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.

TiamatRoar wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

TiamatRoar wrote:
No one refers to Tzeentch, Khorne, or Nurgle as her or it, either, However, they are in effect actually genderless.

(actually, they're arguably female since they're capable of giving birth)

Their gender is analogical, same as your comparison of the genesis of deamons to giving birth. By contrast, the Emperor's gender is literal.

Only while he was human. Today in the Imperium, saying "The Emperor is a man" instead of "The Emperor was a man" will get you executed for Heresy if you aren't a Space Marine.

Or part of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Who as being more of an allied nation than part of the Imperium, have their own theological divides independent of the Ecclesiarchy's goobledeguk.

 Manchu wrote:
To be honest, I have no problem with the notion that the Imperium is subtly but systematically racist given the presentation of the setting (which is not to say, just because the Emperor is white).

But the overabundance of white male protagonists is a universal problem, affecting many pieces of fiction. Using that logic, you could level similar accusations against many fictional settings and paint them all as being systematically racist, without regards as to if they actually were in-universe.

It stems from an external source (being primarily written by white men), so it is not really an in-universe thing.

 Psienesis wrote:

Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

But this, as has been said, can be attributed to the gender of the writers and the target audience, not an un-universe factor.

 Psienesis wrote:
Given that we don't have concrete evidence of this in either direction, and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor, and that we can further extrapolate that marriage ceremonies are arranged through the agency of the Ecclesiarchy (which, being Space-Catholicism, is a patriarchal organization), I think that it is safe to say that, even on matrilinial worlds, this custom is maintained with the blessing of the God-Emperor, through His agents in the Ecclesiarchy and the Administratum. As has been touched on, a patriarchy does not need to be misogynist. It also does not need to be maintained from top to bottom, not when the very top of the line is patriarchal in aspect, in practice and in deed.

Given the Real-World tendency for patriarchies to drift to misogyny, I think it safe to say that, while the Imperium is not a specifically misogynistic society (either universally or merely typically), it can be safe to say that the patriarchal tendencies of what appear to be the "averages" of Imperial Culture (Space-Catholicism, 1840s blue-collar British society... life on a Forge or Hive World is Dickensian in its horrors... etc.) are probably "the norm". A female member of society can still be allowed to be all she can be, reach any position of authority that is within the reach of someone of her talents and social standing (or just raw talent, should she be an Underhiver who proves herself useful to an Inquisitor, regardless of the Inquisitor's gender) and yet still live in a society where the male is viewed as the head-of-household, family lineage is traced through the paternal line, and traditional gender roles are still somewhat enforced, socially, not by actual writ of law. It may even be possible for a woman in such a society to take over ruling a powerful trade-house, a Rogue Trader dynasty, or whatever, and yet still be expected to conform to some patriarchal conventions (such as how various Egyptian Queens would tie those gold and lapis lazuli fake beards on during state functions, it's a symbol of state, and stands as an example of a non-misogynist, patriarchal society.).

You're presuming a lot here. Just because something in 40K is based on something from real life does not mean that it carries over all elements from the real-world instance. For example, the Ultramarines are based loosely on Romans, but we don't simply presume that they carry over all elements of Roman culture such a slavery or communal bathing.

 Psienesis wrote:
As we lack a full copy of the Imperial Creed we can't really say that, though in *most* depictions of the Ecclesiarchy we have.... we have female members of the Ecclesiarchy being seconded to higher-ranking male priests. And then there was Vandire. And Sebastian Thor. Yes, Dominica was a woman, but, again, the Sisterhood *began* as an organization subservient to the concept of the God-Emperor. Further cementing His place as the patriarchal authority figure is the fact that they called themselves the "Daughters of the Emperor".

But if the Imperial Creed was advocating patriarchy, then why isn't the Ecclesiarchy doing something about those matriarchial worlds? Surely they would object to a female-dominated culture if it went against the Creed?

The Emperor is from central asia, not Europe. He's even shown with distinctly central asian features in most art of him.

 Manchu wrote:
The phrase/sentiment you're thinking of is "the Emperor is only a man."

The minute you start referring to the Emperor as a god, you really can't say if he's a man or not. That's why "Is a man" and "is only a man" might as well be the same thing in this case. The ecclesiarchy is very firm on that he's ascended and the tenant specifically states "WAS" a human.


Now that I think about it, you're putting the cart before the horse. The Emperor rules because he's the Emperor. He doesn't rule because he's male. The fact that the Emperor is male (under your hypothetical definition of what constitutes a male) doesn't make the society patriarchal. By any sane definition, a patriarchal society is led by males BECAUSE THEY'RE MALE. If a ruler happens to be male, but is ruler for reasons other than being male, that's not a patriarchal society.

The Emperor is ruler in the Imperium because he's a god, warrior, smart, charismatic, or whatever else. He does NOT rule because he's male.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

But this, as has been said, can be attributed to the gender of the writers and the target audience, not an un-universe factor.

It's enough of a trope to be accepted within universe as well. Given the real-world influences on the setting and its creation, I don't think it too far a stretch that the IG is, at the very least, 51%+ male, but the "reality" of it probably exceeds 90%, given the preponderance of all-male units and the relative scarcity of mixed-gender or all-female regiments, though examples of both of these latter types most certainly exist.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Given that we don't have concrete evidence of this in either direction, and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor, and that we can further extrapolate that marriage ceremonies are arranged through the agency of the Ecclesiarchy (which, being Space-Catholicism, is a patriarchal organization), I think that it is safe to say that, even on matrilinial worlds, this custom is maintained with the blessing of the God-Emperor, through His agents in the Ecclesiarchy and the Administratum. As has been touched on, a patriarchy does not need to be misogynist. It also does not need to be maintained from top to bottom, not when the very top of the line is patriarchal in aspect, in practice and in deed.

Given the Real-World tendency for patriarchies to drift to misogyny, I think it safe to say that, while the Imperium is not a specifically misogynistic society (either universally or merely typically), it can be safe to say that the patriarchal tendencies of what appear to be the "averages" of Imperial Culture (Space-Catholicism, 1840s blue-collar British society... life on a Forge or Hive World is Dickensian in its horrors... etc.) are probably "the norm". A female member of society can still be allowed to be all she can be, reach any position of authority that is within the reach of someone of her talents and social standing (or just raw talent, should she be an Underhiver who proves herself useful to an Inquisitor, regardless of the Inquisitor's gender) and yet still live in a society where the male is viewed as the head-of-household, family lineage is traced through the paternal line, and traditional gender roles are still somewhat enforced, socially, not by actual writ of law. It may even be possible for a woman in such a society to take over ruling a powerful trade-house, a Rogue Trader dynasty, or whatever, and yet still be expected to conform to some patriarchal conventions (such as how various Egyptian Queens would tie those gold and lapis lazuli fake beards on during state functions, it's a symbol of state, and stands as an example of a non-misogynist, patriarchal society.).

You're presuming a lot here. Just because something in 40K is based on something from real life does not mean that it carries over all elements from the real-world instance. For example, the Ultramarines are based loosely on Romans, but we don't simply presume that they carry over all elements of Roman culture such a slavery or communal bathing.

They call them "Chapter Serfs" for a reason. It's a slave's life, even if it is a much better life than one can expect elsewhere in the Imperium. And if you don't think SM bathe together at times, I think you're not understanding how military units function. Communal bathing is not just a Roman thing.

 Troike wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
As we lack a full copy of the Imperial Creed we can't really say that, though in *most* depictions of the Ecclesiarchy we have.... we have female members of the Ecclesiarchy being seconded to higher-ranking male priests. And then there was Vandire. And Sebastian Thor. Yes, Dominica was a woman, but, again, the Sisterhood *began* as an organization subservient to the concept of the God-Emperor. Further cementing His place as the patriarchal authority figure is the fact that they called themselves the "Daughters of the Emperor".

But if the Imperial Creed was advocating patriarchy, then why isn't the Ecclesiarchy doing something about those matriarchial worlds? Surely they would object to a female-dominated culture if it went against the Creed?

 Psienesis wrote:


And they might. Wars of Faith erupt between differing sects of the Imperial Creed all the fething time.

If one part of the ecceslarchy is killing another part of the ecclesiarchy due to there being equality amongst women in its tenants, we:

a) have yet to see it

b) wouldn't prove the society as a whole is patriarchal. It'd just prove that some aspects of the ecclesiarchy think it should be while other aspects do not.

It also does not prove that the Imperium is *not* a patriarchy.

At this point, though, I've grown tired of repeating the same arguments. You can go on with your version of the Imperium, I will be just as happy with mine.

I think the Imperium is about as patriachal and misogynist as the modern western world. So kinda, but not in any official way. I'm basing that off of the female inquisitor in the first Gaunt'a Ghosts books. Gaunt mentions how he's heard of her because she's a women and there aren't many women in her position. So there are female Inquisitors but they are still the minority, perhaps very few.

Manchu wrote:Not really ... nor in our many conversations have I ever done so ... hence the pages and pages of them!

In all those pages, no! But look at that last post again and tell me how that looks.
"Last try: It is so."
I'm not some small child anymore.

No worries, I did not intend to simply brush away earlier conversation.

Manchu wrote:Dictionaries do not keep pace with the actual breadth of language (the so-called "lexicon"). They do not even try insofar as specialized usage goes, as with gender studies or feminist theory for example.

Where exactly does your definition of patriarchy or patrilineality derive from, then? It's not exactly street lingo, which is where language changes the fastest.

Manchu wrote:Incorrect. We've already talked about the English monarchy in this regard.

And even in the English monarchy, kingship was always inherited through the male line. The concept as a whole just cannot be applied to the Imperium. By definition, it would make a male High Lord's command more important than a female's, or allow a soldier from the Imperial Guard to ignore his female general's command because the male general of another regiment told him something different. After all, the (male) Emperor is still alive, as far as the public is concerned, and the High Lords are merely interpreting his will.

Manchu wrote:[...] because power flows preferentially from and to men.

If there were any indication - aside from the small and insignificant focus of individual novels or the IG minis line - in the material, I would agree, because this would be the most defining feature. Yet the proponents of this theory have so far failed to provide any, even anecdotal, evidence aside from the quota amongst known characters and the remark that the Emperor's veneration as a white male seems to be most prevalent.

I ask again, do you believe the Imperium is discriminating against other skin colours, too? It is the exact same argument merely pointing at a different trait.

Psienesis wrote:The God-Emperor became the Emperor of Mankind through his own actions, and has no successor, and, indeed, will never have a successor. His authority is derived, directly, from who he was and what he did. Imperial culture extends from its religio-political beliefs. That the culture is based on the Creed, which is based on veneration of the God-Emperor, is all that really needs be said.

So you think the Imperium discriminates against non-white men, too.

Psienesis wrote:In that we have no evidence that there is a world in which the God-Emperor has been worshiped as a woman, rather than as a stag, a lion, a bear, or whatever other masculine totem-animal they choose. Moreover, in the events of tales where the God-Emperor is referred to in some other manner, by some other name, it is has always been presented as masculine (Sky-Father, All-Father, etc.). Even on these "pagan" worlds, veneration of the God-Emperor seems to be male-centric.

Just like we have no evidence of the Imperium disadvantaging women, you mean?

The Ecclesiarchy works by taking an established local religion and subverting it by saying "it was the Emperor all along!"
If you can't at least consider the possibility that one of the million planets in the Imperium was worshipping a female deity, then I suppose that's that for this segment of the debate.

Psienesis wrote:Oh, don't be silly now. The default IG is the male Cadians. The default Sisters faction is the Space Marines. The default unit for just about everything in the Imperium is male... we had a 48-page topic on this.

You are talking about the miniatures now?
I'm talking about the setting.

And "Space Marines are the default Sisters" ... this just sounds weird.

Psienesis wrote:[...] and yet we have rather a lot of evidence in other aspects that rather state, explicitly or by heavy implication, that the Imperium is arranged under the patriarchal figure of the God-Emperor [...]

Being a man in power does not automatically make you a patriarch in that sense. Not unless you also establish the system of patriarchy to go along with it.

You're basically insisting on the mere coincidence that the Emperor is male would automatically turn the Imperium into a society in which women are disadvantaged. This is how it worked for the Christian faith, but even there it was merely the existing patriarchy piggybacking the new religion to spread its opinion. We don't have any indication about it being similar for the Imperial faith (especially considering how it came to be) or the Imperium as a whole.

 Troike wrote:
without regards as to if they actually were in-universe

Again, there is no such thing as "in-universe." Works of fiction are not actually windows into alternate realities. There is no reality to the 40k universe independent from its representation. Imagine trying to reach through a painting as if it were a window. You'd just punch through because it's actually flat. Same with a fictional setting. The phrase "in-universe" itself is probably part of the problem. A better term might be something like "in-story." For example, you can indeed distinguish between why a writer makes a choice and why a character does. It's more difficult to sort out the unconscious biases of a writer from the unconscious biases of the setting s/he creates. It's kind of like how certain aspects of physics do or do not function in settings based on their creator's real life sensibilities. These are incidental elements of the setting.

 Psienesis wrote:
It also does not prove that the Imperium is *not* a patriarchy.

At this point, though, I've grown tired of repeating the same arguments. You can go on with your version of the Imperium, I will be just as happy with mine.

My original post regarding the Imperium as a whole was "Anything beyond that regarding whether or not the Imperium tends towards patriarchism is completely based on assumptions. Many of which are quite logical, but in the end, are assumptions and nothing more."

By giving the okay to go with a version of the Imperium rather than what the Imperium is, you agree with that statement. Works for me.

 Lynata wrote:
I'm not some small child anymore

No offense intended. I just know there are only so many ways I am willing to try to explain a thing.

Lynata wrote:Where exactly does your definition of patriarchy or patrilineality derive from, then?

Political and gender studies, having a formal education, understanding that language is a heuristic.

Lynata wrote:By definition, it would make ...

No. All it means is that the Emperor is the only ultimate source of authority in the Imperium.

Lynata wrote:I ask again, do you believe the Imperium is discriminating against other skin colours, too?

I'll answer again: certainly seems to be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
basically insisting on the mere coincidence that the Emperor is male

I'll chime, noting that I'm not speaking for Psinesis, to say that the Emperor's gender is not a coincidence. It was intentional chosen by author's. Even going with the alternate reality approach to the franchise, there is no evidence that the Emperor is only coincidentally male -- I mean, we don't actually know his origins and even in the information we do have (which may be "non-canon") there is no mention that his gender is a coincidence. There is also no indication that Ecclesiarchy believes the Emperor's gender is a coincidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I think the Imperium is about as patriachal and misogynist as the modern western world. So kinda, but not in any official way.

Yep, I exactly agree. It's not really surprising when you consider who wrote it, when, and for what intended audience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TiamatRoar wrote:
The minute you start referring to the Emperor as a god, you really can't say if he's a man or not.

That's a rule you made up.

If it were not for the existence of Glavians (a BL creation, I believe), I would suspect that the standard skin-color in the Imperium is "tan". 37,000 years of living in different environments, "cross-racial" (as we understand such things in M3) interbreeding and environmental changes has rendered the common, modern conceptions of what defines a person's "race" as utterly non-existent. In the Imperium, your local planet's environment will affect how you look, but there is no such thing as "Caucasian", "Black", "Asian" or any similar racial physiognomy that we would understand.

 Manchu wrote:
Not quite. First, it is important that he is human.

He is not human.

Second, he is the master of mankind, the founder and ruler of the Imperium of Man. Again, the way the setting is presented is important here.

Your problem seems to be with the English language, not the Imperium itself.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
He is not human.

Yes he is.

Your problem seems to be with the English language, not the Imperium itself.

I don't have a problem with either.

In what way is he human?

Physiologically? He can be if he wants, but equally he could not.

Mentally? His mind transcends any material intelligence except perhaps the C'tan of old.

Emotionally? He has demonstrated a remarkable lack of empathy or human emotion multiple times.

The IRL definition of human beings doesn't apply to 40k. In 40k, humans can shoot energy beams out of their minds. The Emperor is simply the human who can do the most crazy stuff with his human mind.

Psienesis wrote:If it were not for the existence of Glavians (a BL creation, I believe), I would suspect that the standard skin-color in the Imperium is "tan". 37,000 years of living in different environments, "cross-racial" (as we understand such things in M3) interbreeding and environmental changes has rendered the common, modern conceptions of what defines a person's "race" as utterly non-existent. In the Imperium, your local planet's environment will affect how you look, but there is no such thing as "Caucasian", "Black", "Asian" or any similar racial physiognomy that we would understand.

And yet the various official depictions that y'all are using as evidence for your theory clearly distinguish between these skin colours, with the white male dominating them with a much more notable frequency than the lack of women.

In fact, I am quite sure I can list more powerful women than black people in 40k, even though the latter do feature in some few works.
Off the top of my hat, I can only recall two. Do you know more?

If you disagree with this assessment, you are cherrypicking. Manchu at least considered this, which renders his argument more consistent, though we continue to disagree on the greater subject.

Manchu wrote:No offense intended. I just know there are only so many ways I am willing to try to explain a thing.

I know the feeling.
We seem to be moving in circles, which is obviously frustrating.

Manchu wrote:Political and gender studies, having a formal education, understanding that language is a heuristic.

I suppose we were just told different things in studies and education, then. I'm still sceptical towards insisting on terms that go against their official definition, especially in a multi-language environment.

Manchu wrote:No. All it means is that the Emperor is the only ultimate source of authority in the Imperium.

That has nothing to do with patriarchy but with dictatorship.

Manchu wrote:

Lynata wrote:I ask again, do you believe the Imperium is discriminating against other skin colours, too?

I'll answer again: certainly seems to be the case.

Apologies, I must have missed the earlier reply. :(

Manchu wrote:There is also no indication that Ecclesiarchy believes the Emperor's gender is a coincidence.

I suppose we are all using Occham's Razor(sp?), merely applying it onto different aspects of the franchise. One with a focus on the prevalence of male characters in the fluff, and the other with a focus on more general descriptions that exist alongside exemplary individuals.

 Manchu wrote:
The IRL definition of human beings doesn't apply to 40k. In 40k, humans can shoot energy beams out of their minds. The Emperor is simply the human who can do the most crazy stuff with his human mind.

Ah, but most of those are still mentally and emotionally grounded.

You also forget that psykers are explicitly the next stage of evolution, beyond humans.

The Emperor? Is more of a Warp entity than a human being, on par with the Dark Gods themselves.

 Psienesis wrote:

It's enough of a trope to be accepted within universe as well.

Why? A trope does not necessarily amount to an in-universe thing.

 Psienesis wrote:
They call them "Chapter Serfs" for a reason. It's a slave's life, even if it is a much better life than one can expect elsewhere in the Imperium. And if you don't think SM bathe together at times, I think you're not understanding how military units function. Communal bathing is not just a Roman thing.

You're avoiding my point, A real world cultural influence does not amount to fully copying said influence in-universe. Hence, your suggestion that the Ecclesiarchy must have patriarchial elements because it is based on a real world patriarchial organisation is not necessarily true.

 Psienesis wrote:
And they might. Wars of Faith erupt between differing sects of the Imperial Creed all the fething time.

And we have never seen a matriarchial world (or anything approaching one) being on the business end of a War of Faith. Conversely, we see examples of matriarchial worlds existing in the Imperium without issue, and being fine contributors to the Imperium.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, there is no such thing as "in-universe." Works of fiction are not actually windows into alternate realities.

I've never said that they are alternate realities. I use the term "in-universe" to distinguish between internal factors (such as the Imperial guard being far more prominent as the Imperium's defenders) and external ones (writers focusing heavily on Space Marines over the Imperial guard).
So, using this example, I would say the point about the IG is "in-universe" to show that it is not really affected by the external factor of writer preference for Space Marines.

 Manchu wrote:
There is no reality to the 40k universe independent from its representation.

No, but we can still distinguish between actual parts of the story and creator biases/preferences, as in the example above.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
You also forget that psykers are explicitly the next stage of evolution, beyond humans.

The politico-religious notion of what constitutes a human being in the Imperium seems to be flexible. Ask any SM Librarian.

 Lynata wrote:

Manchu wrote:No. All it means is that the Emperor is the only ultimate source of authority in the Imperium.

That has nothing to do with patriarchy but with dictatorship.

The qualities are by no means mutually exclusive. But your point is well-taken: namely, that what makes the Emperor the ultimate source of authority in the Imperium is not his gender. True enough. I disagree, however, that such a direct connection between power and gender is necessary to identify a system as patriarchal. Like the connection between the Founding Fathers and the lack of a female US president even today, it seems to me that the Emperor's gender, Malcador's gender, the Primarchs' gender, etc, etc, etc, is connected to the relative superabundance of males in positions of authority in the Imperium.

 Troike wrote:
I would say the point about the IG is "in-universe" to show that it is not really affected by the external factor of writer preference for Space Marines.

I understand. But I think this example is not very relevant. SM are never represented as being more numerous than Guardsmen, whether in books about SM characters or anyone else. By contrast, men are always more often in positions of authority than women in the books.

 Lynata wrote:

Psienesis wrote:If it were not for the existence of Glavians (a BL creation, I believe), I would suspect that the standard skin-color in the Imperium is "tan". 37,000 years of living in different environments, "cross-racial" (as we understand such things in M3) interbreeding and environmental changes has rendered the common, modern conceptions of what defines a person's "race" as utterly non-existent. In the Imperium, your local planet's environment will affect how you look, but there is no such thing as "Caucasian", "Black", "Asian" or any similar racial physiognomy that we would understand.

And yet the various official depictions that y'all are using as evidence for your theory clearly distinguish between these skin colours, with the white male dominating them with a much more notable frequency than the lack of women.

In fact, I am quite sure I can list more powerful women than black people in 40k, even though the latter do feature in some few works.
Off the top of my hat, I can only recall two. Do you know more?

If you disagree with this assessment, you are cherrypicking. Manchu at least considered this, which renders his argument more consistent, though we continue to disagree on the greater subject.

Relax. As I stated, I said I "would suspect" that, if the setting of 40K were an actual alternate dimension that had to actually take evolution and such into account, and still somehow made its pseudo-science work, we would not actually have any racial features that we, in 21c, would recognize. However, the existence of Glavians means that, in the current setting of 40K, as written, people still do have Negroid, Mongol and Caucasian physiological features.

Of course, since Humanity settled the stars in communities also based around common interests, that means there is, somewhere in the Imperium, Planet Superfly (homeworld to the Blacksploitation Flicks Chapter), Planet Whovian (the AdMech finds their sonic screwdrivers particularly nice), Planet Prime Directive (in a long-standing war with Planet Get Your Kirk On), Planet Hobbit (known for its majority Ratling population), and Planet Worst. Planet. Ever. (a Death World where the leading cause of death is due to spores from mountainous piles of rotting comic books, or death by crushing when one of said mountainous piles falls on you).

However, we all know that GW doesn't actually take these things into account. They wanted white folks, they got white folks. They wanted Token Black Folks, they got Token Black Folks. Asian folks? They got 'em. With bikes. Hispanic folks? They got them, too. Super-religious ones. Aboriginal Folks? Whole planets of 'em. The most famous of them isn't even Aboriginal, he's from Planet Eye-Talia.

Do I think the Imperium practices subtle racism? Probably, but not universally. Depends on where you are. If you're a Glavian, and a Rogue Trader (say), and show up on Hive World Whitebread, or Agri World Potatoho, where everyone is white and/or redneck, then, yeah, I'm pretty sure your unusual appearance is cause for concern. In more urbane/cosmopolitan Hive Worlds? They don't care, there's nothing really unusual about you.