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.

Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.

My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.

*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.

At least we know that people like this still exist in the hobby, and are generally prevalent. If nothing else, this is a sterling example of why we can't have nice things like Women or minorities in the hobby. Because so many lumpties and chads still seemingly hold sway as the gate keepers to this hobby. Hence me moving to AoS.

Rihgu wrote:

Animus wrote:
Sure, but they don't have the ability to spread gender memes powerful enough to override their basic instincts.
Again, there's not biggoted monkey dad's making sure there sons aren't sissies.

Read all about it https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

So according to science, wheeled toys are masculine and plush toys are feminine. That's what I learned from that article.
.

What I learned from that article is - oh look, there's an actual wide meta-analysis citing the article, that seems to be more relevant than a small study on rhesus monkeys.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7031194/

That's strange - it seems like the amount of gendered preference in toy choice increases significantly with the age of the children being studied, and in studies there is a five sigma difference in displayed gendered toy preference in studies that choose a methodology of "Forced Choice" as opposed to a one-sigma difference in gendered toy preference in studies where the child is essentially presented with a large array of toys and allowed to do whatever they would like. "forced choice" methodology involves presenting the child with two or three options and making them choose one, generally as a response to an adult researcher.

A four-sigma statistical difference in a situation where the child is presented with a situation where it seems as though they are being tested by an adult to see if they make the 'correct' choice of toy to play with, paired with a statistically significant increase in gendered preference as children age and learn what they're supposed to be playing with.

Catulle wrote:
Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.

My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.

*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.

I'd like to chime in here. I'm nonbinary, as well, and my girlfriend is a trans woman. These are facts about me I had yet to share on DakkaDakka. I don't feel "unwelcome" per say in my hobby communities, but part of that is me presenting for the moment as a male. I have no doubt that out-and-out women would have a harder time.

A lot of what I see here, in this thread, is at its heart a resistance to change. I don't know the root cause, but it seems to me like that a lot of people treat their vision of 40k as a sort of holy writ. And for some people, stuff that seems inconsequential - like the non-functioning genitals on an Astartes - is of tantamount importance. It seems very weird to me that people would unironically argue that the Astartes's identity is tied to their maleness in any significant way.

Female Space Marines.

I’m not fussed. I don’t think they need to exist for the setting to be appealing to as many people as possible.

But if the Lore is changed? Not exactly gonna be throwing teddy from the pram, because whether my tiny plastic doods have knockers or knackers makes absolutely no real difference to me or my life.

I love the atitude.
You are entitled to your opinion unless your opinion is against my creed. Then its just wrong.

Clap clap clap.

This is the root problem with policy being driven by ideology.
If you a hammer that wants to hit nails, and go our looking for nails you'll only find a lot of nails.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

Catulle wrote:
Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.

My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.

*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.

I'd like to chime in here. I'm nonbinary, as well, and my girlfriend is a trans woman. These are facts about me I had yet to share on DakkaDakka. I don't feel "unwelcome" per say in my hobby communities, but part of that is me presenting for the moment as a male. I have no doubt that out-and-out women would have a harder time.

A lot of what I see here, in this thread, is at its heart a resistance to change. I don't know the root cause, but it seems to me like that a lot of people treat their vision of 40k as a sort of holy writ. And for some people, stuff that seems inconsequential - like the non-functioning genitals on an Astartes - is of tantamount importance. It seems very weird to me that people would unironically argue that the Astartes's identity is tied to their maleness in any significant way.

Would you expect to be treated any better, worse or no different if you reveal yourself to the community?

All im saying is we seemed to have lost the creed of treating everyone equaly and judging people by the content of their character.

Instead people are focusing on outward appearance as a factor of how to treat people and whats good for them. The whole representation concept only focuses on outward characterstics and sees everything through that lense. I dont think thats a good thing. Treat eachother as humans not as labels of xyz. I think if we do more of that we would have more balanced communities.

 Argive wrote:
I love the atitude.
You are entitled to your opinion unless your opinion is against my creed. Then its just wrong.

Don't be surprised when poorly informed and flat out stupid opinions are treated as such.

If you a hammer that wants to hit nails, and go our looking for nails you'll only find a lot of nails.

Oh, like the same way that adding women Space Marines is some kind of conspiracy driven by hating men? Because that nail must look pretty tempting for you.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Argive wrote:
I love the atitude.
You are entitled to your opinion unless your opinion is against my creed. Then its just wrong.

Don't be surprised when poorly informed and flat out stupid opinions are treated as such.

If you a hammer that wants to hit nails, and go our looking for nails you'll only find a lot of nails.

Oh, like the same way that adding women Space Marines is some kind of conspiracy driven by hating men? Because that nail must look pretty tempting for you.

Bit like male only space mahrines are a sign of oppression that make women feel unwelcome nail? Hows tgat nail looking? We can go around in circles all day. But im not the one thats initiating the change... so... you know...

 Argive wrote:
Would you expect to be treated any better, worse or no different if you reveal yourself to the community?

Should they be treated equally? Yes. But coming out as non-binary, or really anything other than male, tends to bring a lot of unwanted attention from all the wrong people, which surely you must be aware of - hence why people often struggle to come out as such.

There's a lot of 40k fans who aren't exactly accepting of that kind of stuff.

All im saying is we seemed to have lost the creed of treating everyone equaly and judging people by the content of their character.

No, it's that when people *do* ask to be treated equally, because they weren't being treated equally anyway, you dismiss them and tell them how they're just making it up and were being treated fine the whole time. You are erasing the lived experiences of people by telling them that their concerns are made up, simply because you don't understand it yourself.

Equal treatment like, you know, equal representation in a flagship faction, for example.

The whole representation concept only focuses on outward characterstics and sees everything through that lense.

That's not what representation is.

Please stop attacking this strawman argument of what you think representation means.

 Argive wrote:




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

Catulle wrote:
Further, this does not exist in a vacuum nor is it empty Internet activism, it's real. It's personal, and arguments like Argive's wretched seperate-but-equal philosophy* so closely mirror wider oppressive structures that it's laughable to imagine they aren't being seen for precisely what they are.

My partner, whom I love dearly, is AFAB non-binary and plays Sisters of Battle (order of the Thorn, loads of bone armour and blood spatter) and... femme Soul Drinkers (mostly because purple and jetpacks) they're... very into their melee game. And the gak they have had to wade through because of gatekeeping insecure little manchildren in this hobby turns my stomach. On top of the daily dose of anti trans bs that the world bombards them with. It simply has no place in this funtimes wardollies hobby, and anything that perpetuates that state of affairs isn't just problematic; it's evil.

*parallel structures, indeed, reeks of anti civil rights stances and de facto apartheidism. There Goes The Neighbourhood, as the prophet Ice-T spaketh.

I'd like to chime in here. I'm nonbinary, as well, and my girlfriend is a trans woman. These are facts about me I had yet to share on DakkaDakka. I don't feel "unwelcome" per say in my hobby communities, but part of that is me presenting for the moment as a male. I have no doubt that out-and-out women would have a harder time.

A lot of what I see here, in this thread, is at its heart a resistance to change. I don't know the root cause, but it seems to me like that a lot of people treat their vision of 40k as a sort of holy writ. And for some people, stuff that seems inconsequential - like the non-functioning genitals on an Astartes - is of tantamount importance. It seems very weird to me that people would unironically argue that the Astartes's identity is tied to their maleness in any significant way.

Would you expect to be treated any better, worse or no different if you reveal yourself to the community?

All im saying is we seemed to have lost the creed of treating everyone equaly and judging people by the content of their character.

Instead people are focusing on outward appearance as a factor of how to treat people and whats good for them. The whole representation concept only focuses on outward characterstics and sees everything through that lense. I dont think thats a good thing. Treat eachother as humans not as labels of xyz. I think if we do more of that we would have more balanced communities.

Well, yeah. But we can induce somebody's position from what they say and judge them on those positions accordingly, can we not? That's within bounds, wouldn't you say?

I think that, yes, I would be treated worse if I were out fully. I was in a Discord server for TTS Games of 40k a while back. It was absolutely infested with people posting Stonetoss comics and the like. I think that denying there's a problem with this sort of the stuff in the community doesn't do anything to help.

 Argive wrote:
Bit like male only space mahrines are a sign of oppression that make women feel unwelcome nail?

I don't believe I mentioned oppression?

I said that they represent and justify exclusionary views, but "oppression"? When did I say that?

Also, please - you haven't elaborated on these "anti-men" conspiracies.

But im not the one thats initiating the change... so... you know...

Actually, GW initiated the change. Women Space Marines were around *long* ago.

Why can't we go back to before those damn dirty lore changes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I think that denying there's a problem with this sort of the stuff in the community doesn't do anything to help.

Absolutely. And denying that there *is* a significant portion of 40k players who fully intend to gatekeep women and other groups out of a certain faction, or even the hobby in general, is a prime example of it.

We literally had an example of someone advocating for that just earlier in the thread.

Because saying "theres a lot of 40k players who are not accepting that sort of thing" is not strawmaning..?

The entire premise of the argument hingeson this...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Argive wrote:
Bit like male only space mahrines are a sign of oppression that make women feel unwelcome nail?

I don't believe I mentioned oppression?

I said that they represent and justify exclusionary views, but "oppression"? When did I say that?

Also, please - you haven't elaborated on these "anti-men" conspiracies.

But im not the one thats initiating the change... so... you know...

Actually, GW initiated the change. Women Space Marines were around *long* ago.

Why can't we go back to before those damn dirty lore changes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
I think that denying there's a problem with this sort of the stuff in the community doesn't do anything to help.

Absolutely. And denying that there *is* a significant portion of 40k players who fully intend to gatekeep women and other groups out of a certain faction, or even the hobby in general, is a prime example of it.

We literally had an example of someone advocating for that just earlier in the thread.

Well i mean you seem to think men space marines are holding back women from enjoying the hobby? How else could that be if in your world view there isint a male to female power structure?

Argive wrote:Because saying "theres a lot of 40k players who are not accepting that sort of thing" is not strawmaning..?

I mean, where's the lie?

Well i mean you seem to think men space marines are holding back women from enjoying the hobby?

For the last time, it's not the existence of male Astartes that's the problem. It's that there's *only* male Astartes, and that in the flagship faction, hell, the most iconic GW model range, there are absolutely zero women. You seem to think that this is some kind of zero sum "if there's women around, then men can't be" sort of thing, and I have no idea where the hell you're getting that idea from.

Are there women who enjoy the hobby? Yes, of course there are. But many of those women would love women Space Marines, and many more feel threatened by the enforcement (mostly from the community) of a Boys-Only mentality, which is often thinly justified by exclusionary lore.

I like that there seems to be this idea that society has always been accepting of people and treated people equally. Hate to burst the bubble but that's never been the case.

macluvin wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Altima wrote:

 Argive wrote:


I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.

Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..

That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..

You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?

No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?

Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.

How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.

You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.

So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Altima wrote:

 Argive wrote:


I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.

Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..

That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..

You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?

No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?

Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.

How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.

You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.

So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.

Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.

(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)

I’m ok with female marines, but it would mean like a full duplication of the entire marine range . It could work, if GW was competent.

 the_scotsman wrote:


(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)

I'm pretty sure with the Necrons it is just that male and female look the same.

I mean, if someone told me their Necron lord is female, I would just roll with it.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
I’m ok with female marines, but it would mean like a full duplication of the entire marine range . It could work, if GW was competent.

Or you know.

Some heads added into the next wave of primaris releases which will happen inevitably down the line, and a quick note about how Belligerent Carl is up to his shenanigans again.

"Turns out we had the geneseed set to mini this whole time, and we just needed to set it to wumbo!"

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Altima wrote:

 Argive wrote:


I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.

Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..

That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..

You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?

No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?

Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.

How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.

You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.

So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.

Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.

(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)

Orkz don’t even have gender and have only one sex tho.

 Tyran wrote:
I'm pretty sure with the Necrons it is just that male and female look the same.

I mean, if someone told me their Necron lord is female, I would just roll with it.

yeah its almost like the only reason people get obnoxious harassment about femarines is because GW is too cowardly to risk the cancel culture backlash of telling gatekeeping weirdos to feth off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Yes, yes, and TECHNICALLY asari from mass effect aren't all women they're a mono-sex species of bla bla a human wrote the thing and drew them as blue ladies with big bewbies to get hot lesbians into the third person smoocher video game.

This whole asinine act of smugly disassociating oneself from reality when discussing fictional media online is incredibly tiresome. "why, no, this isn't a depiction of a child on this body pillow, it's clearly a whimsical cartoon pony! She's lying down like that because she's just sleepy! I find your accusation of any untoward intentions on MY part to be most disturbing!"

 the_scotsman wrote:
yeah its almost like the only reason people get obnoxious harassment about femarines is because GW is too cowardly to risk the cancel culture backlash of telling gatekeeping weirdos to feth off.

As ever, the Dead Kennedys remain relevant :(

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I'm pretty sure with the Necrons it is just that male and female look the same.

I mean, if someone told me their Necron lord is female, I would just roll with it.

yeah its almost like the only reason people get obnoxious harassment about femarines is because GW is too cowardly to risk the cancel culture backlash of telling gatekeeping weirdos to feth off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

macluvin wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Altima wrote:

 Argive wrote:


I already explained. If you'd actually read what I wrote instead of getting triggered and writing angry drivel perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.
I get your position. I do. But I think its a very bad position for the hobby and the wider ideology that's causing it is at its very core abhorrent.

Its categorising and locking women into a group without giving them agency, and determining they are so insecure they cannot be interested in plastic toy soldiers unless they look like them and therefore we have to take away stuff that looks like boys to make them feel better..

That's a terrible opinion and strategy in my opinion..

You respect women so much that you find the idea that they want better representation to be so distasteful that you'd rather they leave the hobby because if they ever got their way, it'd ruin the hobby for you, and you'd leave?

No one is talking about taking stuff away. They're talking about adding on to an existing range. Are you that insecure?

Changing an arguably key part of a faction identity is taking something away, even if the change could also be described as an addition. On the surface that can sound illogical, but the absence of a thing can be just as important to identity as having a thing.

How important is it that SM are all male (and retain that characteristic)? I don't know. It clearly has an effect though.

You are right; it clearly has an effect. It has the effect of empowering misogynists across the internet with the false authority to respond to female space marines with vitriol, hatred and death threats. And you are right that adding something could be taking it away, and vice versa. With marines being the most marketed faction, most supported faction, faction with the most representation in the lore and black library, and generally easier and more forgiving faction to new players, should provide representation to the broadest audience imaginable.

So to be clear, can we agree that it would be far less of an issue if Space Marines weren't the flagship faction and prime marketing iconography of 40k? Because I'd be pretty ok with that. As a marine player for 25ish years I'm pretty sick of all the attention spent on marines.

Yeah, it would be zero issue at all. Orks, Custodes, or Necrons being all male is not at all as much of a thing because 50% of the model releases 90% of the novels and all the advertising ever does not feature only those factions.

(yes I know TECHNICALLY necrons are not all male and they just HAPPEN to be all male except for one random fw character from the novels of the expanded universe or whatever who would probably have metal bewbies appended to her ribcage if GW were ever to make a model for her XD)

Orkz don’t even have gender and have only one sex tho.

Yes, yes, and TECHNICALLY asari from mass effect aren't all women they're a mono-sex species of bla bla a human wrote the thing and drew them as blue ladies with big bewbies to get hot lesbians into the third person smoocher video game.

This whole asinine act of smugly disassociating oneself from reality when discussing fictional media online is incredibly tiresome. "why, no, this isn't a depiction of a child on this body pillow, it's clearly a whimsical cartoon pony! She's lying down like that because she's just sleepy! I find your accusation of any untoward intentions on MY part to be most disturbing!"

Orks are literally just fungus guys with guns. Orks were designed with violence and goofiness in mind for a setting that was over the top violence to the point of sillyness.

They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns. Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.

Although anyway it is not very relevant, I don't think anyone cares about the Ork's sexual contradictions, because they are not the poster faction.

EDIT: let me rephrase the above. Orks are technically unisex in the sense that they do not do have a biological sex, but they are male gendered. I think that is more precise than my previous concept.

 Tyran wrote:
They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns.

Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.

Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.

I think the main point is that the most iconic and featured faction is male only.

If they were a side faction I don't think many people would be upset with one or two male only and female only factions.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns.

Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.

Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.

Most nids don't even have digestive systems or concept of self. Why would the hivemind waste time giving them biological sex or gender identity...?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.

IMHO, assigning genders to Tyranids only reveals the worldview of the one doing the assigning. It is not different from assigning genders to objects like cars.

You are right that this is ultimately an issue of unequal faction representation (like most issues in 40k really).

Rihgu wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
They were also clearly designed as male. Orks are weird in the sense that they only have one biological sex, and it is male. Hence why their basic unit is called "Boyz" and why their characters are always referred with male pronouns.

Compare them with Tyranids, which truly have no gender.

Nids are likely all female. Plus, no one has issues with orks being all one gender. If every faction was shown equally then I doubt this discussion would even be started lol.

Most nids don't even have digestive systems or concept of self. Why would the hivemind waste time giving them biological sex or gender identity...?

Why would Orkz stop fightin ta think ‘bout genda
It just makes sense, like how both ants and bees are predominantly female and led by queens.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

Why would Orkz stop fightin ta think ‘bout genda
It just makes sense, like how both ants and bees are predominantly female and led by queens.

The difference is that ants and bees do have biological sexes. There are male bees and ants that fecundate the queens, and we know their genome so we can be certain that sex is part of it.
Sex is after all the primary process used by multicellular organisms to recombine the DNA of the new generations (although not all multicellular life is limited to something as simple as a binary sex system).

Tyranids do not have that, because sex is simply obsolete when you can just edit your own genome at will.

Neither do Orks thanks to their nature as bio-weapons, although they do have a gender identity unlike Tyranids.