Lord Damocles wrote:
Yeah, we're all in agreement that lore exists, that much is evident...
Clearly not, since at least two posters now have claimed the opposite!
Agreement, perhaps not. But have I
at the very least made clear of that much? Yes. I've already highlighted how the person we were replying to may have made an error in what they were claiming.
Again, where was that explicit lore? I don't believe I've seen it in any Codex or current publication.
Ah, we're off to the Codex, last refuge of a lore weasel.
I wouldn't exactly call myself a "lore weasel". Apparently, I'm the kind of person who doesn't regard the lore as "sacred" or "sacrosanct".
All I'm saying is that if it were so important, like how this whole thing about how relevant
Space Marines being men was, you'd see it in a damned Codex. If it ain't in a Codex, is it really so important and critical to a faction's identity?
I mean, honestly, tell me a piece of lore that's absolutely critical
to the identity of a faction that wasn't in it's Codex?
Again, I don't think I'm asking too much for you to quote exactly where this whole "women aren't a major part of the Imperial Guard" tangent comes from.
While Sandy Mitchell's Cain series is the main source for this
You mean the notoriously unreliably narrated and rather old BL
Forgive me, but of all the examples of "reliable data" you could give me, it certainly wouldn't be from a Cain novel.
(Particularly the aforementioned For the Emperor, which is still in print) it also turns up in Imperial Munitorum Manual
Books being in print isn't any sort of legitimacy. From what I understand, Ian Watson's 'Space Marine' is still sold by BL
, and that's hilariously outdated.
I also own the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer, and that makes no reference to sex or gender at all. What does it say in the Munitorum Manual? If you could, screenshots would be very appreciated here.
Gaunt's Ghosts is the main one, as well as the Severina Raine novels. If we're including other media, we can include the Indomitus trailer, the Space Marine video game, and explicit lore about Cadia, where women are only judged by their service, not their gender - just like men.
Gaunt's Ghosts is not a typical guard novel series. Some of the other books openly mock it.
Isn't it typical? I seem to recall BL
touting it as one of their most iconic and influential. If Gaunt's Ghosts isn't considered one of the most iconic and probably THE archetypical Guardsman series, what is?
Space Marine is not the example you like to think it is. 2nd Lieutenant Mira is literally the last officer left in the 203rd Cadian.
And is still qualified to lead. She faces no insubordination, or doubt in her ability to command the regiment as second lieutenant, let alone as a woman.
Not even Leandros, the most likely person to be a sexist assbag, comments on it.
The Indomistus trailer only has three guardsman in it, and the woman is the only one not disintegrated. While it's undeniable that she's in command at that point, in command of 'what'?
I never claimed "command" - I claimed service. Women Guardsmen are capable of service like any other Guardsman, and I don't see any evidence to the contrary.
And, to be blunt, Cadian PDF isn't the Guard, no matter how awesome they may have been. The only Cadian women to go off world served in mixed units such as the 203, the 'all female' ones, ie the majority, were assigned to the interior guard, Cadia's PDF, per Gunheads
Again, I made no claim about "all female" regiments. I simply stated that being a woman was no impediment to service, as evidenced by the 203rd.
Mixed gender Guard units are canon, and what's more, I see no reason they aren't *common* at that.
Lord Damocles wrote:
More core than the 9th Edition Space Marine Codex? Thought not.
Would you like to post more nonsense or would you like to contribute something useful?
So is everything not in the current Codex: Space Marines
That's not what was claimed. What was claimed was "non-core", not "non-canon".
There's a distinction.
Non-core would imply that this *isn't* considered a key aspect of the faction. For example, the fact that the Ultramarines use the "practical/theoretical" model. As far as I'm concerned, it's an important part of Ultramarines lore and canon, but is it "core" content? Of course not!
Something can be "canon", but not "core". That is the distinction that Gert is making here.
Lord Damocles wrote:Index Astartes I was published in 2002 (I'm pretty sure there was a later re-release of all of the volumes together too).
The Warhammer Community article didn't say that [all of] (or what of) the material was supposedly outdated.
EDIT: In fact it doesn't say that it is outdated at all. It claims that 'changes have been rendered to the detail' (sic)
Sorry, but all that does is put the entire document
at risk of being outdated. As you say, "changes have been rendered to the detail" - which details? Without any specific information on those details, the entire document could be considered unreliable, as any of those "changes rendered to the detail" could affect anything.
End of the day, it's an unreliable document.
A mere five years old, but that same document also reaffirms "changes have been rendered to the detail" - ergo making the whole thing useless for any empirical data, as we don't know what changes were rendered
- as you so say.
Hecaton wrote:Uh, no, not at all. Can you show anywhere where it says that the Astartes process works on female humans? If not, we can assume that part wasn't changed or made outdated.
Buddy, that's no how it works.
We are told that things in the document are no longer considered up to date - "changes rendered to the detail". Therefore, we should not assume *anything* in that document is still relevant, other than as a snapshot of what 40k
used to be. As a result, the whole "male hormones and tissue types" thing the document references cannot be considered as evidence - and therefore, there is no reason the Astartes process SHOULDN'T work on women
Ultimately, that source exists. The legitimacy
of it is in question.
IWhere in these codices does it say that female humans can be Astartes?
Where in the Codexes does it say they can't?
Vatsetis wrote:This sounds very sensible, but Primaris were introduced a few years ago (2017?) and remain an all male force... Which BTW shows that for GW the Astartes being male continues to be a significant part of the setting.
Or, and this is my cynical side talking, GW
just stuck with what they already had, and simply didn't consider rocking the boat.
It wasn't that they felt Space Marines being all male was important, they just weren't sure how to appease their audience.
Again, we'll never know for sure, but just so I can put a pin in the "GW
totally think Space Marines should be male" bubble now.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Vatsetis wrote:
Is there any reason why the IOM
has to be 100% misoginistic or 100% inclusive regarding gender?
Not at all. I've made it very clear I'm fine with Custodes being all-male and Sisters being all-female. But I'm questioning why the Space Marines
need to be all-male, because the Imperium clearly isn't institutionally sexist.
this is how historical societies actually work (this is the reallity of the US and many other military today), so it only makes the setting more "feasible".
So, we should just get rid of power armoured super soldiers in general, because they're not historical either, so that makes the setting more "feasible"?
Again, feasibility - why is it more feasible to imagine that we can fight sentient fungus monsters, but not have women Space Marines?
Mixed imperial guard can exist in a setting together with male only astartes and female only sorotitas.
Yes, they can - but that doesn't answer why Space Marines need to be male in the first place.
It's not because the Imperium is sexist.
It's not because of biology (because biology is arbitrary in the creation of a made up Super Soldier)
It's not because the monk aesthetic prevents it.
So why do Space Marines need to be all male?
I understand your end goal, but your framing of the issue is not the only legitimate, please stop arguing in such a manner.
Sure, but when I'm pointing out how there's problems in the claim that "the Imperium is institutionally sexist", that's not an improper argument. I'm not being rude in addressing that.
Again legendary level of nitpicking.
It really isn't. You're leaving pretty large holes that aren't for me to point out.
Don't call me highlighting faulty arguments nitpicking. You just do a disservice to yourself.
The current lore and how the lore "should" be according to your ideology are two separate things. Im trying to argue "in universe" as to why Astartes are indeed an all male force.
And I'm saying how "in-universe" is an entirely made up concept which has no internal justification. This is a world where sentient fungus wage war on space elves wearing organic bone-armour. "In-universe" is entirely arbitrary - and so I'm asking why the arbitrary decisions HAPPEN to exclude women.
Can you answer those questions?
This shouldnt be problematic to anyone that dosent have a delussion that make them mix their desires with external reality.
There we go, calling me delusional for questioning why a fictional universe has such arbitrarily stupid rules
Again, it's not hard to answer why 40k
apparently need to have these rules in place. At least, it shouldn't be.
The "not institutionally sexist" Imperium can have single gender Custodes and Sob but not single gender Adeptus Astartes?
Yeah. Why should Space Marine be single gender? Why shouldn't the Astra Militarum be single gender? Why shouldn't the Knights be single gender? Why shouldn't the AdMech be single gender?
If you're going to single one of them out, you at least should tell me why the others don't fit.
Why should Space Marines
be mono-gender? Simple question.
And you ask why others think you argue based on preconceptions?
I don't know. Maybe it's because you don't have answers to fairly elementary questions of mine, and it's a lot easier for you to just claim that I'm biased or have preconceived notions?
And maybe I'd know, because I used to do that, before I realised how utterly stupid I was.
Lord Damocles wrote:b) If you did do this every single day, you might have some better references and arguments
I'd actually like to address this point. When the pro-women Astartes side make a point, it tends to be fairly well articulated, and in depth as to why the lore they disavow isn't exactly accurate.
And yet, almost universally, the anti-women Astartes "side" (much as I hate to devolve this to sides) simply just reject those factual observations and shift onto another argument that has been done to death.
You make it sound like "better references and arguments will save the day", but - and this isn't aimed at you - there are some people who will turn their back on any argument, no matter how well formed and analysed and unpicked, and simply call it some kind of SJW propaganda or "purging" or "silencing" or just "wrong".
I've seen it happen too many times. For some people, there isn't a "I can rationally come to an agreement", because they are so closed off. Which is why the point of this thread inevitably becomes "can I convince the lurker that this is right".
And just to clarify, I'm fine with you (or anybody else) not liking that the background says that Marine aspirants have to be male. I'm fine with you (or anybody else) wanting to change that. What I'm not fine with is this strange rigmarole we've now been through where people have claimed that the background never really said that (untrue), or the background is beyond an arbitrary age limit and so doesn't count (illogical, terrible argument), or that GW said that the background wasn't valid (untrue), or that I'm some sort of big meanie for pointing these things out.
No, that is fair. But, as I hope I've pointed out, in my own personal arguments, whatever the background says needs to be weighed with how relevant
it is to that background, how often and prominently it is mentioned, and how important it is to the design of that faction.
And, for all the reasons I've expressed in this thread, I don't think that the 'Creation of a Space Marine' article, which, as you said, says about how only "male tissues" can have the treatment, is still relevant to the design of the Space Marine faction.
You're not a big meanie for pointing out what you have, but my point still stands - it's not core
material, like some people so many dozens of pages ago have claimed it was.
Vatsetis wrote:Lets put it this way... If I say that there can be sexism in the IOM, this is labelled as anathema... If I point out that chaos might be a better starting point for FSM because they are not as constrain by tradition as the loyalist... Im pointed into cases of sexism amongst CSM. This is nitpicking, and dosent look as very good faith to me.
There can be sexism in the Imperium AND in Chaos. But the key point is that neither organisation have INSTITUTIONAL sexism
, and that's simply canon. There's nothing wrong with saying that some people in the Imperium, or in Chaos, are sexist - but to act like either faction have any strong feelings either way on women's empowerment is simply untrue. Both the Imperium and Chaos are, institutionally, gender-neutral, and all I'm doing is reminding you of that.
It's not nitpicking to tell you that you're wrong in your judgement of the Imperium.
CEO Kasen wrote:
From what I could parse of this - I agree that there should
be female Custodes and male Sororitas along with FSM. You open the gates to all genders for internal consistency in an Imperium that lacks sexism as a flaw.
If I were to interpret things positively, what Smudge literally said is that he's okay
with monogendered Custodes/SoB
, not that it's the optimal outcome.
Yes I also understand it that way. But what things are and what things should be are different planes of debate. People keep muddling the waters at this point.
But that's the thing - you say "what things are" as if that's not what we're discussing. I'm well aware of what things are
- what I keep asking is why they are
, and I'm noticing that answers to that question keep eluding me.
If I explain that poverty and imperialism create the preconditions for terrorist organizations Im not endorsing terrorism.
If I explain that in the lore of the IOM there is room for single gender military organisations (because the Emperor was a misoginist and the IOM follows traditions blindly) im not endorsing sexism in the gamming community.
But I'm also not wrong for pointing out how, in the Imperium, most military organisations are mixed gender, and the Emperor did not even create the damned Space Marines, that was Amar Astarte
, so unless you can point to me some exceptional reason, why should Space Marines be all-male?
I *know* that there's room in the Imperium for mono-gender forces, but I'm asking why it needs to be Space Marines in particular