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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
But that's how stuff works. In fantasy setting men are supposed to be manly and women are supposed to be sexy.

And I question if “stuff” is working the right way. I mean, what, is the status quo sacred to you?

Chemistry? I don't care about it all that much. It's just how it is.

Would you buy girly male soldiers? What about muscular ugly female soldiers? You know, people prefer aestetically pleasing things. Like sexy girls and manly men.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Little boys would also be allowed to play with the little lady soldiers.

I haven't suggested mixed SM chapters, I have suggested female SM chapters.

Or we could just give Sororitas some love. We could also drop them altogether and make mixed SM chapters, though there would not be much difference between Male amd Female Astartes considering both are walking testosterone.

I completely disagree on the female space marine topic. Not for "sexist" reasons, but becuase the fluff all but states that they are turned into genetic "clones" of the primarchs. Rewriting that would be the same as re-writing SoB so that men could join their power armored ranks.

I would like to see those 4 extra male heads on the cadian and catachan sprews turned into female heads (and looking at what they did with the Tau, if cadians ever get updated, we probably will), though it would be a hit to 3rd party bits manufacturers. Every other army with genders seems to have it basically sorted out.

@koooaei

Female sexualisation and male sexualisation don't have the same ramification, style and concequences. Male sexualisation is a vector of power, pride, strength, domination and independance. It can backfire strongly and make men who are more intellectual, plain small or even scrawny feel terribly inadequate or shamefull, but there is demonstrably far less negative reaction to those representation than for the female ones. Female sexualisation is a vector for submission and weakness. Thus its negative effect on self estime and gender perception is far stronger. In fact if many men consider women weak and many women consider men strong has much more to do with the impact of those representation than actual experience with men and women in general. Most children, teenager and even young adult lived in a rather sexualy segregated social groups. In the last 20 years, sex positive feminist have tried to redefine female sexuality in a powerful and pridefull way, but it doesn't have that much success so far. Thus, saying that something sexualise men doesn't mean that sexualising women would be equal. That's called a fallacious appeal to equality.

epronovost wrote:
@RazgrizOne

My only issue with female Space Marines is that if they did existed, why would we need to keep the SoB? We might just as well turn them in a special Space Marine chapter that just turned out to be made only of women. It would solve a lot issue.

That mentionned, I don't think female Space Marine are necessary for a more gender equal 40K line and fluff. That said, I also don't think the current existence of the Sisters of Battle female only group compensate properly for the fact that Space Marines are all men. It would be like saying that there is no sexism issue in the superhero movie genre because Black Widow is cool. Sure, she's cool and the other guys are cool too and we don't want them to be gone, but a single cool female second string character isn't gender equality not even close. This is what we call tokenism. Expose and publicise the very small minority allowed in your group to discredit any critique on the ground of sexism/racism. People use the same strategy to defend the fact that transcontinental slavery wasn't racist because some black men did owned slaves.

Female Space Marines would be an avenue for more gender equality in our medium, but this isn't the one I would favor. I would much rather see the Sisterhood grow in attention, the addition of female models and character in both the Scions and the regular guard, the addition of a few notable female character in the Necron cast and Adeptus Mechanicus (who are overwhelmingly protrayed as men even if their actual gender is gone). I am very happy with the Tau line who did an excellent job at gender equality. The eldars, being elves, were always the niche place to find women because eldar chick are hot and can serve both as eye candy and good female characters should the need arise so their gender representation (which still favor men rather strongly) was expected.

Considering the place this hobby has in my life and probably in the life of many of you, I wouldn't call this an irrelevant issue at all. I would like my main form of entertainment to be more respectful and inclusive when it comes to women (and races and culture, but that's more tricky and easier to find a work around). Popular entertainment also has a massive importance in the way we perceive the world and those that surround us. Yes, more women inclusion would help reduce in conjonction with many other things (mainly more education) sexual stereotypes and sexism in the nerd community and this is a thing that is very important thing.

The base problem with some of these solutions is how shoe-horned in they would be. Female Necrons and Mechanicus? Really? In one army, the only figures that kept any shadow of their former lives are high ranking Kings/Lords, and EVERYONE got a variation of the same body, and in the other, everything is beyond Augmented that there would be little to no difference. Female guard models, sure, ignoring all the ways you can already do this, official head swaps would be nice. Additionally, how would you even tell if a scion (or necron/ad mech) is a girl or guy?

Are we assuming that women cannot connect with an army unless there are women there? or are we pretending that the reason women don't play warhammer is because there are more male models? Honestly, this is an overblown topic, and makes no sense to have other then the fact that the current zeitgeist is to push "equality" in everything.

This setting is 10,000 years in the future, where race and gender are beyond "non-issues" (other then working around technicalities or science (SoB and marines respectively)) You want girl guard, well hey, the scale is small enough, just say the helmet covers the hair. You want different races, paint YOUR dudes differently.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But Space marines can't be female because... Space monks.

Space wolves are space monks? White Scars are space monks? Damn. Who would have known?

Not all monks are the same culturally.

And so Space Wolves are monk. And that is the reason why they cannot include women. Are you kidding me?

Yes. They are monks. Space Marines are meant to evoke classic medieval imagery of monks and knights. That is why they live in Chapter Monasteries, refer to each other as "Battle-Brothers" and have Chaplains as a source of morale boosting. Many also happen to live ascetic lifestyles of constant training with little to no free time to whatever they want. Monks were and still are, I believe, all male orders.

Besides, I don't see why we have to put women in the Space Marines to achieve gender equality. Wouldn't putting a lot more attention of the SoB and putting more females into the other faction's models achieve the same effect?

epronovost wrote:
@koooaei

Female sexualisation and male sexualisation don't have the same ramification, style and concequences. Male sexualisation is a vector of power, pride, strength, domination and independance. It can backfire strongly and make men who are more intellectual, plain small or even scrawny feel terribly inadequate or shamefull, but there is demonstrably far less negative reaction to those representation than for the female ones. Female sexualisation is a vector for submission and weakness. Thus its negative effect on self estime and gender perception is far stronger. In fact if many men consider women weak and many women consider men strong has much more to do with the impact of those representation than actual experience with men and women in general. Most children, teenager and even young adult lived in a rather sexualy segregated social groups. In the last 20 years, sex positive feminist have tried to redefine female sexuality in a powerful and pridefull way, but it doesn't have that much success so far. Thus, saying that something sexualise men doesn't mean that sexualising women would be equal. That's called a fallacious appeal to equality.

This is just blatantly false. Men who don't fit the "definition" of a man don't suffer from the same issues as women who don't fit the "definition" of a woman? Both bs and sexist.

Sexualization, at it's base, is society and biology defining what makes a good mate. but it's taken as sexist in modern life because hard truths (even if they are biased and harmful to a chunk of the population) are, well, hard truths. It's the same reason that "fat acceptance" is such a huge deal: no one wants to be told that they are not perfect, and in an age of instant communication and feed back, this problem is compounded. I'm not advocating sexualization of either group, but to say that it hits one group harder is just blatantly wrong.

 koooaei wrote:
Chemistry?

I am pretty sure it is not what it is.

 koooaei wrote:
Would you buy girly male soldiers? What about muscular ugly female soldiers?

I am not sure what girly means here.
Muscular women? Sure! I like that. For instance, my Saint Row boss:

I put the cursor full toward muscle. I wish it would go further, though.
I would also love to be able to put her into the same armor as Kia:


I love the comic book character Glory, which has way more muscle.

but you don't need a lot of muscle to make a character look bad-ass rather than sexy. For instance, from the movie Thriller - a cruel picture:

That's badass as hell. But add something to hide her air and it's “modest” enough to go walking in Tehran.
Or my character in DCUO:

Badass, not sexy.

Hyper Muscular women are rather unattractive, IMHO. I am not sure how many men would prefer a huge muscle woman over a curvy one.

 koooaei wrote:

 RazgrizOne wrote:

The fact that little girls would play with ladies soldiers rather than man soldiers is kind of invalidating your discourse by putting prejudice in it, don't you think? I mean, maybe a 12 years old girl would walk into a GW...

Little girls like to play with soldiers. Yeah, right. Generally, when girls have choice, they play with baby dolls and barbies while boyz boys play with cars and, yep, soldiers. If a girl is allready interested in cars and soldiers, little issues like no-female marines won't bother her imo.

As one of those people, I can safely say that in every case I've personally experienced you're wrong.

Sure, it's not enough to make me quit 40k. But removing Eldar from the game entirely wouldn't make me quit either...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Hyper Muscular women are rather unattractive, IMHO. I am not sure how many men would prefer a huge muscle woman over a curvy one.

Guess what, hypermuscular men are rather unattractive too. Why does it matter? They are models, not porn. Orks are not attractive but those people can play just fine.

 Brennonjw wrote:

epronovost wrote:
@RazgrizOn

The base problem with some of these solutions is how shoe-horned in they would be. Female Necrons and Mechanicus? Really? In one army, the only figures that kept any shadow of their former lives are high ranking Kings/Lords, and EVERYONE got a variation of the same body, and in the other, everything is beyond Augmented that there would be little to no difference. Female guard models, sure, ignoring all the ways you can already do this, official head swaps would be nice. Additionally, how would you even tell if a scion (or necron/ad mech) is a girl or guy?

Are we assuming that women cannot connect with an army unless there are women there? or are we pretending that the reason women don't play warhammer is because there are more male models? Honestly, this is an overblown topic, and makes no sense to have other then the fact that the current zeitgeist is to push "equality" in everything.

This setting is 10,000 years in the future, where race and gender are beyond "non-issues" (other then working around technicalities or science (SoB and marines respectively)) You want girl guard, well hey, the scale is small enough, just say the helmet covers the hair. You want different races, paint YOUR dudes differently.

That's why I mentionned characters and not models since indeed both model should be pretty much identical when it comes to those army. A character is a fluff based entity it doesn't even need a model (at least it was the case before). It can also exist only in the pages of novels shorts and audio drama. A Scion model would be easily recognisable as female since you can model all your Scions without helmets (if I can model a male scion without helmet why not a male; this is especially useful for officers). No we are not assuming that women cannot connect with an army if there is no female model or vice-versa (I don't think the author of the crapy edditorial that served as the spark for this conversation mentionned that). I am a man and I want female models in my army. I want the female gender to be clearly, actively represented both in models and fluff. Since the Scion box set contains 17 heads for 5 models, I would have liked to be capable of creating a 100% female Scion regiment should I want it. I want to have those options clearly open to me and others because I think it restrict my creativity when it comes to my fluff and modeling and help perpetuate sexual stereotypes and prejudice by omission. In fact you suggesting that we want more female models to please/attract more actual women gamer is a fallacious straw man and slightly sexist since it seems to insinuate that only women would like to play with women toy soldiers (It might not be your position, but the way you phrased it, it's what it seems to me). Saying that cadian models could be female because of the scale and proportion issue is ridiculous. Sure you can use cognitive dissonance to solve the issue of sexism by wishfully thinking the abscence of women away. After all, this is what cognitive dissonance is used for, believe in things despite clear and numerous evidence of the opposite. As for races, I did mentionned that there was an easy work around which is indeed to paint them differently. Culture is easy too since it doesn't need to show that much if at all on a uniform and there is already several types of guardsmen to represent cold, desertic, noble, steampunk, jungle fighter etc. That's why its irrelevent.

This entire argument just seems to be people being upset to be upset.

Most children I have seen get into this game could not care less if their gender is represented by the little plastic toys to play a game. Most women I see playing this game play Tyranids, a known and unusual phenomenon, and are you going to tell me they do it because they associate with the gender of space bugs? A woman who plays in our current group plays Space Wolves, obviously she does not associate her gender with wolves, maybe she does actually, or space marines. I play Sisters of Battle, the only three male models in said army are the priest, does that mean I gender identify as a woman?

Sexism in a setting can exist but the lack of equal representation in a model line that is largely archaic to begin with is NOT sexism. Boobplate is NOT sexism, it just just lazy and easy design to distinguish females from males.

If all of the prayers or the pro-woman people in this thread were to be answered I am certain that we would be back here in a year with new people or even the same people complaining about new imagined problems with the product line. Why isn't there a female commisar model? Why can't I run female Orks? Why does this lady have long hair, long hair is a bad fashion choice for someone in battle! The line IS imaginary and it falls where ever you draw it. Could GW do better at representing females? Absolutely. Should they? Sure, why not? But should they retcon the lore of a series that has existed longer than some of the people in this topic alone in order to appease one group of people? Hell no. If you want a good reason why look at what they did with AoS and the WHFB lore, do you really want the people responsible for that train wreck to write new lore?

Love it or hate it 40k is what it is, a product. A product that has existed for decades and has an extremely strong player base. Sweeping changes to a lore and mythos or a PRODUCT that has existed so long will not likely bring in new customers but will likely cause veterans to become disinterested. If someone was interested in 40k they would have given it a try already, they probably aren't holding back because there are no female guardsmen.

I get people wanting more female options...kind of, mostly because male or female is truly irrelevant to me. I play mostly male characters in RPGs because I default to myself in the case of choice, but when my wife and I played Mass Effect together we played HER character and I never even once thought twice about it. My daughter is hopefully going to one day play tabletop games with me and if she wants to play an all female guard army I will show here the plethora of options she has available outside of GW. More likely she will look at one of the armies, think they are cool and want to play them without once considering if they are male or female.

I find this discussion pointless. People will always whine about political correctness and logic and reason won't do a thing.
Accept the truth as it is and keep your ultra-liberal ideas for anybody who cares and invest your energy to solving problems instead of making problems.

Howgh.
(I belive that political correctness ruins our society and allows people to be butthurt whiny brats who complaints about petty problems)

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Hyper Muscular women are rather unattractive, IMHO. I am not sure how many men would prefer a huge muscle woman over a curvy one.

Guess what, hypermuscular men are rather unattractive too. Why does it matter? They are models, not porn. Orks are not attractive but those people can play just fine.

But look at Sisters of Battle. What are their models trying to attract? Why can we just take SM models and stick an SoB head on it and call it a Sister? It might be because GW wants their models to appeal to men instead of women. This is just my opinion.

 Brennonjw wrote:
I completely disagree on the female space marine topic. Not for "sexist" reasons, but becuase the fluff all but states that they are turned into genetic "clones" of the primarchs.

That is actually a good argument. Though there still seem to be some variety, with for instance the Space Wolf Loki the Trickster being a bit different from your average space wolf.

epronovost wrote:
My only issue with female Space Marines is that if they did existed, why would we need to keep the SoB? We might just as well turn them in a special Space Marine chapter that just turned out to be made only of women. It would solve a lot issue.

This would destroy most of the things that make the Sisters unique :(. They have way more going for them than just “women in power armor”. I talk about it a lot, but the whole super-rich/super-influential and completely irrational people theme is what makes them cool. I would not want to see them in relatively practical-looking armors, with practical-looking tanks. I want them in completely crazy baroque stuff.

 Brennonjw wrote:
The base problem with some of these solutions is how shoe-horned in they would be. Female Necrons and Mechanicus? Really? In one army, the only figures that kept any shadow of their former lives are high ranking Kings/Lords, and EVERYONE got a variation of the same body, and in the other, everything is beyond Augmented that there would be little to no difference. Female guard models, sure, ignoring all the ways you can already do this, official head swaps would be nice. Additionally, how would you even tell if a scion (or necron/ad mech) is a girl or guy?

For me, I would be actually pretty happy if they just changed a few names and pronouns in the codex. If they do that, then your mechanical model may be/have been male or female and you don't know, or it's up to you to decide if you decide to write some fluff for your army.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Hyper Muscular women are rather unattractive, IMHO. I am not sure how many men would prefer a huge muscle woman over a curvy one.

What do you mean by “attractive”? Would I rather have sex with? Or who would I rather lead my armies on the battlefield? Because I sure as hell don't want my models having sex on the battlefield. So does GW, they do not provide any rule for having sex.

epronovost wrote:
I am a man and I want female models in my army. I want the female gender to be clearly, actively represented both in models and fluff. […]I want to have those options clearly open to me and others because I think it restrict my creativity when it comes to my fluff and modeling and help perpetuate sexual stereotypes and prejudice by omission.

Me too \o/. Well said.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Are Sisters models attractive to women?
Most girls I know that play, do not play SoB. I only know of one female SoB player, and she is older, someone with a strong sense if humour (and steady income to pair with that per model cost). They're certainly not accessible to a new player, male or female.

Can you think of many better ways to kill a sale dead than having someone walk into a store, see the various starters or quick start sets, and ask "how do I play something with women?" and then having to lead them to a computer and show them that they can neither buy a codex book, nor boxes in such affordable quantity as any other troop choice. Also the Repentia.

I just don't think SoB can be used to pretend GW cater to women these days, if ever they could.

Well, Tyranids are obviously the premiere feminine faction.

Sisters of Battle have always rubbed me the wrong way because they come across as "girl space marines that aren't as good." There are the boy space marines, who we constantly hear are super awesome and amazing and they have two pancreases in case one develops cancer from radiation while in space and blah blah blah blah and then there are the girl space marines who get to wear the power armour but aren't allowed to be as cool as the boy space marines for an arbitrary reason that the writers made up for reasons we can only speculate on. Of course, this is all a little unfair to Sisters of Battle as a concept because what makes me dislike them is the contrast with Space Marines rather than anything intrinsic to Sisters, but there it is.

I think what's a bit strange about the article is it seems to be aimed at an audience that isn't really familiar with the setting or the game, but then gets bogged down in minutiae like point costs and numbers of troop choices that probably aren't interesting or relevant to that audience. But that's okay! I really liked the videos he linked, too.

Also, I really liked how he talked about the Imperial Guard being neat because they're just regular people facing down horrifying monstrosities. That's probably my favourite aspect of them. Imagine how cool it'd look if the leman russ commander was a woman, or regular line infantry, or a rocket team or on and on.

And for the record, I don't like the space marine Kilkrazy linked at all, either. Women models in armour (or otherwise) should not have to be unambiguously women any more than models of men have to be unambiguously male.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But look at Sisters of Battle. What are their models trying to attract? Why can we just take SM models and stick an SoB head on it and call it a Sister? It might be because GW wants their models to appeal to men instead of women. This is just my opinion.

Are you trying to say that I am playing Sisters of Battle because I find them sexually attractive (with all the armor on ) rather than because they are a bunch of religious fanatics with tons of money using crazy baroque wargear and faith to kill stuff?
I don't like your insinuations mister .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Hyper Muscular women are rather unattractive, IMHO. I am not sure how many men would prefer a huge muscle woman over a curvy one.

What do you mean by “attractive”? Would I rather have sex with? Or who would I rather lead my armies on the battlefield? Because I sure as hell don't want my models having sex on the battlefield. So does GW, they do not provide any rule for having sex.

It is visually, extremely unappealing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
But look at Sisters of Battle. What are their models trying to attract? Why can we just take SM models and stick an SoB head on it and call it a Sister? It might be because GW wants their models to appeal to men instead of women. This is just my opinion.

Are you trying to say that I am playing Sisters of Battle because I find them sexually attractive (with all the armor on ) rather than because they are a bunch of religious fanatics with tons of money using crazy baroque wargear and faith to kill stuff?
I don't like your insinuations mister .

I just said I wondered why GW would pick that certain appearence for the "only all female" army. It definitely wasn't so you'd be attracted to their religiosity. Again, this is just my two cents so take it with a mound of salt.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It is visually, extremely unappealing.

To YOU.
When I see this, I just feel like Damn this is so awesome! :
(Spoiler alert)

It's like the Hulk if Bruce Banner was already a serious bad-ass and Hulk was ten time as savage. It's really, really badass.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It is visually, extremely unappealing.

To YOU.
When I see this, I just feel like Damn this is so awesome! :
(Spoiler alert)

Spoiler:

It's like the Hulk if Bruce Banner was already a serious bad-ass and Hulk was ten time as savage. It's really, really badass.

There is a reason I said "In my humble opinion." Clearly that was missed when you were looking for these pictures.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 RazgrizOne wrote:

The fact that little girls would play with ladies soldiers rather than man soldiers is kind of invalidating your discourse by putting prejudice in it, don't you think? I mean, maybe a 12 years old girl would walk into a GW...

Little girls like to play with soldiers. Yeah, right. Generally, when girls have choice, they play with baby dolls and barbies while boyz boys play with cars and, yep, soldiers. If a girl is allready interested in cars and soldiers, little issues like no-female marines won't bother her imo.

As one of those people, I can safely say that in every case I've personally experienced you're wrong.

Sure, it's not enough to make me quit 40k. But removing Eldar from the game entirely wouldn't make me quit either...

Well, you see, you can come over it. If there's a need for mostly female faction, there are SoB and female heads for IG and Tau. Just in case it's REALLY such an issue for someone. Marines are just the representation of something that's boyz-only irl. Brotherhoods of narrowminded fanatic religious mass murderers. There's a sisterhood next room if you want.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
It is visually, extremely unappealing.

To YOU.
When I see this, I just feel like Damn this is so awesome! :
(Spoiler alert)

Spoiler:

It's like the Hulk if Bruce Banner was already a serious bad-ass and Hulk was ten time as savage. It's really, really badass.

Do you find Hulk attractive?

 koooaei wrote:
Do you find Hulk attractive?

Do you find Hulk extremely unappealing?
I don't think I need my models, or my fictional characters in general, to be attractive. Do you?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Do you find Hulk attractive?

Do you find Hulk extremely unappealing?
I don't think I need my models, or my fictional characters in general, to be attractive. Do you?

Why would I play an army that I don't find visually attractive?

I am getting a bit lost. Do I want to play models that I would like to have sex with? No. Do I want models that I feel looks great? Yeah. Do I feel like Glory, pictured above, looks great? Absolutely.
What about you?

I would like to see some female heads for guard but body wise a female guardsman body isn't going to be that different from a male.

Pretty much every other army would just need some pronoun changes.

Ad mech are so in human and chopped up that gender characteristics are gone.
Necrons are all one body that is based on a skeleton
Tyranids are all animals
Space marines are based on the genes of the primarchs who were based the Emperor a man.
Sisters are all female
Inquisitor has both male and female models, plus you should be using third party models for that army anyway.
Chaos space marines are all male, but some female cultists would be nice
Demons have female models
All the eldar have female models

That pretty much covers every army.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am getting a bit lost. Do I want to play models that I would like to have sex with? No. Do I want models that I feel looks great? Yeah. Do I feel like Glory, pictured above, looks great? Absolutely.
What about you?

You are getting lost because you feel the need to bring up sex in every other post. I did not say I wish to have sex with my models, you did. I said I want them to be visually attractive, which translates into "I want to enjoy looking at my models," not "I would hit it." As I have said, I think hyper masculine females look gross, and which is my opinion. Glory, as above, is pretty disgusting if you ask me. I have seen more attractive Genestealers.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Inquisitor has both male and female models, plus you should be using third party models for that army anyway.

Female Inq is discontinued.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
All the eldar have female models

It would be great to have female aspect warriors though beside just Banshees, along with female Farseers and special characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam, do you find Hulk more attractive?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Tactical_Spam, do you find Hulk more attractive?

He is certainly better looking than Glory.

Just wondering. I don't really mind any models.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I would like to see some female heads for guard but body wise a female guardsman body isn't going to be that different from a male.

Pretty much every other army would just need some pronoun changes.

Ad mech are so in human and chopped up that gender characteristics are gone.
Necrons are all one body that is based on a skeleton
Tyranids are all animals
Space marines are based on the genes of the primarchs who were based the Emperor a man.
Sisters are all female
Inquisitor has both male and female models, plus you should be using third party models for that army anyway.
Chaos space marines are all male, but some female cultists would be nice
Demons have female models
All the eldar have female models

That pretty much covers every army.

This. I also would like to see some female guard models, and because they are not avalible from the glorious GW, I didn't started to yell how unfair and sexist it is and made few of them myself. The same applies to model of Farseer which I converted to be female.

Another unnecessary problem solved, next please...