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.

 RaptorusRex wrote:


I think your ideas and art are great, but I think your takes about inclusivity here aren't that great.

The Imperium doesn't care about gender or sex. If it could jam gene-seed in a woman and have it succeed, it would do so in a heartbeat. That's double the Space Marines, their best asset.

Quoting arbitrary lore is not really a defense when it comes to inclusivity, because the lore says whatever Games Workshop says it does. If tomorrow they said that the Alpha Legion was always a loyalist traitor legion and can now ally with Imperium forces as if they were a chapter of space marines and everything bad that they ever did was just a misunderstanding, that's the lore.

Because the argument sounds like "Girls can't be Space Marines (even though they were) because Space Marines have always been dudes (which is not the case) and there's no way Games Workshop can retcon something as significant as that (which they have in the past)."

Personally, I'm not invested in Space Marines, female or otherwise. I think they actively hurt the game because of the extreme focus GW has given and continues to give them, and I suspect that the reason that girls aren't allowed in Space Marines falls somewhere on a spectrum between GW not wanting to do any recasts and that they believe that a sizable chunk of their SM base are immature man-children who will fly into a frothing rage that how dare GW cater to gender diversity in their army--which I hope the recent success of SoB will help dissuade GW of that notion but GW is weird when it comes to Space Marines presumably because they don't want to kill the golden goose.

Though, to be honest, I probably would look into IG if they were a bit more even in their gender diversity or even released a regiment entirely of women, since I hear lore-wise that most regiments are divided on gender and that mixed-gender regiments are more the exception that the rule. And, of course, if the sculpts didn't look awful like the current IG troops.

Why not just go with the unavoidable fact that women are physically inferior from men (by design) and if Chapters take just the very best candidates from an entire planets population then a woman would never make it as a candidate, much less survive the training after being selected?

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Why not just go with the unavoidable fact that women are physically inferior from men (by design) and if Chapters take just the very best candidates from an entire planets population then a woman would never make it as a candidate, much less survive the training after being selected?

Not applicable, because Space Marines aspirants are usually 8-10 year old (I think Space Wolves take older candidates). At that age, there are no physical differences between genders.

No man in the entire imperium has had to deal with the intense difficulties that a woman has had to reach the same point.

If Dante had to deal with period cramps and being told he was inferior all his life, we'd never have had the savior of Baal Secundus. If Larkin had to deal with half the gak Creed has to deal with in a regular week, he'd be 50x the sniper.

 Tyran wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Why not just go with the unavoidable fact that women are physically inferior from men (by design) and if Chapters take just the very best candidates from an entire planets population then a woman would never make it as a candidate, much less survive the training after being selected?

Not applicable, because Space Marines aspirants are usually 8-10 year old (I think Space Wolves take older candidates). At that age, there are no physical differences between genders.

Warhammer site says 16-18. Highly applicable. I would still venture that the top .01% of candidates from a populous of billions would still always be male, even using 8 year olds.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
No man in the entire imperium has had to deal with the intense difficulties that a woman has had to reach the same point.

If Dante had to deal with period cramps and being told he was inferior all his life, we'd never have had the savior of Baal Secundus. If Larkin had to deal with half the gak Creed has to deal with in a regular week, he'd be 50x the sniper.

Please, God, tell me this is just trolling...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Why not just go with the unavoidable fact that women are physically inferior from men (by design) and if Chapters take just the very best candidates from an entire planets population then a woman would never make it as a candidate, much less survive the training after being selected?

Couple of things here.

1.) “Women being weaker than men” does not matter in a transhuman context, first of all. If the Imperium could pump out even a monkey model Astartes using women, they would. The Afriel Strain exists. As do Gland Warriors. As does Sathona. They have tried to make a better soldier. Who’s to say Cawl or some random Biologis Magos doesn’t succeed?
2.) Chapters do not select Feral Worlders or Hive scum based on physical strength alone. This would be obvious if you read any of the fluff surrounding recruitment and initiation of Neophytes.

1. Because anything done to make a female equivalent to a male could just as easily be done to the male as well.
2. Yes,yes, your nerd-dick is probably bigger than mine...lol I am aware the recruitment isn't solely based upon physical strength. It is still enough of a priority that women would be statistically weeded out ( even if your precious lore didn't already clearly forbid it.) When dealing with an entire planets population.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
1. Because anything done to make a female equivalent to a male could just as easily be done to the male as well.
2. Yes,yes, your nerd-dick is probably bigger than mine...lol I am aware the recruitment isn't solely based upon physical strength. It is still enough of a priority that women would be statistically weeded out ( even if your precious lore didn't already clearly forbid it.) When dealing with an entire planets population.

I don’t think you understand me.

We need *clap* more *clap* bodies *clap* for *clap* the *clap* meat-grinder.

Broadening the selection pool would only benefit the Imperium. More elite soldiers.

And I am only arguing from lore because of people like you. Because I know that’s the lingua franca and will be the most rhetorically effective. I think, personally, there should be both transgender MTF and cisgender woman Astartes. The lore is made up. It can change and be changed at will.

And I see plenty of good arguments for why it should change here. All the other side has is inchoate rage.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

Warhammer site says 16-18. Highly applicable. I would still venture that the top .01% of candidates from a populous of billions would still always be male, even using 8 year olds.

You would be wrong, both from a biological point of view and even from a lore pov.

In The Last Days of Ector, we actually see a young girl being that top .01%. Of course she is turned away because No Female Space Marines Allowed, but it is clear it is not a question of skill.

You know its not just about physical aspects right? Candidates have to show brains as well as brawn, otherwise why not just use Ogryn kids. Candidates are taken at a young age where their bodies and minds are easier to mold into an Astartes. Its usually around 16-18 years of age they are elevated to "Battle Brother" status after passing the trials and their tenure as a Scout. 10 years of genetic and mental manipulation are going to make the difference between a male and female initiate pretty small.

blimey such cringe, must be that time of year again haha.

For what its worth, if you want to paint your models and convert them a certain way you crack on, your money your choice, otherwise just leave the established lore created by men and woman over 30+ years alone and go do your activism (because that is the real reason behind this) somewhere its actually needed.

Ahhh yes, equal representation in media is cringe.
Pack it up team, our sinister SJW plot to put wiminz in Space Marines has been found out.
If we're going for the "but it's always been that way" argument, then I'm going to say axe Necrons, T'au, Tyranids, Druhkrari, Harlequins, GSC, Knights and any other factions that aren't Space Marines, Guard, OG Eldar and Orks. That's how dumb that argument is.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Why not just go with the unavoidable fact that women are physically inferior from men (by design)

By design? Who's design?

Also, by that same logic, the only Astartes recruits should be children with good diets, healthy living conditions, and physically nurturing environments - so all your death world and hive world children living in irradiated ruins and starving to death in the gutters of Hab-Block 28-9C-Gamma should be ruled out immediately. The only appropriate recruits, from a physically "superior" standing would be ones from civilised worlds or suchlike, as they're the only ones getting all the nutrients they need, the proper healthcare and living conditions to actually grow strong.

This all points that Astartes recruitment is not solely (or even primarily) based on physicality (let alone that trying to measure physicality in pre-pubescent children is ridiculous), but rather on aspects like mental fortitude and willpower - things that living in a hive slum or lethal wasteland would actually propagate.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:1. Because anything done to make a female equivalent to a male could just as easily be done to the male as well.

Exactly - so it extends beyond physicality, and onto less tangible concepts, like willpower or mental fortitude, which, last I checked, aren't gendered - not that you really should be gendering pre-pubescent children.

2. Yes,yes, your nerd-dick is probably bigger than mine...

That's a strange way of saying you don't know what you're talking about, other than the select arguments you cherry pick.

RaptorusRex wrote: I see plenty of good arguments for why it should change here. All the other side has is inchoate rage.

Pretty much. It's all references to lore built on foundations of sand, and veiled references to some kind of conspiracy or agenda.

Formosa wrote:blimey such cringe, must be that time of year again haha.

I know, it really *is* cringey that people would be so against what gender your power armoured toy soldiers are.

For what its worth, if you want to paint your models and convert them a certain way you crack on, your money your choice

If only it was - unfortunately, nearly any time I see a woman Space Marine posted, its accompanied by a deluge of "WOMEN CAN'T BE SPACE MARINES/get your SJW politics out of my games/NONCANON!!" comments. Without making them canon, you'll never shut up the chuds unable to accept that people don't just want masculine-presenting Astartes.

otherwise just leave the established lore created by men and woman over 30+ years alone

You mean the established lore that was changed to make Space Marines all male?

Come on, you can't go calling for lore sanctity when the lore isn't a permanant thing.

Lets take a moment and step back here.

Necromunda: The original game included entirely monogendered gangs: eschers all female, everyone else all male.

The 2017 necromunda release came out about the same time as the Primaris Space Marine reboot began.

Every necromunda gang at this point besides Corpsegrinders and Enforcers (the latter has only like 2 helmetless heads) has models that appear both male and female.

Did GW stick to their guns and stay true to the original spirit of the warhammer 40k setting with primaris space marines, and betray the spirit of the setting and cave to outside pressure with Necromunda? Having the gangs be monogender would be more archaic.

Can I also point out AGAIN, there is no actual lore established that specifically states Men are the only ones who can become SM? Like No one has posted proof of this. The best I could find was a store rep who said it's in the 9th edition codex, which I was tend told was not correct.

So please, provide and cite the lore or STFU.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I also point out AGAIN, there is no actual lore established that specifically states Men are the only ones who can become SM? Like No one has posted proof of this. The best I could find was a store rep who said it's in the 9th edition codex, which I was tend told was not correct.

So please, provide and cite the lore or STFU.

The index Astartes article ‘Rites of Initiation’ has it stated (copy on WarCom here https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/) with the reasoning given being the same as for why they need to be children (10-13 is the range given to start) - because the process is tied to that of male puberty and hormones released during such.

Now frankly the Imperium’s biotech is such there’s no reason they couldn’t artificially induce male puberty in a prepubescent girl (we can pretty much do it now) although 1) genitals aside, the end result will look much the same as the changes of puberty are largely what cause male and female appearances; and 2) it’s presumably an extra step that can go wrong in an already risky process (not that that stops a lot of chapters adding dodgy extra steps anyway).

Tbh though the Imperium is a big place with a lot of space for things to happen - I’m also slightly surprised this is not something Crawl has ‘solved’.

Index Astartes wrote: The various implants cause vital changes in a Marine’s physique and mental state. Many of these changes are controlled by natural hormonal secretions and growth patterns. Implants may not prove effective, or may not become fully functional, if they are carried out once the recipient has reached certain stages of natural development. It is therefore inevitable that recruits must be reasonably young. Tissue compatibility is also essential, otherwise organs may fail to develop properly.
...
These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening.

Edit: clearly this is all ‘Watsonian’, the Doyalist reasoning has been given repeatedly in this thread (sales in the 80s)

Lord Zarkov wrote:
The index Astartes article ‘Rites of Initiation’ has it stated (copy on WarCom here https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/) with the reasoning given being the same as for why they need to be children (10-13 is the range given to start) - because the process is tied to that of male puberty and hormones released during such.

From the article linked, right near the top: "Editor’s Note: This article comes from one of yesteryear’s publications called Index Astartes I, originally printed in 2002, and the information contained within has been revisited and updated in many a Codex: Space Marines since. For posterity’s sake, we wanted to present the original article in full, despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years."

So even there it's explicit that it doesn't reflect the "current" state of things.

Catulle wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:
The index Astartes article ‘Rites of Initiation’ has it stated (copy on WarCom here https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/) with the reasoning given being the same as for why they need to be children (10-13 is the range given to start) - because the process is tied to that of male puberty and hormones released during such.

From the article linked, right near the top: "Editor’s Note: This article comes from one of yesteryear’s publications called Index Astartes I, originally printed in 2002, and the information contained within has been revisited and updated in many a Codex: Space Marines since. For posterity’s sake, we wanted to present the original article in full, despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years."

So even there it's explicit that it doesn't reflect the "current" state of things.

Yeah true, and that’s a detail that is probably ripe for a retcon but I don’t think it’s been explicitly contradicted yet.

Interestingly the related age thing might be one of the subtle changes mentioned, more recent stories of pre-selection initiates IMO give the impression of them being early teens rather than 10 year olds.

Contradicted, it's not even stated yet? All you have is an implication. Considering we have indepth lore about the functioning of much lesser issues, I don't think we even have a concrete basis of statement here.

I've gone through all alerts generated and am going to leave a general warning to all participants: rule #1 is not optional.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Contradicted, it's not even stated yet? All you have is an implication. Considering we have indepth lore about the functioning of much lesser issues, I don't think we even have a concrete basis of statement here.

Um it literally says ‘They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types’ (emphasis mine) in the section on who can be Space Marines in the article I linked and quoted above? That’s the very definition of an explicit statement!

Now I agree it’s totally retconable (and with frankly less lore gymnastics than Primaris), but that is what the lore has said previously without contradiction yet.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Contradicted, it's not even stated yet? All you have is an implication. Considering we have indepth lore about the functioning of much lesser issues, I don't think we even have a concrete basis of statement here.

Um it literally says ‘They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types’ (emphasis mine) in the section on who can be Space Marines in the article I linked and quoted above? That’s the very definition of an explicit statement!

And as mentioned, it also explicitly states that the article is old, and has undergone "changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years."

Considering that the whole "keyed to male zygotes" isn't actually *mentioned* in modern lore, I think it's safe to say that maybe that's one of those subtle changes that happened. I'll be honest, quoting from an article from 2002 which GW outright admit isn't up to date isn't exactly explicit at all.

Now I agree it’s totally retconable (and with frankly less lore gymnastics than Primaris), but that is what the lore has said previously without contradiction yet.

It's also not been reinforced either.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Contradicted, it's not even stated yet? All you have is an implication. Considering we have indepth lore about the functioning of much lesser issues, I don't think we even have a concrete basis of statement here.

Um it literally says ‘They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types’ (emphasis mine) in the section on who can be Space Marines in the article I linked and quoted above? That’s the very definition of an explicit statement!

And as mentioned, it also explicitly states that the article is old, and has undergone "changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years."

Considering that the whole "keyed to male zygotes" isn't actually *mentioned* in modern lore, I think it's safe to say that maybe that's one of those subtle changes that happened. I'll be honest, quoting from an article from 2002 which GW outright admit isn't up to date isn't exactly explicit at all.

Now I agree it’s totally retconable (and with frankly less lore gymnastics than Primaris), but that is what the lore has said previously without contradiction yet.

It's also not been reinforced either.

I mean it was explicit which was the only point I was making, and while I have no idea when it was most recently explicitly reinforced it has clearly been consistently implicitly reinforced by the exclusive use of male-gendered language and more recent shorts where appropriately aged girls are not allowed/able to become Space Marines.

Personally I don’t care either way whether there is female SMs or not (they don’t hugely interest me), but I can see why people would want them.

It’s just the claim made a few times upthread that it has never been explicitly stated that/why there can only male SM is flat out wrong and offends my sense of accuracy.

Tldr: female SMS would be a clear retcon, not a bad retcon, but a retcon nonetheless.

Its not a retcon if its added in as a specifically new thing. A retcon would be GW saying there have always been gender neutral SM since the days of the Great Crusade with the Emperors 20 Children giving the gene seed. If GW more likely does "with the advancements made with the Primaris project and its later works, the first female Astartes have landed in the 41st millennium. While some hardline chapters view this development with the same scorn as the original Primaris inductees, many more accept the ability to replenish their losses more readily and better defend the Imperium."

 Gert wrote:
Its not a retcon if its added in as a specifically new thing. A retcon would be GW saying there have always been gender neutral SM since the days of the Great Crusade with the Emperors 20 Children giving the gene seed. If GW more likely does "with the advancements made with the Primaris project and its later works, the first female Astartes have landed in the 41st millennium. While some hardline chapters view this development with the same scorn as the original Primaris inductees, many more accept the ability to replenish their losses more readily and better defend the Imperium."

Fair point, a change rather than a retcon then. And I agree, that’d be exactly the best way to do it.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Now I agree it’s totally retconable (and with frankly less lore gymnastics than Primaris), but that is what the lore has said previously without contradiction yet.

Although if we're assuming that not being specifically contradicted means it's still canon, Chief Librarian Tigurius is half Eldar...

Lord Zarkov wrote:I mean it was explicit which was the only point I was making

Yes, with the emphasis on *was*. People were asking for recent explicit statements, of which none exist.

it has clearly been consistently implicitly reinforced by the exclusive use of male-gendered language and more recent shorts where appropriately aged girls are not allowed/able to become Space Marines.

Absolutely, but people were asking for explicit statements in modern canon, which don't really seem to be around any more.

It’s just the claim made a few times upthread that it has never been explicitly stated that/why there can only male SM is flat out wrong and offends my sense of accuracy

I mean, again, it *was* once a thing, but is no longer reinforced - so, in all terms of accuracy, it's not an explicitly stated thing any more, and a nearly 20 year old article shouldn't really be referenced for its validity.

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

Now I agree it’s totally retconable (and with frankly less lore gymnastics than Primaris), but that is what the lore has said previously without contradiction yet.

Although if we're assuming that not being specifically contradicted means it's still canon, Chief Librarian Tigurius is half Eldar...

Haha, touché - though I’d argue the current lore is completely incompatible with that still being the case (or indeed half Eldar in general)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I also point out AGAIN, there is no actual lore established that specifically states Men are the only ones who can become SM? Like No one has posted proof of this. The best I could find was a store rep who said it's in the 9th edition codex, which I was tend told was not correct.

So please, provide and cite the lore or STFU.

So I'm going to assume this has been posted but you found some justification to dismiss the Lexicanum, but here goes...

Recruits must be fairly young, because implants often do not become fully functional if the recipient has reached a certain level of physical maturity. They must be male because the zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types. Only a small percentage of people are compatible to receive the implants and hypno-suggestion to turn them into Marines. Before the process of implantation begins the potential recruit receives tissue compatibility tests and psychological screening. If the testing proves successful the recruit becomes an aspirant. After the organ implantation process begins he becomes an neophyte. When the final implant is in place and the requisite training and hypnotherapy underway, he becomes a full brother. [1][2a][3]

https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Creation_of_a_Space_Marine

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:I mean it was explicit which was the only point I was making

Yes, with the emphasis on *was*. People were asking for recent explicit statements, of which none exist.

it has clearly been consistently implicitly reinforced by the exclusive use of male-gendered language and more recent shorts where appropriately aged girls are not allowed/able to become Space Marines.

Absolutely, but people were asking for explicit statements in modern canon, which don't really seem to be around any more.

It’s just the claim made a few times upthread that it has never been explicitly stated that/why there can only male SM is flat out wrong and offends my sense of accuracy

I mean, again, it *was* once a thing, but is no longer reinforced - so, in all terms of accuracy, it's not an explicitly stated thing any more, and a nearly 20 year old article shouldn't really be referenced for its validity.

The specific comments I was originally replying to definitely read as it was *never* an explicit thing which is not correct. And it may be old, but plenty of old Lore is still valid, it’s mainly RT and early 2Ed stuff that’s from before the setting fully crystallised that is more notably and incompatibly divergent (and even some of that gets brought up from time to time - cf Sons of Medusa primaris in RT era camouflage scheme in this month’s WD). 3Ed and later stuff (Necrons aside) is generally still on point for the most part, just built on and evolved. Heck the whole HH series is based on the outline from the IA series. How old is too old?

That said, it’s not surprising GW’s not emphasising that specific detail now, since it’s a bit dumb given IoM’s tech, rather exclusionary, and almost certainly not how’d they’d have written it now if they were starting afresh (cf SC in AoS). But they’ve seemingly taken pains not to contradict it either, which they could very easily do (especially with the introduction of Primaris).

Less an actual contradiction/incompatibility (which are admittedly not uncommon), I really hate the ‘I don’t like it so it doesn’t count’ approach - regardless of if I agree with the source of dislike or not. IMO we should be accepting as much of the lore a valid as we can, accepting rationalisations of minor contradictions, and discarding only where something is truly incompatible with the bulk of the modern lore, which seems to me the line GW generally try to take.