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.

 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...

Illiyan Nastase, not Tigurius.

Out of honest curiosity, if GW suddenly did change the lore, and released an entire female Astartes lineup, and I'll start a poll to this effect later, how many of you would flat out quit the hobby over that "Lore transgression"?

 Gert wrote:
If there was literally any evidence whatsoever of BL getting an author to write a book like that in that much detail now I could see your point. But considering BL hasn't done anything close to that sort of detail, I think ever, you seem to just be spouting nonsense.
Tomb Raider 2013 was an 18 rated game, it was specifically marketed for adults. GW markets its product to people from like 8+.

Technically there is with the Konrad Curze Book (which I feel I could write better, since it really tests your knowledge of HH NL and Curze) as it has some topics that were just written pretty tastelessly imo.

I'll put it in Spoilers for Trigger warnings and such:



Then you Have the Damoncuabla, but I really like that grimdark piece of lore.

Personally, I don't care hobby-wise what you have if you have fem-marines or not. But if we really need to have them in the story then please GW, build up momentum for it like how they are doing with Fulgrim and Angron and don't do a Cawl hand-wave (I really despise Cawl as a character) Primaris over it and they suddenly show up. I feel that would be disrespectful to those who do want it.

For me I have been tempted for some Fem-Marines for a Creations of Bile force, where Bile kidnaps various Tyranid, GSC Bioforms and some Sisters of Battle, then steals some Necron tech to make perverted Frankenstien-esque monsters that biologically are Fem-Astartes but they look absolutely monstrous for "First generation" and further experiments would be further Generations to refine his work.

Given the proclivity for GW writers to put people in horrific situations, I don't think they would really shirk away from a chance to depict the brutality of what a female Astartes initiation ritual might look like. But then again, they have the chance to show Astartes as something other then mindless automatons that are only slightly able to deviate from their norms. But showing a female astartes, you would show the imperium breaking away from the "edicts" of the old Imperium and it's out dated science/thinking. What good is "evolving" humanity if only half of it can "evolve"? Female space marines would show a kink in the Emperor's manner, and force humanity to acknowledge he might have been wrong.

Few things here. Prince of Crows shows Curze's time as the Night Haunter on Nostramo from the outside perspective of Sevatar looking through Curze's mind. It's what Curze allows Sevatar to see. The book focusing on Curze himself does much better.
There is a vast difference between intense violence/gore and SA/R. If you watch a TV show/movie it will warn you about violent scenes AND sexual scenes. I've yet to read a 40k book that has anything more than heavily implied sexual encounters either. IIRC what that post was responding to was someone saying GW would only introduce female SM to have them sexually assaulted.
As for lore build up how long will that take? Daemon Primarchs have been coming to 40k since the 13th Black Crusade was first mentioned with the Primarchs returning to lead their Legions against the Imperium. Primaris have now been around for almost 4 years and the current timeline has advanced 35 years post-Rift.

The closest I've ever read of any sort of sexual encounter in one of the books was the implied Cain/Amberly tryst where his orderly walks in on them at the end of the book, and she's naked, and he's naked, and the orderly just turns around, and starts relaying orders or something silly. There was never anything in any book I've read showing more than hints. Now as far as sexual violence towards women, that is far from rare. There's been several books where it graphically depicts what is happening to a woman, usually involving some daemon or chaos sorcerer of slanesh. I think it was either Shadowsword or Baneblade where the young woman is ripped appart and turned into a living portal for daemons, or the scene with the baby, that whole book was messed up at times.

In the Eisenhorne books the BBEG he's chasing was a rampant sex criminal of some renown, I forget if it goes into any detail. But I know he was trying to work up a type of kharma bomb to open a gateway to Slanesh or something...

AoS had the Firmir, which were literal rape monsters, but nothing like that in 40k, oddly.

SlaveToDorkness wrote: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

Why are we talking about sexual violence to begin with? There's a great piece of writing advice I've taken to heart regarding this, and that is:

"If you can use something else, do it."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The closest I've ever read of any sort of sexual encounter in one of the books was the implied Cain/Amberly tryst where his orderly walks in on them at the end of the book, and she's naked, and he's naked, and the orderly just turns around, and starts relaying orders or something silly. There was never anything in any book I've read showing more than hints. Now as far as sexual violence towards women, that is far from rare. There's been several books where it graphically depicts what is happening to a woman, usually involving some daemon or chaos sorcerer of slanesh. I think it was either Shadowsword or Baneblade where the young woman is ripped appart and turned into a living portal for daemons, or the scene with the baby, that whole book was messed up at times.

In the Eisenhorne books the BBEG he's chasing was a rampant sex criminal of some renown, I forget if it goes into any detail. But I know he was trying to work up a type of kharma bomb to open a gateway to Slanesh or something...

AoS had the Firmir, which were literal rape monsters, but nothing like that in 40k, oddly.

Fimir haven't been rape monsters in either Fantasy or AoS since their first iteration.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The closest I've ever read of any sort of sexual encounter in one of the books was the implied Cain/Amberly tryst where his orderly walks in on them at the end of the book, and she's naked, and he's naked, and the orderly just turns around, and starts relaying orders or something silly. There was never anything in any book I've read showing more than hints. Now as far as sexual violence towards women, that is far from rare. There's been several books where it graphically depicts what is happening to a woman, usually involving some daemon or chaos sorcerer of slanesh. I think it was either Shadowsword or Baneblade where the young woman is ripped appart and turned into a living portal for daemons, or the scene with the baby, that whole book was messed up at times.

In the Eisenhorne books the BBEG he's chasing was a rampant sex criminal of some renown, I forget if it goes into any detail. But I know he was trying to work up a type of kharma bomb to open a gateway to Slanesh or something...

AoS had the Firmir, which were literal rape monsters, but nothing like that in 40k, oddly.

In one of the fulgrim novels (surprise surprise) there is a woman who is depicted doing acts of sexual of violence to some bloke and putting him in barrel in her room to use his fluids as paint..
40k Is for obvious reasons trying to stay away from explicit dark/sexy stuff.
They are aiming to market stuff to kids with wealthy parents to hook them in early and having some sick stuff in their books would for good reason not be good for kids..
Those kids then grow up and continue to consume but we are all drawn in early aren't we ?

Its sad how many people have built their forts on their hills refusing to come out...

There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?

I would hypothesise its because its lazy activism of subversion something that exists, rather then creating something new and original.

Automatically Appended Next Post:


A post from very early in the thread was brought into recent discussion.
It's very a "X, therefore, Y" argument, usually from people with poor knowledge of setting/stories, and always gets people into trouble.

 Argive wrote:

There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?

Two reasons:

The lore one is that it doesn't make much sense. It doesn't fit the IoM which is never depicted as sexist, so it comes as something enforced by the corporate higher ups without care of the implications on the setting. This was further reinforced by the corporate mandate of No Female Custodes.

The second one is that Space Marines overwhelmingly dominate the narrative of the setting. If Space Marines were only one faction, this wouldn't be an issue. But they are the poster factions that are basically half the game, and 9 out of 10 novels are about Space Marines. If one seeks equal representation between genders, this is an insurmountable obstacle.

Fulgrim is a very rare example of a book that fully goes into some NSFW territory. When it comes to in-store purchases, the staff always have a rough idea of what should and should not be sold to kids.

As for why female SM, I've got a couple of reasons:
1 - SM are the poster faction of Warhammer 40k, denying this is just dumb. If your main product has representation for people other than just white guys in its marketing then those people might feel more comfortable getting into the hobby. More people with different views/ideas/feelings is good for the hobby. There is a loud minority out there that see non-white male hobbyists and decide they are *things I am not going to say here because, oh boy are they bad*. Those people are what the public usually imagines when they think of a "Warhammer player" and I would love for that to not be the case.
2 - Anything that isn't SM is never going to be as popular as SM, that is just a straight-up fact. Even on the surface where would you find space for a female-centric faction? SoB are Imperial, Orks/Nids/Crons are basically genderless in one way or another, T'au/all types of Aeldari are noted for their mixed forces. It's been a really long time since there was a fully-fledged brand new faction in 40k, the T'au in 2001 by my reckoning and even to this day people still say they shouldn't exist in 40k.
3 - Nobody is demanding all SM players play with female SM or redo all of their old models as female. People just want the option.
4 - The lore reason behind no female SM is flimsy at best. The only real reason "in-universe" seems to be the Emperor didn't like wiminz and there have been a few times where characters (Malcador being one of them) have suggested that the Emperor made a mistake in only making the Primarchs and SM male because it basically turned into a testosterone-filled high-school gym changing room.

The same people on here saying Astartes can't be women, as the same people who got butt hurt when a black man played Heimdal in the movies, or any prominent character is race swapped. Because they can't stand to see their group be forced out of the spot light. Female Space marines wouldn't harm Astartes in the LEAST way, it would only strengthen their lore.

We don't have to answer why inclusivity is a good thing, you have the burden to explain why it's a bad thing, and you don't like it.
Stop poisoning that well.

Argive wrote:There is only one question that really needs to be asked: Why do people want female space marines rather than another female centric army?

Because another female centric army wouldn't be Space Marines - the flagship faction of the setting, the one with all the marketability, the one plastered in store fronts and recognised by fans and non-fans alike.

If Space Marines weren't that, then there'd be no major issue, other than confusingly gendered writing for apparently no real purpose, but Space Marines are uniquely well-marketable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If you actually enjoy the setting, why demand these changes?

Because I enjoy the rest of the setting that doesn't promote a mindless boys-only mentality.

 Kepora wrote:
Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome - and anyone making that argument is, quite frankly, either a moron or a political ideologue.

Or a woman who feels excluded by the game's major faction not including women.

If you personally don't feel that it sends that message, that's fine for you... but it's not really up to you to decide whether or not other people feel welcome, is it?

So basically you just wanna push wahmen to the forefront just because they're wahmen to make yourself feel better and earn brownie points. Right-o.

No, he wants to include women in the game's most visible faction because that sends a message that the game is inclusive. Wanting the game to be inclusive isn't to make us feel better, it's to make the people who currently feel excluded feel better.

 Kepora wrote:


A strawman, if I ever heard one. Keeping Space Marines as the Space Marines we know doesn't promote a "boys only" mentality.

GW doesn't even keep Space Marines as the Space Marines we know. They're constantly adding or changing the lore around them, including a little thing you might have heard of called Primaris.

 Kepora wrote:
You have nearly a dozen other factions; if you're that assmad over wanting fictional plastic and/or resin women on the table, you have others with them already established as integrated parts of the fighting forces.

A dozen other factions that are in no way supported as well as Space Marines. Hell, certain Space Marine sub-factions are better supported than entire other armies.

Let's quickly go through all the factions that do allow women to fight (we'll skip SoB for obvious reasons--though the SoB can include more men in their lineup than all the other imperial lines can field women put together):

1) Imperial Guard. Lore states that there are both mixed gender and mono gender regiments. Is that reflected in the model line? No. Is the model line appealing? Certainly not the infantry, which is old,ugly as feth, and is in desperate need of a refresh.

2) Imperial Knights. Well, they're giant robots. I think it's telling that if you want to play an imperial army that includes a choice of genders, you're playing giant robots.

3) Genestealer Cults. (Some of?) The Jackals and two HQ's are women. None of the troops as far as I can tell--all the unmasked basic troops have masculine features. Presumably this extends to decidedly inhuman acolytes but that's a moot point anyway. Also treated as the red-headed step child of the game. GSCs are to the Xenos factions what the Xenos factions are to Space Marines in GW's mind.

4) Eldar. Tends towards androgyny in a lot of their units leaving them to determine gender by swapping around heads. Many still tend towards the masculine form even. Because of their cultural hang-ups around Aspect Warriors, the only expressly feminine models are some guardians and the Howling Banshees. They have less women in the HQ section than GSC's with Jain Zar. Neither Howling Banshees nor Jain Zar are very appealing to take on the tabletop. The Eldar line-up is very much feeling its age too.

4) Dark Eldar. (One of) The most evil faction is the game is also the most inclusive. They have women named HQ's, they have women generic HQ's, wyches include both genders, kabalites include both genders, scourges, reavers, hellions, oh my. Only their monsters and monstrous covens lack the same representation. And incubi, but that's leftover from the Eldar cultural baggage mentioned above. And because they have so many options, it's extremely easy to kitbash the army any way you want, to be either all boys or all girls or leave 'em mixed. Maybe you want a female archon or a male succubus--go ahead, nothing stopping you at either the lore or model selection.

5) Tau. Technically also fairly diverse in that they have a female HQ and that their sprues have female heads. Only difference between male and female tau being the forehead slit, this is about as satisfying as pretending all the helmeted heads in a cadian troop box just so happens to be ladies. Not terrible, but it's fine. Tau as an army is very divisive between their plot armor, in-universe naivete, model style, and fluctuation between completely OP and absolute garbage rules.

And that's it. I mean, I guess I did leave out harlequins and sisters of silence, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I consider those armies of their own instead of subfactions.

When you add on the fact that necrons and orks are essentially mono-gendered, telling people to be quiet and play another army seems a little disingenuous, doesn't it? Because their choices are for the most part awful.

 Kepora wrote:
Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome - and anyone making that argument is, quite frankly, either a moron or a political ideologue.

It's a symptom of a wider issue. WH40k is not very welcoming to women at all, and I'm not just talking about the player stereotype. If you want to play an army that includes women, you have five choices. If you want to play an army that is mostly women, you have two, one of which that was so unsupported that it didn't see new models for over 20 years (and before their re-release, Dark Eldar weren't exactly the darlings of GW's deformed, glaucoma eye either). Compare that to Space Marines, the flagship of the game, the army so important that not only does it get the first codex of every edition, that it gets at least two codexes an edition now, that it has subfactions better supported than some xeno armies, but it get its entire model line re-released and expanded over two years while pretty much everything else took a back seat.

Having a full half of the game outright exclude women models and another chunk of the armies also ditching women as an option or having truly pathetic options may not be directly unwelcoming women players, but it's certainly neglecting them at best. It's also probably one of the reasons 40k players have some of the stereotypes they do, unfortunately.

And it's truly pathetic when you compare it to AoS. Every faction has women in there. Even the ghosts 'n ghouls. But of course, AoS doesn't have the albatross around its neck that 40k does called Space Marines.

Every study shows that the majority of people who are getting into a hobby--video games, books, miniatures, whatever--will respond better if their focus is something they can project themselves on and gender is a big part of that. It's why gakky dystopian YA novels have generic girl protagonists with the personality of a carrot. It's why many video games have Generic White Guy Action Protagonist. And it's probably why we're seeing a subtle shift in marketing for 40k that is starting to include women, both with their refusal to half-ass the SoB release, to including women in their promotional material, to even releasing more Black Library novels with women as the main characters.

Kepora wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because I enjoy the rest of the setting that doesn't promote a mindless boys-only mentality.

A strawman, if I ever heard one. Keeping Space Marines as the Space Marines we know doesn't promote a "boys only" mentality.

The Space Marines "we know"? Was this pre- or post-Primaris? Was this back when Space Marines were more like military police than the full fighting force they are now? Was this when women Space Marines were a thing?

The idea of "Space Marines we know" is a nebulous concept, and has never been set in stone. Primaris saw to that.

You have nearly a dozen other factions

Tell me which one even comes close to the marketability of Space Marines.

Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome

"Hey guys, look at our flagship faction! Aren't they so cool, and iconic, and plastered all over our brand image, and- WAIT!! Is that a WOMAN looking like one? Uh, no, sorry, no girls allowed for our flagship faction! You'll just have to settle for something else."

That, coupled with the fan backlash whenever someone dares to make a woman Space Marine, would very much foster an environment where people may feel that they aren't welcome.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because another female centric army wouldn't be Space Marines - the flagship faction of the setting, the one with all the marketability, the one plastered in store fronts and recognised by fans and non-fans alike.

If Space Marines weren't that, then there'd be no major issue, other than confusingly gendered writing for apparently no real purpose, but Space Marines are uniquely well-marketable.

So basically you just wanna push wahmen to the forefront just because they're wahmen to make yourself feel better and earn brownie points. Right-o.

I assume reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Women should be represented in the forefront faction because there's no good reason they shouldn't be represented equally. And equally means being alongside men at the forefront.

Having the same amount of male and female factions means squat when the male factions are given more screentime and attention. That's not equality. Are you opposed to equality? If so, why?

insaniak wrote:

 Kepora wrote:
Not having female space marines isn't telling women that they're not welcome - and anyone making that argument is, quite frankly, either a moron or a political ideologue.

Or a woman who feels excluded by the game's major faction not including women.

If you personally don't feel that it sends that message, that's fine for you... but it's not really up to you to decide whether or not other people feel welcome, is it?

Aye - it's interesting that these people are so sure that they know exactly what will and won't make people feel welcome, and that those things just happen to be keeping things exactly as they are.

Angry male privilege syndrome in full effect here.

Allowing women to be part of the best faction in the game isn't taking anything away from all male faction. allowing women to be a greater part of the new lore isn't ruining previous lore. Allowing women to feel safe, represented, and most importantly, accepted in your 99% rich white male hobby, won't hurt your hobby at all.

But please, lay off trying to use a Gen Z pronoun in some weird attempt to make fun of a gender identity? The spelling you were going for is womyn.

I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
"Representation" is frankly a joke, the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine. I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman. It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.

Animus wrote:
I think people should stop trying to change everything into a homogenised mass.
Space Marines should not be changed just because people who don't like Space Marines hope they'd like them more by changing them.
"Representation" is frankly a joke, the majority of people can empathise with other people just fine. I never couldn't get into a Kung Fu movie because I'm not Asian, or listen to a girl band because I'm not a woman. It's narcissistic to need to see yourself reflected in everything.

In my country we are literally trying to make police view people of dark skin color as humans, and teach others not to hit old Asian women in the heads with hammers. We just had a leader who literally said most people immigrating to this country are bad people. We have people in this country that are afraid of vaccines because a former playboy model said they cause autism. We do not, nor have we ever, been "just fine" at sympathizing with others. Rascism and sexism exist, and the sooner you understand that, the sooner you can start helping to stop it.

Congrats on making the worst argument so far in this thread.
Is it narcissistic to want to be treated equally? Is it narcissistic to not be hounded of social media because you dared to be female/black/asian/middle eastern/lgbt+?
This isn't about people not liking SM, it's about making the PRIMARY PRODUCT of the 40k range more welcoming to non-straight, cis, white-male hobbyists. So far the options for female hobbyists getting armies that represent them are:
- Female-only faction who are religious fanatics and only exist in lore to get around a poorly worded law.
- Space Elves who are the definition of NSFW.
- Space Elves with a model range older than many players.
- T'au who are by design homogenous.
- A tiny selection of minis in otherwise male-dominated factions.
Not a single one of these comes close to the market presence of SM.
If people can empathise with others so well, why is racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia/bigotry so widespread? Any time a non-white male character does literally anything that isn't dying or getting saved by a white male character in any 40k media, the vocal chuds scream about it across the internet.
That is the image put across of Warhammer players and is the main reason people leave the hobby if they aren't straight, cis, white and male.

I feel a better solution to this would be to bring some of the neglected model lines up to date, as these are the lines that actually are always meant to have had women in them. Imperial Guard and Eldar both sorely need updating, and it would be a great opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Make existing players happier that their factions are getting updated and make things more inclusive as well. I feel GW could also stand to reduce the marketing drive behind marines and distribute it around a bit better so they're not such a dominating presence that them not being inclusive is a problem. The Age of Sigmar equivalent to marines is at the forefront, but they're not nearly as pushed as the marines are.

This is coloured by my bias against marines though. The only reason I would be pissed if a female marine line came out tomorrow would be because it was yet more marines when there are model lines desperately in need of an update.

If it came up in a few years time after everyone else was up to date then I wouldn't mind. It's pretty well established in this thread that the reason there weren't any female marines for pretty dubious reasons and times have changed. Some of the cooler looking Stormcasts are women so I think GW could do a good job with an update like this.

So I'd say I'm against it today but won't be in a while.

Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.

One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.

A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?

I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.

I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.

Blinkfox wrote:
Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.

One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.

A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?

I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.

I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.

Easy, you have zero argument. Done. What do I win? Also, if you are against equality, you are pro segregation, in point of fact. You say that there should be different rules for different people.

Again, what does anyone have to lose by having female space marines? You haven't lost the lore, it's still there. Just now there is new lore. It's no more of a break than when Cawl invented the Primaris.

Wanting non-male SM makes me a pseudo-Marxist? Wack. I mean that term is utterly meaningless much like "Woke" and "SJW", so go off I guess.
Of course, 40k, since its first iteration, has had a core idea of placing yourself into the game and very much encouraging "Your Dudes". So guess that whole "the game isn't about you" argument has just been nuked.
And, seriously, if you are "furious" because people want to see more variety in the flagship product of 40k then you might need to go outside more.

Blinkfox wrote:
Reading this thread has made me very furious. Despite that, I'm not a guy who would put tons of effort into a forum post, so just a few points.

One thing all those 'equality'-thirsting people do is seeing the game as a continuation of all the social problems, powers and processes of real life. That is a distgusting form of pseudo-marxism. No, my (and anyone else's) reasons to (not) play 40k (or whatever) are not (just) the social position I'm in. And those people overlook aesthetic aspects altogether, thinking that games are all about catering to psychological needs and implicit questions of power and oppression.

A game is not about you, it is about itself. Playing a game is not replicating yourself, it is commiting to smth positively different, and finding joy in that. I've found myself multiple times, when playing games with an RP aspect (40k is one of those), opting for a character or faction that is surprisingly different from me in real life, even though the game HAD an option that is more like me. Seeking self-representation in games locks you inside yourself and your problems even more. Aren't games are supposed to be relaxing, entertaining, relieving stress from reality?

I'm not so much against equality as I'm for difference. Arbitrary characteristics of game that make it different have value. Yes, exclusively male SM have value. Not because I'm against women (not at all), but because it constitutes the identity of the game.

I do see how my argument can be dismantled from the point of view of those leftists. But again, let us remind ourselves that not only social problems exist, and we have other things too, like purely personal preference, aesthetics, and self-sufficiency of fiction. The inclusivity discourse is way too centered around social groups and stuff. There are other forces at work too.

Incredible satire. Very well done. I almost believed that there was a human being out there that thought like what this post depicts. Bravo!

 Gert wrote:

Wanting non-male SM makes me a pseudo-Marxist? Wack. I mean that term is utterly meaningless much like "Woke" and "SJW", so go off I guess.
Of course 40k since it's first iteration has had a core tenent of placing yourself into the game and very much encouraging "Your Dudes". So guess that whole "the game isn't about you" argument has just been nuked.

Wanting non-male SM solely because of a social problem you profess to exist makes you a pseudo-Marxist. You think that the integrity of the game and its general line of aesthetics and lore can be thrown away for the sake of 'inclusivity'. Whereas I think that all that stuff has intrinsic value (the reasons being the implications of my previous post).

And no, thinking that 'your dudes' thing nukes my argument about games not being about me (or you) lacks nuance. Yes, you may make your own dudes, but you do that within the confines of the universe, or bending those confines in a creative, witty, sensible way. You are still commited to a set of restrictions for the sake of them, not because it represents you and your poor oppressed soul.

You keep saying those words and I really don't think you have any idea what they mean. Here's a hint, they mean nothing .
You can deny that sexism doesn't exist in the 40k hobby but you're doing nothing but damage by doing so.

You think that the integrity of the game and its general line of aesthetics and lore can be thrown away for the sake of 'inclusivity'.

You're right, it can only be thrown away for the sake of sales.
Oh! Inclusivity helps drive sales in 2021. Well, I expect GW'll do this after all.

Also, the rhetoric in this thread about toy soldiers in a fictional universe is getting awful close to the rhetoric and verbiage used by... supremacists and nationalists... IRL. And if adding female space marines makes that kind of thing less likely to happen than I welcome them with even open-er arms than I did before!