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.

Melissia wrote:

androgynous characters tend to be fairly male in their appearance

Why does this somehow strike me as being self-contradictory?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:Hell, 40k could be less sexist than modern life, as there is less human vs human squabbling and more human vs everything else.

The Imperium is an equal opportunity oppressor.

It's the players that are sexist, not the Imperium.

In most media, "androgynous" characters or images, usually have the male hip/shoulder/etc ratios, even if everything else is impossible to tell the difference. It seems that society (at least in america) read Androgynous as, "Girly Man", instead of genderless. Y'know, you never see manly women refered to as androgynous. Only feminine men.

Or you could just play eldar,

I know for a fact some of my guardians are girls... GW modled them with breasts, its just really hard to tell which ones in the squad are girls because of the way they hold thier guns... The fact that they are ALL lithe and slender probably doesn't really help telling them apart either... BUT they are there.

Also banshees.

It should also be noted that banshees have the same statline as every other aspect warrior, and further more that sisters of battle are just as tough, and strong as a guy imperial guardsman (except with better armor and weaponry)

Really aside from space marines, who granted are GWs bread and butter, GW isn't terribly sexist IMHO.

Right, it's mostly the players that are sexist.

Melissia wrote:

Fourth, in the current real world, women are both on average and at their maximum shorter, lighter, and weaker than men.

Meh, people exaggerate this far, far too much. The difference between a male and female human is negligible to the point of irrelevance in 40k.

For tabletop reference, the difference between a male and female Inquisitor, in and out of power armor, is... the look of the model and nothing else. They're all S3/T3.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. In the rules of 40k, yes, there seems to be little difference. In terms of actually comparing physiques, it's pretty notable. Look at Olympic athletes, or compare NBA players to WNBA players. Given the exacting standards of the Adeptus Astartes, it's not surprising that five more pounds of muscle or a few extra inches are enough to make it highly unlikely that women would be inducted, given the amount of effort that would need to be exerted in terms of both technology and politics.

I'd imagine more than one promising recruit on a death world is tossed back because she's female. Of course the biggest, toughest 12 year old on a given world could be female. but for the same reasons there are very few NCAA female Offensive linemen, there are simply going to be fewer women able to compete with male recruits.

That's given current genetics. Like I said in my post, the 40k Universe has created hobbits and ogres. It's not hard to imagine a female dominated death world, where height/weight/strength profiles are similar to men. From there you come up with a renegade techmagos, some time, money, and need, and presto! Totally plausible FSM chapter.

Polonius wrote:I'd imagine more than one promising recruit on a death world is tossed back because she's female.

Yes, I do imagine that the Marines would toss aside the most viable recruits because of something that doesn't really matter-- tradition can be such a foolish thing.

There's far greater genetic difference between two males of different families than a male and female of the same family, and so if males from two drastically different families-- given the genetic diversity required to survive the diseases and harshness of a death world, this is hardly unlikely-- can accept the gene-seed then a female would likely be able to as well. Of course GW's employees and fluff writers are not biology majors, so instead we end up with jokes about how Marines reproduce by planting their seed in ten year old boys.

Melissia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'd imagine more than one promising recruit on a death world is tossed back because she's female.

Yes, I do imagine that the Marines would toss aside the most viable recruits because of something that doesn't really matter-- tradition can be such a foolish thing.

Um, we've already had an actual official background quote that states the process of creating marines only works on males.

There is no 'foolish tradition' thing happening here...

Melissia wrote:
There's far greater genetic difference between two males of different families than a male and female of the same family, and so if males from two drastically different families-- given the genetic diversity required to survive the diseases and harshness of a death world, this is hardly unlikely-- can accept the gene-seed then a female would likely be able to as well. Of course GW's employees and fluff writers are not biology majors, so instead we end up with jokes about how Marines reproduce by planting their seed in ten year old boys.

Ugh - thankfully those jokes are few and far between here.

Lets endeavor to keep it that way.

Alpharius wrote:Um, we've already had an actual official background quote that states the process of creating marines only works on males.

And I explained why, as a science major in general and biology major in specific, this does not make any sense to me in the paragraph below. If the geneseed is so specific as to only work on males, then it would only work on males of the same family. Meaning that all Marines would have to be the result of incest and therefor suffer from all of the negatives of that particular practice.

Besides, the Space Wolves codex says "any ordinary adolescent", IIRC, and it's more recent so it'd override it.

Melissia wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Um, we've already had an actual official background quote that states the process of creating marines only works on males.

And I explained why, as a science major in general and biology major in specific, this does not make any sense to me in the paragraph below. If the geneseed is so specific as to only work on males, then it would only work on males of the same family. Meaning that all Marines would have to be the result of incest and therefor suffer from all of the negatives of that particular practice.

Besides, the Space Wolves codex says "any ordinary adolescent", IIRC, and it's more recent so it'd override it.

"Real World" biology vs. GW established background?

I know who wins here!

don't fall into the trap of applying contemporary science to 40k tech-fluff. Gene-seed is the result of genetics, hormone therapy, etc. far beyond our current understanding. Saying what is and isn't possible makes as much sense as pointing out that under modern physics, warp travel is impossible.

And total genetic difference isn't important, which is why kidneys can sometimes come across racial lines rather than inside a family. If the important genes aren't there (perhaps genes only found on the Y chromosome), than the gene seed wouldn't work. There is a critical genetic difference between any man and any woman: men have a much smaller 23rd chromosome.

Not just human biology, but the vast majority of mammals too. Indeed, many animals have females be stronger than males (or simply more ferocious for that matter).

Also, if you want to go that route, the real logic behind 40k is a combination of grimdark and "rule of cool". So if someone thinks FSM are cool and they can prove they're grimdark enough, then they fit in 40k.

Melissia wrote:Not just human biology, but the vast majority of mammals too. Indeed, many animals have females be stronger than males (or simply more ferocious for that matter).

Also, if you want to go that route, the real logic behind 40k is a combination of grimdark and "rule of cool". So if someone thinks FSM are cool and they can prove they're grimdark enough, then they fit in 40k.

They may - but only in the Eye of Terror, perhaps in servitude to Slaanesh...

NOTE:

For the OVERLY sensitive, I mean this only in the context of the 40K Universe, not the real world.

Let's remember to keep the two separate kids!

Since this is the discussion forum rather than background we are at liberty to discuss the feasibility of FSMs. However that's not the point of the thread.

I think when people are dead set against FSMs it is because they take the fluff very seriously. Not everyone does.

That's why the Background forum used to be called Fluff For Nutters. (In a nice way.)

Melissia wrote:There's far greater genetic difference between two males of different families than a male and female of the same family, and so if males from two drastically different families-- given the genetic diversity required to survive the diseases and harshness of a death world, this is hardly unlikely-- can accept the gene-seed then a female would likely be able to as well...

That is so extremely simplified to the point of being almost completely wrong.... I don't know where you're going to school on the subject, but while the overall genetic differences might be smaller between a male and a female in the same family compared to two males of different families (even cousins), those small differences between men and women in general are much more important.

For example, the differences between a flat head and a phillips head screw driver made by the same company are small (only the very tip is different, everything else is the same) compared to the difference of screw drivers made by another company (more complex grips, different diameter shafts, different shaped shafts, etc...). However phillips and flat screw drivers in general are different in very important ways.

Now, obviously that isn't a perfect analogy, but biologically the small differences between men and women are very important, especially when it comes to medicine and organs. Just for instance, in heart transplants you can't give a woman a man's heart (though you can give a man a woman's heart with proper medication) due to how a man's heart beats (has something to do with chemical and bio-electrical stimulation). That's one important point for Space Marines, as they have extra hearts.

More on the subject of Female Space Marines, simply from a fluff standpoint, I would say "no female Space Marines," because as far as the fluff is concerned the Imperium doesn't have them. Now from a great fluff standpoint, while Space Marines themselves are proprietary to the Adeptus Mechanicus and the chapters, the idea of "super humans" is not. There are many stories of "super humans" being created legitimately outside of the use of the Astartes (though they are fundamentally different), and power armor is not a sole product for the Space Marines. Is it possible to have legitimate Space Marine-esque female warriors? Oh my yes! And if someone wanted to bring a female Space Puppy army to the table, I would find it far more entertaining than offending.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think when people are dead set against FSMs it is because they take the fluff very seriously. Not everyone does.

Dunno, I take the fluff seriously (which is probably obvious by now I suppose), but I think FSMs are possible. There is no evidence of them existing, and so canonically they probably don't. But that doesn't mean they couldn't exist given the right situation.

Kilkrazy wrote:Since this is the discussion forum rather than background we are at liberty to discuss the feasibility of FSMs. However that's not the point of the thread.

I think when people are dead set against FSMs it is because they take the fluff very seriously. Not everyone does.

That's why the Background forum used to be called Fluff For Nutters. (In a nice way.)

Yet no other aspect of fluff raises this level of ire. Compare the sturm and drang over FSMs to, say, various previously taboo chaos god team ups, or Chaos Tau, or other hard rules of fluff, and nothing else comes close.

There's a lot of reasons. The first is that it contradicts the fluff. It flat out says female Space Marines are impossible. The fact that people are so insistent on going against this and so vehement in making female Marines is why it's strange. As you can tell, it's a topic that just won't die.

The second is that most people are really creepy about it. I wouldn't want to game with a lot of the female Marines crowd not because they're using an army that contradicts the fluff, but because they're rather creepy. They insist on sculpting their minis to have FF cups or higher to the point where their giant boobs are sticking out of the armor. It's completely ridiculous, and creeps me out.

Thirdly, the product of these conversions is almost always terrible. Here's a few particularly erroneous examples:


(Note the giant, barely contained boobs and pouty blow up doll face)


Just because they're female means they have to be showing some skin, right?


"Heavy weapons"


Let's dress up one like a Japanese schoolgirl! Kawaiiiii! =^.^=


Class


Of course their Land Raider has an out-of-place naked woman painted on it. Of course it does.

And some from Dakka's own Dr. Thunder. These are more tasteful but still have a lot of the problems the other minis do:











And of course they all have anime names. Of course they do.

Melissia wrote:Go ahead and do it. Ignore the people who whine, if they weren't whining about your army they'd be whining about someone else's.

And if you're Melissia you're whining about your own army.

Melissia wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I think when people are dead set against FSMs it is because they take the fluff very seriously. Not everyone does.

Dunno, I take the fluff seriously (which is probably obvious by now I suppose), but I think FSMs are possible. There is no evidence of them existing, and so canonically they probably don't. But that doesn't mean they couldn't exist given the right situation.

People who hate FSMs take fluff seriously == people who take fluff seriously hate FSMs is a logical fallacy.

Brother SRM wrote:There's a lot of reasons. The first is that it contradicts the fluff. It flat out says female Space Marines are impossible.

No it doesn't... the Space Wolves codex, a far newer (and thus more "canon") source, specifically says "These organs were designed so that they could be implanted into the body of an ordinary adolescent human." Unless you define "ordinary" as "male"... which is rather silly.

Melissia wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:There's a lot of reasons. The first is that it contradicts the fluff. It flat out says female Space Marines are impossible.

No it doesn't... the Space Wolves codex, a far newer (and thus more "canon") source, specifically says "These organs were designed so that they could be implanted into the body of an ordinary adolescent human." Unless you define "ordinary" as "male"... which is rather silly.

Or if you're a feminist, then human specifically means "man" because of the "man" part in human with humyn being the acceptable androgynous. Ooooh.... no...

In light of all previous fluff, I would have to interpret the Space Wolf codex as simply being generally worded, rather than retconning the fluff to being more general.

Mellissa wrote: If the geneseed is so specific as to only work on males, then it would only work on males of the same family. Meaning that all Marines would have to be the result of incest and therefor suffer from all of the negatives of that particular practice.

This is simply absurd, you statement here is in effect stating that if someone has a Y chromosome that they are the product of an incestuous relationship. Hint, not all Y chromosomes are the same. If the geneseed works only on males it would work off of the Y chomosome. It isn't just a matter of manipulating hormone levels, but is "as described" a form of genetic recombination. More specifically Homologous recombination, that is performed upon an individual that is already born.

In real world terms, If the Geneseed works only upon the Y chromosome then there will be no female marines.

Melissia wrote:Not just human biology, but the vast majority of mammals too. Indeed, many animals have females be stronger than males (or simply more ferocious for that matter).

There is a difference between "vast majority" and "many". Many can be applied to a group that is not in the majority. Your wording here is a nice trick that makes it seem like you are claiming a female dominance within mammals from som vague scientific basis. Such a claim however would be combpletely false, hence the use of the qualifier "many".

The differences in physical characteristics between males and females is called sexual dimorphism and in mammals, most males are larger and stronger.

focusedfire wrote:if someone has a Y chromosome that they are the product of an incestuous relationship

You are the one that said this, not me. For that matter, not all males have a Y chromosome (XX Males-- genetically female, biologically male), and not all females lack it (XY Females-- genetically male, biologically female)-- and you can't tell the difference between them by looking at them. So theoretically, if it's all hinged on the Y chromosome, it still isn't dependent on gender anyway.

And actually females do typically tend to dominate within animal "society", but this was never really my point...

@ Melissia : That sort of genetic "mishap" is believed to be extremely rare (a few in hundreds of thousands typically) and usually results in complex biochemical problems (I personally know three "females" with this condition, being genetically male but physically female, all have heart, lung, and intestinal related issues). These are still a vast minority, less than a single percentage (I think the XXY is the most common at 0.1%, the next being less common by a factor of 3!).

In mammals, "male dominant" sexual dimorphism is the by far vast majority (from what I had read there was actually no mention of a mammal with "female dominance"). Even in other kingdoms females aren't in a "vast majority" of sexual dominance (except maybe insects and fish...). But we're talking about mammals, specifically humans, and in humans, males obviously are physically dominant (sorry, but it's fact).

One in a hundred thousand is still less rare than a psyker.

Melissia wrote:

focusedfire wrote:if someone has a Y chromosome that they are the product of an incestuous relationship

You are the one that said this, not me. For that matter, not all males have a Y chromosome (XX Males-- genetically female, biologically male), and not all females lack it (XY Females-- genetically male, biologically female)-- and you can't tell the difference between them by looking at them. So theoretically, if it's all hinged on the Y chromosome, it still isn't dependent on gender anyway.

And actually females do typically tend to dominate within animal "society", but this was never really my point...

1)Actually, you said:

Mellissa wrote: If the geneseed is so specific as to only work on males, then it would only work on males of the same family. Meaning that all Marines would have to be the result of incest

Your conclusion about the Marines directly infers that you belive all males are the product of some form of incest. To me,this comes across as far left-wing feminazi propaganda because it has no basis in science.


2)As to the physical appearance of a gender and the few mutations that you mentioned.
A)We are dealing with science, not pc relabling. If an individual human has a Y chomosome it is a male. If it has all X's then it is female. Out ward appearance matters not, it is the hard definition of thier genetics. Your statement reflects what happens political agenda meets science.
B)Before you jump on the appearance doesn't matter portion of my reply, let me remind you that the Imperium would kill the individuals that you mentioned. Why? Because the Imperium is all about destroying the mutant.

Oh yeah, nice switch from mammal to animal. Yes, Females tend to dominate the animal kingdom wich includes incects(which make up the majority of species and skews the stats). Thing is, we were and are discussing Mammals. And males dominate in the majority of mammilian species.

Melissia wrote:One in a hundred thousand is still less rare than a psyker.

But if you're screening things out where supply of potential initiates is greater than the ability to process said initiates into Space Marines (meaning there are more potential initiates than viable Space Marine slots), why mess around with those that obviously aren't what you are looking for?

Example: If I am looking for XY Males, I'll start by separating out all those with breasts and vaginas, and start genetic testing from there. Now if you wanted a Space Marine chapter made up of XY Females.... well I'm not sure if the Imperium would accept them, as they might qualify as "mutants." I don't know what the Imperial standard is for that one.

I fully support people making female space marine armies because when I see them unbox their awful childish models (or, more likely, hear them read out some mind-blowingly stupid short story they have written about their ridiculous chapter) I know to just pack up and move on because spending a few hours on the other side of the table to the kind of person who painstakingly sculpts massive breasts onto marine torsos is going to be the most soul-destroying experience imaginable.

As you can see, forewarning of an opponent's utter worthlessness as a person is very uselful.

@Skinnatter-I believe that the Spotted Hyena is one of the few mammilian species where the Females dominate.

If you REALLY insist on arguing about animals (seriously now...?)

In social settings, females in general dominate. In pure, cold biological reasoning females are more valuable to the species than males, as one male may inseminate many females, whereas females can only carry one [child / litter] at a time. It's why only one adult male is typically allowed to stay in a pride of lions. The others are kicked out and forced to live on their own. Males fight over females, not the other way around.

focusedfire wrote:Your conclusion about the Marines directly infers that you belive all males are the product of some form of incest.

Continue this belief all you want, but your lack of ability (or desire, for that matter) to actually pay attention to what is said does not make it true.

Honestly, it's never bothered me too much, as long as I don't see Mark-X "skimpy" Power Armour. I always wonder exactly how much protection a chain-mail bikini is meant to offer when I see such things. I mean, I like bewbs as much as the next nerd but I don't think it's very practical in a battle situation to have yours covered by a strip of kevlar.