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.

Ugh, snowflakes gonna snowflake, I guess. The really sad thing about this is that I bet not a single transgender person was actually offended; it was just a few cisgender "white knights" that just want to stir the pot and try to tell the trans people why they should be offended. All this getting offended over tiny things has got to stop; as was mentioned earlier in this thread, there is actual bigotry going on out there, and there's no need to point out every little thing that *might* be somehow offensive. That only hurts the people it's in theory supposed to support, as it makes them look like a bunch of crybabies.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

It's also funny because it implies that people can't play things that provide a 1:1 representation of them in some way, which by that logic would eliminate a huge swathe of xenos races as viable choices. I play Orks, I'm nowhere near as buff, angry or fungally murderous as those lads (nor am I football hooligan, I'm not really into anything but racket sports) but I have no issues with playing them or finding them interesting. I would assume the same of a Nids player that they don't want to consume everything they see or want to be part of a Hive Mind.

 Olthannon wrote:
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.

Nah, in the UK specifically you've got a lot of people who are so pro-women that they view transwomen as interlopers in female spaces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Part of the problem is that the segment of the 40k community that agrees with the article posted in the OP is overwhelmingly the segment of the community that likes to pretend that the Imperium is unironically heroic for some reason. See also: the people who think that Sororitas are the most moral faction in 40k because they have sexist and retrograde ideas about women being inherently more moral/good/kind.

 PetitionersCity wrote:
as such there isn't a "hormonal" male sex.

Sure there is. You can talk about percentile ranges on hormone levels and the typical male range. The fact that sex is a bimodal distribution not a binary one doesn't change the fact that there are two groups to refer to and the edge cases and overlap aren't relevant in this specific context.

They also are emphasising that the term "biological male" is transphobic, as it is used by some gender critical or transphobic critics.

But the term "biological male" isn't used here. Don't accuse the GW author of something they didn't say.

it's rather that the language in Betrayal and now the new AoD rulebook excludes the existence of trans men

No it doesn't. Nowhere in that statement does it say anything like "trans men are really women". The fact that a particular fictional technology requires XY genes and male-typical hormone levels to function does not say anything about the gender identity or validity of trans men.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 PetitionersCity wrote:
as such there isn't a "hormonal" male sex.

Sure there is. You can talk about percentile ranges on hormone levels and the typical male range. The fact that sex is a bimodal distribution not a binary one doesn't change the fact that there are two groups to refer to and the edge cases and overlap aren't relevant in this specific context.

They also are emphasising that the term "biological male" is transphobic, as it is used by some gender critical or transphobic critics.

But the term "biological male" isn't used here. Don't accuse the GW author of something they didn't say.

it's rather that the language in Betrayal and now the new AoD rulebook excludes the existence of trans men

No it doesn't. Nowhere in that statement does it say anything like "trans men are really women". The fact that a particular fictional technology requires XY genes and male-typical hormone levels to function does not say anything about the gender identity or validity of trans men.

I was summarising Goonhammer and the petition, not stating my own thoughts here

This is something looking for something to complain about, making something out of nothing.

It's utter insanity. And FFS, a petition?

 PetitionersCity wrote:
I was summarising Goonhammer and the petition, not stating my own thoughts here

Gotcha. Well, Goonhammer is completely off the deep end here.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This is something looking for something to complain about, making something out of nothing.

It's utter insanity. And FFS, a petition?

I emailed GW to let them know that I disagree with this open letter. I'd suggest everyone else do the same.

 insaniak wrote:
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.

But I'm still not seeing the issue here. "Space marine genetic modifications only work on XY males with male-typical hormone ranges" is just fine. Why does it only work that way? Who knows, it's completely fictional technology and even in the setting the people using it have no idea how it works. What exactly needs to be corrected?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 PetitionersCity wrote:
I was summarising Goonhammer and the petition, not stating my own thoughts here

Gotcha. Well, Goonhammer is completely off the deep end here.

This is definitely just something they want to build online clout over and I'd like to see if they would even do anything besides just put out internet puff pieces on their bad IRL takes in the hobby world if GW doesn't bother to respond to them (which I'm hoping they won't). Can't see Goonhammer giving up on all the inertia for the new HH 2.0 release.

When you get an atheist saying "Oh, Jesus fething Christ..." you know you've reached a new level.

On that note?


Oh, Jesus fething Christ...

 ZergSmasher wrote:
The really sad thing about this is that I bet not a single transgender person was actually offended; it was just a few cisgender "white knights" that just want to stir the pot and try to tell the trans people why they should be offended.

You would be wrong. Several transgender gamers I follow on twitter have spoken out fairly extensively on this issue.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
But I'm still not seeing the issue here. "Space marine genetic modifications only work on XY males with male-typical hormone ranges" is just fine. Why does it only work that way? Who knows, it's completely fictional technology and even in the setting the people using it have no idea how it works. What exactly needs to be corrected?

The thing is, it's not working on 'male typical hormone ranges' when it includes everything from the more or less perfect human specimens from Ultramar to the stunted and rad-damaged folk of Baal. And in at least one case, a guy who was even only half human.

And the idea that it only works on a specific hormone range when a part of that very process is to jack up the hormones just seems more than a little odd.

 Grimskul wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

It's also funny because it implies that people can't play things that provide a 1:1 representation of them in some way, which by that logic would eliminate a huge swathe of xenos races as viable choices. I play Orks, I'm nowhere near as buff, angry or fungally murderous as those lads (nor am I football hooligan, I'm not really into anything but racket sports) but I have no issues with playing them or finding them interesting. I would assume the same of a Nids player that they don't want to consume everything they see or want to be part of a Hive Mind.

I know right?

I refuse to play 40K until GW makes a Space Marine chapter that has every member as a disabled veteran from Indiana of Lithuanian/Irish descent who has SPD, plays guitar, and collects Transformers.


Make it happen, GW.





I swear, the self importance of some people is borderline nauseating...

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, it's not working on 'male typical hormone ranges' when it includes everything from the more or less perfect human specimens from Ultramar to the stunted and rad-damaged folk of Baal. And in at least one case, a guy who was even only half human.

And the idea that it only works on a specific hormone range when a part of that very process is to jack up the hormones just seems more than a little odd.

Do they talk specifically about hormone ranges? It could work via upregulation of genes that are only found on the y chromosome.

 Grimskul wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

It's also funny because it implies that people can't play things that provide a 1:1 representation of them in some way, which by that logic would eliminate a huge swathe of xenos races as viable choices. I play Orks, I'm nowhere near as buff, angry or fungally murderous as those lads (nor am I football hooligan, I'm not really into anything but racket sports) but I have no issues with playing them or finding them interesting. I would assume the same of a Nids player that they don't want to consume everything they see or want to be part of a Hive Mind.

Representation is about feeling included, not about needing a 1:1 representation of yourself specifically to play with.

 insaniak wrote:

Representation is about feeling included, not about needing a 1:1 representation of yourself specifically to play with.

For the record, I don't feel included by anything in the Imperium, since they're a bunch of degenerate baby-murdering religious nutjobs. And I find it weird that people would.

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, it's not working on 'male typical hormone ranges' when it includes everything from the more or less perfect human specimens from Ultramar to the stunted and rad-damaged folk of Baal. And in at least one case, a guy who was even only half human.

Why do you think those groups fall outside the typical male hormone range? Have you taken specific measurements on the fictional residents of Baal and analyzed the effects of their fictional radiation damage on their hormone production?

And the idea that it only works on a specific hormone range when a part of that very process is to jack up the hormones just seems more than a little odd.

Why? Maybe the process requires a certain minimum hormone level (and a body used to being at that level) as a catalyst for the process to begin. Maybe the process consumes the male reproductive organs and converts them to some of the new marine upgrades. You certainly can't say that this completely fictional technology can't work that way.

Hecaton wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Representation is about feeling included, not about needing a 1:1 representation of yourself specifically to play with.

For the record, I don't feel included by anything in the Imperium, since they're a bunch of degenerate baby-murdering religious nutjobs. And I find it weird that people would.

Pretty much the point I wanted to raise. Feeling included how? I have no issues with people in the local 40k or tabletop community doing whatever they want (within reason) to make it accomodating to different types of people. But the lore itself? Does that have to bend over backwards to make people feel more comfortable about their crazy murder faction? Where do you draw the line? What stops me from demanding that Games Workshop show off explicit genitalia for daemonettes to better represent the adrogynous nature of Slaanesh and intersex people as a whole, just so I feel included?

That kind of logic leads to stuff like the changes to LoTR by Amazon to change Tolkien's depiction of elves and dwarves to a more..."modern" (and frankly inaccurate) take on what their looks are due to ideas of being inclusive even though it is contrary to what Tolkien wrote and ignores options of other human races like the Harad or Easterlings if they wanted to have their diversity cake and eat it too.

Diversity is inaccurate to Tolkien but Space Marines are made by wonky arcane technology that is absolutely fiction so doesn't need to follow rules.

For me, the issue is not the opinion that was shared and its corresponding call to action. My issue and disappointment is that today Goonhammer crossed a line from being a site dedicated to publishing opinions and observations on how to play table top games, how to paint miniatures, analysis on the competitive aspect, etc. to a site that posts potentially inflammatory opinions on subjects that are very divisive. Before today, I did not associate Goonhammer as a place to see opinions on politics, pro-life vs. pro-choice, BLM, Alt-right, Islamophobia, Transphobia, Christianophobia, or whatever -phobia or -ism.

There are other places where I can and do visit to read or listen to other people’s opinions on those topics and groups.

I like to think of the tabletop hobby as a place where I can come share my enjoyment of the setting, miniatures, and gaming with other fans without needing to think if they are tory or labour, republican or democrat, LGBT+, Christian, Buddhist, or whatever identity someone claims and whether or not that identify offends me or if my assumed or claimed identity offends them.

Ultimately I am here to build, paint, and roll some dice celebrating what is good about the hobby and I think Goonhammer should stick to that ethos as well and leave the social commentary and politics to others.

I think it's important to grant some precision concerning the question, so let's break it down a bit.

Initial Concerns: I would imagine that the main terrain on which this debate operates, at least in the first instance, is one of i) psychology and ii) intention, which I group here as they overlap considerably. i) is a concern regarding whether a person, consciously, unconsciously, or non-consciously hates, fears, or has some particular negative disposition towards trans people. And ii) is a concern regarding whether the utterer of a statement intends to voice or propagate such a view, or harm trans people. Let's break these down:
Psychology: We of course cannot be certain, without any other evidence, I think the principle of charity demands that the statement in question from Horus Heresy was not one made by a person whom we have reason to think of as a transphobic.
Intention: The principle of charity similarly demands that we don't read this statement as such, again, at least without further evidence.

Accuracy: The next issue is a matter of the accuracy of the statement, and particularly it's reflection of the biology of sex. Here I begin with a story. In 2019 I was asked to help teach a course entitled The Philosophy of Sex at the University of Sydney, an area of philosophy with which I was unfamiliar (but I needed the money). It was a great subject, and one of the most enjoyable was given by Prof. Paul Griffiths, who is an expert in the Philosophy of Biology, and has published a considerable amount of work on the biology of sexual difference. His lecture was an anomaly, as it was not one with the intention of imparting any knowledge regarding the biology of sexual difference per se, nor one aimed at engaging students in any particular philosophical issues in this area (although other courses were available). Instead, this lecture had one goal: to demonstrate how little we all know about the biology of sex. We laymen know nothing. It was a tour de force of the most complex biology I have ever encountered. The purpose was to take as a foundation that our discourse on this matter must emerge from a recognition of our own thorough ignorance of the biology of the matter, such that we do not lend baseless dogmatism to our thinking about this. A link to a popular presentation of his view is here:
https://www.appliedphil.org/sap-public-lecture-australia-a-process-theory-of-biological-sex-paul-griffiths-university-of-sydney/
To summarise his position (and I may be wrong, here, so forgive): a) there are only two sexes; b) not all individuals possess one or the other; and c) for the most part, sexual difference, from a biological perspective, is more a species-level issue than an individual-level issue.

Initial Summary: From this, I think it's fair to say that the statement in question expresses a primary-school level understanding of the biology of sex, and is properly distortionary of the reality, and it is highly unlikely that this person made this statement from transphobia, or wielded it to transphobic end. But I think that there is one more point to make.

History: Whether we like it or not, and regardless of what our own intentions and psychology may be, it is the case that language has a history. Indeed, as Wittgenstein argues, it's necessary for language to operate as language - to communicate meaning - without this. That is to say, the meaning of the words, terms, and phrases we use has significance over and above our own use. So regardless of how the phrase in question was used, or was intended to be used, and what it was intended to communicate, there is a separate issue concerning the discourse(s) with which it engages - intentionally or unintentionally. And I think that the writer of the article has a point: It may not have been made as a hateful statement, but it is one that intersects with, and strongly resonates with, hateful discourse. Discourse evolves, and maybe the pseudo-scientific transphobic discourse with which this phrase resonates only arose after this claim was published. But we cannot deny the reality that it intersects with in now, and it is a discourse which does genuine harm to trans people - a vulnerable group even in the most progressive societies; a group over which hangs the very real possibility of death in less progressive ones.

Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

EDIT: Furthermore, I think that we as a community of wargamers have certain responsibilities to be as inclusive as possible. This may not demand that we write to GW to demand this change. But I think it requires us being receptive to concerns that emerge from the community. And in a way that has been unfortunately lacking in this thread, which has been overly ready to speak of 'snowflakes' and 'virtue-signalling', and characterise this as a non-issue, or one over which we should pass in silence because its 'divisive'. This means saying (and remember, you don't have to say anything at all), not just "no", but rather, "I understand that we are dealing with legitimate concerns of a marginalised group, and whether I agree with this statement or not, we are an inclusive community."

"40k Transphobic?"

Does this mean, is the company that makes 40k bigoted?

No.

Does this mean, is the fictional universe the game takes place in bigotted?

Yes.

Does this mean, the fictional scientific fact that space marines are males somehow, through emotional magic and pure non logical rationalization of the reader, justify outrage?

No.

The 40k universe is filled with rape, bigotry, murder, mass slaughter, torture, slavery and socialism. Some test tubes making men into collectivistic killing machines for a fascist dictatorship is the least of the in universe's problems. I mean, hell literally exists and 4 different types of Satans actually exist and walk around planets.

Also, Sister of Battle are female only. Where is the bigotry outrage there? Pure contradiction, worthy of ignoring.

This is akin to the argument that Video Games makes people evil, only it's plastic men and rolling dice. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

Check your premises.

 Rihgu wrote:
Diversity is inaccurate to Tolkien but Space Marines are made by wonky arcane technology that is absolutely fiction so doesn't need to follow rules.

Every (good) setting has in-universe rules. A biological process that only human males can be subjected to is perfectly plausible; I don't see any problem with depicting it.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:
Ultimately I am here to build, paint, and roll some dice celebrating what is good about the hobby and I think Goonhammer should stick to that ethos as well and leave the social commentary and politics to others.

Or maybe you could lose the entitlement and accept that the people running the site are not obligated to "stick to gaming" to satisfy your needs.

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

How is a statement made about the medical science of a fictional dystopia harming people in the real world?

Acknowledging that biologically male bodies are distinct from biologically female bodies in almost all cases in humans is not a transphobic statement, and it doesn't invalidate the central proposition of transgender people. Saying something is male in a biological context is not the same thing as saying it's a man.

 Grimskul wrote:
Does that have to bend over backwards to make people feel more comfortable about their crazy murder faction?

I feel like you're maybe overstating the difficulty involved in making this change.


To be clear, though... no, obviously they don't have to 'bend over backwards' to accommodate different people. But whether or not they have to, and whether or not it might be a good idea are not automatically the same thing.

And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes? Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

But what should it be changed to? What level of strict technical accuracy and explicit mention of the edge cases in sex determination needs to be included in a context where the precise nuances of sex and genetics have nothing to do with the topic of discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes? Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

What happens is that the lore changes from "marines are a male-only brotherhood of warrior monks" to "marines are often men but women are also marines". Whether or not you like that change it's pretty dishonest to suggest that it's a tiny edit and there's no reason to disagree with it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

But what should it be changed to? What level of strict technical accuracy and explicit mention of the edge cases in sex determination needs to be included in a context where the precise nuances of sex and genetics have nothing to do with the topic of discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
And here's the thing - if they were to rewrite the background so that Marines could be recruited from anyone rather than just 'biological males', what exactly changes? Those who want to play their Marines as an all-boy's club can still do so, by only including those models in their armies. Those who want a more varied force, or an all-woman force can do so without receiving those inevitable sneering 'But that's not canon!' comments from the peanut gallery. It's difficult to see a downside here, unless one is against change purely because it's change.

What happens is that the lore changes from "marines are a male-only brotherhood of warrior monks" to "marines are often men but women are also marines". Whether or not you like that change it's pretty dishonest to suggest that it's a tiny edit and there's no reason to disagree with it.

"Space Marines are created from human stock via Arcane Genomancy few if any understand"

Hecaton wrote:

 Rihgu wrote:
Diversity is inaccurate to Tolkien but Space Marines are made by wonky arcane technology that is absolutely fiction so doesn't need to follow rules.

Every (good) setting has in-universe rules. A biological process that only human males can be subjected to is perfectly plausible; I don't see any problem with depicting it.

Pretty much. I don't see anyone complaining this badly against female only groups or organizations in fiction. No one cares that the Gem race in Steven Universe is all (barring hybrids like Steven) designed to look/voiced almost exclusively female. No one cares that the Lodge of Sorceresses in the Witcher are all female. I don't see an issue of a faction being inherent exclusive in some way, and frankly it's more realistic considering that even now, with elite teams like NAVY SEALS being open to women, none have been able to become one yet.

Hecaton wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

How is a statement made about the medical science of a fictional dystopia harming people in the real world?

Acknowledging that biologically male bodies are distinct from biologically female bodies in almost all cases in humans is not a transphobic statement, and it doesn't invalidate the central proposition of transgender people. Saying something is male in a biological context is not the same thing as saying it's a man.

Two points:
1) The fictionality of the world is entirely besides the point. Song of the South is a fiction; Birth of a Nation is a fiction. But there's a reason why they don't play on Sunday Afternoon Disney.
2) Indeed, I see little issue in suggesting 'only men can do become space marines'. But that's not the problem here. The problem was that this statement said that what it is to be a man is a matter of 'chromosomes' and 'biological makeup'. Not only are such claims false and distortionary (see the lecture I posted above), but intersect worryingly (even if not intentionally) with established modes of hate-speech.

Hence problematic. Just say "Only men can become Space Marines". There you go. Then you're not even pretending to make a biological claim.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 TonyH122 wrote:
Conclusion: Given this, I would argue that we have sufficient reason to state that the statement from Horus Heresy is not transphobic, but that it should be changed, because of the harm that it does. Like it or not, we have a responsibility to counteract the efficacy of hate groups when it is within our reasonable power. And one of these needs is to be a little more careful concerning our expressions regarding the biology of sex, lest we not parrot the distortionary speech of hate-groups. This would likely not demand that GW recall all these products form those who bought them. But it would demand that they change this, and related statements in future editions of this book, and future publications.

But what should it be changed to? What level of strict technical accuracy and explicit mention of the edge cases in sex determination needs to be included in a context where the precise nuances of sex and genetics have nothing to do with the topic of discussion?

Something that doesn't resonate with the discourse of hate-speech. Same as the way we might speak of cultural difference without referring to people being more or less 'savage'. No-one is asking for the world here; nor even biological precision. But just be careful, if you are going to give a distortionary biological account (and, see the lecture above, it is distortionary), don't do it in a way that engages with hateful discourse. So, if anything, just be less precise: Only men can become Space Marines. Then you're not reven pretending to make a genuine statement of biology.