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.

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
A poor choice of expression perhaps but I think his point is valid - female marines certainly shouldn't be added for the furtherance of some kind of sociocultural agenda.

Why?

 mrhappyface wrote:
Unfortunately no one else sees the clarity in disregarding his argument because of his political position.

Well, his point is invalid whether or not you understand why it is invalid.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Unfortunately no one else sees the clarity in disregarding his argument because of his political position.

Well, his point is invalid whether or not you understand why it is invalid.

And you have yet to explain why it is invalid, mearly stating it is invalid is not enough.

 mrhappyface wrote:
mearly stating it is invalid is not enough.

Merely stating it is invalid is not enough for what? To formally prove that it's invalid?

For you to be taken seriously...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
A poor choice of expression perhaps but I think his point is valid - female marines certainly shouldn't be added for the furtherance of some kind of sociocultural agenda.

Why?

This was explained in the remainder of my post. I could go into much further detail but this isn't the place to open that can of worms.

But there are obvious reasons that needn't honestly require any explanation - it simply isn't necessary for a fictional universe to try to adhere to prevailing sociocultural norms especially when the setting of said universe purposely sets out to invert progressive notions about human society and human nature.

You ask why not? Well why should it? If something that is well established is to be changed in a non arbitrary fashion the burden falls on the person making the change to justify the change.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
mearly stating it is invalid is not enough.

Merely stating it is invalid is not enough for what? To formally prove that it's invalid?

Yes! Please explain yourself to formally prove that it is invalid!

 Hawky wrote:
Well. Let's look at it from different point of view.

This is Briggette Bigbossom, a lady that has joined the ranks of Skitarii forces. Does she look any different from other Vanguards? No. Does anybody care that was female? No.
She looks exactly the same as others, because she was rebuilt to serve a certain purpose. Now it is genderless killing machine, with no other meaning of existence.

Spoiler:

Now look at Wendy Widehips. She was also born as female and then got recruited into Space Marine chapter. Does she look any different from other marines? No. Does anybody care she is female? No. She looks exactly the same as others, because she was rebuilt to serve a certain purpose. Now she is genderless killing machine, with no other meaning of existence and it would also only cause misundertandings as her fellow battle-brothers wouldn't know how to call each other, because there is a battle-sister somewhere among them. Not mentioning that some may be confused by it, becuase the don't see any Adepta Sororitas around.

Spoiler:

Now let's face it. What the point of changing the 30 years old and well justified fluff for having female space marines, when they would all look and act identicaly to male marines? What's the point of making a difference in it?

The point of making a difference is sometime just that: making a difference. Difference = good for modelling. There are no Space Marine women, we can thus make them act and look like we want and then rationalise it later like for everything else in fiction.

PS: we aren't retconning anything. We are adding the following sentence:" after 10000 years, women can, for the first time, become Space Marines`'. No change to information, just addition of new information.

 Hawky wrote:

- Is it because of some moral greater good of equality? Let me tell you something. Men and women aren't equal. Not in biological point of view. We are different and both sexes have characteristics and abilities in which they are better than the other, and vice versa. (I'm not going to write down all the differences, sane person would have little problem searching for them.) And if you want to pursue the greater good, go play Tau. They have females. (which are mostly clad in armour so person who looks at them for the first time cannot tell that they are female.)

That's not really pertinent to Space Marines women abilities. They can offer the same performance than their men counterparts in every area and still look like bikini supermodel if we want to for all we care because we are in fictionnal setting. We just need a pseudo-scientifical bs that sound just as good: "those guys have fused rib-cage, but can still breath and don't die of overeating like turtles". Something like ''Space Marine women muscle are lighter, but more performant thus can develop just as much strength''.

 Hawky wrote:

- Or is it because random neckbeard wants to claim: "I have a all female space marine chapter (which looks slightly[/color] different than any other marines) and it's canon." while his opponent says: "Yeah, whatever..."

Isn't that more more interesting?

 Hawky wrote:

- Or is it because some people need to complain about things, exactly like they need to breathe for living?

Is it why you complain at this very moment?

PS: sorry this one was to easy. Feel free to continue to complain all you want, it's healthy.

 Hawky wrote:

What's the point of having female space marines, while men are actually better suited for physical performance and combat in general? In course through history, men were the hunters, the fighters, the conquerors. (Well, sometimes women fought too, but that's more cultural thing, or some from of despair (Looking at you, Soviet Union)) Do you thing it was because somebody once told "All males shall be the hunters!" just because?

Oversimplification aside, Space Marines are super heroes. You can have your super heroes have all sorts of abilities and make them however you want for any reason. This makes this point the mother of all non sequitur argument. BTW, isn't the Imperium even more desperate than the Soviet Union or any other nation that extansively used women in fighting units (which is almost all of them when you start to cout them). Wouldn't the Imperium look more engaged in a mortal and desperate fight for survival if there were more women models everywhere (I would even add kids models, but Space Marines already have them covered, many scouts are 16 years old).

 Hawky wrote:

Have you ever heard people complaining that there are no female Necrons? No female Orks? No female Tyranids? And what do they have in common? They are all genderless, bioengineered killing machines with no other meaning of existance, exactly like Skitarii or Space Marines are.

Orks are strongly male gendered (refer to themselves as Boyz, soccer hooligans parody, etc.) even if they are genderless, Tyranid are strongly female gendered (Insectoid monsters, influence of Alien xenomorphs, etc.) even if genderless too.

Necrons are both male and female in mind if not body.

Skitarii are cyborgs, Space Marines are men.

 Hawky wrote:

I can now create a thread where I will complain about Orks not having females (Please, do not post that picture again) and what answer will I get? "Orks are fungus and they do not reproduce sexually blah blah blah." We all know what's going on. And this thread (and all other complaining about lack of lady marines) is exactly the same thing. "The transformation works only on male chromosomes blah blah blah..." You are given a canonical statement why it is like it is. You can dislike it, you can find your way around it, but why complain about it again and again, specially when you know it will (most probably) not change.

If they want to they will, thank you.

 Hawky wrote:

Have you ever heard real people complaining that females cannot serve in military Special Forces? I have not. So why they are complaining about the exact same thing in fictional universe?

I know one woman who are pist about that right now (she would have made it, but it was openned for her to late, now all Canadian women can ap how the apply in the Special Force) and two dozens who have written letters and article about that as we speak. This argument is thus false and non sequitur since how we handle things doesn't mean that's how the Imperium handles things (there are women in the Imperium Special Force for example).

 Hawky wrote:

Bro tip
If you had not spent the time complaining about SM lacking female models, you would have nice female SM army converted and justified by now . If you want to have female space marines, yeah, go for it. Nothing holds you back. Nothing, really. I belive you can justify why it works on ladies too, there is just no need to constantly complain about it.

Bro tip
Assume people know that and in many case did it

 Hawky wrote:

Bro tip 2
If you find something lacking, try to find the way around it. Then try to find an alternative. And if both of the previous fail, then complain. Complain somewhere, where your words can be heard by somebody who has any form of power over the things thet you found lacking.

Bro tip
If you don't want to hear complaining (or arguments or ideas) about this subject don't clic on the thread. If we like complaining we will do so thank you. If you don't what to read about it, don't. If you want to,you are welcome.

Cool thread. Make me finally register my account here.

On topic: Female Space Marines would allow writers (and gamers) to incorporate some cultural themes that otherwise would be pretty unavailable. There were some women warrior cultures that could be incorporated as aesthetic and fluff base for female marines:

- Amazons. Aside from Minotaurs there isn't any "Greek" theme based Space Marines Chapter. Also, Athena was goddes of war in greek myths.

- Celtic Warriors. As in greek mythology we have a war goddes. Also, you could take tropes from Boudica, Muirisic, Scathach - to name a few.

- Dahomey Amazons - all-women military from West Africa (Benin).

- Onna Bugeisha - female samurai. Also unused in current SM chapters, depicted with kaiken and naginatas.

GW could make them more "agile" (in fluff), gave them chainspears and chainglaives (to fully embrace "spear warriors" vibe) and voila: we get power armoured female warriors that are visually distinct from both Space Marines and Sisters of Battle.

Nuriel-666 wrote:

- Amazons. Aside from Minotaurs there isn't any "Greek" theme based Space Marines Chapter. Also, Athena was goddes of war in greek myths.

Ultramarines, but to actually model it costs a fortune in resin.

Nuriel-666 wrote:

- Celtic Warriors. As in greek mythology we have a war goddes. Also, you could take tropes from Boudica, Muirisic, Scathach - to name a few.

There's a fair bit of crossover in iconography and aesthetic between norse and celts in the Space Wolves; since a lot of the image difference at the time period was the kind of armour, and everyone's wearing power armour, there's not much to notice, unless you're in for NAKED SPACE MARINE WARRIORS which opens a whole new can of worms.

Nuriel-666 wrote:

- Dahomey Amazons - all-women military from West Africa (Benin).

This is quite an interesting concept for a guard army as it happens!

Nuriel-666 wrote:

- Onna Bugeisha - female samurai. Also unused in current SM chapters, depicted with kaiken and naginatas.

Though arguably depicted in Tau, just with less effort. Fully Samurai themed SM would be magnificent though.

There's already Samurai Space Marines

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
This was explained in the remainder of my post.

Not really, the rest of your post said that you wouldn't want that.

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
But there are obvious reasons that needn't honestly require any explanation - it simply isn't necessary for a fictional universe to try to adhere to prevailing sociocultural norms especially when the setting of said universe purposely sets out to invert progressive notions about human society and human nature.

So, you put down a strawman. Ok.

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:
If something that is well established is to be changed in a non arbitrary fashion the burden falls on the person making the change to justify the change.

The burden doesn't exist .
GW (i.e. the one that will make the change in case your forgot) will do whatever they want to do and they have no “burden” that “falls” on them. Have you seen their “burden” about introducing numarines? No burden just decisions, good or bad!
As for people outside of GW, If they want to convince GW of changing/not changing the existence of femarines, they are welcome to try but this is not their burden lol.
In general the whole “burden of proof” thingy is just incredibly silly. You can do whatever you want*! No burden**!
It's just overly used by people that care more about feeling like they are factually right than about convincing others. But it's not needed really, you (general you I mean) already feel like you are right lol.

 mrhappyface wrote:
Yes! Please explain yourself to formally prove that it is invalid!

No, sorry, I don't do formal proof unless they can be formulated in Coq. Well, I don't do them either when they could be formulated in Coq most of the time .
I guess you will just have to take me at my words .

* Limitations may apply.
** With regards to discussion on the internet, and most debates in real life that are not of professional nature.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Yes! Please explain yourself to formally prove that it is invalid!

No, sorry, I don't do formal proof unless they can be formulated in Coq. Well, I don't do them either when they could be formulated in Coq most of the time .
I guess you will just have to take me at my words .

Show us your Orwell's Ministry of Truth ID card. Then we will respect your statement about my argument being invalid.

Nuriel-666 wrote:
Cool thread. Make me finally register my account here.

On topic: Female Space Marines would allow writers (and gamers) to incorporate some cultural themes that otherwise would be pretty unavailable. There were some women warrior cultures that could be incorporated as aesthetic and fluff base for female marines:
- Amazons. Aside from Minotaurs there isn't any "Greek" theme based Space Marines Chapter. Also, Athena was goddes of war in greek myths.
- Celtic Warriors. As in greek mythology we have a war goddes. Also, you could take tropes from Boudica, Muirisic, Scathach - to name a few.
- Dahomey Amazons - all-women military from West Africa (Benin).
- Onna Bugeisha - female samurai. Also unused in current SM chapters, depicted with kaiken and naginatas.

That's a great argument. Though it would be better imho to include some of those directly into existing chapters. Valkyries for Space Wolfes maybe, for instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hawky wrote:
Show us your Orwell's Ministry of Truth ID card. Then we will respect your statement about my argument being invalid.

Ok but only because I like you.

...getting real close now.

People, stop. This thread ended with a very good feeling between all the people on it because we discuss evading political discussiong and thread us with respect even if we disagree.

But no, we are here now.

And about the Imperium of Man being a fascists Holy Roman Empire style of goverment to prohibit womens from joining the military, thats isn't just how it is. The Imperium of Humanity isn't sexist or racist (At least not with humans ).
Personally, I'll had 0 problems with female space marines, but at the same time I have 0 urges for them. I don't see the need to eliminate the Male-brotherhood trope of the Space Marines, just as the Female-Sisterhood of the Sisters of Battle to include males.
But the lack of proper female models and female special characters where they should be by fluff, thats is alarming. I can understand it years ago. Games Workshop was a bunch of british men selling toys to men, but times changes, and they need to offer a product that, respecting the lore, is inclusive to people.

But maybe I'm biased because (Yeah, surprise) where I live, in our club, we have more female players than male players (13 females vs 6 males), and I can see how they normally prefer games and miniature ranges with a good mix between males and females, so normally the mayority prefer to play games like Malifaux or Infinity.
And Tyranids. Really, I don't know why, but 5 of the 13 girls in our group have Tyranids armies. I don't know what exactly they see in them to love them so much. Maybe is because the mayority of them are in school doing masters degrees and doctorades of biology

 Galas wrote:
The Imperium of Humanity isn't sexist or racist (At least not with humans ).

That are not mutated or abhumans either ^^.

So, the point of increasing gender representation in 40K is not to further some feminist agenda, it's to make the game appeal more to female gamers. It's understandable that GW didn't pay much attention to appealing to female gamers back in the 80s, because they were kind of rare at that point, but now they represent a sizable percentage of the nerd population - if it's not in the vicinity of 50% now, it will be in the not too distant future. So, if GW isn't making an effort to appeal to a more diverse nerd population, they are leaving money on the table.

Some argue that there's no need for Femarines because 40K has the Sisters of Battle, making essentially a separate-but-equal argument. There's a few problems with that line of logic however. First, even if it were just Space Marines on one side and Sisters of Battle on the other, Sisters of Battle have been woefully neglected by GW since 40th edition - not getting any new models until last year, and barely even getting enough rules support to stay playable. Space Marines, by comparison keep getting new stuff and revamping of kits that were already pretty adequate in the first place. There's no way anyone could look at that comparison and consider it equal.

Second, it's not just Space Marines on one side and SoBs on the other. It's Space Marines, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and now Deathwatch on one side, and Sisters of Battle on the other. That's 6 armies who all get constant updates vs one GW has barely bothered to support for over a decade. Even if GW were supporting the SoBs as well as, say, the Eldar, that'd still be a huge disparity in how well the Sisters are supported vs how well the Space Marines are supported.

Is there a reason to change the minis beyond maybe some head swaps? Well, no from a realism point of view, but yes from an aesthetics point of view. My introduction to 40K was 3rd edition, and the rulebook explicitly stated that an army's HQ choice represented the player on the tabletop. Players might like to be able to make their personal avatars resemble themselves - or perhaps idealized versions of themselves. That being the case, having some Space Marine minis that are more feminine in appearance would help to sell Space Marines and 40K in general to an increasingly-female audience. Boob plate isn't necessary either.
[url]
https://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/2011/3/24/439b9ca522525e11c65523b0d912f14f_39273.jpg__thumb[/url]

As far as the fluff goes, yes, the fluff has stated for quite some time that the process of creating a Space Marine only works on men (well, boys really). Leaving aside the fact that the fluff is not immutable, GW could easily introduce FeMarines without contradicting pre-established fluff - the technique was recently rediscovered, or held back on purpose for one reason or another. For that matter, FeMarines could be introduced with the NuMarines. I doubt GW will take advantage of the opportunity, but it's there.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

Is there a reason to change the minis beyond maybe some head swaps? Well, no from a realism point of view, but yes from an aesthetics point of view. My introduction to 40K was 3rd edition, and the rulebook explicitly stated that an army's HQ choice represented the player on the tabletop. Players might like to be able to make their personal avatars resemble themselves - or perhaps idealized versions of themselves. That being the case, having some Space Marine minis that are more feminine in appearance would help to sell Space Marines and 40K in general to an increasingly-female audience. Boob plate isn't necessary either.
[url]
https://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/2011/3/24/439b9ca522525e11c65523b0d912f14f_39273.jpg__thumb[/url]

Please, god, no. Female marines are one thing as long as they don't violate the trope of super-masculine knightly monks in space, which as we've already gone over would have to be done very delicately.

Feminine marines are a no-go. They completely invalidate nearly all of the thematic elements of Space Marines.

Also, I field an Interrogator Chaplain, not because I think he represents me as a person, but because he's an optimal choice in-game and he satisfies the rule of cool for me. I like painting and playing Space Marines because I think they are cool and I (sometimes ironically) enjoy many things about their central tropes and characterizations, not because I want them to be representative of me. Their characterization as strictly masculine is an important part of their identity as a faction, and I sincerely have to question if someone who wants that identity to change in order to reflect themselves might be better off finding something that is more representative of them in the first place.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as has been noted several times, if you truly want to have an avatar on the table then nothing is stopping you from converting a miniature that represents you exactly and fielding it as say a Captain.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
My introduction to 40K was 3rd edition, and the rulebook explicitly stated that an army's HQ choice represented the player on the tabletop.

I guess I've always been a bit of a Hive Tyrant with some Slann Mage Priest thrown in.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
Yes! Please explain yourself to formally prove that it is invalid!

No, sorry, I don't do formal proof unless they can be formulated in Coq. Well, I don't do them either when they could be formulated in Coq most of the time .
I guess you will just have to take me at my words .

If it's all the same to you I won't blindly take your word that his argument is invalid. You've managed to construct an argument for everything else so far, so why do you not have an argument for why his argument is invalid?

 mrhappyface wrote:
If it's all the same to you I won't blindly take your word that his argument is invalid.

I'm at peace with that.

 mrhappyface wrote:
You've managed to construct an argument for everything else so far, so why do you not have an argument for why his argument is invalid?

I have constructed arguments? Nice! Were they valid in your opinion?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
If it's all the same to you I won't blindly take your word that his argument is invalid.

I'm at peace with that.

 mrhappyface wrote:
You've managed to construct an argument for everything else so far, so why do you not have an argument for why his argument is invalid?

I have constructed arguments? Nice! Were they valid in your opinion?

Of course! They were all perfectly reasonable arguments that conveyed your point very well. However I must inform you that all of your arguments are completely invalid.

 Wyzilla wrote:
There's already Samurai Space Marines

Aww, man. That chapter name would be so much better if the last S was dropped. The Emperor's Shadows sounds like a World of Warcraft guild. The Emperor's Shadow sounds ominous and makes a lot more sense. The emperor should only be dropping one shadow, and even if he did drop several, each of the marines is not worthy to be a singular shadow of the Emperor. Together, though, yeah one giant shadow of the emperor.

 mrhappyface wrote:
However I must inform you that all of your arguments are completely invalid.

Oh :(. This completely crushes my motivation to construct another argument then . You are out of luck it seems.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
However I must inform you that all of your arguments are completely invalid.

Oh :(. This completely crushes my motivation to construct another argument then . You are out of luck it seems.

Well that's convenient for you.

Whant you to stop that, please? Go to talk for MP if you want. Stop derrailing the thread.

Took it to PM sorry boys and girls.

epronovost wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Space Marines have the birth sex of men, yes. However, they are then chemically castrated. Their birth sex means nothing when you're pumped full of Astartes implants and hormones.

Apparently yes, they develop all the phenotypes associated with humen males. Looking at an image of a Space Marine (alone), everybody would tell you they are muscular humen males. Only in comparison with normal humen would their transhumen natue be revealed due to their size, yet their appearence would still mark them as males much like when you see male eldar, giant, gnome, etc. you call them men and not agender.

Again, phenotype associated with males. My point is that looking like males =/= male.
As far as I see, a male recruit would look like a Space Marine now. A female recruit would turn out the same. They would cease to function by their former gender, essentially becoming trans, and instead all going by a male pronoun.

Again, are we suggesting that something that looks like a man, and used to be a man, is a man?
I'm not talking phenotype. I'm talking genotype, and that the genotype of a female recruit would be altered to the same point where the phenotype would look identical to a current Space Marine.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So, male pronouns define them as male? How about I give male pronouns to a car? To a toaster? Is that toaster male? Is that car male? How about a snail? Snails are hermaphroditic - they have no male/female.

Amongst other yes, people who are male use male pronouns, people who are female uses female pronouns. Toasters, snails and cares use the gender neutral pronoun of ''it''. Transexual generaly uses the pronoun of the sex they identify to or use the gender pronouns ''they'' (or push for the adoption of a new one to describe them). Space Marine refer to themselves as males.

Excuse me? Many people refer to even inanimate objects with gendered terms. To use a pop culture example, take the Millenium Falcon of Star Wars. It's just a modified Corellian YT-1300f Light Freighter. However, what is it referred as, with pronouns? "She." Let's take a quote, when we first see it.
"She'll make point five past lightspeed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid. I've made a lot of special modifications myself."
So, under your terms, because it's addressed with "she", the Millennium Falcon is female?

Just because a Space Marine uses male pronouns, it doesn't mean they're gendered. Why would a gender matter to them?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Sexual identity: So, you say if it looks like something, then it is that sex? So, a sculpture of a woman is an actual woman, and has a sex?

At this point your starting to be obtuse in an effort to not lose a point. A sculpture of a person is a representation of that said person. What it represent can have a sex. The sculpture is just a medium. While looking at the drawings of Space Marines you said they were muscular? Are drawings full of muscles? absolutly not, thet represent people with muscle. Yes, you can use a medium to gain information about someone appearence, which include their sex.

I'm not losing a point. I'm emphasising that just because something looks like X, and uses pronouns associated with X, it doesn't make it X.
You're saying that because it goes by male pronouns (perhaps by dogma and doctrine - much like how soldiers nowadays, despite being multigender, are still referred to as a brotherhood and as brothers-in-arms) and looks like a male make it male.

I beg to differ.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

How about transsexuals? Some can quite easily look like the opposite gender. However, just because they look like X gender, they ARE X gender?

If they don't tell you otherwise, that's exactly what happens. When you encounter an unknown man you will refer to him as a man even if there is a possibility he might be a, pre-operation, transexual who is, in fact, a women. If you don't know anything about a person perception of his/her sexual identity, you will judge them based on their apperence and expect them to not suffer from things like gender dysphoria because they are very rare.

Will I? Or will I not use gender neutral terms? They, for example? Especially in modern english language, guy is being used far more as a gender-neutral term.

That's your opinion and action, but that doesn't apply to everyone.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

To clarify, let's take a robot, or statue. I give male pronouns to it, and it looks like a male. It's birth gender means nothing, either because it has none, or because it has been removed/altered. Is that statue/robot a man?

That statue/robot would represent a men. We have are frequetly of calling anthropomorphic robots malebots or fembots depending on the sex they are representing. Bender in Futurama is a malebot and he states it very clearly. In the same show, he dates fembots. Yes, they have been sexed by their creator. Their sex serves only a social function in a society where men and women are expected to look and behave in different ways, not a reproductive function.

Yes, but are they male or female? Are they actually that gender, or just a representation of it? As you said in my statue analogy, the real thing and representation don't match.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

But only Space Marines in the entire 40k universe should be masculine?

Considering that I have denied such a thing at least five times and very clearly I find it odd to have to repeat it again. No, Space Marines aren't the only masculine army. in fact most of the stuff in 40K is macho and masculine as hell. Space Marines are simply the most macho and masculine thing in the entire 40K universe.

Yes. However, that does not mean for a moment that other factions can't be, nor that it would detract from their masculinity.
Catachans, for example. I would see them and actually find them MORE masculine looking than Space Marines. Even by your view, I don't see how the Catachans can't be considered macho, even if the Space Marines are moreso.

Using this, I believe it's perfectly capable to have macho women, a la your Vasquez trope, in the Sisters or Guardsmen.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

They percieve themselves with male pronouns. That doesn't make them men. It makes them agender, who use masculine pronouns.
They are transhuman, we are told that as an outright fact in the canon.

Being trasnhuman from a monogender group doesn't prevent them from having a gender. Space Marine still relate to humanity. The only thing transhuman about Space Marines is their capacity. Their appearance is almost perfectly identical to human. Most abhuman and mutants, who are also humans are way more freeky than them. Their behavior completly identical to member of the culture they grew up in when they were kids at a few exceptions.

Are you suggesting that there's no women who would match the Space Marines' behaviour? Not even certain Sisters of Battle, in some of the more zealous orders?

Again, a Space Marines' appearance is human. That doesn't make them human.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Again - Loken can appreciate the beauty of Little Horus, Horus and Tarvitz, but at the same time we also see Space Marines appreciate the beauty of war, their wargear, destruction, etc etc. Is a bolter a symbol of masculine beauty?

According to Freud, yes. Bolters would be a symbol of masculinity and strongly phallic. Admiration of the beauty of such object by a man would be expressing a subconcsious homoerotic desire and attraction which is suposed to be rather common. I personnaly don't place to much trust in Freud theories on human sexuality, but he would say yes.

So if guns are a symbol of homoeroticism, then I guess the entire 40k universe be masculine and homoerotic. I mean, every faction has guns, even Tyranids! Also, if you're saying that loving guns is masculine, then that makes Sisters of Battle masculine, no? - they love the Bolter, Flamer and Meltagun.

Personnaly, I would say that admiring the beauty of a weapon and that of a person aren't an apt comparison making your argument rest on a false equivalence.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Again, that isn't confirmation. Speculation, yes, in universe speculation even better. But it's not confirmation, which is what I asked for.

Torgaddon's lament with that can also be attributed with brotherhood and friendship - not necessarily love.

If I see canon love, actually confirmed, I'll accept your point.

You'll never have it. The point is that it must remain subbtle and insinuated. If you state it outright, the drama unfolds and everybody loses interest about it. If its revealed outright, its no longer homoerotic, its simply becomes homosexual.

So, you fully admit that you can't prove love between Space Marines. As it stands, because we have no solid evidence to support that theory, that closes that topic.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So, hints.
In which way do they dress masculinely? Armour? FeMarines would wear the same armour most likely. Their robes outside of armour? Females wear robes too.

That sort of robes and togas worn by Space Marines are men robes and togas. Women wear pants and men wear skirts, but you and I can make the difference between men and women pants or skirts. The style isn't the same.

Are they? Their tabards are practically identical, the Dialogus wears the same robes as the Dark Angels often do.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Gender re-assignment? In what way? They're already chemically castrated, why would they need to have an artificial vagina implanted? They're not even biologically male per say - only that they were once male, and are now completely castrated. If anything, they are agender, leaving us with (in some views) Male, Female and Astartes, as a gender to itself.
After all, they are PostHuman.

That's the point, even if a Space Marines was to suffer from gender dysphoria before is induction in the Chapter, he would not be cured by chemical castration. Being castrated or sterile doesn't change your gender. My ex-girlfirend was sterile after having a massive overian infection that forced her to have both ovaries removed when she was 14. She no longuer has menses, will never have children and has a disturbed sexual hormonal production and is still very much a women. Space Marines are transhumen, but not transgender.

I would beg to differ. Gender has no meaning to a Space Marine. They use male pronouns, but that doesn't define their gender.

However, because GW haven't really made a thesis on this, we can't know.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

that's great! But then we should have slim Astartes and bulky Astartes - not bulky men and slim girls. Gender should be a non-issue with this.

I totally agree with that. The only reason for it otherwise would be if you want Space Marine women to look very different than Space Marine men which you can provided you give an explanation for it and since its a fictionnal thing, its not really hard to come up with many reasons.

And I'm providing reasons why not.

You're literally making up reasons to justify this decision. We don't know if women would look any different. You say so. I disagree. In truth, we don't know what they'd look like. Under that same reasoning, saying "Well, this idea's good because X" doesn't hold up because X isn't actually confirmed.
If you say "Well, X could be true because Y", I can still turn round and say "X might be false, because Z".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Exactly. So if your whole reason for wanting FeMarines is "I want body diversity", you've just admitted that you don't need women for it.

No, I don't need women to have body diversity, bit I need women if I want MORE body diversity. You just admitted that women and men don't look alike even when they have the same capacities, thus adding women provide MORE body diversity. Do you have body diersity without it, sure, but less of course.

How do you know women would create more diversity?
Yes, I did admit that men and women don't look alike when they have the same capacities - however, this argument is about Space Marines, not normal humans.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And again, any strong women you know are still not Astartes. Given what we know the procedure does to young boys, why would it make young girls any different physically?

Because we want them to look different because that's more interesting for the public who consume Space Marines product.

Do we? Do we want to make them look different?
Interesting is subjective. If you're going to make a statement for the public, could I see some statistics that support that?

To me, I might find the idea of Space Marines taking all genders in as recruits (in a world where the geneseed actually works for women) and them still looking the same, furthermore sacrificing themselves to be moulded in the godly shape of the Space Marines.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Just so we agree on that. Therefore, why are women needed for aesthetic difference?

They are needed because they litteraly double the quantity of diversity in aesthetic differences.

That is, IF they look different.
You assume they would look different. I assume they would look the same. Neither of us are right - we can only provide reasonings for our alternate viewpoints. However, it does means that statements like this can't be made as fact, because we simply don't know.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Yes, I don't disagree. However, I'm saying that with the old Astartes, women are useless to test and trial.

That's tautological a bit I would say

Which bit? The "yes I don't disagree", or the "women are useless to test and trial?"

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Males don't look like male bodybuilders because they're male. They look like that because of the construction process of a Space Marine. The sheer amount of drugs and hormones they pump in happens to create that image, only scaled massively upwards.
Women would look the same, because it's not a case of Male-->Male Bodybuilder/Female-->Female Bodybuilder. It's a case of Male-->Astartes physique/Female-->Astartes physique.

What does your bring to the hobby? As you said, the aesthetic differences such as slimness should exist regardless of gender. So what else is there?
How can yours be consistent? I'm saying "they'd look the same". You're saying "they'd look different". How does that promote consistency?

Again, the process isn't proportionate. Let me put it into numbers. 1 is Female. 2 is Male. 6 is Astartes.
In order for a Male to be turned into a Space Marine, it is either multiplied by 3, or 4 is added. You believe that the implantation process is akin to multiplication, so a male is multiplied by three. However, if a female is multiplied by three, they are inferior to a Male Astartes.

I believe it is more akin to an automatic transformation. I believe that 6 is the limit, but the initial recruit is augmented by whatever number needed to reach that limit. Therefore, a male would need 4, but a female would need 5. However, the creation process allows for that, because it makes Astartes all generally equal, up to the limit of the hypothetical 6.

TL;DR - You believe that the implantation process is a multiplying factor. I believe it levels all applicants out to a set value.

We don't know that, you believe that. Any excuse for Space Marine appearence can be made. We never had to question the appearence of Space Marines women since there are none, we can make them look however we want now and then explain later why they look like so. Its a completly fictional process.

Exactly. It's completely fictional, and not only that, but unexplained. Therefore, the most either of us can do is hypothesis various ideas and theories. Until confirmed, neither is right.

The greater consistency is derived from art consistency. Space Marine men look like men, Space Marine women look like women. The powers they have is invisible at the nacked eye.

Do Space Marine women look like women? You don't know. I don't know. Why? Because they don't exist (yet or not).

I bring very little to the hobby by making New Space Marine women that look like women. What do you bring to the hobby by making New Space Marine women look just like men? In my opinion, nothing. A little bit is better than nothing thus my vision has more value since it brings more to the hobby.

Unless that little bit either:
1) Lessens the quality of existing work
2) Upsets a lot of the fanbase

I'm not saying your idea does either. However, just saying "well, this idea brings something, so let's do it!" isn't always brilliant.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't see a need for female Astartes. Aesthetically, I believe them to look the same, so would add nothing to the appearance if they did exist. I believe that having them look the same would further indicate the level of self-sacrifice: emphasising the point that all previous genders and personalities mean nothing as they are stripped back and you are elevated to the godly status of Space Marine. You are no longer simply male or female. You are Astartes, a Brother to all other Astartes, and a demi-god to mankind.

After all, handing over your own gender and self to be essentially become posthuman in every way sounds far cooler and more sacrificial, at least to me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Yes, but we can take what we do know about the process, and assume that, despite all different physiques of the applicant men, they all turn out roughly the same, why would women (if they could survive) look any different?

Because it would be more interesting and there is no reason not to be MORE interesting.

Again, interesting is subjective. I personally like my idea, but I wouldn't categorically say "It's the most interesting, as a matter of fact".
On the subject of interesting, how about my new lore that Orks are actually the pacifist rulers of the galaxy, being peace-loving looking after their baby Orklings, and every other faction is purely imaginary, living out an alternate reality dream in the mind of an Orkling who has a tummy ache and went to bed early.

Existentialism, and all that jazz. I mean, I know it removes all sense of motivation and suspense in the universe, but it's interesting.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There are 15000 Sisters from the Order of the Martyred Lady in the Calixis Sector ALONE.
I doubt that over 25% of all Sisters are located in one single Sector.

You just came to speed with a Canon conflict that's well known by SoB fans. Most chose to disregard Fantasy Flight material in that specific situation.

Could you provide a more accurate size for the Sisters then? With a source, if you please.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why are Guardsmen able to be macho and Sisters not? How about Assassins? Sisters of Silence? Is it just all-women armies that can't be macho for you?

An army to be macho must present macho virtues at its core. It needs to be the norm of its culture not the exception. Guards are macho culture since they are equivalent to any modern millitary, they most macho thing on Earth right now (with possible exception of Wrestling, I'm not sure). Sisters of Battle aren't macho because its most macho element are minor. Feminine elements (faith, obediance (to a male figure of course). martyrdom, penence, kindness, well only to loyalists of course, etc.) are central to the identity of the army. Callidus are very feminine (they are frequently used has erotic asssassins), but not Eversor, Cullexus and Vindicare are pretty gender neutral. Sister of Silence are pretty neutral when you think about it. I don't know enough about them though to have a strong opinion on it.

Let's go through all of those feminine elements:
Faith - Most of the Imperium is based on faith. Hell, the Black Templars take this to an extreme.
Obedience - Again, a virtue shared by everyone in the Imperium, and all to the same male figure (however, of course, they all still take orders from the High Lords too, of which some are female)
Martyrdom - Black Templars, the Patron Saint of the Imperial Guard (Ollanius Pius), and - huh. The Wall of Martyrs, made up of Guardsman bodies.
Penance - Heard of the Pain Gauntlet? Or Penitence Crusades? Space Marine things.
Kindness - One might say that Exterminatus is a kindness against corruption. However, the Salamanders, Lamenters, Ultramarines and Raven Guard Chapters are all noted to be very kind to their human charges, especially so for the Salamanders.

So, does this make them all feminine now?

How can the Sisters of Silence be gender neutral, when they're exclusively made up of women, a la the Sisters of Battle? They're monogender, no less so. Just because they don't have feminine traits like Sisters, Black Templars, Imperial Guard, Salamanders etc etc doesn't make them not female.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

So, in the same vein, do you believe that Male Sisters should be a thing? After all, if you don't believe they should be a thing, then you can just say that your Sororitas don't have any males.

I have made male Sisters of Battle. Once 8th drops, I will integrate them in expension in my SoB fandex. They are called the Bortherhood of Thor. They are a non macho male subfaction.

How can they exist in canon? Are they fully integrated, clad in power armour, part of the same units and priories?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Canon exists because of rules in the setting. If you ignore all the setting rules and limits of 40k, what makes it unique? If we ignore setting rules, what stops a Star Wars Death Star coming in and blowing up Terra? What stops the Covenant glassing Macragge? How about Guardsmen Conscripts easily killing Space Marine Chapter Masters in close combat?

If you want to ignore all the rules of the setting, that's up to you. However, it seems that a lot of people want to keep canon. Your minority wants to change the canon - that's not what the majority wants. If you change the canon to allow for normal FeMarines, then that's counter to the majority wishes.

And again - what aesthetic difference would Females bring to the Space Marines? The slim body type is also present in males, as you say, so what else is there?

That's a slippery slope argument. Ignoring some elements of the Canon doesn't mean we elliminate all Canon or that it gives opportunity to destroy all Canon. One must provide reason to change a part of the canon. The larger the change is the better the reason need to be. This is a very small change and since its an update due to the rise of the New Space Marines (retconning the past was never in question in this thread). Of course male and female bodies, no matter their style are different, thus if we make Space Marine women look different than Space Marine men (and we totally can if we want to), they bring a more aethetic diversity than purely men or men-looking Space Marine.

So, firstly, we don't actually know if FeMarines would actually look female or not, so we can't use that as an argument. I've provided reasons why not, as have you. At the end of the day, it's out of our control.

However, onto the slippery slope: you did actually say
"Personnaly, I don't have any special attachment the details of the canon of 40K. I don't mind the idea that some Orks might not be green, some Eldar might worship chaos, some Tyranid might hold and cultivate planets (or at least live in ecological balance there), or some Space Marines are women and operate in Chapters that count more than a 1000 Space Marines. These are rather small details to me. So yes, I wouldn't bat an eye at this change, but I can understand your love for such little details."

You said you didn't care for it. Either way, seeing as I've rather enjoyed this discussion, I will provide as reason, as you said: I think it would be interesting.

Nuriel-666 wrote:Cool thread. Make me finally register my account here.

On topic: Female Space Marines would allow writers (and gamers) to incorporate some cultural themes that otherwise would be pretty unavailable. There were some women warrior cultures that could be incorporated as aesthetic and fluff base for female marines:

Just to address this: there is nothing stopping you having female warriors in your army. None at all. However, female Space Marines are not a thing. That doesn't mean that there's no way you could ever have female soldiers fighting for the Imperium.
If you wanted the easiest approach, there would be a Guardsmen Regiment for everything. They range from the Elysians, to the Tanith, to the Karak Skull-Takers, to the Praetorians, to the Tallarn, to the Drookians, etc etc.
There's more than enough room for an all-female guard regiment based on any of your ideas. If power armour and bolters is the pivotal issue (odd, because none of the below have either) then there's the Sisters and Space Marines.

There are two differences between the Sisters of Battle and Adeptus Astartes. One is genetically engineered, and the other is more numerous. They fight the same threats, with roughly the same wargear. Sisters from a minor Order, akin to a lesser known Chapter, could easily fit any of the below ideas.
If the Sororitas won't do, why not? Is being genetically enhanced essential to these ideas? If so, why? None of the sources relied on this?

It's perfectly possible to have a female army based on any of the below without breaking Space Marine lore.

- Amazons. Aside from Minotaurs there isn't any "Greek" theme based Space Marines Chapter. Also, Athena was goddes of war in greek myths.

Ultramarines. Also, wasn't Ares another God of War? (Him being the savage strength aspect, and Athena being the tactical aspect?) If anything, Amazons would have more in common with Ares, and the Ultramarines more with Athena.

- Celtic Warriors. As in greek mythology we have a war goddes. Also, you could take tropes from Boudica, Muirisic, Scathach - to name a few.

Celtic imagery can be seen in:
Space Wolves
Tanith First and Only
Drookian Fen Guard.
Plenty of room in the Tanith and Drookians, or make up a regiment or Order.

- Dahomey Amazons - all-women military from West Africa (Benin).

Perfect material for a Guard regiment!

- Onna Bugeisha - female samurai. Also unused in current SM chapters, depicted with kaiken and naginatas.

Space Marine Samurai have been seen in the Emperor's Shadows, at least.
Could be done in a Minor Order of Sisters, or a very elite Guard/Tempestus regiment.

GW could make them more "agile" (in fluff), gave them chainspears and chainglaives (to fully embrace "spear warriors" vibe) and voila: we get power armoured female warriors that are visually distinct from both Space Marines and Sisters of Battle.

Why do they need to be distinct? And anyway, I thought wanted them to be a variant of Space Marines - the way you put it, you want a new faction entirely?

The number of people saying that Ultramarines, that are clearly Roman, are the "Greeks" Space Marines made me stir in my chair!
Is like saying that Chinese, Japanese and Korean are the same. No, they aren't!

Well Rome heavily stole from Greek culture and not everyone's a history buff.