some bloke wrote:
First
I am not suggesting that these people will leave because of it.

Look at how things went when primaris were introduced. Loads of people were angry about it, and who did they direct their anger at? The people they thought were responsible – dig into the archives and you’ll find thousands of posts in threads where people are saying, one way or another, that the people running GW are cash grabbing >so and so’s< who don’t care about the game, only about making money. The whole reason primaris were introduced was to make money, and the GW community largely got angry at the people they thought decided to make the decision – the shareholders and owners of GW. Notice no-one got angry at the writers, or store colleagues.
Now imagine that same level of disgruntlement, but where the very people representation is supposed to be helping are actually there.

Ask yourself – when primaris got released and over half the 40k populace was angry about it, would a GW shareholder have felt comfortable walking into a GW store?

Okay, I’ll explain.
The cats are female space marines
The dogs which like them are pro-change
The dogs which don’t care don’t care
The dogs which will attack them are those opposed to female marines.
That’s all the dogs.

Now, half of the dogs (half from each group) will attack anything thrown towards them, presumably because it’s a surprise. Throwing a cat at them is the equivalent of saying “we’re doing it for political reasons, deal with it”.

You have 2 ways to introduce a cat
one way (respectful introduction) has a couple of dogs which don’t like cats becoming aggressive, but those who like cats will defend them and they will not feel like they are in the right because of overwhelming opposition – the desired result – and will stop attacking the cats or go away.
The other way (throwing the cat, here representing the political introduction) has half the dogs attacking the cat, not be cause it was a cat, but because it was thrown. Those dogs who wouldn’t have cared about the cat, or those who would have liked the cat, aren’t suddenly cat haters.

 some bloke wrote:

I am actively against the former option here - outspokenly making it happen for political reasons with a token nod to the lore. The second option, where they just say "yeah, it's a new thing but it's nothing special as such, just Cawl further perfecting the process so now there are female marines, which is good for humanity because they have twice as many recruits now" is going to generate less resistance than the former.

I agree that anyone who has outspoken or suppressed anti-female-marine viewpoints is going to oppose the change no matter what happens, but there's nothing we can do about them - whatever you do, they will get annoyed. I'm suggesting that perhaps there are people on the fence who could be pushed over it in the wrong direction if it comes across wrong. And once again, they won't be against female marines, but the interference.


If you say "we did this because it's cool and here's all the lore" then people looking for the politics will see politics, but people looking for the next space marine release will see a space marine release. If you say "We're adding female space marines because it was wrong not to have female space marines and we're sorry for oppressing women by not having them from the start" then everyone will see the politics, and those who just wanted a space marine release will think "They've spent their time trying to be PC instead of trying to improve the game!".

As a further argument against making it outwardly political - if you were to release female marines with a big statement about how it's being done for representation and to support equality, do you know what is actually being said there?

"We don't think marines need female models. There's nothing in the lore to make them need them, and they are fine without them. However, due to external influence, we have decided to add female marines to make the people who feel like they are not represented by them feel represented by them".

If your sole reason for making the change is for the politics and societics of the situation, then you are implying that without those pressures, marines wouldn't need to change. That, to me, makes it feel like women aren't welcome but are instead grudgingly accepted because to not do so would be sexist.

I don't want 40k to change just to tick inclusion boxes.

As said earlier, they added a greater range of skin tones without any hullabaloo, and it's now completely accepted without fuss. If they had made a song and dance about it, it would have felt like the only reason they did it was so that they could make the song and dance about it, which makes it very much a token gesture.


If you want to make the change without making it seem like a token gesture, you need to do it as if it were perfectly normal to do so - no songs, no dances, no great press releases about the political reasons for it. It shouldn't be a big deal to add female marines. What has been suggested (mainly by Sgt_Smudge) is that they should change it purely for political reasons and then announce it as such.

Is it not apparent that if the only reason you do something is because someone told you to that it is insincere? "Society says we need women so we added women". It's like "I was told to come and apologise, so I'm sorry."

To make this a genuine change and not a token one, it needs to make sense in the universe. Lore progression to support it, and make it all about the game, not the people. The repercussions on the people will still be there, after all. You just don't have to shout it from the rooftops.

 some bloke wrote:

Then it sounds like we agree?

I'm 100% for female marines, and am against the suggestions that Sgt_Smudge was saying that the change should happen exclusively because they are the flagship faction and all that political reasoning behind it. I said the change should be done with respect for the lore, and it was put back that it shouldn't matter, we should just say "sorry guys now we're changing it do there", which I see as a bad move, and now you've said (rightly) that GW wouldn't do that anyway.

I wasn't saying that I think that GW employees think marines should be male, I was saying that this is what it will seem like if they say the only reason they added female marines was to improve representation.

It's like if wherever you work says "we have a new employee, this woman, who we employed so that we weren't an all male workforce". That's an incredibly sexist justification. Even if it was due to external pressures to not be an all-male whatever, saying " we added females because it was a good thing to do" is far better than saying "we added females because we had to".

The approach has to be "female marines are a thing and that's good because >insert lore reasons here<", not "Female marines are a thing and that's good because >insert political reasons here<."

If you say you're doing a thing because politics or societics, then you are implying that you had no better reason to do it besides making a political statement. And that's when you get token gestures.

Hecaton wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Well I showed my wife this bit and Her response was a bit of discomfort and the statement that representation most certainly matters to her in her RPG’s and the like. And that with folk saying things like what you said it’s a no wonder women wouldn’t feel comfortable in the hobby. Just in case you would like a woman’s perspective from outside the hobby, which is the perspective that matters most when it comes to discussing what matters to women.

I'm more interested in a woman's perspective from *inside* the hobby

That's a sampling bias right there. Surely we should be considering the opinions and perspectives of those people *outside* the hobby, but interested in it, and why they aren't inside the hobby, because we're discussing about women who feel excluded and why that may be the case.

It's not enough to hear only from women who *are* in the hobby, because they're not the ones who feel excluded enough not to be a part of it. You're, yet again, ignoring the voices of women.

And in the end it doesn't matter. "Representation" doesn't seem to have a meaningful effect on the number of women who play miniature wargames as a proportion of the playerbase. You can say your wife says that, and maybe it makes her uncomfortable that players can play an all-male faction, but that doesn't mean she'd play 40k if Astartes were gender-integrated. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that women would.

Counterpoint, but RPGs have made strides towards representation and inclusivity, and they've seen a major uptake of interest. Age of Sigmar is notably more popular with women and other minority groups than 40k is. Many major IPs and franchises have seen quite large consumer growth from being more representative and inclusive.

It would seem that representation *does* matter, even if we were to ignore the human factor of the topic.

 Cybtroll wrote:
The idea that women are somehow less interested in wargaming is hilarious. They're less interested in THIS specific way of wargaming, which is in no way given or immutable.... It's simply as it is, but can be different.

I think wargaming itself attracts thing-oriented people overwhelmingly, and women tend to be less thing-oriented than men.

You *think*? Wow. That's a great source.

 Cybtroll wrote:
You can backtrack THE EXACT SAME DISCUSSION in RPG forum in the first year of 2000 (from 1995 to 2010, depending on where you live). Up to that point, the only intersection with Rpg and female audience where the Goth culture and Vampire the Masquerade.

I don't find that to be true at all. There were typically women involved with tabletop and LARP rpgs back in the day, in a way that wasn't true with wargaming. Let's keep in mind that *most men* aren't into tabletop wargaming either.

So if "most" men aren't involved in tabletop wargaming, why does it matter that "most" women aren't either? Clearly, it's a niche thing - but that's no excuse to keep to keep it a niche for people who might want to be involved.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Guess what? Female where interested, but not in old incarnation on RPGs l. Now we gave new ones, that support both the old approaches, bit add new ones.

Speak for yourself. I knew plenty of women who played tabletop rpgs pre-2000.

And I know plenty more who only recently took it up.

 Cybtroll wrote:
And note: none cried SJW and other idiotic stuff... Ever. Everyone was simply happy we're more than before, also doing more varied things Because the buzzwords to shut the discussion down weren't invented yet (if it was more than a propaganda buzzword, the same problem would have been expressed with other words. It hasn't).

In general, it's almost inevitably a simple failure in imagination. Which I always find pretty damning when manifest itself in a hobby that is supposed to encourage imagination and creativity.

I don't get why people conflate what they believe (or the current temporary contingencies) with things as they are.

Again, still just reinforces my point. There is always going to be a subset of women who like things like tabletop wargames, because women are not a monolith, but it can remain a hobby that mostly appeals to men, and there's nothing morally wrong with that, despite what people in this thread are trying to say.

There's nothing wrong with something appealing mostly to men. No-one said that was a problem.

What *is* the problem is making no effort to make the environment more welcoming to people who feel excluded and would otherwise like to be involved, because "women just aren't interested", when we literally have women saying that they're interested, if not for the all-male sentiment.

No-one has a problem with men liking things. The problem is when men liking things is used as an excuse to keep other people out.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No body is saying making female marines will get all women or even most women into the hobby. No one is even saying it we’ll get a equal number of female and male players in to 40K. But there are women put off by the exclusion of women in the marine factions, and this might change that. There are certainly women put off by the sexist drivel spouted by some in defence of male only marines. Undoubtably the hobby would remain predominantly male and I have never claimed otherwise but it may become a nicer place with a few more women in it who feel safer and more comfortable. Equality of opportunity rather than equality outcome.

Again, I don't see any evidence that it will get more women into the hobby to any degree.

Again, you must just have missed how inclusivity has greatly benefitted AoS and RPG hobbies.

Some women might not like it... but they seem to be the kind of women who weren't into wargaming anyway.

And what about the women who are into wargaming, but avoidant of 40k?

And there's people who will see a hobby that a lot of men enjoy and assume it must automatically be sexist, and that's a problem.

No-one's said that here. Men enjoying something doesn't make it sexist. Men enjoying something and preventing other people enjoying it, on the other hand? Definitely exclusionary, and most likely sexist.

Andykp wrote:
Your claim that women aren’t into wargaming because they a inclined to like different things doesn’t really stack up

Yeah it does, as much as you might wish it didn't. I haven't seen any evidence that disagrees with me here.

There's been plenty of evidence. You just dismiss it, because it's from women "outside" of the hobby, and so your selective methods of picking evidence don't apply. Not exactly a great endorsement of your evidence gathering skills.

Andykp wrote:
Again, why not change that? And I assume you are still searching for my abusive posts and not just ignoring that?

I mean at the point where you're calling people an imbecile, that's abusive. And Catulle was doing that. And you've been doing similar.

Pot, meet kettle?

 Gert wrote:
Mk, so your argument is we should only care about people's opinions if they're already in the hobby? You do understand that one of the goals of this is to get more people in the hobby right?

We shouldn't care about the opinions of people who aren't interested in wargaming in this context, no. This is different from the people who are curious or who might be interested.

Great, but that's not what you said. You said to ignore anyone's opinions if they weren't "inside" the hobby. That means you were also ignoring the opinions of people who were curious or might be interested - many of whom are only not "inside" the hobby because of exclusionary attitudes, and selective behaviours, like your own.

 Gert wrote:
As for your second point, the biggest issue with male-exclusive SM is that it is used as an excuse by people who seek to exclude women and girls from joining the hobby or creating SM models that better represent them. These same people harrass and threated people already in the hobby who make female SM and use the background as an excuse. How are you going to solve that problem?

Harassment is bad. I don't think it's caused by the Astartes being all-male, I think it's caused by the fanbase being gakky. The actor who played Joffrey in GoT got death threats because people couldn't separate reality from fantasy, the solution is not to change the way characters like that are portrayed, it's for people to stop being idiots and making threats over stuff like this.

And you know one of the best ways to get people to know they're being idiots and to stop them?
Take away their ammunition. Delegitimise their beliefs. Remove any sense of correctness they might have to do that.

Yeah, we all know that the real problem lies in people being asshats, and using exclusionary lore to justify it. So get rid of their justification. Expose them for what they are. Make it clear that we don't tolerate that by changing what they're using to hurt others, into a tool to include and represent the people they want to abuse.

The solution is to take action against them, not shrug it off because "people are idiots".

And I don't see it being used as an excuse by people who are trying to exclude women and girls from the hobby. In fact, I don't really know anybody who actually wants to exclude them.

You must have missed exactly one such comment earlier in this thread, of a user claiming that it was totally acceptable to prevent "undesirable" people from being part of their hobby purely on basis of sex or race.

 Gert wrote:

Many women who are interested in Warhammer don't get past the first hurdle because of the culture and environment that surrounds 40k

Citation needed, chief.

Citations were provided earlier on in this thread. You chose to ignore them, because they were blog posts, or tweets.

 Gert wrote:

What point would that be because I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

That wargames attract a different sort of person than LARPs, and that kind of person is more often male than female.

Is that an excuse to keep out the women who *are* attracted? I think not.

Goose LeChance wrote:Reading through this thread has been incredibly tedious but also eyeopening.

That you and others perceive SoB in such a negative light, when I see them as one of the most 40k of 40k factions, says a lot about what you want 40k to be.

If you *don't* perceive Sisters as a deeply disturbing and utterly regressive faction, alongside the Imperium as a whole, you missed the point of what 40k is. That doesn't mean that people want Sisters to change, however.

It also helps me better understand the underlying purpose of AoS, it's target market, and why I find it so un-engaging and typical of every other modern fantasy setting created. Something I've never really thought about before. It also explains the push from people who want to reboot 40k as a setting and start from scratch. They want to remove everything they deem "problematic", which is most of it.

Changing Space Marines to be mixed gender is "rebooting and starting from scratch"? Might want to dial back the hyperbole there.

Also, you are mistaken. There's different kinds of problematic elements here. The Sisters of Battle, the Space Marines, hell, the Imperium as a whole: it's all problematic - and that's okay, because that's the point. It serves a narrative purpose. It fits the themes of the setting. It makes *sense*.
Space Marines not including women is problematic *because* it doesn't have a point, because it doesn't have a narrative purpose, and because it doesn't fit the themes.

40k isn't "problematic" because the whole point of it being awful is, well, to be awful.
Space Marines are problematic because there's no point in them being exclusionary sexist asshats.

You seem to miss why women Space Marines *in particular* are the issue.

I wonder if it's wise for a game company to try and appease a market that may or may not exist, who also actively hate the setting of said game? Something to think about.

We know the market exists. They've told us they exist. The only reason you wouldn't know they existed is if you ignored them.

Hecaton wrote:

macluvin wrote:
Plugging your ears, clenching your eyes shut and saying “lalalalala I don’t see any evidence lalalala” is a terrible argument when we’ve already discussed things like women already in the hobby experiencing sexism and harassment of all possible degrees from a subfaction of the most ardent anti-female marines faction. And how they use the lore to hide behind and to fuel their rampant sexism. If the only opinions you consider are people already in the hobby then you’ve created a sampling bias. Which is a terrible methodology for trying to reach a logical conclusion. Especially when we are discussing making the hobby more accessible to people not in the hobby already. And at the expense of women and their voices.

You've discussed it, but there's not really good evidence about its relevant prevalence other than anecdotes.

Anecdotes and personal testimonies from women *are* good evidence - they're the best evidence anyone has, in fact.

macluvin wrote:
At the end of the day, the anti female space marine crowd ultimately only has the argument of personal preference to justify maintaining the lore. It is acceptable to like marines being male exclusive. To try argue the superiority of it in any way or that this is what is best for the setting is an argument that is unsubstantiated. It also does a piss poor job of explaining why someone else can’t have official endorsement of their female space marine army when signals like that are a very welcoming message to others that have voiced a feeling of being unwelcome. This is in light of the fact that you can still keep your male exclusive marines chapter and personal lore, on account of the diversity in space marine culture.
Excluding the voices of women in affairs regarding women to make your argument is just plain atrocious and shameful.

The 40k setting is art. It's *all* personal preference.

But apparently some people's personal preference hinges on them being able to exclude women?

I think that anyone (male or female) who isn't interested in wargaming shouldn't be worried about too much by wargaming manufacturers. It's just that people keep pretending that (white, college-educated) women have something important to say on the topic when they're part of a demographic that's uninterested in the hobby, whether or not it depicts women.

But what about the women who *are* interested in the hobby? You keep saying "oh, but the demographics show that most women aren't interested!" - but you literally said yourself that most men aren't interested either. Maybe reducing people down to their demographic is a rather reductive and dehumanising approach to a very personal problem?

Again, games which show a more balanced depiction of men and women in their miniatures don't have women showing up to play more than 40k.

Actually, AoS does seem to have much more women interested than 40k.

So the only thing putting female Astartes in would do is satisfy people who *specifically like female Astartes*... who are overwhelmingly male.

And the women whose testimonies you keep ignoring.

Hecaton wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Kinda just seems like you're ignoring the evidence that is provided or passing it off as something you disagree with so it's wrong. Could you point to anywhere in this thread where someone has said that men enjoying a hobby is bad and not allowed?

I'm not being provided with evidence. Just anecdotes.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 Gert wrote:

It's still there even though you've ignored it and decided it's wrong because it doesn't promote your viewpoint. You're not having discussions, you're just calling everyone who doesn't agree with you wrong.

I'm having a discussion in which the people arguing against me are insisting I take their claims on faith. I won't do that.

In other words, "I'm not going to listen to people who I don't want to."

 Gert wrote:

Where does Andykp call themselves an oppressed minority? Where have they exhibited "stolen valour"? You also didn't actually address any of Andykp's points, instead, you sidetracked and started making up nonsense. So what I want to know is do you think harassing and threatening people for making female SM is acceptable?

They're claiming pro-female Astartes proponents have been harassed and threatened

There's no "claim" about it. They are.

Again, your refusal to show a shred of empathy over the matter is more telling than anything else you could say.

There are shitbags out there. You're not going to solve it by making female Astartes.

Not immediately, no. But making their stance as untenable as possible? That'll be a good start.

 Gert wrote:

You flat out said you think everyone who wants female SM is only in it to satisfy sexual urges.

I said that was the main thrust, yeah, and I think it's broadly true, though not in every case.

Yo chief, got any sources for that, or am I just supposed to take that on faith?

 Gert wrote:

If they're curious or interested in the hobby then they aren't in the hobby. How do you not get that very basic concept?

I'm saying that many of the women who people claim are being discouraged from the hobby aren't, actually interested in participating in it, they're just used as an excuse to criticize it.

Gee, sounds an awful lot like you're speaking for those women there, and not listening to their actual comments!

There's a difference between saying you don't want women in *wargaming* and saying you don't want female Astartes. One is sexist, the other is a matter of artistic depiction. You're conflating the two and I'm not going to fall for that gak.

But when women say that adding women Astartes would make them more likely to take up the hobby, and you still refuse to add women Space Marines, that very much sends a message of "I'd rather keep my lore than have women in wargaming".

You made a conscious choice, when presented with "more women" or "keep my lore", to prioritise the lore. How you can then turn around and say "but I still want women in wargaming" is beyond me.

See above, though if you're so unfamiliar with scientific papers that you don't know researchgate.net it might not be comprehensible to you.

Hey, you know how you cried about being called an imbecile and said how unjust that was?

Glass houses.

 Gert wrote:
I've yet to see an argument that justifies male-only SM that doesn't inlcude flat out sexism or "but the lore!!". The background comes second when they background is being used as a tool for harrasment and threat. People come first.

People are going to harass and threaten regardless. Putting in female Astartes isn't going to stop gakky people from being gakky.

Nope, it won't stop them immediately. But it'll expose them for all their awful takes, make them feel less and less welcome, and hopefully galvanish other people in calling them out on their assholery.

Andykp wrote:
And again, show me where I have called anyone an imbecile? 3rd time of asking, second time you have accused me of being abusive. Put up or shut up.

I didn't say you did. I just said you were gakky to me.

Me, sowing: oh yes!!
Me, reaping: oh no!!

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, but no. I have morals, and I'm going to stick with them. I'm not calling anyone "morally inferior", but my god, if folks can't see why maybe it's a little bit of a problem that some of the people in Group B1 would act toxic towards women because they didn't get a nice neat bow on their fictional setting, maybe I'm not the one who needs to self-reflect.

So if this were introduced, you don’t actually seem concerned about how it would affect the community and how welcoming it is towards women, provided that you can criticise those who are making it toxic? Even if the chance was there to prevent them from making it toxic at all?

I don't know why I should be trying to appease people who would be toxic in the first place. The problem is with *them*, not with me.

Yes, I'm absolutely there to criticise the people being toxic, because they're the ones causing the problems, not the women or me for calling them out on their toxicity.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And why are those people opposing it? Does their opposition to "political" things win out over their supposed desire for women's representation?

I refer mainly to those who don’t care either way. If marines stayed male, I wouldn’t care. If they went female, I wouldn’t care. If they said “we’re changing the game because of politics and not even acknowledging the last 30-odd years of lore, it never happened, deal with it” then I would feel somewhat put out. I wouldn’t turn toxic, but I know that there are people who would.

But a lore change happening still isn't an excuse to be toxic, and they're very much in the wrong for doing it. Feeling put out, but ultimately understanding that "hey, I guess real people matter more than some lore" is normal. Getting toxic over that is no-one's fault but their own, and I really shouldn't have to stop speaking the truth because some people would turn toxic over it. That's not my fault.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why should I be prevented from saying that it is? Better yet, why is it so important to hide what this is from people who apparently are so fragile in their avoidance of "political" topics that they would (as you said) make the environment toxic for women?

Because doing so could make the environment toxic for women?
That’s the final result, potentially. I’m not clairvoyant so can’t be certain.

Potentially, but if they're being toxic to women *because some lore got changed*, can't you see how that's exactly the kind of people we don't want to be around women in the first place?
If we're trying to make a lasting change in the environment to make things better for women, then we need to be calling out and exposing those kinds of people who *would* get toxic at women because of a lore change.

Do you want to make the environment better for women? Or do you want to make a political statement about it? Sometimes you can’t do both.

Making the environment better for women would absolutely include calling out the people who used a lore change as an excuse to be toxic though.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Domestic dogs aren't people. People should know better than to be toxic to other people just because some fictional writing changed without warning.

Am I wrong for asking people to put other people first?

No. But you are wrong for assuming that they will.

I don't think I'm assuming they will - I just think that we need to be very clear in saying that we *should* be putting other people first, and that if someone is attacking women because some lore got changed, that's a sign that they don't belong in this environment.

If you want proof, look at your own points – people have made death threats to people for making female marines. Why do you assume that all the people who could be annoyed by the whole change (including its political interference) have already acted?

That's the thing, I'm not. I'm trying to expose and call out those people who *have* those exclusionary thoughts who haven't acted, and hide behind "well, it's just the lore!"

I'm not directing this at you, you've made this very clear that you are pro-women Astartes regardless. My point is towards the people who claim to only care about the lore, but use that as a mask to hide their exclusionary beliefs.

If people have a tolerance for change, those people opposing have basically 0/10 tolerance. Those who oppose political changes have 5/10. Thos who don’t care have 10/10. Why would you make a change which requires a tolerance of 4 need a tolerance of 6 just so you can make a political point about it?

I don't care what level of "intolerance" someone has to a change, it's never an excuse to be toxic. If someone's being toxic about it, no matter how much they say "it's only because of those damned politics!", they're still being toxic, and that has no excuse.

Furthermore, why make a point about it. It shouldn’t be a big deal to have female marines. If you make a big deal about it, it can make things worse.

You're right! There doesn't *need* to be a point made about it other than it just *happening* - so it doesn't need a lore explanation either!

Sgt_Smudge wrote:Sure - but this isn't about cheese. It's about other human beings.

Actually it’s about a game, and how the game affects human beings. There’s a subtle difference.

A subtle difference, which ultimately always leads back to human beings, yes.

We both agree that adding female marines would be cool. We agree that adding female marines would improve representation, and would make women seem less like outsiders to those who live in GW stores. But now that we go into the implementation, it feels like you are more concerned about making a message, showcasing to the world about how equal representation has come to 40k, none of which actually has anything to do with the game itself.

I'm not advocating that GW make a big public statement. Far from it. I *don't* want GW to make a big statement on the matter, and would much rather that they literally just include women Space Marines without any kind of mess or hassle. No lore reason, no public comment, no flashing neon sign. They just exist now, and that's the end of the matter.

That's what I'm after. If people read into that as political, that was their choice to read into it that way, and if they want to be toxic about that, that's on them.

40k isn’t a political platform to use for making statements and points. It’s a game, it’s there so people can have fun. That should be it’s message – “Play 40k, it’s fun!”. They aren’t there to tell people to be good people, to accept one another. The company should be seen to be doing so themselves, but not necessarily heard to be shouting about it as if they are special for acting like women aren’t a taboo subject.

That’s the bit I don’t get. As soon as you do something anyone should be doing anyway and then shout about it as if it’s something special, then you’re making it seem like it’s not a normal thing to do.

So I say we put female marines in, with good lore to support it, and let people work out that that makes women a normal thing by themselves!

Yes, I'm absolutely agreed, except on the lore front, because making a big deal about it in the lore feels exactly like what you describe with GW "shouting about it". There doesn't need to be any statements beyond "this is a thing".

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why would they need boobplate and thinner armour? They're still genetically enhanced super soldiers in massively thick power armour - boobplate and thinner armour are entirely unnecessary, and would contribute more to ideas of sexual dimorphism.

I 100% agree with you that they don’t need to have different armour, but find it odd that you suggest sexual dimorphism isn’t actually a thing but an idea? Outliers and pronounl preferences excluded, the vast majority of biological men and women in the world can be identified by body shape.

I think I wasn't quite clear - it's not that there *aren't* identifiers, but that the vast majority of those identifiers wouldn't be visible under a set of Mark X Tacticus power armour.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:And wargaming is also uninteresting to many men too. But there are both men, women, and everyone in between who *do* enjoy it. Why shouldn't we appeal to all of them?

I would question how many people who are interested in wargaming would be swayed simply by what heads the faction in the window had. Not a reason not to do it – but it does seem like the flimsiest of things to hang the reasoning on. The environment in store (which could improve if female models were more prevalent in the game) is the bigger hurdle.

It's more that the heads of the faction in the window indicate to a more positive environment in the store - and by changing those heads and breaking that mold of "all-boys club", that should hopefully follow.

One of the issues that women have voiced (I know it’s somewhere in the 59 pages behind, please don’t make me go and look for it…) is that they feel like sisters of battle aren’t a good representation as they make it feel like women are a separate entity, to be put on the sidelines and used as a “girl faction”.
Would introducing female marines add to this issue? Would women go into a store and be shown sisters of battle and marines, because they have women in their armies so she can make an army of female marines? Will the storekeepers be commonly inclined to assume that women gamers want female models in their armies? Will their every purchase be met by people saying “oh, there aren’t any female heads in that kit yet, you know?”?

I don't see that it would add to this issue, because Space Marines aren't a sideline faction. They're the faction that is presented to *everyone* by virtue of being the flagship.

Furthermore to the discussion about what demographics 40k appeals to – it is probably always going to be more popular with men than it is with women. The reasons are probably varied, complex, and irrelevant. The net result it that if everyone who’s ever had even a passing interest in 40k were added up, it would be more men that women.
However, if you then compare that to the mount of people actively playing, then you’ll find more men actually go on to play the game than women – and that is an issue. It means that women have had reasons not to take the game up. On suggestion is a lack of representation which has compounded into the people playing with all-male models thinking it’s an all-male game, so that should be addressed. But it should be done sympathetically to the lore and be a natural change (Which it can be) rather than a jarring one. It doesn’t need to be shouted about, it just needs to be there. We need to change the game and make things better, not make a political statement about how we’re doing it.

Well, yeah. That's exactly what I'm advocating for - just changing it, without any muss or fuss. I'm not saying that GW should (or even would) put out a big statement on the matter, and I arguably wouldn't want them to. I literally would just want women Astartes adding and becoming more representative - and that doesn't mean even making a lore statement on the matter, because I would see that as "shouting" about it, even if GW don't say outright that it's political.

As such, the word will get out – it will become visible and obvious, without the need for a political statement reiterating how bad it was before and how good it will be now.
Just make the change and reap the benefits, we don’t need to shout about it!

Agreed! And I'd find that making this big thing in the lore about how Cawl suddenly fixed it all *would* be shouting about it.

I'm advocating for women Space Marines to just *exist*. No mess, no hassle, no lore explanation. As you said - it will become visible and obvious on its own.

I ask those who are for this – particularly Sgt_Smudge – what is more important? Making the change, or shouting about it and making it a big deal?

Making the change - which is why I don't think it needs a lore justification. Just let it be.

some bloke wrote:I'm 100% for female marines, and am against the suggestions that Sgt_Smudge was saying that the change should happen exclusively because they are the flagship faction and all that political reasoning behind it.

I never said "exclusively" - only that it was a contributing factor.

Please don't misrepresent my comments.

The approach has to be "female marines are a thing and that's good because >insert lore reasons here<", not "Female marines are a thing and that's good because >insert political reasons here<."

But why? Why does something need to be good because of lore reasons to be justifiable?

If you say you're doing a thing because politics or societics, then you are implying that you had no better reason to do it besides making a political statement. And that's when you get token gestures.

It's not implying that at all - having better representation isn't any more political than not having that representation there in the first place.