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.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Just out of curiosity... what would a female Astartes really look like? I think there'd be some variation in the face to reflect their humble human origins... but really... we take that human and perform all sorts of surgeries, therapies, pump them full of chemicals and enhancements.

The end result, in my mind, would be something very genderless. Even assuming it genderless could be a mistake, as it is barely even human and probably overcame that biological barrier many, many operations before. Gender normally has meaning for procreating, something which Astartes can not do. And why burden them with the organs to have to worry about that when their only mission is to destroy the enemies of mankind? That's space wasted on other things... like extra air reservoirs or places to store blood in the event of excessive leakage.

I'm not saying the female candidate would lose anatomy that marks her has a female human, though there is probably an easily-made argument to assume that any gendered candidate would have such superfluous attachments removed as they have no function. But as her body's anatomy shifts, her body loses fatty tissues and it is all replaced with muscle and mass... really... what do we think she'd look like after 3 feet and 600 pounds of "enhancements".

The goal is the ultimate killing machine, a paragon of humanity's physical capabilities. It should be a simple thing, especially for one as clever as Cawl, to take any candidate and craft the desired outcome: a killing machine that has overcome the "human condition", willing to fight the battles mere mortals could not fight so that we can all go along existing in a setting that is dead set on making them not.

But that argument I guess incorporates a medium between both camps. The boy's only club still gets their massive blocks of barely-human flesh wrapped in layers of ceramite and titanium. The "yay girls" club gets included. And all it takes is a compromise on the end result of an Astartes being not bound by our feeble comprehensions of gender, and that the tool was never designed to consider it. The Astartes has no gender so it shouldn't be burdened by the complications of having one. The next question would be... even if they have their relic anatomy... would they even know what to do with it, or even be motivated to try due to the futility of their inert pieces. I'm sure some would, but I'd think that'd be the exception and not the rule, and probably be design to keep them focused on killing in the name of...

My thoughts, back to your regularly scheduled arguing.

This is probably most likely. When we look at women who have worked hard to build their body to maximum strength potential, we often find that they tend to be perceived as more masculine with the greater musculature and reduced fat. Hormones from implants to increase size, aggression and strength particularly before puberty would likely have a similar masculinizing effect as contemporary transition therapy for girls to transition to men. This would be I think a fair and non lore breaking end state as opposed to having female marines that aren't aggressive 7ft super strong giants. But here's where I expect we run into trouble for female marine advocacy.

I'm assuming female space marine advocates don't consider the look that the women who work hard to achieve strength surpassing most men have as ideal for more women to identify with and regard as representation. I could be wrong. Also, I'm sure realiatism in the esult of transhuman therapy will be waved away since it's fantasy anyway.

But then the question might be, how masculine or feminine is the target look for advocates of female space marines. Are sisters repentia about right (even lacking transhuman phisiology)? Bigger and more muscular that that? Less so? If all but their head is covered in armor, are sister's heads appropriate?

Not sure why people are focussing on muscles considering SM models don't have any. Has 0 bearing on what a face looks like.

 Gert wrote:
Not sure why people are focussing on muscles considering SM models don't have any. Has 0 bearing on what a face looks like.

Anything to distract from the obvious point.

 RegularGuy wrote:
I don't read general consensus at all, though there is certainly a strong advocacy block in lock step, but many see the change as coming from an external desire to modify the game for sociopolitical reasons with disregard to what exists already, rather than coming from within the game seeking logical improvements that build on the existing story in a way that respects the cultural capital that people have invested themselves in for a long time. Of course, I haven't blocked anyone either.

So, I actually disagree with this; I read general consensus without a perfect lockstep. Whenever the people with bad arguments like Argive or Hecaton show up, yes, there's a fair amount of solidarity that those arguments are bad; but when they shut up for a while you'll note that there's a lot of interesting discussion on the subtle variations or the merits of various forms of implementation - e.g. Some Bloke and Sgt. Smudge's conversations.

I'll also note that if you're still on the 40K background forums on Dakka, you're probably invested in the... 'cultural capital' of 40K in some way shape or form, and there's a lot of people that want to see it improved. It would certainly not be 'disrespected,' not in any way that GW hasn't substantially done already.

If the goal is helping improve accessibility of the hobby to women, it's not clear that models are really the problem, and it sounds like some people have somen really toxic local stores/communities with people who need some work models won't help.

I've said this before in the thread - it's not a magic bullet. It will not solve everything by itself, it will not magically make the hobby space a perfectly 50-50 gender split, change the attitudes of all, and make unicorns real overnight, and I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise. But it would do good. It empowers women gamers, disempowers those bigoted and toxic individuals or communities, pushes them to either change attitudes or go elsewhere, and will make public spaces that bit more welcoming.

Frequently, I've seen advocacy against positive steps just because they don't solve everything, and that will result in nothing getting done.

 RegularGuy wrote:

I'm assuming female space marine advocates don't consider the look that the women who work hard to achieve strength surpassing most men have as ideal for more women to identify with and regard as representation. I could be wrong. Also, I'm sure realiatism in the esult of transhuman therapy will be waved away since it's fantasy anyway.

You assume quite incorrectly! They absolutely may look ridiculously muscled and not at all traditionally 'feminine.' They might just be men in all but a couple of organs, or they may not be - because Space Marines are that sort of customizable blank slate you can figuratively paint that stuff onto, which makes the lack of female representation all that more dissonant.

But then the question might be, how masculine or feminine is the target look for advocates of female space marines. Are sisters repentia about right (even lacking transhuman phisiology)? Bigger and more muscular that that? Less so? If all but their head is covered in armor, are sister's heads appropriate?

'Target look' is the wrong question; it doesn't matter. There is no 'target look.' It's not that there's a specific body type that 'needs' to be introduced, but so that the most otherwise customizable force in the game lets people make decisions about how to represent them. Frankly I consider it unlikely to substantially alter the appearance of the power armor itself in most official models, but that's fine. There's a lot of power in a pronoun.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

But then the question might be, how masculine or feminine is the target look for advocates of female space marines. Are sisters repentia about right (even lacking transhuman phisiology)? Bigger and more muscular that that? Less so? If all but their head is covered in armor, are sister's heads appropriate?

'Target look' is the wrong question; it doesn't matter. There is no 'target look.' It's not that there's a specific body type that 'needs' to be introduced, but so that the most otherwise customizable force in the game lets people make decisions about how to represent them. Frankly I consider it unlikely to substantially alter the appearance of the power armor itself in most official models, but that's fine. There's a lot of power in a pronoun.

I think I'm sympathetic to that perspective, and I've been of the opinion that one of the turn offs for a lot of people who object is the presumption that the intent is to make female marines focused on "representation" of early 21st century women at the expense of representing futuristic 7ft tall super violent transhumans. And maybe that's a misconception on the part of a lot of nay sayers. And perhaps their perception that 21st century women would also be turned off by giant hyperagressive transhuman warriors that adequately represent what a space marine is also unfounded. Mind you, as others have pointed out, GW can be kind of soft in representing what monsters male marines are supposed to be in the first place.

Since there hasn't been too much of it, here's some women hobbyists talking about female space marines.

Voss wrote:

 Gert wrote:
[

Spoiler:

Dark Angels have far stronger LGBTQ links than you realise friend. Its actually when you think about it though it does go to a very dark place.

You’ve spotted the obvious one. Lionel Johnson was a poet whose famous poem ‘dark angel’ was about his own homosexuality. Now look a bit deeper.

A lot of the original references are very crass, and quite objectionable humour (and I don’t mean 80’s ‘Police Academy’ dated humour objectionable, I mean objectionable to the point of bigotry). The more recent references are more subtle, and I think, cleverly done.

The DA models are often associated with wearing habits, and associated with the watchers in the dark and have a very strong monastic ‘look’ to them. When we were younger, I doubt I was the only one who heard the rather crass schoolboy humour about Dark Angels all being cross dressers or liking their altar boys a bit too much – and to be fair, I always took this as more of a satire against catholic clergy than anything else. Unfortunately, the dress wearing 'insult humour’ does point towards a rather negative and offensive slur that was, and is often directed against and at the expense of the gay community, though I’ll be hopeful and say id like to think this was unintentional. That said, on the topic of me saying ‘I see a lot of lgbtq references in the Dark Angels’, I think its fair and honest to mention this too, but also to point out I find it dated and objectionable in the extreme.

The other references are thankfully far less malicious, if somewhat edging towards darkness.

The Dark Angels Fortress Monastery. The Rock. Brings to mind obvious comparisons with Alcatraz. There are a lot of dark, sinister imagery and notoriety associated with the Rock, which I think is perfect for capturing the mood of the dark angels. But ‘The Rock’ has a double meaning and refers to something else. I've heard ‘The Rock’ was also the name of a gay bar down the road from GW HQ. Subtle, but again, if you see it, and are aware of it, its undeniably an LGBTQ reference.

Now beyond that, and the conversation takes a dark turn. The Dark Angels refer to themselves as the ‘Unforgiven’. There is a great, almost palpable pall of shame surrounding the chapter, hints of sins committed, irredeemable acts performed and hidden away lest they come to light to others. The Dark Angels really only hang around with and show solidarity with other ‘unforgiven’, and stay apart from wider society. They do everything they can to protect themselves and stop their secret getting out, as they fear it’ll destroy them. As for wider society, the common trope you see is that there is something… off, something fishy about the Dark Angels. Sure, on the surface, they’re legit and seem to be OK, but no one quite trusts them. Everyone thinks there is something suspicious going on, and they’re really wary about them.

What’s truly sad, is if you take what I just wrote and say it to someone in the LGBTQ community, even today in our more enlightened (or at least less unenlightened, at least in places…) times, its still an experience that will resonate with far too many people – too many gay people struggle internally and externally with coming to terms with this, there is so much ‘loaded baggage’ and ‘shame’ associated with this (and it shouldn’t be!) and society still isn’t good enough – nowhere close! Gay people still need to hide who they are from too many people for their own protection. Now imagine you’re gay in the 80s, or 90s, in post industrial Thatcherite England, and maybe you’re out, or maybe in the closet, and hopefully you're safe, but lets face it, you’re in the middle of Thatcher’s Section 28 which did everything it could to devalue, delegitimise and make gay people invisible, and every week you’re probably losing another friend to the AIDS crisis and no one cares, no one even listens and everyone thinks you’re some irredeemable villain – , and you repeat the lines I wrote above to anyone that lived through those days. You’ll reduce grown men to tears. It will resonate that strongly. That’s how hard hitting and powerful this imagery is, at least to me. It’s a statement. It’s a really powerful commentary. It makes me reflect on all of our peers that have suffered through this. This topic is quite important to me. Even writing this and putting my thoughts to paper on this is upsetting me more than a little bit.To me, GW took the ‘experience’ so many people i care about suffered through during that time and now, and gave it a form and cleverly tied it into their game. Its far cleverer and reflective and tragically poignant than ‘viking space marines’ though far darker. Though arguably I think it needs to be dark since the topic is so serious and unsolved.and so much more still needs to be done.

I think it may have started with elements of satirical, crass humour, but I think the writers are aware, and have been very careful and subtle in crafting this since them. And for me, its actually one of the better, and more powerful imageries and commentaries they’ve put into their game

All of this so many levels of "No". I think you've read far to much into this and are taking things way out of context.

Definitely no, since the comment on 'original references' makes no sense. DA were (when they were first fleshed out) the Native American themed chapter. No 'Rock,' no 'Catholic clergy' themes, none of that applied.

The bits about Lionel Johnson, the dark angel and the Rock bar are not untrue. And it's kind of a thing that used to be low-key cool but *wince* every time people use the Dark Angels secret as "is actual chaos" gag. Because, yeah, by this stage art is mirroring life's prejudices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gogsnik wrote:
Since there hasn't been too much of it, here's some women hobbyists talking about female space marines.

N.B. Link is two years old, from a(n internet-)famous reactionary. She also claims the women in power armour as an artefact of the '90s rather than the '80s, claims Terminator armour as not-really power armour that doesn't require the black carapace based on a reference to an unavailable source that I would be fascinated to find.

Bonus no-points for linking to the stance that femme marines only became a thing "ever since a fat nerd was lonely" though.

Is that a stance you're standing standing by?

Catulle wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Gert wrote:
[

Spoiler:

Dark Angels have far stronger LGBTQ links than you realise friend. Its actually when you think about it though it does go to a very dark place.

You’ve spotted the obvious one. Lionel Johnson was a poet whose famous poem ‘dark angel’ was about his own homosexuality. Now look a bit deeper.

A lot of the original references are very crass, and quite objectionable humour (and I don’t mean 80’s ‘Police Academy’ dated humour objectionable, I mean objectionable to the point of bigotry). The more recent references are more subtle, and I think, cleverly done.

The DA models are often associated with wearing habits, and associated with the watchers in the dark and have a very strong monastic ‘look’ to them. When we were younger, I doubt I was the only one who heard the rather crass schoolboy humour about Dark Angels all being cross dressers or liking their altar boys a bit too much – and to be fair, I always took this as more of a satire against catholic clergy than anything else. Unfortunately, the dress wearing 'insult humour’ does point towards a rather negative and offensive slur that was, and is often directed against and at the expense of the gay community, though I’ll be hopeful and say id like to think this was unintentional. That said, on the topic of me saying ‘I see a lot of lgbtq references in the Dark Angels’, I think its fair and honest to mention this too, but also to point out I find it dated and objectionable in the extreme.

The other references are thankfully far less malicious, if somewhat edging towards darkness.

The Dark Angels Fortress Monastery. The Rock. Brings to mind obvious comparisons with Alcatraz. There are a lot of dark, sinister imagery and notoriety associated with the Rock, which I think is perfect for capturing the mood of the dark angels. But ‘The Rock’ has a double meaning and refers to something else. I've heard ‘The Rock’ was also the name of a gay bar down the road from GW HQ. Subtle, but again, if you see it, and are aware of it, its undeniably an LGBTQ reference.

Now beyond that, and the conversation takes a dark turn. The Dark Angels refer to themselves as the ‘Unforgiven’. There is a great, almost palpable pall of shame surrounding the chapter, hints of sins committed, irredeemable acts performed and hidden away lest they come to light to others. The Dark Angels really only hang around with and show solidarity with other ‘unforgiven’, and stay apart from wider society. They do everything they can to protect themselves and stop their secret getting out, as they fear it’ll destroy them. As for wider society, the common trope you see is that there is something… off, something fishy about the Dark Angels. Sure, on the surface, they’re legit and seem to be OK, but no one quite trusts them. Everyone thinks there is something suspicious going on, and they’re really wary about them.

What’s truly sad, is if you take what I just wrote and say it to someone in the LGBTQ community, even today in our more enlightened (or at least less unenlightened, at least in places…) times, its still an experience that will resonate with far too many people – too many gay people struggle internally and externally with coming to terms with this, there is so much ‘loaded baggage’ and ‘shame’ associated with this (and it shouldn’t be!) and society still isn’t good enough – nowhere close! Gay people still need to hide who they are from too many people for their own protection. Now imagine you’re gay in the 80s, or 90s, in post industrial Thatcherite England, and maybe you’re out, or maybe in the closet, and hopefully you're safe, but lets face it, you’re in the middle of Thatcher’s Section 28 which did everything it could to devalue, delegitimise and make gay people invisible, and every week you’re probably losing another friend to the AIDS crisis and no one cares, no one even listens and everyone thinks you’re some irredeemable villain – , and you repeat the lines I wrote above to anyone that lived through those days. You’ll reduce grown men to tears. It will resonate that strongly. That’s how hard hitting and powerful this imagery is, at least to me. It’s a statement. It’s a really powerful commentary. It makes me reflect on all of our peers that have suffered through this. This topic is quite important to me. Even writing this and putting my thoughts to paper on this is upsetting me more than a little bit.To me, GW took the ‘experience’ so many people i care about suffered through during that time and now, and gave it a form and cleverly tied it into their game. Its far cleverer and reflective and tragically poignant than ‘viking space marines’ though far darker. Though arguably I think it needs to be dark since the topic is so serious and unsolved.and so much more still needs to be done.

I think it may have started with elements of satirical, crass humour, but I think the writers are aware, and have been very careful and subtle in crafting this since them. And for me, its actually one of the better, and more powerful imageries and commentaries they’ve put into their game

All of this so many levels of "No". I think you've read far to much into this and are taking things way out of context.

Definitely no, since the comment on 'original references' makes no sense. DA were (when they were first fleshed out) the Native American themed chapter. No 'Rock,' no 'Catholic clergy' themes, none of that applied.

The bits about Lionel Johnson, the dark angel and the Rock bar are not untrue.

They are, because they aren't part of the original background for the Chapter. Primarchs took several years to surface and even longer for them all to be named. The Rock wasn't a thing. The whole Deathwing short story and origin had the 'Native American'-themed terminators coming back to their homeworld to free it from genestealers and then re-establish their 'traditional ways' after the stealers forced them to industrialize.

Johnson is obviously a reference to the poem, but that was attached later on.

Catulle wrote:
Link is two years old

And? The female space marine discussion never progresses, it's the same talking points ad nauseum. It's also a topic that is only brought up by a small number of people, so it might come as a shock that for most hobbyists it's a non issue.

from a(n internet-)famous reactionary.

Ah, so women's voices only count if they're the right kind of voices, okay. And the other two women?

Terminator armour as not-really power armour that doesn't require the black carapace

Terminator armour is a militarised version of exo-armour mostly used in bulk chemical haulers and other highly dangerous environments. A wearer (including space marines) need additional surgery to be able to connect to the armour properly hence why Inquisitors can use it even though they aren't space marines.

In any case what exactly is the purpose of your nitpicking?

Is that a stance you're standing standing by?

It's the opinion of those women, I only provided the source so people can listen to women talking about female space marines; whether you agree with those women or have any interest in what they have to say is up to you.

In a discussion about how women feel about something, we need to consider any that may choose to make their voices heard. Anyone involved in the stem fields will tell you that all data must be considered, even bad data. Establishing what constitutes bad data happens after trends have been established. I say this as someone that does not agree with what those particular women in that video said, but it must be considered. Otherwise you commit the cardinal sin of sampling bias.

That being said, we've only examined the trends of those who have made their voices heard in this thread, and that is an atrociously tiny sample size. What we have is a well developed hypothesis based on a fundamental understanding of basic sociology and psychology, and how it most probably applies to wargaming and 40k. This should be remembered that there is a possibility that anyone in this discussion is at least partially wrong when describing the issue we defined, and when we try to define the trends in how women feel about this subject, which at the end of the day are the opinions that should matter most. We also have different wargaming groups to study and compare trends in; 40k, AoS, and other wargaming tabletop gaming systems. These trends are the most clear and definitive contribution to understanding these issues. What would contribute even better is a poll directed at the entire community to better understand what the actual trends from female wargamers (and honestly others as well; it would be interesting to see the trends of males, and the rest of the gender spectrum), but also that we have had some on this very thread also make their voices heard.

Andykp wrote:


I think your comparison to rapists is crass and disappointing. The two are not even similar and the is no comparison to draw here, I’d suggest yiu move on form it before you dig yourself a whole you can’t get out of.

Well perhaps there is a misunderstanding. But I was referring to the death threads and harrasment (that people insist are important for this isdue) ... A tipe of misoginist attitude thats in the same line and culture than rapping. If you find

In the real world misoginist do all sort of illegal stuff because they fill culturally endorse. A simple head sprue aint going to stop any of those misoginist to follow on their bad criminal behaviour.

Lets take primaris... There was a huge amount of backclash against then, eventually they have been accepted but only because GW made a real effort on the primaris model line and lore.

A simple head sprue and some pronouns here and there wont do much... Well SM will tecnically be gender inclusive as TAU which is really not very meaningfull... My point if FSM are this great step towards representation, why do the minimum possible effort (basically making GW make official what gamers can already do inside the "your dudes" paradigm).

I don’t think any of us have said all women in the hobby would support this. That would be crazy. Even a poll of dakka members is not very representative, would be lovely to hear from more women on the issue, for either side. Not had chance to listen to the whole post yet but will.

In regards to the two years old aspect of it, it is significant because the debate has moved on, sisters of battle are out and the stormcast and guard range are more representative. Two years ago this thread would have closed ages ago because of abuse. I wonder if these gamers would still feel the same or maybe more strongly about it now? The clip being 2 years old doesn’t make it irrelevant at all but it’s worth discussing. Like I say, the three women featured might think it’s even less needed now.

It’s a shame their aren’t more female voices in the thread, but then again there could be a reason for that? Maybe there aren’t enough women around? I wonder if we could make some changes to redress that.? …..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Andykp wrote:


I think your comparison to rapists is crass and disappointing. The two are not even similar and the is no comparison to draw here, I’d suggest yiu move on form it before you dig yourself a whole you can’t get out of.

Well perhaps there is a misunderstanding. But I was referring to the death threads and harrasment (that people insist are important for this isdue) ... A tipe of misoginist attitude thats in the same line and culture than rapping. If you find

In the real world misoginist do all sort of illegal stuff because they fill culturally endorse. A simple head sprue aint going to stop any of those misoginist to follow on their bad criminal behaviour.

Lets take primaris... There was a huge amount of backclash against then, eventually they have been accepted but only because GW made a real effort on the primaris model line and lore.

A simple head sprue and some pronouns here and there wont do much... Well SM will tecnically be gender inclusive as TAU which is really not very meaningfull... My point if FSM are this great step towards representation, why do the minimum possible effort (basically making GW make official what gamers can already do inside the "your dudes" paradigm).

In what way could people getting death threats and abuse not be important? (Answer that and I’ll come back to the rest)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saying a head sprue and some pronouns won’t do much, they are scary enough to the haters that they will make death threats and rant for hours to try and stop it. I think it would be more powerful than you think. That’s why there’s 63 pages of talk about it. If it won’t make any difference then why not allow it, why are yiu arguing against it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you say it’s the minimum effort, I’m saying it’s all that’s needed. Sexualised female marines with boobplate armour and sexy poses would be a step backwards. Some pronouns and a head sprue and eventually a named character or two would be the MOST effective way to deliver this change. It’s not a cop out, it’s exactly what’s needed.

One thing which has come up repeatedly in this thread is the debate over whether women want female marines for representation (big shock - some do, some don't, it's almost like people have their own views which aren't influenced by their gender!), whether just adding female pronouns and heads would be good representation, and all those sorts of things.

The one thing these arguments have in common is how one person says "I don't think there is a political reason to do this" and the reply is "there is no reason for the lore not to change". Alternatively, someone says "these are the political reasons why we should do this" and the reply is "These are the lore reasons why we shouldn't".

There are two entirely separate debates going on on whether or not it should happen (plus mine & Smudge's (plus other, welcome replies) about how it should happen) and they seem to be crossing over, which makes the arguments largely irrelevant to one another!

On the one hand, you have the political argument. Those for the change are saying (and please correct me or add to this if I've gotten anything wrong!):

• Adding female marines will improve representation and make women seem less like outsiders to those who play the game, meaning they will not respond like they're seeing a unicorn when they see a woman in a GW store. This will make women feel more welcome, and make the stores feel friendlier towards them.
• Adding female marines will stop buttnuggets from acting hostile (I still find this flabbergasting that this actually happens) and making death threats to people who make female marine models. No need to elaborate on the benefits here.
• The flagship faction should be representative of everyone so that everyone feels like they are welcome and nobody feels like they are excluded, which will bring more people into the hobby, which is good.

And those against the change (Politically) are saying:

• Politics has no business in 40k, it's fictional and doesn't need to represent 21st century humans because that's not what the models need to represent.
• Changing space marines will not have any effect as it would merely be a headswap and pronoun additions, which will barely be visible
• The game has been this way for years and shouldn't be changed for outside reasons

Then we have the lore arguments:

For the change (Lore)

• The old lore is so antiquated that there is nothing left of it except the legacy that marines are male - nothing explicitly says they are any more, except the lack of female marines.
• The decision was Arbitrary in the first place.
• It is easy to either retcon the lore to have female marines from the start, or to add to the lore to have female marines since primaris, and have the universe still make perfect sense and continuity (or as close as GW ever gets).

Against the change (Lore)

• The old lore is still valid as it has never been overwritten, and marines are clearly still all male.
• An arbitrary decision is still a decision, and it would have been arbitrary to have included women, so either decision is just as arbitrary as the other.
• Space marines are based on warrior monks and monks were all male so they should be too.


And then we have the arguments which generally provoke bigger responses, which are the result of these two incompatible arguments clashing:

• Real people are more important than the lore, so not changing the lore implies that the lore is more important than people getting death threats
• 13 words written 20 years ago shouldn't be maintained if they exclude people for political reasons.
• The change should be made without worrying about the lore, because the lore shouldn't have to change to make the game representative.


This last group of arguments (and there are certainly more of them in this thread) are basically unarguable - because one side is arguing about a fictional story and the other side is arguing about real world representation and bullying.


As such, it may be prevalent for people in this thread to try and separate their arguments into the politics and the lore, without letting the two get muddled!


The political argument is on whether or not the change would improve anything and whether it should be a driving force behind the change

The lore argument is whether or not Space Marines are compatible with female models, as the models have to represent the faction, which is in the lore, and the faction will need to represent the people, therefore the lore needs to represent the people first, and then the models need to represent it. (though it would all be done at once, most likely...).

Gert wrote:It is a feature of the hobby but SM presents the idea much better than any other faction in the game. I asked my friend over our game today what they thought the core design philosophy of SM was excluding the whole buff super-soldier with big gun part, and they didn't actually know what to say. That's the kind of thing I mean when I say SM are the "Your Dudes" faction, nothing but the super-soldier motif ties them together. SoB are defined by their religious zealotry and an unhealthy obsession with fire, T'au are defined by futuristic-looking weapons and battlesuits, Orks are big green brutes that love a good scrap. You can have SoB that prefers lightning attacks, T'au that use loads of tanks, and Orks that are feral but in the end, SoB are still religious zealots, T'au are still futuristic and Orks are green brutes that love a good scrap.
It's not the same for SM.

I have to say, saying "if you take the defining feature of >faction< out, they have no defining feature, therefore they are customizable!" is a bit of a strange argument.

If you take "Religeous Zealots" from SoB, "Futuristic looking" from T'au and "Green and love a scrap" from Orks, they are just as undefined as Space Marines are without "Buff Super-Soldiers with big guns".

As a challenge on this viewpoint - please can you try to offer me a space marine army type which, visually and lore-wise, isn't "Buff Super-Soldiers with Big Guns"? White scars are buff super soldiers with big guns on bikes, dark angels are buff super soldiers with big guns in robes, iron hands are buff super soldiers with big guns with robot bits, and so on. Just like feral orks are feral green brutes that love a scrap, speed freeks are green brutes that love a scrap and going fast, bad moons are green brutes who love a good scrap and shiny guns, and so on.

Space marines will always be defined as "Buff super-soldiers with big guns", and I have to be honest, GW's comments about it being customisable:

space marine codex wrote:"For any hobbyist, this is an incredible opportunity to make their army their own, experimenting with their favourite colours or delving into their imagination to invent epic origin stories and tales of victories for their own warriors."

Is saying "paint them different colours and make up their backstory!". Space marines will never appeal to you if you don't like buff super-soldiers with big guns, so we cannot discount it as a valid part of what space marines are!

I know I'm drifting a little, but I do feel that the "Space marines exist to be customised" argument is more about GW's marketing team strategy and not about what space marines actually are. There are many other armies which are far, far more suited to being customised. If anything, the fact that the marketing team is putting effort into telling people they can customise space marines is evidence that they do not lend themselves readily to it. No-one needs to tell you that Orks can be converted, because it is visually an obvious part of the hobby. A custom chapter, visually, is "space marines in >colour<" until the owner tells you all the cool backstory about them!

Vehicles aside, every marine unit is "Buff super soldiers with a different piece of equipment". super soldiers with sniper rifles and camo cloaks, super soldiers with jet packs and swords, super soldiers with long range melta guns. It boils down to the fact that, space wolves aside, every marine looks more or less the same. So all that you can do to make them "Your Dudes" is paint them different colours and then make up their origin story. That tells me that people felt that space marines weren't their dudes, and GW's response was (rightly) not to reduce the strictness of space marine attire and equipment, as this is part of their aesthetic, but to plug how much fun you can have trying to paint them yellow, and then make a background about how they come from a planet wracked with acid storms and that's why the yellow is all patchy and horrible looking.

master oogway wrote:no matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.

Vatsetis wrote:If FSM are indistinguisible from MSM except for the hairstyle whats really the point?

No body is going to notice the change to a couple of heads in future sprues (the recent AM sprue could be described as a perfect example of "window dressing". It will do very little towards representation.

Because it doesn't have to be a big change to be a change.

The main people who have been problematic in the stories we've heard have done so because of the lore, not because of the models. Space marine models don't have to be obviously mixed gender, because space marines are all about power armour and kickass guns that blow stuff up. With a helmet on, they shouldn't be identifiable as any more than "human".

The lore needs to change to disarm the people saying "female marines can't happen and you are a terrible person for making female marines". They wouldn't have made that argument if someone made an IG army with women in it before the models were available, because the lore didn't say no female guard.

Then, the models need to represent the lore. They don't need a flashing sign saying "behold, female marines!". They just need female heads. Because female marines shouldn't exist to be obviously female, they should exist to be obviously marines.

As for your last bit, I'm not even going there, and neither should you have.

Gert wrote:Not sure why people are focussing on muscles considering SM models don't have any. Has 0 bearing on what a face looks like.

Excepting those women who do it purely through hard work, most female body builders have characteristically masculine jaw lines. A thick muscular neck is also seen as more masculine than feminine. Assuming the sort of side effects for muscle-growth hormones remains fairly similar in 40k times (and they'd have no reason to avoid them, as marines aren't there to be looked at, they're there to be fled from) Then it's a fair assumption that marine-ing would have some effect on the facial appearance of the marines.

RegularGuy wrote:I think I'm sympathetic to that perspective, and I've been of the opinion that one of the turn offs for a lot of people who object is the presumption that the intent is to make female marines focused on "representation" of early 21st century women at the expense of representing futuristic 7ft tall super violent transhumans. And maybe that's a misconception on the part of a lot of nay sayers. And perhaps their perception that 21st century women would also be turned off by giant hyperagressive transhuman warriors that adequately represent what a space marine is also unfounded. Mind you, as others have pointed out, GW can be kind of soft in representing what monsters male marines are supposed to be in the first place.

I think that this is certainly a good point regarding the aesthetic of space marines. It would seem somewhat odd to see "normal" female heads on space marines, seeing as their male heads are clearly build like a breezeblock had a child with a potato. I would much rather have them subtly feminine but obviously still space marines, IE not really human any more.


As for the continuing discussion on whether it should happen or not:

That video has the viewpoint of some people on the subject, and that shouldn't be discounted at all. People actively saying "I don't think we need it" are just as valid as people saying "I think we need it". Silencing naysayers isn't democracy, after all!

What it boils down to, on thje argument that a headswap won't help, is that we don't actually know how much it would help, because it hasn't happened. But what we know won't help is not doing anything. That has happened, and here we are, with environments which women feel like they cannot enter because it's an all-boys club. The death threats are a matter for local law enforcement / vigilante justice, not for the game to worry about. That's a problem with the people, not the game.

So, disregarding what you think it wouldn't do, what would it do that you object to? Female heads and lore, what will it do that you don't like?

Andykp wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:


In what way could people getting death threats and abuse not be important? (Answer that and I’ll come back to the rest)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saying a head sprue and some pronouns won’t do much, they are scary enough to the haters that they will make death threats and rant for hours to try and stop it. I think it would be more powerful than you think. That’s why there’s 63 pages of talk about it. If it won’t make any difference then why not allow it, why are yiu arguing against it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you say it’s the minimum effort, I’m saying it’s all that’s needed. Sexualised female marines with boobplate armour and sexy poses would be a step backwards. Some pronouns and a head sprue and eventually a named character or two would be the MOST effective way to deliver this change. It’s not a cop out, it’s exactly what’s needed.

Well for some strange reason you are interpreting my words completelly wrong.

Stopping deaths threads and harrasment IS IMPORTANT, I ve said so in all my posts.

I simply dont think a head sprue and an official recognition by GW that FSM are canon will be enough.

For instance, the recent AM sprue seem basically as window dressing effort for me.

This is just a personal opinion. Obviously Im not against this sort of changes... I wish they would reduce harrasment and attract a more diverse fan base, but I really doubt they would.

 some bloke wrote:

So, disregarding what you think it wouldn't do, what would it do that you object to? Female heads and lore, what will it do that you don't like?

First of all that's an excellent post.

Now I would phrase the last question to be less personal by removing the "you don't like", and orient it toward a question of what any negative impacts might be.

Answering it in the "you" context, I can say it wouldn't affect me personally.

I think if female marines were implemented with due regard to the most plausible outcome of transhuman modification in terms of subdued feminine features and amplified masculine features likely to result from the modifications required for a Space Marine, and it didn’t manifest in the lore of an “anything you can do I can do better” or “we are space women hear us roar” conflict, I think almost no one would really object except people who are habituated to objecting.

In general I think at most, if female marines were implemented as something not really representative of what a space marine is there are people who would consider it a form of pandering and patronizing. In effect, it would be considered GW being lazy and throwing out something that checks the box “female” to appease a vocal and pressuring segment of the population without really weaving it into the lore and game in a way that the majority of the fan base would find well done and faithful to the game. If I have a personal reaction, it might be along there to a varying degree.

As to the women who were in the video either, It would be interesting to see what their opinions would be on the above two points.

How many people would pack up their models and go home? I can’t think that many would do so over that, but a larger poll would be interesting. Honestly I think the larger concern is just the general animus that arises around the issue particularly in the politics dimension. There are people I’ve read who would pose their concern thus: “We’ve been happy to invite everyone to the table to enjoy the game, then those people demand the game be changed and say the game is horrible without the change, then the changes are made and we are bullied for not liking the change and liking what we enjoyed before, then we are not welcome any more”. I realize there are those who would be dismissive and mocking about that concern I think I can see where their sensitivity arises from. As a kid who was bullied and enjoyed games like D&D and warhammer to escape from the people calling you names for being different, I do see where that feeling and dread may have a deep seated origin. I don’t think such concerns should automatically be conflated with people being exclusionary or toxic, because I’ll wager if you went and surveyed those folks, you’ll probably find many of them actually welcoming and accommodating if they’re not being name called or told them they are wrong for enjoying the hobby as the received it.

I don’t really see though that this would be an actual pervasive problem except within a small selection of game stores or local populations, and I’m going to guess there would be a large enough population of people who were not likely to be toxic about it so that being “excluded” in this way is unlikely. I suppose it depends on whether or not a culture of exclusion of “anyone who ever voiced anything skeptical toward GW adoption of female space marines” actually developed. Perhaps the fear is heightened for people in the general cancel culture of the day, where drastic personal impacts can be realized for the slightest perceptions of offence.

I don’t think it would hurt GW sales, though there may be complaint of the cost of models rising to take advantage of the addition of new sprues, but is GW going to GW.

I’d be interested in any other potential impacts folks could foresee.

 RegularGuy wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

So, disregarding what you think it wouldn't do, what would it do that you object to? Female heads and lore, what will it do that you don't like?

First of all that's an excellent post.

Now I would phrase the last question to be less personal by removing the "you don't like", and orient it toward a question of what any negative impacts might be.

Answering it in the "you" context, I can say it wouldn't affect me personally.

I think if female marines were implemented with due regard to the most plausible outcome of transhuman modification in terms of subdued feminine features and amplified masculine features likely to result from the modifications required for a Space Marine, and it didn’t manifest in the lore of an “anything you can do I can do better” or “we are space women hear us roar” conflict, I think almost no one would really object except people who are habituated to objecting.

In general I think at most, if female marines were implemented as something not really representative of what a space marine is there are people who would consider it a form of pandering and patronizing. In effect, it would be considered GW being lazy and throwing out something that checks the box “female” to appease a vocal and pressuring segment of the population without really weaving it into the lore and game in a way that the majority of the fan base would find well done and faithful to the game. If I have a personal reaction, it might be along there to a varying degree.

As to the women who were in the video either, It would be interesting to see what their opinions would be on the above two points.

How many people would pack up their models and go home? I can’t think that many would do so over that, but a larger poll would be interesting. Honestly I think the larger concern is just the general animus that arises around the issue particularly in the politics dimension. There are people I’ve read who would pose their concern thus: “We’ve been happy to invite everyone to the table to enjoy the game, then those people demand the game be changed and say the game is horrible without the change, then the changes are made and we are bullied for not liking the change and liking what we enjoyed before, then we are not welcome any more”. I realize there are those who would be dismissive and mocking about that concern I think I can see where their sensitivity arises from. As a kid who was bullied and enjoyed games like D&D and warhammer to escape from the people calling you names for being different, I do see where that feeling and dread may have a deep seated origin. I don’t think such concerns should automatically be conflated with people being exclusionary or toxic, because I’ll wager if you went and surveyed those folks, you’ll probably find many of them actually welcoming and accommodating if they’re not being name called or told them they are wrong for enjoying the hobby as the received it.

I don’t really see though that this would be an actual pervasive problem except within a small selection of game stores or local populations, and I’m going to guess there would be a large enough population of people who were not likely to be toxic about it so that being “excluded” in this way is unlikely. I suppose it depends on whether or not a culture of exclusion of “anyone who ever voiced anything skeptical toward GW adoption of female space marines” actually developed. Perhaps the fear is heightened for people in the general cancel culture of the day, where drastic personal impacts can be realized for the slightest perceptions of offence.

I don’t think it would hurt GW sales, though there may be complaint of the cost of models rising to take advantage of the addition of new sprues, but is GW going to GW.

I’d be interested in any other potential impacts folks could foresee.

So I get from your post that the only negative impacts would be if it was badly implemented. That is surely true of any change but hopefully wouldn’t be the case now and there is a window of opportunity to make these changes at a time when it wouldn’t be too jarring, lots of changes going on already.

If issue with people not liking the changes that we suggest is that they cannot say how they would be bad for them or the game. It is always “the lore” or politics, neither of which stand up to any scrutiny and have been done to death here. If it’s just that they want their marines to be all male then adding female OPTIONS doesn’t stop them doing an all male chapter or army. I am ok with that and wouldn’t send any death threats about it.

Will it help the hobby generally, it might. Will it harm the hobby? No not at all.

The whole things reminds me of (I think) an insurance advert they retired a little while back-
“You’ve got nothing to lose, and perhaps a lot to gain.”

Vatsetis wrote:

Andykp wrote:


I think your comparison to rapists is crass and disappointing. The two are not even similar and the is no comparison to draw here, I’d suggest yiu move on form it before you dig yourself a whole you can’t get out of.

Well perhaps there is a misunderstanding. But I was referring to the death threads and harrasment (that people insist are important for this isdue) ... A tipe of misoginist attitude thats in the same line and culture than rapping. If you find

In the real world misoginist do all sort of illegal stuff because they fill culturally endorse. A simple head sprue aint going to stop any of those misoginist to follow on their bad criminal behaviour.

Lets take primaris... There was a huge amount of backclash against then, eventually they have been accepted but only because GW made a real effort on the primaris model line and lore.

A simple head sprue and some pronouns here and there wont do much... Well SM will tecnically be gender inclusive as TAU which is really not very meaningfull... My point if FSM are this great step towards representation, why do the minimum possible effort (basically making GW make official what gamers can already do inside the "your dudes" paradigm).

I would say you’ve demonstrated a remarkable misunderstanding of the spectrum of psychology involved in rape; I recommend you consult some sort of criminal psychology reference. The phrase no means no evolved as a response to the fact that a lot of rapists have nonconsensual sex because they feel entitled to it; this is also why rape trends with the wealthy and famous. Logically speaking, someone like Kobe Bryant looks at a women declining his sexual advances like “she doesn’t mean that. I’m rich and famous, I’m the best she can hope for.” Or entitlement from other rape culture like “she was asking for it, look at what she was wearing.” These people were logically incapable of understanding what they were doing was wrong because they believed themselves superior, or that the other person could not possibly want to turn them down.No means no was a phrase designed to neuter that justification and delegitimize rape culture. There are other reasons rape may happen but it does all go back to control and projection of power.

I would argue that female space marines would be our no means no for people that use the lore to legitimize their harassment and abuse.

Vatsetis wrote:

Potential rapist dont refrain from rapping just because rapping is illegal... They refrain because those laws are effectivelly enforced, because women are empowered and dont toletare any tipe of sexual abuse and because society as a whole dosent toletare such practices. (Some can be said of most crimes).

I believe you appear to have just described how....any law works, my friend. Literally all laws. But let me ask this.

If an activity, whether legal or illegal, is not present within the culture of a society, will you see it exist? Let's take the example of rap music.

Let us say that rap is not known in North Korea. There is no law that specifically forbids rapping, but potential rap artists (or 'rappists') would never know about rap, because no rap music is played and no rap videos are shown on state-controlled television.

And now let's take the united states, generally considered the cultural center of rap, and consider a scenario where a new government makes rapping illegal and punishable by a fine.

Undoubtedly, there would still be far more rappists in the USA than there would be in North Korea regardless of its legality or illegality.

Now let's talk about Games Workshop. How many Sisters of Battle players are there now, as opposed to five years ago? Looking at tournament numbers from early in 8th edition versus now, it seems the number of sisters of battle players have increased massively. But why is this? Games Workshop sold sisters of battle miniatures and produced rules for them prior to their recent releases, and surely a potential SoB player would play SoB regardless of how easy or difficult the company producing the game made it for them. And if the lack of plastic was an issue, wouldn't that potential SoBist simply take female stormcast models and kitbash their arms with space marine arms holding boltguns to create them?

*rappers

I think Scotsman is generally one of the most intelligence persons on this forum, but I totally got lost in that analogy. If making female SM is illegal, there would be more in the US? There are currently zero female SMs in the meta, despite their "illegality". Please accept my apology if my ignorance is getting in the way.

 RegularGuy wrote:
As a kid who was bullied and enjoyed games like D&D and warhammer to escape from the people calling you names for being different, I do see where that feeling and dread may have a deep seated origin.

I completely understand and relate. What I don't get is how there could be an origin like that which doesn't lead you to want to seek out and band together with basically anybody with a similar experience for any reason at all. It's absolutely wild to me any time I encounter a nerdy person or space that's gakky about women, or black people or trans people or whatever - like, how TF do you jive getting treated badly for being different and then want to turn around and do it to someone else instead of going 'feth yea come on down, make your girl space marines, make your trans tyranids, make your anime tau, let's party feth the people who hate on people for doing what they like.'

It's bonkers, I can't comprehend it. Especially over something like this. What does "there are no female space marines" ADD to the richness of 40k? When Age of Sigmar comes out with the two new characters and one is a dude with a beard helmet and one is a lady with angel wings, do you actually look at those and go 'blech, I sure am glad space marine characters don't look so varied and distinct.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think Scotsman is generally one of the most intelligence persons on this forum, but I totally got lost in that analogy. If making female SM is illegal, there would be more in the US? There are currently zero female SMs in the meta, despite their "illegality". Please accept my apology if my ignorance is getting in the way.

Legality and illegality of an activity have little effect on its popularity within a given culture, particularly when it comes to harmless activities people use for leisure. What matters is how much people are actually exposed to the idea of doing a thing.

Sisters of Battle existed prior to 8th ed's end with basically zero exposure and model support.

Add exposure and model support, and suddenly there are 10x as many Sisters players.

The main purpose of GW making female marines canonical would be to portray marines as a gender-integrated force, with gender-integrated models, and to introduce the fact that women exist to the largest, most highly supported miniature range in the game.

Is there any citable evidence of an increase in sisters play outside of tournaments (They were/are still a top competing faction, so that alone could be a factor) but it would be great if we cited that, simply because it would strengthen the argument that Inclusivity leads to a uptick in membership in this hobby.

Full disclosure: I think you are likely right, but I checked google for "Battle sisters lead to increase of players on 40k" or similar searches and couldn't find anything.

I don't think we'll see any kind of evidence like that for a while especially after this last year of no gaming.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:
As a kid who was bullied and enjoyed games like D&D and warhammer to escape from the people calling you names for being different, I do see where that feeling and dread may have a deep seated origin.

I completely understand and relate. What I don't get is how there could be an origin like that which doesn't lead you to want to seek out and band together with basically anybody with a similar experience for any reason at all. It's absolutely wild to me any time I encounter a nerdy person or space that's gakky about women, or black people or trans people or whatever - like, how TF do you jive getting treated badly for being different and then want to turn around and do it to someone else instead of going 'feth yea come on down, make your girl space marines, make your trans tyranids, make your anime tau, let's party feth the people who hate on people for doing what they like.'

Well lets look at that at a couple of slices. Firstly, let's remember that some people who are bullied particularly in older times might have been more diverse on the neuronormative scale, and with that may come some differences in social processing. So it might not be uncommon to find some portion of the population that feels much greater stress at thoughts and circumstances of significant change. This is probably only a small number of people, but let's consider them. We value them I hope, and we should recognize and accommodate the challenge. If change is necessary, we would be alienating them and practically bully them if we call them names, deride them, or dismiss them for voicing discomfort or objection to change. In my opinion there's a few voices here that fall in that category and that's the sort of thing I'm really returning to this thread to point out. We do not do well if we act like the monsters we want to see less of. What to do then? Well, as others in this thread do, work with them to listen and understand their feelings. Help to provide friendly feedback helping them understand that change can be ok or even good. To the extent that some posters refrain from the former and work toward the latter is a credit to dakka.

One doesn't have to be on the spectrum to have similar feelings either, and the same advice applies I think.

Now I also think it important to recognize that saying "the game is pretty good as is, I enjoy it as is, I don' t see the need/logic for change" is not in itself active exclusion, nor bullying, etc but we see it conflated as such from time to time in this thread. Often I suspect you'd find such persons happy to invite and include anyone in the game the way they enjoy it now. It's only when someone says "nice game, let's change it to something else" that it seems to trip a negative reaction. Once again, it comes to how people propose change, react to change, and respond to resistance or insistence to change.

I honestly feel it's more about how we talk to each other and treat each other in general rather than the specific proposition of change. And that's really what I hope people spend more time thinking about. It sometimes seems like a greater and greater challenge in the modern world of social media, but that's a whole different subject for a different forum.

Adding female SM doesn't change the game, it changes one aspect of SM. You're still able to roll your dice and have your SM, it just gives people the option to have female SM. The ideas of the setting aren't changed because women can be SM now. The Imperium is still dying from a thousand cuts.

 RegularGuy wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:
As a kid who was bullied and enjoyed games like D&D and warhammer to escape from the people calling you names for being different, I do see where that feeling and dread may have a deep seated origin.

I completely understand and relate. What I don't get is how there could be an origin like that which doesn't lead you to want to seek out and band together with basically anybody with a similar experience for any reason at all. It's absolutely wild to me any time I encounter a nerdy person or space that's gakky about women, or black people or trans people or whatever - like, how TF do you jive getting treated badly for being different and then want to turn around and do it to someone else instead of going 'feth yea come on down, make your girl space marines, make your trans tyranids, make your anime tau, let's party feth the people who hate on people for doing what they like.'

Well lets look at that at a couple of slices. Firstly, let's remember that some people who are bullied particularly in older times might have been more diverse on the neuronormative scale, and with that may come some differences in social processing. So it might not be uncommon to find some portion of the population that feels much greater stress at thoughts and circumstances of significant change. This is probably only a small number of people, but let's consider them. We value them I hope, and we should recognize and accommodate the challenge. If change is necessary, we would be alienating them and practically bully them if we call them names, deride them, or dismiss them for voicing discomfort or objection to change. In my opinion there's a few voices here that fall in that category and that's the sort of thing I'm really returning to this thread to point out. We do not do well if we act like the monsters we want to see less of. What to do then? Well, as others in this thread do, work with them to listen and understand their feelings. Help to provide friendly feedback helping them understand that change can be ok or even good. To the extent that some posters refrain from the former and work toward the latter is a credit to dakka.

One doesn't have to be on the spectrum to have similar feelings either, and the same advice applies I think.

Now I also think it important to recognize that saying "the game is pretty good as is, I enjoy it as is, I don' t see the need/logic for change" is not in itself active exclusion, nor bullying, etc but we see it conflated as such from time to time in this thread. Often I suspect you'd find such persons happy to invite and include anyone in the game the way they enjoy it now. It's only when someone says "nice game, let's change it to something else" that it seems to trip a negative reaction. Once again, it comes to how people propose change, react to change, and respond to resistance or insistence to change.

I honestly feel it's more about how we talk to each other and treat each other in general rather than the specific proposition of change. And that's really what I hope people spend more time thinking about. It sometimes seems like a greater and greater challenge in the modern world of social media, but that's a whole different subject for a different forum.

Was adding female heads to the tau kit a frightening change to 40k when previously there was only one (known) female tau soldier?

What about adding female GSC? Prior to their addition, posters in similar threads to this one stated that, obviously, logically, female humans inducted into genestealer cults would be locked in a room somewhere being used as breeding stock.

Do you consider the addition of just women to marines to be a sea change that youd characterize as 'nice game, lets change it to something else' or is it just the addition of female heads, an addition that...I assume, I guess, would have absolutely zero impact on the actual game as opposed to say the addition of some new marine unit armed with different guns, which is an approximately bimonthly occurrence.

 RegularGuy wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:
As a kid who was bullied and enjoyed games like D&D and warhammer to escape from the people calling you names for being different, I do see where that feeling and dread may have a deep seated origin.

I completely understand and relate. What I don't get is how there could be an origin like that which doesn't lead you to want to seek out and band together with basically anybody with a similar experience for any reason at all. It's absolutely wild to me any time I encounter a nerdy person or space that's gakky about women, or black people or trans people or whatever - like, how TF do you jive getting treated badly for being different and then want to turn around and do it to someone else instead of going 'feth yea come on down, make your girl space marines, make your trans tyranids, make your anime tau, let's party feth the people who hate on people for doing what they like.'

Well lets look at that at a couple of slices. Firstly, let's remember that some people who are bullied particularly in older times might have been more diverse on the neuronormative scale, and with that may come some differences in social processing.

Nope. Not going to take a silent pass on the premise that neurodivergent people are to blame for bigotry and misogyny in the hobby.
They don't need to be the scapegoat for this crap.

If that wasn't your intent, I really suggest apologizing and trying again.

^ Seconded.
Also, being bullied doesn't give someone a free pass for them to be exclusionary. In fact, if they should know better than anyone the signs of exclusionary behaviour.

Scotsman, I notice you keep tring to personalize the discussion as "You, You, You".
It doesn't bother my either way if GW decides to make the update. I'm trying to provide a perspective of what I suspect gives rise and rationale to why people take issue, a path to understanding and looking for ways to reach out and bring people along rather than simply dismiss and deride.

Voss, you have taken it completely wrongly. You added an assertion of claims of bigotry and misogyny, I make no such claim. Perhaps re-read without bringing so much assumption of ill will or negativity on my part? Why do you suggest that people who might be a bit predesposed to being uncofmortable to change are neccessarily bigoted or msogynists? The very point is to stop asserting and assuming these negative labels when it comes to every person who has a doubt or may have some discomfort with changes and reach out to them rather than attack them. Realize they may be pre-disposed to reaction and look for ways to help them.

And Gert,
If someone says they don't think gw adopting female marines is neccessary, or that they are not a fan, that really isn't exclusionary, it's an opinion. Again, do you really assert that every person who may not be a fan of the idea is a gate keeping exclusionist? Or that the ONLY way that women can like and engage with 40k is for GW to adopt female space marines?

There seems to be a habit of always asuming and asserting the worst or the extreme, and I don't think its helpful or healthy for progress in the community