Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Karol wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

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:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

The difference appears to be that the value which you place on it is an out-of-universe meta value, rather than valuing it for and of itself.

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'.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

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"?

Lammia wrote:

 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.

 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!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

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.

ccs wrote:

Lammia wrote:

 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.

 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?

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Hecaton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

Why not both?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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

Lammia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

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'.

Lammia wrote:

ccs wrote:

Lammia wrote:

 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.

 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.

@OP- In the lore nah. Its one of their signature flaws.

And for the same reason I don't like the idea of black green lantern or a white Teferi Planeswalker. That's not the way it was written.

For modeling sure I think it would be cool.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.