination is deeply problematic for reasons I'm struggling to explain within the confines of this discussion. But you can find the key points elsewhere on the internet.
Marines don't need a head swap. They just need a paragraph of lore to not exist.
"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
Hmmm, ok lets try this... The idea of genetic inclusion/exculusion appeals to people who unironically love the Imperium of Man.
Why would any significant number of women be likely to pass the trials ahead of almost certainly physically stronger males?
Space Marines recruit kids, preferably prepubescents so the kids can grow with the implants. At that age, physical differences between genders are much less significant than at older ages.
The Last Days of Ector novella even had a girl win the selection trial, only to be discarded because girl.
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
Then give more support to the other armies with models and fluff. It's not rocket science.
In my experience, most female collectors/players seem to gravitate towards Eldar and/or Tyranids; so they're not even going for the game's 'female faction'.
That's my experience as well.
Side note: Eldar in general deserve some better attention from GW, imo.
Because more marines = more forces to fight threats again at the imperium?
In which case why not just found more Chapters with male recruits using the existing processes, like they've been shown to do already?
I don’t know, maybe the imperium is using a disproportionate number of males for their armed forces and it’s causing issues with populations and this can rectify it
JNAProductions wrote: The issue isn't that Marines aren't every possible body type, fitness type, whatever you care to say.
It's that there's a category of people-around half the population, in fact-that GW Canon says cannot ever be part of the flagship army. And some people use that as a metaphorical bludgeon against actual people.
I trust that no one here is in favor of excluding women from the hobby in general-so why not deprive bigots of a tool they can use to influence others?
Then give more support to the other armies with models and fluff. It's not rocket science.
In my experience, most female collectors/players seem to gravitate towards Eldar and/or Tyranids; so they're not even going for the game's 'female faction'.
Your experience is similar to mine. I'd add Tau on my end though since the sleeker look, like with Eldar, is liked.
Because more marines = more forces to fight threats again at the imperium?
In which case why not just found more Chapters with male recruits using the existing processes, like they've been shown to do already?
I don’t know, maybe the imperium is using a disproportionate number of males for their armed forces and it’s causing issues with populations and this can rectify it
How does that make sense?
The Guard, Navy, Mechanicus, etc. are all already mixed forces, and the numbers of Sororitas massively outweigh Astartes.
Also if you're running out of people (which the Imperium clearly isn't) the absolute last thing you'd want to do is start sending your women to fight each other to the death for the chance to become probably infertile soldiers...
This is what I mean about damaging the coherency of a setting by trying to force in background changes which originate divorced from the setting.
Because more marines = more forces to fight threats again at the imperium?
In which case why not just found more Chapters with male recruits using the existing processes, like they've been shown to do already?
I don’t know, maybe the imperium is using a disproportionate number of males for their armed forces and it’s causing issues with populations and this can rectify it
Given the number of people in the Imperium that seems very unlikely. You could double the number of Chapters and the draw on the greater population would only be in the millions (because many wouldn't make it). Which, to the Imperium is NOTHING.
Because more marines = more forces to fight threats again at the imperium?
In which case why not just found more Chapters with male recruits using the existing processes, like they've been shown to do already?
I don’t know, maybe the imperium is using a disproportionate number of males for their armed forces and it’s causing issues with populations and this can rectify it
How does that make sense?
The Guard, Navy, Mechanicus, etc. are all already mixed forces, and the numbers of Sororitas massively outweigh Astartes.
Also if you're running out of people (which the Imperium clearly isn't) the absolute last thing you'd want to do is start sending your women to fight each other to the death for the chance to become probably infertile soldiers...
This is what I mean about damaging the coherency of a setting by trying to force in background changes which originate divorced from the setting.
Hellebore wrote: I have an issue with the argument that women can't be space marines, because 'science', as if it in any way actually supports that position.
Human genetics is not any kind of defense for this position.
Huh? Male and female human bodies are different, they can react differently to the same stimulus, *especially* with respect to hormones. It's very plausible to imagine a process that works successfully on male humans but not on female humans.
There are ways to support that argument with what we know of human biology; the fact that it frustrates you is beside the point.
You seem intent on assuming agendas, or ideologies for my arguments - if it comes from 'gender studies' then you can deny it or something?
I'm not 'frustrated' and never said that.
The only pro human genetics supporting male only marines arguments I've seen are 'because testosterone', which I've already provided counter arguments to.
Until you've got something more than Y chromosomes, SRY genes or testosterone as justifications, I've not seen any science argument that supports a default basis for female exclusion.
And as I've said, excluding women from the process for a fictional cultural reason is a separate thing that obviously can happen. And the discussion should be around that.
But too many times I've seen people who just don't want there to be female marines fall back on 'well the emperor's science said it wasn't possible' when there's no genetic support for that that I've actually seen put forward.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
So it really does boil down to it must be done in the specific way you want or it can't exist. Gotcha. Still disagree with it.
We've circled back around to 'it's bad so make it worse!' again. Yay.
That the setting is often damaged by contradictory or illogical background changes/additions is a BAD thing. The solution isn't to just do it more so long as it achieves something (however nebulous) out of universe.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
So it really does boil down to it must be done in the specific way you want or it can't exist. Gotcha. Still disagree with it.
Yes, because cold, hard, established facts are the same thing as a purposefully vague and badly defined future that doesn’t exist.
The lore argument for FSM is that the same for female presence in any other role.
By enforcing a strict genderer ban, the Chapters are disregarding and thus wasting a significant portion potential skilled recruits.
I mean, there is probably a reason why Chapters tend to have extensive trials for potential recruits rather than simply grabbing random street kids: innate skill matters, or at least the Chapters believe it matters. And skill is not limited by gender.
Hellebore wrote: I have an issue with the argument that women can't be space marines, because 'science', as if it in any way actually supports that position.
Human genetics is not any kind of defense for this position.
Huh? Male and female human bodies are different, they can react differently to the same stimulus, *especially* with respect to hormones. It's very plausible to imagine a process that works successfully on male humans but not on female humans.
There are ways to support that argument with what we know of human biology; the fact that it frustrates you is beside the point.
You seem intent on assuming agendas, or ideologies for my arguments - if it comes from 'gender studies' then you can deny it or something?
I'm not 'frustrated' and never said that.
The only pro human genetics supporting male only marines arguments I've seen are 'because testosterone', which I've already provided counter arguments to.
Until you've got something more than Y chromosomes, SRY genes or testosterone as justifications, I've not seen any science argument that supports a default basis for female exclusion.
And as I've said, excluding women from the process for a fictional cultural reason is a separate thing that obviously can happen. And the discussion should be around that.
But too many times I've seen people who just don't want there to be female marines fall back on 'well the emperor's science said it wasn't possible' when there's no genetic support for that that I've actually seen put forward.
Twelve dudes made a dude who made 20 dudes in his image without anyone asking 'what if dudette?' is how it started. Things could be different but no one has ever wondered or questioned or self reflected at any point.
Lammia wrote: Twelve dudes made a dude who made 20 dudes in his image without anyone asking 'what if dudette?' is how it started. Things could be different but no one has ever wondered or questioned or self reflected at any point.
Genuinely, I think that's one of the most compelling aspects about it.
Insectum7 wrote: Genuinely, I think that's one of the most compelling aspects about it
Not "because science" but "because backwards".
And that would be fine if it applied to the rest of the setting as well. If the entire Imperium was mired in misogyny that would at least be a consistent theme to hang a hat on. But it's not. It's an anachronistic leftover from a real-world time when the default for soldiers was 'male' that hasn't advanced as the rest of the setting around it did.
While I can understand a dislike for change, there comes a time when you have to stop and ask if it's really worth clinging to that one last strip of hallway when the rest of the bad '80s wallpaper in the house has been painted over.
Insectum7 wrote: Genuinely, I think that's one of the most compelling aspects about it
Not "because science" but "because backwards".
And that would be fine if it applied to the rest of the setting as well. If the entire Imperium was mired in misogyny that would at least be a consistent theme to hang a hat on. But it's not. It's an anachronistic leftover from a real-world time when the default for soldiers was 'male' that hasn't advanced as the rest of the setting around it did.
Absolutely disagree. The Imperium isn't homogenous in it's culture, and it makes a lot of sense that its institutional makeup reflects that variation.
While I can understand a dislike for change, there comes a time when you have to stop and ask if it's really worth clinging to that one last strip of hallway when the rest of the bad '80s wallpaper in the house has been painted over.
Fyi, I used to be in the pro female Space Marine camp. So I wouldn't consider myself to be "clinging to the past" on this issue. It's more about keeping with the anachronistic nature of the setting.
And frankly I find the "you must just dislike change" accusations to be pretty shallow.
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
Asherian Command wrote: [
This take of yours is so largely devoid of any experience with any human beings. Stop it.
Oh, but it's not my take, is it? That's the beauty you see - it's literally the pro-female Marine argument: If you're not directly physically represented in [Marine] model form you can't identify with them, and are being actively excluded from the hobby.
The accuracy here is deafening. If you take the priniciple behind a concept and discuss it rather than the minutiae then you can usually destroy the argument as you'll quickly find a double standard. I'm betting several people enjoy playing Battlefleet Gothic and not a single goddamned one of you is a giant fully armed space cruiser capable of warp travel.
The key here to all advocacy for any established lore to be broken solely to gain the ability for yourself to be projected into the media is grow the feth up and stop trying to make the universe revolve around yourself personally.
Asherian Command wrote: [
This take of yours is so largely devoid of any experience with any human beings. Stop it.
Oh, but it's not my take, is it? That's the beauty you see - it's literally the pro-female Marine argument: If you're not directly physically represented in [Marine] model form you can't identify with them, and are being actively excluded from the hobby.
The accuracy here is deafening. If you take the priniciple behind a concept and discuss it rather than the minutiae then you can usually destroy the argument as you'll quickly find a double standard. I'm betting several people enjoy playing Battlefleet Gothic and not a single goddamned one of you is a giant fully armed space cruiser capable of warp travel.
The key here to all advocacy for any established lore to be broken solely to gain the ability for yourself to be projected into the media is grow the feth up and stop trying to make the universe revolve around yourself personally.
Except you don’t have to break the lore, you can add onto it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, just say there was a breakthrough in some scientific research that found the key to overcoming the issue with the female incompatibility.
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
That’s a weak argument.
From page 8
What we are talking about here is making it a bit easier for a kid to be able to look at the hobby and think “I want to do that” and not be scared off. That kid may or may not be a girl, but them seeing a huge poster of a woman in power armour looking bad ass as feth might interest them, and it might stop donkey caves in the shop saying that this hobby isn’t for them.
If a little girl is happy to have a female space marine army. Or helk a friend of mine starting 40k because she gets to play a heroic band of space marines based on Mayan Culture with a famous Female Space Marine character then I think thats cool.
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
When lizard people walk the earth we can discuss it then.
The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
That’s a weak argument.
From page 8
What we are talking about here is making it a bit easier for a kid to be able to look at the hobby and think “I want to do that” and not be scared off. That kid may or may not be a girl, but them seeing a huge poster of a woman in power armour looking bad ass as feth might interest them, and it might stop donkey caves in the shop saying that this hobby isn’t for them.
If a little girl is happy to have a female space marine army. Or helk a friend of mine starting 40k because she gets to play a heroic band of space marines based on Mayan Culture with a famous Female Space Marine character then I think thats cool.
My main gripe with female marines is that it steps on the toes of Sisters as a faction.
I disagree. Unless their lore was 'militant church military arm' with a hard-on for penitence, faith and miracles, and aesthetics were ott fleur-de-lis spamming ornate gothic armour, they are not stepping on their toes.
Even though the first question will be Why Sisters are still S3/T3 1W Humans instead of S4 T4 2W Superhumans. The second question will be when are they getting Terminators. The third question will be Primaris Sisters.
Marines are a blank slate. They can be anything. Despite the 'crusading warrior monk' schtick, they dont even have to be that - my Raptors say hi, for example. Val the bloody hander slayer of arcturus from the Nordic themed Thor's Hammers chapter of Astartes has as much crossover with Sororitas as an ork.
You're confusing and conflating either their pre-induction lives or someone's fanfic non-canon chapter fluff. Every chapter I've ever read about still has some sort of warrior monk religious aspect inside the chapter even if it may be as different in details as the Ultramarines and the Mortifactors. You're still going to find greco-roman dagger wrestling matches between two Marines in loincloths.
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
When lizard people walk the earth we can discuss it then.
The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
That’s a weak argument.
From page 8
What we are talking about here is making it a bit easier for a kid to be able to look at the hobby and think “I want to do that” and not be scared off. That kid may or may not be a girl, but them seeing a huge poster of a woman in power armour looking bad ass as feth might interest them, and it might stop donkey caves in the shop saying that this hobby isn’t for them.
If a little girl is happy to have a female space marine army. Or helk a friend of mine starting 40k because she gets to play a heroic band of space marines based on Mayan Culture with a famous Female Space Marine character then I think thats cool.
Except lizard people arent real
Would we be having this conversation then if Lizardmen were the flagship race instead? Given we have many armies in 40k that currently have female and male representation along the side..
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
When lizard people walk the earth we can discuss it then.
The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
That’s a weak argument.
From page 8
What we are talking about here is making it a bit easier for a kid to be able to look at the hobby and think “I want to do that” and not be scared off. That kid may or may not be a girl, but them seeing a huge poster of a woman in power armour looking bad ass as feth might interest them, and it might stop donkey caves in the shop saying that this hobby isn’t for them.
If a little girl is happy to have a female space marine army. Or helk a friend of mine starting 40k because she gets to play a heroic band of space marines based on Mayan Culture with a famous Female Space Marine character then I think thats cool.
Except lizard people arent real
Would we be having this conversation then if Lizardmen were the flagship race instead? Given we have many armies in 40k that currently have female and male representation along the side..
I have no issues with that. If you figure out how to best show gender on them go for it
Lammia wrote: Hmmm, ok lets try this... The idea of genetic inclusion/exculusion appeals to people who unironically love the Imperium of Man.
And it costs us nothing to say it's wrong.
The "idea" of genetic inclusion/exclusion isn't appealing to people in real life. That's one of the differences between the FSM agitators and the people who like the status quo - the FSM agitators have a tough time differentiating between "what is" and "what should be."
The accuracy here is deafening. If you take the priniciple behind a concept and discuss it rather than the minutiae then you can usually destroy the argument as you'll quickly find a double standard. I'm betting several people enjoy playing Battlefleet Gothic and not a single goddamned one of you is a giant fully armed space cruiser capable of warp travel.
The key here to all advocacy for any established lore to be broken solely to gain the ability for yourself to be projected into the media is grow the feth up and stop trying to make the universe revolve around yourself personally.
That's not even the argument, since it's almost entirely men wanting to have female space marines in their armies.
The fact that you're frustrated is apparent from your posts.
Hellebore wrote: The only pro human genetics supporting male only marines arguments I've seen are 'because testosterone', which I've already provided counter arguments to.
That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
Hellebore wrote: Until you've got something more than Y chromosomes, SRY genes or testosterone as justifications, I've not seen any science argument that supports a default basis for female exclusion.
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
Hellebore wrote: And as I've said, excluding women from the process for a fictional cultural reason is a separate thing that obviously can happen. And the discussion should be around that.
But too many times I've seen people who just don't want there to be female marines fall back on 'well the emperor's science said it wasn't possible' when there's no genetic support for that that I've actually seen put forward.
I've put it forward before in threads on this topic. But, predictably, the pro-FSM crowd ignores that and starts back with spreading their BS in the next thread when it comes up, because truth is not a value that crowd holds dear.
It should be changed because if not, it will continue to be used as a cudgel against FSM. Without removing that bullet from the chamber, there will still be folks claiming "but muh lore".
If that is it then.. Yeah I am going to continue disagreeing on that argument. Much in the same way someone in historical could criticize your army for not being a proper light mechanical force in a WW2 game or someone pointing out your 14th century army isn't done in the proper color the answer isn't to change the lore or background of it.
WW2 happened. The 14th century happened. The Battle of Macragge did not.
Hecaton wrote:"Deeply problematic" is code for "I find it ideologically reprehensible."
Not everyone shares your ideology. You're going to have to make the argument for your ideology first.
"Give your argument why people shouldn't be transphobic."
Alternatively, no. I don't think anyone on this site needs to justify that, considering it's a baseline level of respect that's required for that.
In what way was ANYTHING said transphobic? This isn't the US Politics thread, you don't get to throw out false accusations to win the argument.
What you DID do is demonstrate your ego is so colossal that you see yourself in everything; the lore, the force, and apparently nonexistently in the counterpoints/arguments.
Asherian Command wrote: Like a female lizard would look any different wtih a race of autonomous robot lizards ?
Being a big fan of lizards, robots, robot lizards, and women, I would not mind it if all of the above were indeed distinguishable.
BUT what I put on my shelf-of-shame is my own endeavor and nobody needs to judge me for it.
Or at least don't judge me out loud.
Yes I want robot lizard women with prominent assets.
There is a place for that, but you will be judged. Time and a place I think is where it often falls for these things.
This is me being silly a bit, some of the things I seen gaming I truly wonder about the thoughts going into it, Anime card sleeves of very questionable content are more common than I expected in public places.
For me, I want to see the representation as a setting thing itself. I don’t need marines to be that place, but often in these sort of things it mostly is just. we don’t exist in the setting or the gameplay, and often authors will insert in a bunch of stuff to prevent it, leading to the worst lore in 40k being repeated like it’s good.
When there are way better ways to use the male only marines, but that itself goes against what marines have really become to 40k as a power fantasy all elite army that’s cooler and able to do anything.
GW I think has been trying a bit, maybe in 10 years we will have a better position to discuss this as well.
But it’s not just a marine thing, but a nerd thing in general filtering in. Being told I am not represented in nerd culture is just how I grow up really.
Every dragon is a male used to be a eye roll thing in fantasy we would joke about, carful writing and thoughtful writing is how you do these things.
Or you end up with a setting that embody the quote “All lore, No story.”
JNAProductions wrote: [Inclusion. Not in-universe inclusion (the Imperium sucks, and sucks HARD) but out of universe.
Let a woman entering the hobby make models in her image from the flagship army, without a horde of people telling her she's doing it wrong and it's against canon and all that.
A woman entering the hobby can make female Space Marines* just fine.
*'in her image'? I guess our hypothetical new female player is seven feet tall, jacked beyond belief, and a psycho-indoctrinated murder machine..?
Should there be Marines in wheelchairs too? Marines who are skinny nerds? Marines who are pacifists? It would be against canon to have a Marine who looked like the vast majority of 40k players.
When lizard people walk the earth we can discuss it then.
The most valid point. Makes me wonder if they'd be able to play Lizardmen/Seraphon without being able to represent themselves. I doubt they're 7 foot tall Komodo Dragon people or 4 and a half foot tall amphibians, so representation would be hard.
Wait, there's the Slann. Corpulant narcissists who are so grotesquely obese they can't move off their seat. Give them nose rings and purple hair and my argument may very well be nullified.
That’s a weak argument.
From page 8
What we are talking about here is making it a bit easier for a kid to be able to look at the hobby and think “I want to do that” and not be scared off. That kid may or may not be a girl, but them seeing a huge poster of a woman in power armour looking bad ass as feth might interest them, and it might stop donkey caves in the shop saying that this hobby isn’t for them.
If a little girl is happy to have a female space marine army. Or helk a friend of mine starting 40k because she gets to play a heroic band of space marines based on Mayan Culture with a famous Female Space Marine character then I think thats cool.
Asherian Command wrote: [
This take of yours is so largely devoid of any experience with any human beings. Stop it.
Oh, but it's not my take, is it? That's the beauty you see - it's literally the pro-female Marine argument: If you're not directly physically represented in [Marine] model form you can't identify with them, and are being actively excluded from the hobby.
The accuracy here is deafening. If you take the priniciple behind a concept and discuss it rather than the minutiae then you can usually destroy the argument as you'll quickly find a double standard. I'm betting several people enjoy playing Battlefleet Gothic and not a single goddamned one of you is a giant fully armed space cruiser capable of warp travel.
The key here to all advocacy for any established lore to be broken solely to gain the ability for yourself to be projected into the media is grow the feth up and stop trying to make the universe revolve around yourself personally.
Except you don’t have to break the lore, you can add onto it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again, just say there was a breakthrough in some scientific research that found the key to overcoming the issue with the female incompatibility.
OR
You can accept the lore is what it is, realize that you don't get your participation trophy in this event, and you move on with your life.
Nah, would rather not have femarines the same as I don't particularly want male sisters of battle.
I don't really care if lore reasons can be invented to either disallow or allow femarines, I'd simply prefer the astartes to remain big burly dudes rather than big burly women.
Lammia wrote: Hmmm, ok lets try this... The idea of genetic inclusion/exculusion appeals to people who unironically love the Imperium of Man.
And it costs us nothing to say it's wrong.
The "idea" of genetic inclusion/exclusion isn't appealing to people in real life. That's one of the differences between the FSM agitators and the people who like the status quo - the FSM agitators have a tough time differentiating between "what is" and "what should be."
The accuracy here is deafening. If you take the priniciple behind a concept and discuss it rather than the minutiae then you can usually destroy the argument as you'll quickly find a double standard. I'm betting several people enjoy playing Battlefleet Gothic and not a single goddamned one of you is a giant fully armed space cruiser capable of warp travel.
The key here to all advocacy for any established lore to be broken solely to gain the ability for yourself to be projected into the media is grow the feth up and stop trying to make the universe revolve around yourself personally.
That's not even the argument, since it's almost entirely men wanting to have female space marines in their armies.
The fact that you're frustrated is apparent from your posts.
Hellebore wrote: The only pro human genetics supporting male only marines arguments I've seen are 'because testosterone', which I've already provided counter arguments to.
That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.
Hellebore wrote: Until you've got something more than Y chromosomes, SRY genes or testosterone as justifications, I've not seen any science argument that supports a default basis for female exclusion.
The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.
Hellebore wrote: And as I've said, excluding women from the process for a fictional cultural reason is a separate thing that obviously can happen. And the discussion should be around that.
But too many times I've seen people who just don't want there to be female marines fall back on 'well the emperor's science said it wasn't possible' when there's no genetic support for that that I've actually seen put forward.
I've put it forward before in threads on this topic. But, predictably, the pro-FSM crowd ignores that and starts back with spreading their BS in the next thread when it comes up, because truth is not a value that crowd holds dear.
It kind of was the argument as the push for FSM was so more female gamers will show up, but it does indeed wind up as male gamers making the FSM armies. And you know what? Nothing is stopping them. I don't need to have Marvel make the Ultraverse active canon again for me to paint up a Harcase mini for Crisis Protocol and run him with Luke Cage's stats.
Dai wrote: How can people get so worked up about this time after time after time?
Welcome to the Warhammer Community, where the lore as it is written, is seen as immutable and set in stone, where nothing can ever change.
...despite things changing all the time and people either leaving the hobby, learning to deal with it, or they do as most people do, and not really care all that much.
But hey, these thinly disguised political arguments are great at getting people heated.
all over the existing lore by introducing primaris marines. If you can accept the retcons involved in making primaris marines female marines are no more of a change.
.)
Horus Heresy Rulebook. Recent.
