Misogyny and the lack of normal women in 40K.

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.

**Sir Pseudonymous**

IcarusDA wrote:
The Vitae Womb entry does not state that it's a supplement. In fact, the vitae womb has less then a sentence of description behind it.

Krieg Entry in the Warhammer 40k wiki under "Engine of War wrote:This has resulted in suspect practises being tolerated -- some, such as the eugenic policies designed to weed out mutations caused by Krieg's damaged, radioactive biosphere and universal conscription are continuations of policies once required during Krieg's centuries of civil war. It should be noted that Krieg raises an unusually large number of Imperial Guard regiments for such a devastated planet. This is attributed to the enforced use of the "Vitae Womb" birthing technique, which Krieg has been granted special dispensation to use as the result of their famous steel, determination and unswerving loyalty to the Emperor.

I've bolded my next point. The codex information clearly states Universal conscription, which both supports the theory that the Vitae Womb is indeed the main source of reproduction on the planet. However, this is an irrelevant fact in the grand scheme of things. Even if there were only 1% of females in the Guardsmen, they have a unique enough physical appearance to warrant more official models. A useful analogy would be the SM Dreadnought. They are exceptionally rare, and very few Astartes manage to become one, however, it is unique enough that it's rarity can be looked past to add diversity to both the game, and the army itself.

That's not a primary source, it's a wiki. Krieg mentions in canon sources don't go into much detail, but they never state that everyone is conscripted, just that they're authorized to use vitae wombs to supplement their population growth in order to meet their volunteered tithe rate (as in, they're voluntarily providing regiments at a much greater rate than is asked of them).

Really, the entire Guard infantry line needs to be redone, because it looks like absolute rubbish even beside the newest lines (or maybe those are just horribly painted in official pictures, who knows; the vehicles are looking increasingly idiotic and phoned-in, though).

**Gorskar.da.Lost**

IcarusDA wrote:
JWhex wrote:
Women mature earlier than men and are quite tough enough to go through child birth which no man can ever claim to have done.

Passing Kidney stones would be an arguable male comparison.

And while I'm all for equal gender representation for IG models, I'm afraid I have to point out the fact that women's bodys being built for pregnancy actually does make them ever so slightly weaker, (Wider hips, body is designed to keep more fat then muscle, however, I'd like to point out that these differences are rather small) rather then tougher. It is, however, way within the margin of men's strength, so it's practically negligible, despite the exaggerations that others have made.

This. Yes, there is some noted physical difference, but by and large there isn't enough of a difference to warrant a ratio of male to female troops that drastically in favour of men.
In addition, someone above me mentioned that the fluff itself supports the idea of female models, as the Powers That Be don't give a gak about the genitalia of the people they're sending to fight and die for their causes, just as long as they have enough troops. After all, for the Imperium, war has always been a game of numbers; it's why the Guard in fluff is stated to be such a devastating force on the attack, because it has the ability to absorb losses like my coat absorbs rainwater and still crush everything in it's path. It seems highly unlikely, when all's said and done, that vaginas would be a good reason for the Boss People to say "right, can't be having that in our future army," and thus compromise their game of numbers.

**Melissia**

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:
Ah great, we're getting in to "internet tough guy" territory. Let's go back to talking about 40k instead.
This sorta stuff brings back so many childhood memories of my granddad drinking.

My father preferred to tell stories of the parties that they threw in their off-time. Lots and lots of beer, and probably some pot if I remember correctly.

Though eventually he quit both cold turkey when he got married to my mother, I think he still fondly remembers it, heh.

**AnomanderRake**

Melissia wrote:
1: I admit I'm not operating under detailed and up-to-date demographics of the armies of the world, but to my knowledge mixed-gender units in the modern day tend to be the sort that aren't trapped far from home and with little personal space in the manner many Guard regiments are subjected to
By that definition, there's no comparison that one can draw to the real world.

Not in the modern day; try WWI trench warfare or an infantry unit stuck fighting over a tiny island in the Pacific in WWII.

**Yodhrin**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Melissia wrote:
1: I admit I'm not operating under detailed and up-to-date demographics of the armies of the world, but to my knowledge mixed-gender units in the modern day tend to be the sort that aren't trapped far from home and with little personal space in the manner many Guard regiments are subjected to
By that definition, there's no comparison that one can draw to the real world.

Not in the modern day; try WWI trench warfare or an infantry unit stuck fighting over a tiny island in the Pacific in WWII.

What, like the 2000-strong "Women's Battalion of Death" which fought in WW1 and suffered 87% casualties? Or the some 800,000 female Russian pilots, tank crew, snipers, machinegunners, and partisans of WW2? Say what you like about the Soviets, at least they weren't daft enough to overlook a huge potential source of combatants because of cultural gender stereotypes(at least at first, less favorable attitudes towards women reared their ugly head again later, perhaps-coincidentally at levels proportional to how far Stalinism moved from the original conception of Communism).

**Void__Dragon**

So our allied Sentinel in Dark Heresy just dodged like seven Dark Reaper Cannon shots.

This has no relevance to the thread but who cares?

When you break the rules on purpose and then flaunt it? The Mods do.

**Ratliker**

guidsgjg wrote:
Melissia wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Putting men and women in the same combat unit in all real-life experiments has led to a breakdown in discipline
This has not been proven by research and experience in the real world.

I would beg to differ on this point. How many of you have actually served in military combat units, in combat? I for one have, and have experience based insight on the matter. The issue isnt necissarily "women in unit X cause a breakdown in discipline and chain of command," this example is ultimately not the case. Including females in combat arms units doesn't cause an immediate breakdown in morale and discipline with soldiers running willy nilly acting like horny teenagers and ignoring orders/officers (although typical soldiers do always act like horny teenagers anyway ). What is typically meant by a breakdown in discipline is that research has shown that soldiers, NonCommissioned Officers and Officers are more likely to make WRONG decisions or least beneficial decisions in a combat environment in order to minimize risk to female troops. There have been quite a few EXHAUSTIVE DoD studies on the matter that have proven these findings.

Breakdown of "discipline" aside, the biggest argument for lack of females in combat roles, and hence the scarcity of women in the 40k environment, is the inherent differences in physical performance between men and women. Are there women serving in the army who are faster than me, stronger than me, and more tactically/techically proficient marksment than me? Sure, absolutely, but they are VERY few and far between. It is a simple fact of evolution that men handle the physical rigours of combat better than women. The average soldier in full kit/combat load is anywhere between 210-240 pounds. Your larger soldiers (200-240lbs) are pushing 300+ with a full combat load and body armor. Do most women in the army handle the 50-80 pounds of combat gear as well as men? More than half the time yes, the issue comes to MEDEVAC, which as any seasoned combat vet will tell you is essential to any and all combat operations. Should a 120lb female's battle buddy get wounded, she now has to carry her own combat gear, plus another 200+ pounds of potentially dead weight, while still having to return suppressive fire to help secure the area, which means either firemen's carry while leaving your weapon hand free, or dragging your buddy through the dirt by his gear while returning fire. I hate to say it, but most women in the military can NOT physically accomplish this. It is for these exact reasons that until recently, women were precluded from combat units in the US armed forces.

Amen!

Since IG are mass-drafted, the rule of generic quality would take precedence over "hey some girls do make good fighters" argument, making female regiments show worse general performance than male ones. they could still be used on garrison duty or some such role that doesn't require so much marching and other rigorous activities.
Inquisition, however, recruits the exceptional individuals, so it is perfectly reasonable to have badass combat female character among inquisitorial henchmen. Or small elite combat unit of hand-picked females guarding some aristocrat or other VIP (like Quaddafi had).

**Psienesis**

Except that isn't at all what the DoD found and is, in fact, moving forward with opening Combat Arms roles to female soldiers.

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/DOD_RepCongRevLawsPoliciesRegsRestrictingServicesFemaleMembersInUSArmedForces_2-2012.pdf

**Maxim C. Gatling**

I think the point we can all agree on is that GW does not include a minimum acceptable level of human females in their range of plastic multi-part kits. Am I wrong?

**BlaxicanX**

Yeah you are.

Actually, there's too many female models.

**Corporal_Reznov**

Maxim C. Gatling wrote:
I think the point we can all agree on is that GW does not include a minimum acceptable level of human females in their range of plastic multi-part kits. Am I wrong?

Agreed.

Though I will mention again, that in the fluff. There are a lot of women working in a lot of positions in the Imperium. We got female Inquisitors, female cardinals, female Imperial navy captains, female planetary governors, female tech priests, female Rogue Traders, female Commissars and female IG.

**jakejackjake**

It's a ""FANTASY WORLD" if all the chicks aren't hot then your fantasy SUCKS. Just kidding. I agree. Though if you're going to go with accurateness. Pretty much besides the sisters o battle only The guard should have a few chicks here and there, Eldar should have more probably and Dark Eldar besides that it wouldnt make sense fluffwise. How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops. Generally the only way one is killed or becomes a POW is through roadside ambushes (like Jessica Lynch) or from IED's. We don't actually deploy them into hot war zone areas and even with the new bill passing where they can choose to go there it will only be an "option' if they want to go there. So they can sign up for the military, get all of the perks, and training, and never see the level of danger or downsides that their male counterparts almost are guaranteed to see at some point. That is an extreme form of sexism and its championed by everyone especially those for equal rights when its not even close to equal or even a step towards equality. The real world is sexist both ways especially when it comes to war and the far future of the 41st millenium is just war.

I'm sorry to those who said the strength differences between men and women and their limits aren't drastically different are completely wrong and probably relatively weak themselves. The average guy I know that's not in good shape can do 10 chin ups. Compared to women who weigh much less in much better shape doing 1 chin up. I'm a certified personal trainer and have weight trained and done all sorts of intense body sculpting and athletics routines and there are plenty of amateur men who can compete with world class women athletes. If you think there isn't a massive difference in strength youve got absolutely no clue what you are talking about. A women who doesn't exercise and can do 1 chin up is strong for her lifestyle as opposed to a man who should be able to do 10 pull up(which are much harder strength wise) to feel even close to satisfied with his performance. Thats for people who never exercise. You're average woman who I see just starting out can't do one.

**Psienesis**

jakejackjake wrote:
It's a ""FANTASY WORLD" if all the chicks aren't hot then your fantasy SUCKS. Just kidding. I agree. Though if you're going to go with accurateness. Pretty much besides the sisters o battle only The guard should have a few chicks here and there, Eldar should have more probably and Dark Eldar besides that it wouldnt make sense fluffwise. How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops. Generally the only way one is killed or becomes a POW is through roadside ambushes (like Jessica Lynch) or from IED's. We don't actually deploy them into hot war zone areas and even with the new bill passing where they can choose to go there it will only be an "option' if they want to go there. So they can sign up for the military, get all of the perks, and training, and never see the level of danger or downsides that their male counterparts almost are guaranteed to see at some point. That is an extreme form of sexism and its championed by everyone especially those for equal rights when its not even close to equal or even a step towards equality. The real world is sexist both ways especially when it comes to war and the far future of the 41st millenium is just war.

You do realize that, regardless of gender, only 20% of the US Armed Forces will actually see combat action, right? It's not a gender thing, it's a Force Distribution thing. For every 10 male soldiers in the military, 2 of them will see combat.

**jakejackjake**

Psienesis wrote:
jakejackjake wrote:
It's a ""FANTASY WORLD" if all the chicks aren't hot then your fantasy SUCKS. Just kidding. I agree. Though if you're going to go with accurateness. Pretty much besides the sisters o battle only The guard should have a few chicks here and there, Eldar should have more probably and Dark Eldar besides that it wouldnt make sense fluffwise. How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops. Generally the only way one is killed or becomes a POW is through roadside ambushes (like Jessica Lynch) or from IED's. We don't actually deploy them into hot war zone areas and even with the new bill passing where they can choose to go there it will only be an "option' if they want to go there. So they can sign up for the military, get all of the perks, and training, and never see the level of danger or downsides that their male counterparts almost are guaranteed to see at some point. That is an extreme form of sexism and its championed by everyone especially those for equal rights when its not even close to equal or even a step towards equality. The real world is sexist both ways especially when it comes to war and the far future of the 41st millenium is just war.

You do realize that, regardless of gender, only 20% of the US Armed Forces will actually see combat action, right? It's not a gender thing, it's a Force Distribution thing. For every 10 male soldiers in the military, 2 of them will see combat.

Nope youre wrong. They are intentionally not deployed to these zones. The bill that just passed where they can choose to see combat zones was a huge deal. You should know these things. It IS a gender thing. This is mainstream news the bill that passed "allowing" women to choose to see combat zones. Meaning they will NEVER be sent there if they don't choose and the bill wont be in effect for years if it ever goes in to effect. It passed a few months ago.

Regardless of the amount who see combat the ability to choose is still unfair. If the rules arent the same they are sexist end of story. There is no counter argument to that. The use of the term "Armed Forces" Includes the Reserves and all sorts of branches that are either nor combat oriented at all or much so less then others so it's not really accurate for the individual branches.

One or two more edits to see how many times it will let me. I'm all for equality in all regards. I believe a life is a life A man a woman a child a senior an african a palestinian a homosexual a republican are all life forms to be respected but what is not to be repsected is sexism any kind. Malevolent sexism or benevolent sexism. The countries the highest in benevolent sexism always end up with higher gender crimes and malevolent sexism. Equality must be real or it's not there at all.

**Melissia**

jakejackjake wrote:
How many women do you currently find it warzone hotspots in the real world? Almost none with American troops.

Oh look another armchair general attempting to contradict the actual facts, which have already been posted numerous times, with his ass-pulled opinions. What a shack.

**Camkierhi**

Can't believe this "GAK" is still going.

**IcarusDA**

Camkierhi wrote:
Can't believe this "GAK" is still going.

I know right? We already established codex canon sources that allow for female guardsmen, and yet we keep going in circular logic about this from some reason.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

Why are we talking about modern armed forces? This is a galaxy set 38,000 years into the future. The needs of the Imperium are extremely different to the modern-day needs of the American military. For a start, America isn't under fire from literally every fether out there. The Imperium is. Their military needs far exceed ours. So therefore, why would they simply ignore half the population for combat? Sure, women may not be as competent as men (though I'm doubtful about that, you must not have seen my mother when she's on the warpath) but ignoring trillions of people just because they were born with the wrong genitalia is stupidity to the max. I can't imagine being a member of the Cadian guard to be exactly that physically demanding. Mentally demanding, definitely (fighting hordes and hordes of massive warriors in spiky armour with snarling beasts from the warp would be terrifying!) but they're probably not going to be hauling dead comrades across three continents just so they can have a nice burial.

**Melissia**

Numerous ladies in the Marines scored the highest possible physical fitness score... on the male test.

Which required 20 pull-ups, 100 crunches, and then afterwards running 3 miles in 18 minutes or less.

The difference between men and women, biologically, isn't as great as certain people in this thread want to believe-- most of the differences are exaggerated by cultural concerns. Cadia doesn't have those concerns. There are some biological differences, but they simply aren't enough for a society like Cadia to differentiate.

Trained, professional human soldiers within 40k are GEQ-- strength 3, toughness 3, etc.-- regardless of gender. And veterans have other advantages, usually higher BS or WS (or other stats in the case of Sisters, the most elite human force in the galaxy). The differences between the average human soldier, regardless of gender, height, build, etc, aren't important enough to make a distinction except in the rarest of cases, and most of those are soldiers who have been cybernetically enhanced or are simply utterly exceptional soldiers and/or commanders such as lord commissars and the like.

**Psienesis**

IcarusDA wrote:
Camkierhi wrote:
Can't believe this "GAK" is still going.

I know right? We already established codex canon sources that allow for female guardsmen, and yet we keep going in circular logic about this from some reason.

... and yet, people keep returning and arguing against it, trotting out the same (often erroneous) arguments time and time again.

**davou**

guidsgjg wrote:

I can assure you I do, and I have enough integrity not to lie about it over the internet. I am a west point graduate and an armor officer in the US army (currently a Captain awaiting command). That may not mean much to you, but for those who know anything about my profession integrity is key. You may think my unproven, undocumented, and biased anecdotal experience is not scientific evidence, but I would counter that my first hand experience gives me much more insight and perspective on the matter than someone who has never seen combat or served in the military. Yes the same things were said about homosexuals and african americans, but I am not slowed and recognize there are no physical capability differences between sexual orientation and race. It is a biological fact that women and men are not physically the same, which is what my argument is predicated on.

I dunno how things work in the army, but in the real world and in academia integrity counts for jack gak. If you want credibility, you write a paper on the issue; with verifiable sources, reproducible experiments using actual linesmen (and control groups) and confirmed official statistics. I would gladly read that paper.

I dunno if you'd end up being right or wrong about it, but be prepared to eat a tsunami of gak if you're even any mild degree of correct about women being unfit for front line service

**Kain**

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:
I think it’s a major flaw and is in fact killing the series and keeping it from being what it could be. This is because well rounded characters and varying personalities and perspectives gives stories depth, people complain about lack of love in 40k but how can you have love when every female character is a pious sexually repressed nun, a snobbish aristocrat, or a sex slave captured by the dark elder. Often those who make fun of the sisters of battle are accused of misogyny and often the accusation is correct but again what do you expect, they've been set up to be Sci-Fi snuff, with dd's and beads and a "device", that looks like a chastity belt around their crotches along with matt wards bizarre fantasies mixed in the sisters of battle are obviously not meant to be taken seriously and for the most part their not.

The Solution: Include normal female characters that aren't getting chopped up or sexually enslaved. I believe ADB has done a great job with this in his books particularly in Soul Hunter where he actually had a love story, and had female characters that played non sexual roles such as Octavia’s servants and female members of the bridge crew. I think Chaos would be the best place to start with this introduction, the Imperials have already been fleshed out pretty will and it’s easier to add new material than to change material already in existence. Where lacking fluff on the mortal servants of Chaos, this seems like a great place to add normal female characters, partisans and resistance leaders fighting the Imperium, or captains leading the warmasters ships(their not all commanded by Chaos Marines after all), maybe some that got tired of the old boys club in the Imperium and did'nt want to be either a nun or the wife/plaything of an Imperial officer/gangleader/noble. This is a blunt and honest post and I demand blunt and honest responses. No sugarcoating. I'm making a poll of whether you agree completely, somewhat, or disagree completely so I can gauge overall opinion.

There are plenty of prominent female characters. It's just that most people just don't care about the majority of them. The Tau are remembered for people like O'ra'lai or Aun'el rather than Shadowsun. The Inquisition for Eisenhorn rather than Amberley Vail, the Imperial military for guys like Gaunt rather than sister Celestia, the Eldar for Eldrad rather than Taldeer, the Dark Eldar for Vect rather than Kruellagh. I don't know why and think it's kind of a shame, but that's generally how the fanbase rolls.

Addittionally, given that only men can be Chaos Space Marines and the CSMs are pretty much the dominating force of Chaos, I'm not sure how you could have women seriously threaten their grip on the followers of the dark gods. Given the choice between a woman and a demi-god wrapped around in a tank, most of the followers of chaos will go for the demi-god wrapped around in a tank. As long as the CSMs are the dominating force in the upper echelons of Chaos women will pretty much never rise to the top ranks. All a Chaos Space Marine has to do to usurp her authority is say "No, do it MY way" and all her followers will ditch her for the superhuman embodiment of their gods. If she complains about it she's liable to get clubbed to death with her own arm.

Rather, look to the Tau and Eldar, they have much more room for egalitarianism given that they're lacking in an exclusively male unofficial ruling clade.

**Void__Dragon**

Why do people cite real-life militaries to support their arguments in this thread?

**Kain**

Void__Dragon wrote:
Why do people cite real-life militaries to support their arguments in this thread?

Because that's their best frame of reference.

**jakejackjake**

Melissia wrote:
Numerous ladies in the Marines scored the highest possible physical fitness score... on the male test.

Which required 20 pull-ups, 100 crunches, and then afterwards running 3 miles in 18 minutes or less.

The difference between men and women, biologically, isn't as great as certain people in this thread want to believe-- most of the differences are exaggerated by cultural concerns. Cadia doesn't have those concerns. There are some biological differences, but they simply aren't enough for a society like Cadia to differentiate.

Trained, professional human soldiers within 40k are GEQ-- strength 3, toughness 3, etc.-- regardless of gender. And veterans have other advantages, usually higher BS or WS (or other stats in the case of Sisters, the most elite human force in the galaxy). The differences between the average human soldier, regardless of gender, height, build, etc, aren't important enough to make a distinction except in the rarest of cases, and most of those are soldiers who have been cybernetically enhanced or are simply utterly exceptional soldiers and/or commanders such as lord commissars and the like.

Yeah base your opinion off the few exceptions who train consistently and join the marines. 20 pull ups is not the highest possible score. I can do 20 with a 45 lb weight strapped to me or without weights 20 clap push up and I'm nowhere near peak. 20 pull ups is incredibly impressive for a women. For a man it's not really impressive at all. Thats why for the last 65 years the military has had DRASTICALLY different physical standards for women and men. Though this will change as far as combat goes the requirements I believe will be the same. Regardless though the fact they have different standard just to be let in says it all on it's own.

A simple google search will display your complete ignorance on the matter. I'm a personal trainer and am completely positive that you are 100% wrong on strength differences not being massive. Not only do women plateau much lower then even small men but it takes them a lot more work to get there. The fact that you would argue this point is insane. I've met many men stronger then me and never once a female who was. That alone shows that on average they aren't because of met tens of thousands if not more then that that are physically active and that's a big enough sample for it to even out. Are there a few women in the world who are stronger then me? Yes but only women who have put almost their entire life into it.

**Melissia**

jakejackjake wrote:
Internet-tough-guy-isms

Nobody cares what you claim to be able to do.

Kain wrote:
Void__Dragon wrote:
Why do people cite real-life militaries to support their arguments in this thread?

Because that's their best frame of reference.

Their only frame of reference. They don't even bother taking in to consideration science fiction, never mind the change in culture, diet, etc over 38,000 years.

**jakejackjake**

The way you handle being wrong is very mature. The military wouldn't have different physical requirements to join if you were right.

My job is to be in shape. That doesn't mean anything or that I'm better then anyone else. It does however make me somewhat informed on the the topic since my job is to also get other people of both sexes into shape. I've never in my life met a women, even the female body builders who frequent the gym, who would be misguided or delusional enough to say there isn't a difference. The lack of maturity with which you handled yourself and the insults in this thread are not only seriously pathetic but very telling of your lack of character.

You're also all putting opinions in to my post without reading it. I agreed the guard should have female figures and so should both Eldars because those races use women to fight. So saying that I'm taking it out of context is completely wrong. You took my post out of context. You can question the relevance of that part of my initial post but you can not give me an opinion that's not my. You might want to try growing up and stop with the emotionally heated replies and use logic instead.

I wasn't being an internet tough guy at any point. In fact you're doing that to a much worse extent. You're being hostile because the idea that there is a physical difference apparently upsets you for some reason. I'm sorry that reality bothers you. Try growing up and you can move on.

**Kain**

Melissia wrote:
jakejackjake wrote:
Internet-tough-guy-isms
Nobody cares what you claim to be able to do.
Kain wrote:
Void__Dragon wrote:
Why do people cite real-life militaries to support their arguments in this thread?

Because that's their best frame of reference.
Their only frame of reference. They don't even bother taking in to consideration science fiction, never mind the change in culture, diet, etc over 38,000 years.

Would you want them to start picking from Halo? Which has even *worse* military design philosophy than 40k.

With it's assault rifles with 60 round clips that weigh only 3 decigrams or .303 "heavy" machine guns with a range of only thirty yards. Or the Scorpion tank with inferior characteristics to a King Tiger?

**jakejackjake**

Void__Dragon wrote:
Why do people cite real-life militaries to support their arguments in this thread?

You're right it really had no relevance and was my mistake.

**Melissia**

Was more thinking general concepts, but especially 40k ones.

For example, Cadia's birthrate is the same as its recruitment rate. All of its citizens are trained as soldiers in training that makes modern infantry training look like a vacation. They're fed specialized diets developed over 40,000+ years of military experience, and trained to maintain a gun before they can even walk.

What the feth makes these guys think that Cadian women are somehow anywhere close to modern women in fitness and culture-- or the men, for that matter?

And that's not even considering how much the human body has changed over 38,000 years, including at least 10,000 years of a golden age of science which likely involved genetic manipulation and the like, and over millions of worlds on which humans dwell and all their various ecosystems and the reactons that those humans had to their environments over tens of thousands of years. While that's not enough for any form of major evolutionary change, it's certainly more than enough to produce minor physiological changes such as a reduction or increase in height, muscle mass, etc..

And that doesn't count cultural changes and the like, which could have an even bigger change-- such as the Cadia example above, nor does it account for how little biological difference there already is.