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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Tyran wrote:

Even then that doesn't apply to all sports.

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

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

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Gert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again Gert for sharing!

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

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

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

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

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

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

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

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

How would you write the statement then?.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What statements?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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

Or, you know, both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether incidental or intentional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether incidental or intentional.

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

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

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

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

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

 Rihgu wrote:
Whether incidental or intentional.

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

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

In a book that Goonhammer says has 334 pages.

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

 PetitionersCity wrote:

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

Whether incidental or intentional.

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

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

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

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

Not even slightly.