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.

Hecaton wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The only pro human genetics supporting male only marines arguments I've seen are 'because testosterone', which I've already provided counter arguments to.

That's a strawman, and no, you've utterly failed at that. Male and female human bodies react *differently* to testosterone - if testosterone is necessary for the Astartes creation process, it would necessarily have different results on male and female humans.

 Hellebore wrote:
Until you've got something more than Y chromosomes, SRY genes or testosterone as justifications, I've not seen any science argument that supports a default basis for female exclusion.

The Y chromosome is enough; if the process works by upregulating genes on the Y chromosome, it wouldn't work on humans without Y chromosomes. The fact that you can't conceive of that idea means you're very much in the dark about how the human genome and body actually work.

The reason this doesn't make sense is the 55-80 genes that exist on the Y chromosome have very little effect. You're holding them up to be something they're not. The SRY gene is the main sex determinant gene and all it does is convert a gonad that produces testosterone regardless of its final form.

There's nothing special about them that is integral to our biology. Most of those integral genes are on the X chromosome, hence why men are most often affected by X linked genetic disorders.

There are plenty of examples of androgen insensitivity causing female phenotypic appearance, and hypersensitivity in women causing masculine appearance. PCOS alone can cause masculinisation and it's ENTIRELY caused by an ovary, not a teste.

The AR receptor is not an exclusively male receptor, because women of course use androgens in the normal hormonal function and use the same receptors to interact with them.
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/gene/ar/#synonyms

This is the point. Testosterone is not an exclusively Y chromosomal or even male hormone. It plays the same role in men and women. It uses the same receptor network in men and women.

There is no logical way you explain how any of the genes on the Y which are all pretty much related to either testosterone, gonad differentiation or spermatogensis, would be NECESSARY in order to control, monitor, or otherwise interact with any of the new organs a marine has.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5816366/


The Ossmodula and the biscopia both secrete their own hormones to generate their intended effect, requiring no dependence on any existing hormones. The mucranoid is a sweat based organ, again not related to any specific sex determined functions. The oolitic kidney has nothing to do with sex, and kidneys don't need sex determination in order to grow.

The list goes on. Can you point to something in the marine implant regime that you can logically connect to genes that are exclusive to the male genome? Because all I see are organs that are versions of existing ones, or new ones that have nothing to do with testes, or organs that secrect their OWN hormones to generate function.

Hecaton wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
And as I've said, excluding women from the process for a fictional cultural reason is a separate thing that obviously can happen. And the discussion should be around that.

But too many times I've seen people who just don't want there to be female marines fall back on 'well the emperor's science said it wasn't possible' when there's no genetic support for that that I've actually seen put forward.

I've put it forward before in threads on this topic. But, predictably, the pro-FSM crowd ignores that and starts back with spreading their BS in the next thread when it comes up, because truth is not a value that crowd holds dear.

Well I've been providing links and arguments, all I've seen from you is 'my science proves your science wrong' and ad hominem attacks based on your personal opinion of certain areas of study. For someone claiming to be led by the science you aren't coming across particularly scientific.


'upregulating genes on the y chromosome' is a nothing response, because there's nothing on the Y chromosome that producing more of will do anything like what is needed in the organs marines have. Extra SRY? Doesn't do anything. The SRY protein distorts DNA to prevent activation of genes for female reproductive growth and differentiates gonads to testes. Creating more does nothing and it has no involvement in the effects of other organs in the body.

Zinc finger proteins? Well let's make sure that marines have sperm that super shuts down X or Y chromsomes during spermatogensis.

As I said originally, you could probably deliberately design organs that somehow have to connect through these Y chromosome genes to function, but there is nothing on the chromosome that in any way would be vital to function or existence of artificial organs that are based on existing ones whose genes are nowhere near the Y chromosome.

So my point still stands - the Y chromosome has nothing of value that needs to be involved in any non sex-organ function for it work, both real or created. And thus, there is nothing to suggest that marine organs would require exclusively male genomes to function, unless they deliberately through some stupidly convoluted process made it that way on purpose.

There is no need for an oolitic kidney to require a Y chromosome to function when a normal one doesn't.

I've put it forward before in threads on this topic. But, predictably, the pro-FSM crowd ignores that and starts back with spreading their BS in the next thread when it comes up, because truth is not a value that crowd holds dear.

Don’t start putting out blanket statements like that, it’s unnecessary and inflammatory.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So wait, when did we shift to "But they aren't human!" argument? Because the sisters are basically not human. Show me a base human, or even Astartes, that can weaponize their believe in their god, without turning to Chaos. Seriously. This keeps coming up that the sisters are humans, but I doubt very much that they have the literal exact same DNA as say, the smelt worker down in the base level of the Hive.

Where does it say that the Sisters receive the same levels of modifications of marines? Do they have a "belief" organ shoved into them at the age of 16?
You are aware that this is a setting where belief is an actual force that can have a tangible effect, yes?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Sunno wrote:
Iv said it before and I’ll say it again. The future creation of FSM by GW will come down to one thing and one thing only. Its not lore or anything so meta and grounded in the 40k world. It comes down to the cold hard bottom line of profits in the real world.

If GW had the clear evidence that suggested that FSM would make them lots and lots of money and there is a massive group of people out there who would play their games if only space marines could be female, they would have introduced them long ago. Prob when Primaris came along.

However, if FSM look to be unprofitable/unpopular or the upheaval that it would create would disrupt the community so much that it would damage their bottom line moving forward then they won’t do it.

I would say for all the various reasons that there is little evidence of the former and plenty of evidence for the latter.

I agree with this too. Right now GW has plenty of evidence that many of those who want female Marines will just make them by already buying GWs minis.

They can put out a sprue of accessories then for conversions. Bam! Money made.

They did that, and released it in the Imperial Guard Infantry Squad box.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
<snip>

Why would any space marine choose to identify as any gender at all and thusly, why would anybody bother using gendered terms for them? He might just be the default gender for them in 40k because Marines are created from male genetic stock and have never expressed a desire to be addressed differently.

The Grim Dark future probably isn't a very inclusive space and people medically transitioning might be executed if they do so in a way that makes them less productive and less fecund and the Imperium needs breeders.

I say this as somebody who's working out gender feelings of my own, I may well be trans but we'll see when I get to a point where I can act on it, and who likes inclusive properties. I don't need the stuff I liked because it was a horrible dystopia that I would never want to visit to be more like the light-hearted fluff that makes my queer little heart sing.

I could see GW attempting to side step the whole thing by 'Primaris'ising the Sisters.

Cawl/Guilliman provide a geneseed suite to the convents and rebuild them into a supersoldier force.

Maybe after they curb the ecclesiarchy's power and pull it back under true imperial control?

So they still provide the opportunity for super human women in the setting, they just don't suffer the outrage of marine players by making chapters co-ed...

My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.

Sometimes its just about changing for the sake of changing and the psychological rewards for doing so.

 Hellebore wrote:
I could see GW attempting to side step the whole thing by 'Primaris'ising the Sisters.

Cawl/Guilliman provide a geneseed suite to the convents and rebuild them into a supersoldier force.

Maybe after they curb the ecclesiarchy's power and pull it back under true imperial control?

So they still provide the opportunity for super human women in the setting, they just don't suffer the outrage of marine players by making chapters co-ed...

I'd rather that happen to the Sisters of Silence. The Sororitas being badass humans who pray the evil away is sort of their appeal.
SoS is in greater need of a revamp and range expansion.

Table wrote:
What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only?

If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
I could see GW attempting to side step the whole thing by 'Primaris'ising the Sisters.

Cawl/Guilliman provide a geneseed suite to the convents and rebuild them into a supersoldier force.

Maybe after they curb the ecclesiarchy's power and pull it back under true imperial control?

So they still provide the opportunity for super human women in the setting, they just don't suffer the outrage of marine players by making chapters co-ed...

I'd rather that happen to the Sisters of Silence. The Sororitas being badass humans who pray the evil away is sort of their appeal.
SoS is in greater need of a revamp and range expansion.

Yeah I was all keen on Sisters of Silence, and then I saw their stats. It was especially dissapointing when they were released alongside Custodes.

By the Emperor, the lads in this thread are sweating over this and pointing fingers. I don't think they should be added to the lore but official kits would be welcomed.


If it's profitable, the management at GW will add female marines.


Having official BL books with female marines? Depends if the author does a good job for the audience to accept it. Depends entirely on how they present it.

Your headcannon can be whatever you'd like and other folks opinions shouldn't really affect your man dollies and little toy soliders. It's a child's toy sold by a business. We as adults can partake in the hobby but the hobby is defined differently. Some read books, some paint models, some play video games.

 Crimson wrote:

Table wrote:
What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only?

If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.

Agree. It's important to understand that they're not on equal footing. It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's part of the equation.

Table wrote:
My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.

Sometimes its just about changing for the sake of changing and the psychological rewards for doing so.

I don't think so.

GW have a very clear get out of segregation free card for the sisters in their 'men under arms' decree, which is trivially simple to repeal.

You're falling into a trap that a lot of people do when anyone brings up real social justice issues. A person calling for a particular minority to receive support is not responsible for representing all social justice causes and it doesn't invalidate their position if they didn't include every other possible group in their argument. That argument is for that, and another for another.

You are more than welcome to start a thread discussing male sororitas as a separate issue, so long as IT isn't in bad faith as an attempted 'gotcha' argument against female marine supporters.

Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Table wrote:
My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. .

Is the answer that having them be a single gender doesn't actually make sense?

Frankly, I'd much rather the Decree Passive be retconned into limiting the Ecclesiarchy to forces under a specific size, and having the rule creatively skirted or ignored in certain regions, rather than the current 'See, they're not men, hur hur...' thing.

People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.

I mean, people have been pushing for female model representation in the Guard for decades now. Discussions around inclusion have been fairly common, particularly whenever GW releases a female model as it brings it to the forefront again. This isn't a new phenomena, nor is it exclusive to Marines. It's just amplified for Marines because they're the poster faction in the game, and because some people are so vehemently against it.

Dismissing it as 'bad faith' brings nothing productive to the discussion.

Dudeface wrote:
I also know that the astartes creation process is meant to be keyed to the male biology.

And why can't we just accept that? Why does that have to be something that changes? We accept everything else at face value, but not that. Why?

Dudeface wrote:
Weirdly one of these is a problem, where diversity should be an integral part of the story and game design.

Diversity has no inherent value when it exists only for the sake of existing. That's basically tokenism, and tokenism helps no one.

Dudeface wrote:
The other is some vastly supported intentional in-setting circumvention of a made up law via sexism, which is a-ok apparently.

You're assigning a motive that just isn't there.

The Decree Passive had nothing to do with sexism or gender. It was an attempt to stop the Adeptus Ministorum from having an army, because that's what led to the Reign of Blood. I imagine it went something a little like this:

Adeptus Ministorum Representitive: You cannot curtail the Ecclesiarchy!
High Lords Representitve: Your forces nearly tore the Imperium asunder!
AdMinRep: We are the sword of the God-Emperor!
HighLordRep: We have put a new measure in place.
AdMinRep: You will never get away with this!
HighLordRep: The Decree Passive forever prevent you from having men under arms.
AdMinRep: You will rue the da... hold on, say that last part again?
HighLordRep: No men under arms.
AdMinRep: No men under arms?
HighLordRep: That's what I just said.
AdMinRep: *beat* Ok, sure. We can live with that.
HighLordRep: Really? Because a minute ago you were adamant-
AdMinRep: No, no! You are completely right. There has been too much fighting already. The Imperium has enough enemies without us fighting amongst ourselves, amirite?
HighLordRep: Well... ok then.

*6 months later*

HighLordRep: We need to talk about all these troops you have.
AdMinRep: The Adepta Sorortias! Glorious, aren't they! Devout followers. Expert fighters. True beacons of the Emperor's Grace.
HighLordRep: I distinctly remember saying-
AdMinRep: No men under arms, yes, we heard you. And, as you can see, we have none.
HighLordRep: Y'know, that's not really what we meant when we sai-
AdMinRep: Hey, buddy, you're the one who wrote the rules. We're just following them!

No sexism. No misogyny. No other motive you want to heap upon it.

The only fact of all this is that the Adeptus Ministorum was told they couldn't have an army, didn't want to comply, so found a convenient loophole in the wording of the Decree Passive and exploited that to the nth degree.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't see how anyone can justify one and not the other. It's a parcel package, you can't demand inclusivity based on outdated gender discrimination for Marines then go "but yeah the all women army is fine".

That argument only works if your core premise, that Marines are only male because of "outdated gender discrimination", is true. You haven't proven that, and I doubt you ever could.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
What is with your obsession with breasts? No one is saying people want that, but people keep bringing it up.

You obviously haven't seen a majority of fan art for female Marines or even SoB fan art in general. It's all over IG and Facebook, and that doesn't even count the degenerates on DeviantArt.

You obviously haven't seen the examples posted here in this thread of non-fetishised FSM, of my own FSM, and the comments of multiple users here rejecting those ideas.

Plus, if we're going to be making the statement that a few (distasteful) pictures are indicative of everyone who plays that faction, what does that say for Eldar and Dark Eldar players. Slaanesh daemons? Tyranids? And, if it's "all over" IG and facebook, that's because of YOUR search algorithm. So, you tell me - why are you looking for it? Because I've never seen it, and I'm very well established in FSM groups.

So, care to elaborate?

They released a SoB JoyToy, so that made your argument incredibly irrelevant.

Yes. A. Singular. Good job, you can count! Now, how many Space Marine ones? How many unpainted Space Marine versions? And where's my Sisters of Battle chibi advent calendar?

Also yeah, if you hadn't noticed, fan art for female Marines and SoB in general give more pronounced boobplate and makeup. You can feel free to deny it, but it's not what a majority of that art is: fetishism.

And is the art community indicative of the entire fandom? If so, what does that say for Eldar players, Daemons players, and so on. Or, better yet, 40k players as a whole?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Hmmm, gee, I don't know - maybe when people gak their pants and screech "THAT MODEL ISN'T CANON" that makes folks feel like their contributions to the hobby aren't considered legitimate?

Just a thought?

considering your reaction, no i don't think so, i think bluntly and that sounds way ruder than it is intended, that this is an issue of your selfesteem and or your hobby skills and or hobby group.

And I think bluntly and this sounds ruder than it is intended, but that's an issue of your lack of empathy and self-centredness.

As you said, thinking bluntly.

Is it against the lore? Yes.
Is that a valid reason to point out or even avoid a match against your army? yes, for people that value the setting and lore that is more than fair enough to decline but that can and will be done against any other army that doesn't fit 40k by some people.

I value the setting. I don't value ALL of it, because the setting is large enough that it's a sandbox and should be there to promote creativity.

I value the setting's ability to uplift and encourage people, not to gak on their work.

And besides - if someone "values" the setting and hates the idea of Space Marine aircraft before they became canon, do they then change their opinion to continue "valuing" the setting, or do they hold their beliefs, and now no longer "value" the setting?

if someone loses their gak then you didn't want to play them anyways because chances are they take themselves too serious anyways.

If someone loses their gak because they didn't like how someone's plastic soldiers had women heads, then we should all rightfully mock them and deride them for it. It's pathetic behaviour. Do you agree?

a_typical_hero wrote:You can (and should) do this already. Do you want to tell me you suffer through a whole game of snarky and disrespectful comments, but if GW writes female Marines into the lore, you would step up in the very same situation? And then you would only do it about comments regarding female Marines, but if they find the next thing, you will endure it again, until something official is done about it?

Dudes*, if some donkey is showing disruptive behaviour in your community, speak up. And if they don't want to correct their behaviour, throw them out of your community. This has nothing to do at all with what the offical story is or not.

I can't fault any of that. However, I do feel that GW can assist in this process. It's not that I don't do anything anyway, but as seen, there's some people for who it's okay to say some pretty awful stuff and do some unpleasant things when they seen FSM because "the lore says so". Taking away that piece of ammunition is helpful in combating that, I'd appreciate the assistance.

*What's the "they" form for dude anyway?

Dudes is usually fine if referring to multiple people anyways, but calling someone a dude tends to depend on how you'd use it - if you were heterosexual male and use " dude" to refer to everyone, then I'd expect that to also refer to how many "dudes" you've slept with. For me, I tend to prefer using "folks".

Not Online!!! wrote:Yet, we see, priests (chaplains), knightly armour and swords, cross symbology, double headed eagles ala HRE/ Religious symbol on marines all the time....

Guardsmen also have priests, Knights are a faction, nearly all factions have swords, cross symbology only occurs on SOME Astartes, double headed eagles occur on EVERY Imperial force - so why aren't guardsmen and Imperial Knights also symbolic of warrior monks?

Eldar, Dark Eldar and tau also exist and are esthethiqually quite diverse, especialy if you consider corsairs or the differing subgroups of deldar and if you don't want to field PA then the guard and a whole slew of regiments to your liking exist and may only require slightly more effort to field..

Yeah - aesthetically diverse from the Imperium, but they too also suffer from a very homogenous aesthetic identity within their own faction. Space Marines don't have that issue. And as for Guardsmen - yet again, a very different type of army to what Space Marines are.

Unless you want to claim that all the aesthetics that Space Marines currently have can be done by every other faction, and that, if Space Marines didn't exist, all would be the same anyways, you're simply wrong here.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:So if a historical donkey cave is insulting your models it's fine because it's a valid battle, but not for fictional ones?

I never said it was "valid". I said that there's a hell of a difference between someone caring about an ACTUAL battle with ACTUAL facts, and gakking the bed over a FAKE battle with FAKE lore.

Does that sink in?

Canadian 5th wrote:Why would any space marine choose to identify as any gender at all and thusly, why would anybody bother using gendered terms for them?

Well, yes - exactly! Space Marines shouldn't use he/him pronouns, shouldn't refer to eachother as Brother, and should be entirely inhuman. They should be referred to as they/it.

He might just be the default gender for them in 40k because Marines are created from male genetic stock and have never expressed a desire to be addressed differently.

But then why do they need to be only made from male stock? That's an arbitrary restriction. And why would they even care to be called he - that's personalisation. They'd surely prefer to be called they/it.

And this is what I mean - I would actually PREFER this, alongside further disfiguring their faces. However, some people still like their heroic looking big burly dudes.

The Grim Dark future probably isn't a very inclusive space and people medically transitioning might be executed if they do so in a way that makes them less productive and less fecund and the Imperium needs breeders.

And that's why they... hire women as guardsmen, Inquisitors, Sisters of Battle, Sisters of Silence, AdMech personnel, PDF, Navy ratings, etc etc?

No. There's plenty of room for women in 40k beyond being glorified wombs - and there always has been. 40k is awful, but in places, the Imperium is gender and sex-positive, and in others, can also be horrendous for both.

Table wrote:My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.

Sometimes its just about changing for the sake of changing and the psychological rewards for doing so.

As Crimson puts it:

Crimson wrote:If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.

As said - if Space Marines and Sisters were in any way equivalent factions, sure. But they aren't, and it's unfair to argue that they are.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

No they did, but no one wanted to buy them at the time so GW made an in universe reason they didn’t exist.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

No they did, but no one wanted to buy them at the time so GW made an in universe reason they didn’t exist.

Wasn't she just an adventurer in power armor, or was she actually called a marine?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Table wrote:
What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only?

If Sisters of Battle were an overwhelmingly most supported and featured faction, garnering as much attention than the rest of the factions combined, then that would indeed be a perfectly valid complaint.

Agree. It's important to understand that they're not on equal footing. It's not the end-all-be-all, but it's part of the equation.

Wouldn't the solution then be to support other armies?
If Games Workshop follows the money, then supporting armies that aren't marines would get them to expand their focus, no?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
... they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

It was nothing to do with their 'vision of the universe'. They did it because their initial foray into models of woman warriors didn't sell. Partly because it was the '80s and boys were still being told that playing with toys of girls was weird, and partly because they were really awful models. The bit about the process only working on males was added later to explain in-universe why there were no women. It was never part of the original plan.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Why would any space marine choose to identify as any gender at all and thusly, why would anybody bother using gendered terms for them?

Well, yes - exactly! Space Marines shouldn't use he/him pronouns, shouldn't refer to eachother as Brother, and should be entirely inhuman. They should be referred to as they/it.

That would make sense to us, but I think in universe it makes sense to have propaganda that plays them up as manly men. Imprint that as part of their indoctrination and suddenly they use he/him and refer to one another as brothers so that the mask never slips.

He might just be the default gender for them in 40k because Marines are created from male genetic stock and have never expressed a desire to be addressed differently.

But then why do they need to be only made from male stock?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

No, they didn't. The Clans were an addition to the lore.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

No they did, but no one wanted to buy them at the time so GW made an in universe reason they didn’t exist.

insaniak wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
... they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

It was nothing to do with their 'vision of the universe'. They did it because their initial foray into models of woman warriors didn't sell. Partly because it was the '80s and boys were still being told that playing with toys of girls was weird, and partly because they were really awful models. The bit about the process only working on males was added later to explain in-universe why there were no women. It was never part of the original plan.

Then clearly in universe, something prevented the process from being sustainable. Female augmentation was tried briefly, failed, and went away.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Very true, but as noted it's a different case bacause that's been long eastablished.

Marines are a pretty special case. They're long established as an all male faction, which on it's own should be absolutely fine. The friction really comes from the fact that Marines are represented so heavily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

No, they didn't. The Clans were an addition to the lore.

There were female mechwarriors from the get-go.

Table wrote:
My question has been, and still is thus. What if people complained about the sisters of battle being female only? The answer is the same. People who vehemently push for female marines are doing so in bad faith. Of course, not every person has this aberrant intent. But since there is so little brought up about inclusion in the rest of the setting, it rings true.

Do you really not see why someone could be ok with a single-gender tertiary faction but not feel the same way about the faction that dominates the lore, especially the lore that newbies are first presented with? Few people would care about female marines if marines had a share of the story comparable to SoB and guard/orks/etc dominated the setting. But if 75% of the lore and 95% of what GW presents to new players is going to be marine-focused then diversity of marines is going to be an issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*6 months later*

HighLordRep: We need to talk about all these troops you have.
AdMinRep: The Adepta Sorortias! Glorious, aren't they! Devout followers. Expert fighters. True beacons of the Emperor's Grace.
HighLordRep: I distinctly remember saying-
AdMinRep: No men under arms, yes, we heard you. And, as you can see, we have none.
HighLordRep: Y'know, that's not really what we meant when we sai-
AdMinRep: Hey, buddy, you're the one who wrote the rules. We're just following them!

Actual response:

HighLordRep: We need to talk about all these troops you have.
AdMinRep: The Adepta Sorortias! Glorious, aren't they! Devout followers. Expert fighters. True beacons of the Emperor's Grace.
HighLordRep: I distinctly remember saying-
AdMinRep: No men under arms, yes, we heard you. And, as you can see, we have none.
HighLordRep: Cool story bro, the exterminatus fleet will be there shortly to deal with your treason.

The whole thing is just silly from an in-universe point of view. Higher authority in a totalitarian dystopia isn't going to just shrug and say "well, guess you found a loophole", they're going to immediately crush their rivals for power and do it with extra brutality as a lesson to anyone else who might think about finding a clever loophole in the law.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
Surprised this topic is still up. Let's take a look at the competition. Battletech has had females in front-line combat roles in the genetically-engineered Clans since 1989. The sky hasn't fallen for them yet.

Battletech started with that as a baseline of their lore. If GW had female SM in Rogue Trader and had always supported them that would be the baseline for 40k, they didn't do that because it didn't fit the vision for the universe.

No, they didn't. The Clans were an addition to the lore.

From the first edition BattleDroids rules:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
The whole thing is just silly from an in-universe point of view. Higher authority in a totalitarian dystopia isn't going to just shrug and say "well, guess you found a loophole", they're going to immediately crush their rivals for power and do it with extra brutality as a lesson to anyone else who might think about finding a clever loophole in the law.

Is it silly? You forget how slow things are in the Imperium. Chances are by the time anyone was in a position to do anything about it, the Adepta Sororitas was well spread (and well-liked by the populace), not to mention highly effective and doing the right kind of fighting, so they probably just let it go. Better to turn it into a propaganda win than attempt to curtail it. One gets you a win with zero effort, the other gets your Ministorum Civil War 2: War Harder.

In case anyone missed it earlier - the 'fetish' discussion is off-topic for this thread. Don't go there.

There can't be any women because they're a brotherhood of warrior monks who live in a monastery, while the female counterpart to this are nuns in a convent otherwise known as the sisters of battle. This is obvious and completely self evident; the calls for female marines boil down to attempts to take political novelties invented barely five minutes ago and pretend it was always like that, forcing them into everything, or because you think it's cool. At least one side is honest.