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.

 Formosa wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
The way this hole debate is framed by the most active members of the thread no one can achieve "victory"... Its just about stating in an endless cicle if one OPINION is in favour or against FSM.

Which BTW is quite pointless since its quite obvious that GW has decided to use Sorotitas as the vehicule to increase female representation in 40K.

You are right, however a lot of the people here are starting with an ideological belief and working backwards, no matter what any evidence suggests or demonstrate the conclusions are always the same.

These individuals start with a premise that 40k lacks female representation and work back from that premise to justify it, outright ignoring anything that does not fit with pre conceived conclusions as if accepted that the premise could be wrong then the whole argument falls apart.

Also due to this same school of thought nothing is considered "sacred" or "sacrosanct", any lore is irrelevant as it can just be changed (so long as it changes the way they intend), no argument is worthy as the ones making is are not worthy of making the argument (the creation of the other), any person that makes an effective argument is to be silenced or purged and always labelled with whatever in vogue term is needed to ostracise that person in the eyes of the in group.

So when you say that GW has already shown that it will be using Sisters of Battle as the Female representation you are correct, GW has shown a revealed preference by pushing them to the fore alongside its flagship product of space marines, this however does not give these individuals what they want however as their pre conceived outcome has not been reached, if they can force through pressure GW to give them Female marines then they can do the same in other areas and ultimately gain control of the platforms (the hobby, model line and intellectual property) and further push their advocacy.

This is a never ending cycle essentially

I actually think we have taken a very pragmatic approach to the “lore” and examined it in depth. It does not stack up as an argument to retain the status quo. We have looked at every aspect of it but have been proven right in that it is out dated, out of print and not of sufficient importance to be printed in that factions codex at ANY time. EVER. if you know otherwise then please show me the information to consider.

As for silencing people. The only people “silenced” were those spouting hate filled vitriol and they were silenced by the mods who have been very even handed in this. I have blocked no one and made good effort to engage with everyone. The problem comes when there arguments boil down to, I don’t like it and you are trying to take over and bully me. Which is basically what you are saying.

The pro-female marines side as we have become known (though I preferred famous 5) all come from different starting points as to why we want this, for some it’s political first and foremost others less so but it’s certainly more nuanced than you make out. I made my first female marine years again and the only people who saw it were my gaming group who are in favour anyway. So no politics there just cool model and fluff opportunities. My reason for coming in here to discuss it is political. Unashamedly so. And the number of bigots and sexist unearthed by this thread shows we need to be political. (Not naming names or pointing fingers, they know who they are). But we have also converted some people or opened their minds a bit to an alternative take. What I am not doing, nor anyone else on “my” side of the debate is to seize control of your hobby and force you to do things you don’t like. We have all advocated for the option for female marines, the key word being option. Giving you more choice. In fact what we all really want is to stop the abuse and make the hobby a nicer place.

But it’s the age all argument of the majority when asked to give a bit more to a minority, “you are pressing me!” The truth is we are not and it’s sad that you think we are.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Been shown to have "defeaters"? WTF do you mean by that? Nah, I've generally been right about the things I've said. When you guys are proven factually incorrect (like about intersex conditions, or the Templar Oaths) you just change the topic and try to pretend you were right all along. The facts are on my side.

Facts? What facts? You have not once linked an article or study that you hadn't spun to hell or proved to be total BS when anyone actually bothered to click on it. So no. You have not. You've not accomplished a thing besides making the argument against look as shallow and foolish as possible without actually incurring moderation.

To be fair, he has trod that line well. Better than most but I agree. Not heard a thing that he was close to right about or that made much sense. And all his accusations have been found to be without an ounce of merit.

Formosa wrote:You are right, however a lot of the people here are starting with an ideological belief and working backwards, no matter what any evidence suggests or demonstrate the conclusions are always the same.

You *are* right, but I think we're not talking about the same people here.

These individuals start with a premise that 40k lacks female representation and work back from that premise to justify it, outright ignoring anything that does not fit with pre conceived conclusions as if accepted that the premise could be wrong then the whole argument falls apart.

Empirically, 40k *does* lack women's representation.

The vast majority of all models are male, especially in the most dominant factions, and the only two factions with significant women's representation are either sexualised and extremely limited in player customisation, or sexualised, and fall into the "sexy elves" trope. And those two factions are *fine*, if there were other options - which there aren't in any meaningful sense.

Guardsmen have barely any women's representation - it's taken until now for a few headswaps in a faction that should be one of the most even out there.
Tau again have scarcely any visible representation. Likewise with Eldar, and Genestealer Cultists, and Chaos Cultists, and so on. And yet, even if those factions *did* have adequate representation, you still have to contend with the fact that Space Marines are both the most dominant faction of all 40k (with a large proportion of factions being a derivative of power armoured Astartes in some way), and needlessly gender-exclusive.

There factually is a gender imbalance. The question is if people think that's a problem or not, and if so, how to fix that.

Also due to this same school of thought nothing is considered "sacred" or "sacrosanct"

You act like this is a problem, for one. Clearly, GW don't consider their own lore to be sacred or sacrosanct - ask Guilliman, getting up for his Sunday stroll.

Second, lore is only as good as you can justify it's necessity. Why should I consider a certain fragment of lore as important if you can't tell me what it adds to the setting, and why that's important?

any lore is irrelevant as it can just be changed (so long as it changes the way they intend)

Misrepresentation. I don't care which way the change goes, as long as you can *justify* it, and why that should be the way it goes.

Can you justify continuing to keep Space Marines all-male, without having to claiming "sacred" or "sacrosanct"?

no argument is worthy as the ones making is are not worthy of making the argument (the creation of the other)

That sounds like something you're projecting there.
People are being called out because of their awful arguments, not because they're necessarily awful people. For example, an argument might be sexist, but that doesn't always mean the person is. I would have thought that was the core of civil debate, but as evidenced by Hecaton, who constantly seeks to ascribe sexual and fetishistic undertones to the *other users here*, this is evidently not true.

If you want to talk about the "otherisation" of people, I suggest you perhaps start to clean house first.

Also, regarding the "creation of the other" - yes, that's exactly why we're discussing the necessity of women Astartes: because women are made to feel Othered in this hobby.

any person that makes an effective argument is to be silenced or purged and always labelled with whatever in vogue term is needed to ostracise that person in the eyes of the in group.

Like? What "effective arguments" have been made?

Honestly, this is how it looks to me - correct me if I'm wrong:
- Someone makes a bad argument explaining why Space Marines shouldn't be changed.
- People call out the awful logic and bad takes used in this argument.
- You see the calling out and dismantling of the bad argument as "silencing" or "purging", simply because you don't want to accept that the argument was bad.
- You find it easier to just act like there's a massive conspiracy against you, than simply that your arguments are bad.

So when you say that GW has already shown that it will be using Sisters of Battle as the Female representation you are correct, GW has shown a revealed preference by pushing them to the fore alongside its flagship product of space marines, this however does not give these individuals what they want however as their pre conceived outcome has not been reached

Rather, it is because only improving women's representation through a single model line still isn't representative, and still contributes to the Otherisation that you so kindly mentioned earlier.

Women's representation isn't "oh look, here's the Women's Faction, look how much we gave them!", because that's still implicitly pigeon-holing women into only being seen as welcome to that faction. By including women in the most prominent and dominant factions, factions that (as I've elaborated and explained several times) don't have a reason to be all-male, beyond clinging to "sacrosanct" or "sacred" lore, this works against the marginalising and "Otherising" effect, and integrates women naturally and equally into 40k. By removing the boundaries between "men's faction" and "women's faction", this actually achieves both representation *and* inclusivity.

Don't get me wrong, as a Sisters player, I love the new stuff. But it's not effective representation.

if they can force through pressure GW to give them Female marines then they can do the same in other areas and ultimately gain control of the platforms (the hobby, model line and intellectual property) and further push their advocacy.

Okay, now here's the bit where the mask slips - "gain control"? Gain control of what? *For* what? You're going back to this idea that there's a shadowy cabal of people out there to... gain control of a toy soldiers game? And "push advocacy"? Advocacy of what? What's the agenda, the pitch, the goal, the motive?

Or, like I said earlier, perhaps it's easier to just claim that there's a secret cabal of organised "advocates" who are trying to Take Over The Hobby TM , instead of considering that "maybe this isn't good representation for women; maybe I'm wrong".

I tells ya, if this was a detective novel, I'd be screaming at the author for this creation of a villain without any motive at all.

Are we back to the part of the discussion where the anti female SM side just throw insults and hyperbole because they have no arguments? Cool. Very fun.
So we'll have a few days where the anti female SM side just do their troll posts designed to make the pro female SM side angry then someone new will pop up and ask the exact same questions and make the exact same points other anti female SM posters have already made, then we do the merry dance again.
Can we call this done since the anti side hasn't come up with a new argument since like page 30?

 Gert wrote:
Are we back to the part of the discussion where the anti female SM side just throw insults and hyperbole because they have no arguments?

I think this is the "there's a shadowy cult of people who want to Take Control Of The Hobby TM , for nebulously described reasons" part of the discussion again.

Though thankfully we've avoided the "SJW", "Marxist" or "Radical" buzzwords!*




*so far

Give it a few hours I'm sure we'll be decried as Woke Marxists out to destroy society.

Im starting a SuperPAC called Shadowy Cult, I had no idea it was so powerful!

I’ve never been in a shadowy cult before. How exciting. And shadowy.

 Gert wrote:
Are we back to the part of the discussion where the anti female SM side just throw insults and hyperbole because they have no arguments? Cool. Very fun.
So we'll have a few days where the anti female SM side just do their troll posts designed to make the pro female SM side angry then someone new will pop up and ask the exact same questions and make the exact same points other anti female SM posters have already made, then we do the merry dance again.
Can we call this done since the anti side hasn't come up with a new argument since like page 30?

This sounds like confession through projection to me, I have been very careful not to insult anyone nor target anyone so your false framing as usual is wrong

Though I am happy you are agreeing with me albeit unknowingly it seems.

"This is a never ending cycle essentially"

Formosa wrote:I have been very careful not to insult anyone nor target anyone so your false framing as usual is wrong

I'm not sure about that. I'd say that your usage of the term "silenced" and "purged" are pretty dogwhistling, with a definite frame of insult/insinuating behind them. Similarly, insinuating:

Formosa wrote:this however does not give these individuals what they want however as their pre conceived outcome has not been reached, if they can force through pressure GW to give them Female marines then they can do the same in other areas and ultimately gain control of the platforms (the hobby, model line and intellectual property) and further push their advocacy.

and

Formosa wrote:this was cringe and just activism

, while also claiming not to be targeting or insulting anyone is more than a little false.

I mean, am I not supposed to feel "targeted" when you call an honest discussion "cringe activism" or that I'm apparently just trying to "gain control of the platforms"? Am I not supposed to feel like I'm part of some clandestine conspiracy?

Or how about this one:

Formosa wrote:but that does not mean you get to force your views on others like some sort of buy in ticket system, if you cannot handle that go complain on Twitter or 4chan ... or you know, do some useful activism like helping the homeless.

where you imply that wanting women Astartes to be canon is "forcing" something on you (very hostile language), and that people shouldn't complain because this isn't "useful".

I don't know, maybe I'm reading into this wrong, but you seem very clear to "target" and paint one side as problematic - dare I say, "insult" - and for what reason? Wanting women Astartes? Is that it? No other reason?

I actually think we have taken a very pragmatic approach to the “lore” and examined it in depth. It does not stack up as an argument to retain the status quo. We have looked at every aspect of it but have been proven right in that it is out dated, out of print and not of sufficient importance to be printed in that factions codex at ANY time. EVER. if you know otherwise then please show me the information to consider.

your opinion is that it is outdated, which is fine that is your opinion and you are entitled to it but lets not pretend that it has anything to do with pragmatism please, you want the change to suit your pre conceptions of what should be and not what is which again is fine as that is a subset of your ideological framework, you ignore 30 years of revealed preference showing you this is still how things are done because you end goal is already set in stone.

As for silencing people. The only people “silenced” were those spouting hate filled vitriol and they were silenced by the mods who have been very even handed in this. I have blocked no one and made good effort to engage with everyone. The problem comes when there arguments boil down to, I don’t like it and you are trying to take over and bully me. Which is basically what you are saying.

No one has done so that I have seen bar possibly that alt account canadian person, forgot their name, mind you throwing ism and phobes etc. around constitutes hate filled vitriol to me but I doubt you would agree with that, I have blocked only one person and that is due to them overtly showing right from the start they will not be and honest good faith person, as for taking over, yes, you may not like that this is the end goal of the activists but that is the self confessed end goal, if that upsets you then I am sorry and you should perhaps tell them to stop behaving in such a manner, me pointing it out is not hateful or bigoted in any way.

The pro-female marines side as we have become known (though I preferred famous 5) all come from different starting points as to why we want this, for some it’s political first and foremost others less so but it’s certainly more nuanced than you make out. I made my first female marine years again and the only people who saw it were my gaming group who are in favour anyway. So no politics there just cool model and fluff opportunities. My reason for coming in here to discuss it is political. Unashamedly so. And the number of bigots and sexist unearthed by this thread shows we need to be political. (Not naming names or pointing fingers, they know who they are). But we have also converted some people or opened their minds a bit to an alternative take. What I am not doing, nor anyone else on “my” side of the debate is to seize control of your hobby and force you to do things you don’t like. We have all advocated for the option for female marines, the key word being option. Giving you more choice. In fact what we all really want is to stop the abuse and make the hobby a nicer place.

yes for some its political first, as I pointed out and was told I was wrong, I know I am not, they also know this but still they lied, ultimately though even if you are not doing it for political reasons you are helping the ones that are and will abuse that power if they get it, I understand the nuance perfectly well and even pointed it out earlier myself but again was gatlighted with immediate effect.

You should also note I said that these are your models, do as you please with them, make female marines if you wish but I object to the politicisation one way or the other of the whole hobby, I no more want ideologues from either side controlling the space, you false assumption that it is only those with an open mind that want this further proves my previous points as we consider those who cannot leave their ideology at the door to be closed minded and be under no uncertain terms we have all experienced what happens when these closed minded bigots gain control of a space and use their new found power to purge anyone that dare speak out.

There is no abuse, the hobby is already a nicer place and the demand to politicise it is making it the opposite, can you not for a second just consider the possibility that it is the ideologues and ideologically possessed that are causing the problems here and it is not about female representation.

But it’s the age all argument of the majority when asked to give a bit more to a minority, “you are pressing me!” The truth is we are not and it’s sad that you think we are.

this is a perfect example of the false framing I referred to, emotional manipulation designed to other a person that dares argue in the eyes of your in group and that you do not see it is really the true sadness here as if you could get past this you would likely reach a common ground with those you disagree with.

 Formosa wrote:

This sounds like confession through projection to me, I have been very careful not to insult anyone nor target anyone so your false framing as usual is wrong

Hm, that's not quite true. Let's go do some checks:


Reduction of the discussion and a hostile attitude to those who are pro-female SM.


Oh, there it is again. Reduction of the discussion and a hostile attitude to pro-female SM posters. On top of that we also have you trying to shut down the discussion entirely because you disagree with it. Not very polite IMO.


Oh man, there it is again! Reduction of the discussion, a hostile attitude to pro-female SM posters, and another attempt to shut down the discussion (despite the fact the mods had seen no reason to close the thread).


Now you've said that pro-female SM posters are power-grabbing SJW's. That's some right-wing buzzwording if I ever saw it.


There it is again.


Yeah, I'm not agreeing with you chief. In fact you are someone that I specifically disagree with on many points.

 Gert wrote:
Are we back to the part of the discussion where the anti female SM side just throw insults and hyperbole because they have no arguments? Cool. Very fun.
So we'll have a few days where the anti female SM side just do their troll posts designed to make the pro female SM side angry then someone new will pop up and ask the exact same questions and make the exact same points other anti female SM posters have already made, then we do the merry dance again.
Can we call this done since the anti side hasn't come up with a new argument since like page 30?

It beats the old days where they would try to literally hound pro FSM posters off of Dakka. Anyone hear from DocThunder recently?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
While very true, it doesn't really help people if they wanted their women Astartes to be Ultramarines, or Space Wolves, or in a non-Cursed Founding Chapter. And obviously, while gene-seed mutations are not exclusive to Cursed Founding Chapters, it's still not exactly wide representation.

Plus, and I'm sure you're not intentionally implying this, but just to mention it all the same, it's still a little iffy comparing being a women a "mutation" (even if, as you rightly say, it's on a lesser degree than literally being Wolverine), in the same way I don't quite appreciate a lot of the comparisons in this thread between women and fictional fish people or rabbits. It's entirely a tone thing, and just paints women as this undesirable side effect, than as equally valid and capable Astartes, which I think is important for this change.

Again, not something I think you were going for at all, but something I should highlight in the wider argument.

The mutation being in the geneseed, not the subjects. I'm not sure whether you failed to read the post, or the original fluff. Complaining that rather than a wholesale retcon, which most certainly would have a negative effect on GW's bottom line, that a minor alteration using a long existing canon option *isn't going far enough* smacks more of politics than a genuine interest in having female space marines.

Reduction of the discussion and a hostile attitude to those who are pro-female SM.

jokingly poking fun at the rather extremist elements in order to point out a problem.

Oh, there it is again. Reduction of the discussion and a hostile attitude to pro-female SM posters. On top of that we also have you trying to shut down the discussion entirely because you disagree with it. Not very polite IMO.

Pointing out I was correct in my previous point and that there are more important issues that these activists should be fighting and asking people not to force their views on others... I was right again btw and yep it was polite.

Now you've said that pro-female SM posters are power-grabbing SJW's. That's some right-wing buzzwording if I ever saw it.

as opposed to what? left wing buzzwords? like calling people ismphobes? and I do not know if you know this but quotation marks means I am using another persons terminology, if you do not like the term "SJW" then take it up with the people who call themselves "social justice warriors" oh and they are power grabbing, note you did not even try to deny this framing just the terminology used.


Deleted the rest as its just tone policing and not refuting anything I said, which you yourself have proven to be correct and even AndyKP confirmed that some of you are doing this for political reasons, I get you may not like my framing and you are free to disagree with it as I said before and I do not dislike you for it, I do not like your framing and do not believe you when you claim this is for inclusion and this is not impolite or rude, its just a disagreement.


Nothing I have said is impolite or rude, you just do not like what I said and decided to project your intent onto me, false framing yet again Gert

Formosa wrote:

I actually think we have taken a very pragmatic approach to the “lore” and examined it in depth. It does not stack up as an argument to retain the status quo. We have looked at every aspect of it but have been proven right in that it is out dated, out of print and not of sufficient importance to be printed in that factions codex at ANY time. EVER. if you know otherwise then please show me the information to consider.

your opinion is that it is outdated, which is fine that is your opinion and you are entitled to it but lets not pretend that it has anything to do with pragmatism please, you want the change to suit your pre conceptions of what should be and not what is which again is fine as that is a subset of your ideological framework, you ignore 30 years of revealed preference showing you this is still how things are done because you end goal is already set in stone.

I believe that the "pragmatic" part is in referring to how the people being critical of that 30 year old lore are being critical from an artistic perspective: as in, they are analysing how necessary those aspects of the lore are, instead of just blindly accepting them due to inertia and age.

It is critical reflection of artistic merit, and that's an incredibly pragmatic thing to be doing in an artistic environment. It ensure that what is kept is kept because it's important, not because of blind inertia and sentiment.

You say "30 years of revealed preference", but you don't question why it's been there for 30 years, and what purpose it serves, if any. That's what critical reflection is there for.

As for silencing people. The only people “silenced” were those spouting hate filled vitriol and they were silenced by the mods who have been very even handed in this. I have blocked no one and made good effort to engage with everyone. The problem comes when there arguments boil down to, I don’t like it and you are trying to take over and bully me. Which is basically what you are saying.

No one has done so that I have seen bar possibly that alt account canadian person

I can count three, from my head.
The aforementioned user, one user who expressed that it was acceptable to keep women out of their hobby spaces, and another who I believe yet again compared wanting women Space Marines as a sexually gratifying exploit - not Hecaton, but a different user.

Unfortunately, because of the (justified) actions of the mods, I can't exactly link them.

mind you throwing ism and phobes etc. around constitutes hate filled vitriol to me

That all depends on what is being called out, and in what manner. Calling a *person* that? Possibly not in good faith. Calling an *argument* sexist? That's fair game, if it's truthful.

Again, it's all about calling a spade a spade.

Similarly, implying that users are only doing things for ulterior motives and for achieve some new world order? I don't think that's in good faith either.

as for taking over, yes, you may not like that this is the end goal of the activists but that is the self confessed end goal, if that upsets you then I am sorry and you should perhaps tell them to stop behaving in such a manner, me pointing it out is not hateful or bigoted in any way.

Self-confessed? Pray tell, I'd love to see this confession, and why you think it's okay to tar everyone with that brush.

And yes, it absolutely is hateful when it's fabricated. It's entirely unfair to the users here.

yes for some its political first, as I pointed out and was told I was wrong

The thing is that you implied that only one end was political. Now, if we accept that arguments on both sides are political (yes, including yours - you seem very fixated on denying "power" to this cabal of shadowy conspirators), then sure - but I won't agree that only one side is "political" in this, and fundamentally, dismantling the artistic necessity of all-male Astartes isn't political any more than getting rid of a turd floating in the pool is political - it simply doesn't need to be there.

ultimately though even if you are not doing it for political reasons you are helping the ones that are and will abuse that power if they get it

Abuse that power to do... what, exactly?

Stop threatening us with a vaguely implied good time.

You should also note I said that these are your models, do as you please with them, make female marines if you wish

That's great, but that's little consolation to the people who don't share your open-mindedness.

but I object to the politicisation one way or the other of the whole hobby, I no more want ideologues from either side controlling the space

Just a reminder, neutrality and status quo are still ideologies!

You can't claim to be apolitical when you so vociferously argue about it.

we have all experienced what happens when these closed minded bigots gain control of a space and use their new found power to purge anyone that dare speak out.

...have we? Pray tell, I'd love you to elaborate on this, because you seem to be making some interesting comparisons about people who just want women Space Marines.

There is no abuse, the hobby is already a nicer place

I guess you just overlooked people getting abuse and death threats when they make women Space Marines, or have Space Marines holding hands.

"There is no war in Ba-Sing-Se", I suppose.

the demand to politicise it is making it the opposite, can you not for a second just consider the possibility that it is the ideologues and ideologically possessed that are causing the problems here and it is not about female representation.

I'll bite - why are the "idealogues" (again, reminder that neutrality is also an ideology!) responsible for people putting women's heads on their Astartes getting death threats?

Peak victim blaming behaviour right there, eh?

Whatever Formosa. Keep your head in the sand all you want. I'm done arguing with people like you.

 Gert wrote:
Whatever Formosa. Keep your head in the sand all you want. I'm done arguing with people like you.

People like me? what would that be Gert?

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
While very true, it doesn't really help people if they wanted their women Astartes to be Ultramarines, or Space Wolves, or in a non-Cursed Founding Chapter. And obviously, while gene-seed mutations are not exclusive to Cursed Founding Chapters, it's still not exactly wide representation.

Plus, and I'm sure you're not intentionally implying this, but just to mention it all the same, it's still a little iffy comparing being a women a "mutation" (even if, as you rightly say, it's on a lesser degree than literally being Wolverine), in the same way I don't quite appreciate a lot of the comparisons in this thread between women and fictional fish people or rabbits. It's entirely a tone thing, and just paints women as this undesirable side effect, than as equally valid and capable Astartes, which I think is important for this change.

Again, not something I think you were going for at all, but something I should highlight in the wider argument.

The mutation being in the geneseed, not the subjects. I'm not sure whether you failed to read the post, or the original fluff.

I'm aware that the mutation is in the geneseed, but it's still the implication that it's a "mutation" (a rather negatively loaded word within the context of 40k) that allows for women. Again, it's entirely inference, but it draws a connection between a negative effect and women, that could be potentially a problem. Again, I don't believe for a moment that you implied that, but it's worth just bringing to attention, to explain why I don't love the Cursed Founding solution.

Complaining that rather than a wholesale retcon, which most certainly would have a negative effect on GW's bottom line, that a minor alteration using a long existing canon option *isn't going far enough* smacks more of politics than a genuine interest in having female space marines.

My interest in women Space Marines *is* genuine - but we should also consider the effects of what those "minor alterations" could lead to.

If we *had* to do a lore "alteration", as you put it, I preferred some bloke's option, rather than using the Cursed Founding, if only to allow for women in Chapters beyond the Cursed Founding, and to move away from the potentially negative connotations I mentioned.

Formosa wrote:

Reduction of the discussion and a hostile attitude to those who are pro-female SM.

jokingly poking fun at the rather extremist elements in order to point out a problem.

"jokingly"

Oh, there it is again. Reduction of the discussion and a hostile attitude to pro-female SM posters. On top of that we also have you trying to shut down the discussion entirely because you disagree with it. Not very polite IMO.

Pointing out I was correct in my previous point and that there are more important issues that these activists should be fighting and asking people not to force their views on others... I was right again btw and yep it was polite.

According to... you? Not sure you get to dictate what is and isn't polite.

Now you've said that pro-female SM posters are power-grabbing SJW's. That's some right-wing buzzwording if I ever saw it.

Do not know if you know this but quotation marks means I am using another persons terminology, if you do not like the term "SJW" then take it up with the people who call themselves "social justice warriors" oh and they are power grabbing, note you did not even try to deny this framing just the terminology used.

Did anyone here call themselves SJWs unprompted?

Nothing I have said is impolite or rude

What part of implying users here are trying to control GW through some shadowy cabal is polite, exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Whatever Formosa. Keep your head in the sand all you want. I'm done arguing with people like you.

People like me? what would that be Gert?

People who wilfully play coy and project an air of false modesty, and cry "politics" when their own beliefs are threatened by others.

Still waiting on you to enlighten us all on whatever you meant by this group of people trying to "gain power" in the hobby. What power? What ideology? What motivation?

I think the thought behind the 21st Founding idea is good just the execution might be a bit shabby, especially when most of the 21st Founding Chapters got deleted, died off, are considered freaks, or are the Lamenters. F for the greatest Chapter of all.

 Gert wrote:
I think the thought behind the 21st Founding idea is good just the execution might be a bit shabby, especially when most of the 21st Founding Chapters got deleted, died off, are considered freaks, or are the Lamenters. F for the greatest Chapter of all.

Point of fact, because it was massive and had unknown number of chapters, we have no idea if any of that is actually true. That GW treats that founding poorly currently is more the effect of trying to jam all space marine chapters into the Ultramarines, a policy that the Cursed Founding was, effectively, the antithesis of.

 Gert wrote:
I think the thought behind the 21st Founding idea is good just the execution might be a bit shabby, especially when most of the 21st Founding Chapters got deleted, died off, are considered freaks, or are the Lamenters. F for the greatest Chapter of all.

Yeah, I totally get the logic behind the idea, but it still ends up being restrictive. It still doesn't allow for someone to have women in a non-Cursed Chapter, for example, and again, has that unintentional connotation between "women" and "Cursed/mutation".

It's just worth highlighting the potential issues of that plan, is all.

I think a bit of it could work, since the point of the 21st was to "fix" problems in the gene-seed. What if a Magos found a way to make it suitable for implantation in female hosts? Would the High Lords let that happen on a wide scale?
Then we have maybe Cawl, doing some digging he shouldn't have been doing, find the procedure from one of his many personalities, and replicate it. With Guilliman as his safety net, the High Lords can't hide it this time.
That way there is scope for Firstborn and Primaris female SM.

 Formosa wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
The way this hole debate is framed by the most active members of the thread no one can achieve "victory"... Its just about stating in an endless cicle if one OPINION is in favour or against FSM.

Which BTW is quite pointless since its quite obvious that GW has decided to use Sorotitas as the vehicule to increase female representation in 40K.

You are right, however a lot of the people here are starting with an ideological belief and working backwards, no matter what any evidence suggests or demonstrate the conclusions are always the same.

These individuals start with a premise that 40k lacks female representation and work back from that premise to justify it, outright ignoring anything that does not fit with pre conceived conclusions as if accepted that the premise could be wrong then the whole argument falls apart.

Also due to this same school of thought nothing is considered "sacred" or "sacrosanct", any lore is irrelevant as it can just be changed (so long as it changes the way they intend), no argument is worthy as the ones making is are not worthy of making the argument (the creation of the other), any person that makes an effective argument is to be silenced or purged and always labelled with whatever in vogue term is needed to ostracise that person in the eyes of the in group.

So when you say that GW has already shown that it will be using Sisters of Battle as the Female representation you are correct, GW has shown a revealed preference by pushing them to the fore alongside its flagship product of space marines, this however does not give these individuals what they want however as their pre conceived outcome has not been reached, if they can force through pressure GW to give them Female marines then they can do the same in other areas and ultimately gain control of the platforms (the hobby, model line and intellectual property) and further push their advocacy.

This is a never ending cycle essentially

Your words seem to be truth. Which is sad, since ideologically I wanted to have simpathy for the FSM "cause". But unfortunatly even the best cause can be derail by hellbent preconceptions.

I really dont think anyone here has a hidden agenda, there is also very little chance anything will change due to this topic... Its only another internet echo chamber.

Vatsetis wrote:
there is also very little chance anything will change due to this topic... Its only another internet echo chamber.

In all fairness, I used to say that - and I used to be opposed to women Astartes.

I guess I'm proof that things can change, at the very least.

 Gert wrote:
I think a bit of it could work, since the point of the 21st was to "fix" problems in the gene-seed. What if a Magos found a way to make it suitable for implantation in female hosts? Would the High Lords let that happen on a wide scale?

And contradict the will of the Emperor and a tradition of Milennia of only male SM???

In universe the best way to introduce FSM would be perhaps through Chaos (Fabius Bile would ve an obvious candidate to implement this change). Later the loyalist could introduce FSM so that they dont losse that "competitive edge".

I just want to point out that on the "Space Marine Chapters" poster that came with Conquest, of the 99 Chapters that are named (one slot is left erased as always), 5 of them are "Sons of X" or "X Sons". The vast majority of SM Chapters have gender-neutral naming schemes.

Your words seem to be truth. Which is sad, since ideologically I wanted to have simpathy for the FSM "cause". But unfortunatly even the best cause can be derail by hellbent preconceptions.

I really dont think anyone here has a hidden agenda, there is also very little chance anything will change due to this topic... Its only another internet echo chamber.

See I have said many times that people can do with their models whatever they like but that I will not agree with the FSM group as they not doing this for honest reasons but ideological ones, it is this that I am against because it lacks honesty and integrity.

as for hidden agendas, very true its not hidden in the slightest as they are pretty open about it but as you say due to pre conceptions they will not even consider for a second that their activism is the very thing stopping people accepting FSM.

A real test to me would be if they made sisters of battle identical in statlines but aesthetically different, would they still complain because at that point you have effectively the same thing on the TT but not in the lore and that would be a middle ground I think most would be happier with as it keeps both the factions themes intact.

So your solution is to introduce female SM as the creation of an insane mad scientist into the evil faction often associated with mutations. That's not great chief.

Formosa wrote:See I have said many times that people can do with their models whatever they like

That's great, really, but that's little consolation to the people who don't share that belief.

I will not agree with the FSM group as they not doing this for honest reasons but ideological ones

Neutrality and status quo are also ideologies.

Just to remind everyone.

as for hidden agendas, very true its not hidden in the slightest as they are pretty open about it

Open? Pray tell, where?

I'm curious, I want to know what agenda I apparently serve.

A real test to me would be if they made sisters of battle identical in statlines but aesthetically different, would they still complain because at that point you have effectively the same thing on the TT but not in the lore and that would be a middle ground I think most would be happier with as it keeps both the factions themes intact.

It's not about giving Sisters two wounds and Toughness 4. It's not about making them the same on the tabletop. It's not even about balancing the meta at all.

I fail to see how this would be a "test" at all, because that's not what anyone here has said their motivations were. Do you actually know what we're arguing for here, and why? Like, as truthfully and "politely" as you can, tell us all what you think we're trying to do, if you please.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I think a bit of it could work, since the point of the 21st was to "fix" problems in the gene-seed. What if a Magos found a way to make it suitable for implantation in female hosts? Would the High Lords let that happen on a wide scale?

And contradict the will of the Emperor and a tradition of Milennia of only male SM???

Question - where did the Emperor say that Space Marines could only be men?

It's just you mention the "will of the Emperor", and I don't seem to remember that ever being explicit.

Please note how quickly and crassly my mention of female as more resistant to the transformation has been shot down as pseudoscience.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328540359_Gender_differences_in_trauma_shock_and_sepsis
(That's literally the result of a 30 second search: I can find more if needed).
Want to try again?



I prefer to think that female were deliberately excluded not because the process won't allow it, but because the Emperor was an donkey-cave born in a primitive society a few thousand year ago, and being immortal is a very, very slow learner (which is a much easier, more coherent and so more plausible explanation).
Really opposing to Crawl introducing female marine can't stand on Amy lore argument. A lot of options to explore, a lot of possible conflict, new vs old, stagnation vs innovation.... It's a golden opportunity for the lore.


I despised Primaris (and never bought one): they are a sales driver that has been force-fed into the lore. Female Primaris would, at least, let them serves some purposes aside from trying to sell you your entire collection again.

 Formosa wrote:

Your words seem to be truth. Which is sad, since ideologically I wanted to have simpathy for the FSM "cause". But unfortunatly even the best cause can be derail by hellbent preconceptions.

I really dont think anyone here has a hidden agenda, there is also very little chance anything will change due to this topic... Its only another internet echo chamber.

See I have said many times that people can do with their models whatever they like but that I will not agree with the FSM group as they not doing this for honest reasons but ideological ones, it is this that I am against because it lacks honesty and integrity.

as for hidden agendas, very true its not hidden in the slightest as they are pretty open about it but as you say due to pre conceptions they will not even consider for a second that their activism is the very thing stopping people accepting FSM.

A real test to me would be if they made sisters of battle identical in statlines but aesthetically different, would they still complain because at that point you have effectively the same thing on the TT but not in the lore and that would be a middle ground I think most would be happier with as it keeps both the factions themes intact.

But they can’t do what they want with there models, if the make their marine models women then they will be abused and threatened. And too many will allow it because the “lore” says so.

What you are actually doing in your replies to me especially is prejudging me. I’m telling my honest reasons for being here having this discussion and you are insulating and claiming I have a hidden agenda and prejudices. It’s the most ludicrous double standards.

As for your middle ground of making the sexy retake nuns as good as marines on the table top with out any lore based explanation…am I the only who see a problem with that? How are these holy women as tough as their super enhanced male counter parts? It makes no sense? And why the segregation? What’s the point?

You also seem to disagree that the text from 30 years again is outdated? Show me where it’s current please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Whatever Formosa. Keep your head in the sand all you want. I'm done arguing with people like you.

People like me? what would that be Gert?

People who want to play the victim when their gatekeeping is threatened. Can’t speak for gert but that’s the impression I’m getting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cybtroll wrote:
Please note how quickly and crassly my mention of female as more resistant to the transformation has been shot down as pseudoscience.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328540359_Gender_differences_in_trauma_shock_and_sepsis
(That's literally the result of a 30 second search: I can find more if needed).
Want to try again?



I prefer to think that female were deliberately excluded not because the process won't allow it, but because the Emperor was an donkey-cave born in a primitive society a few thousand year ago, and being immortal is a very, very slow learner (which is a much easier, more coherent and so more plausible explanation).
Really opposing to Crawl introducing female marine can't stand on Amy lore argument. A lot of options to explore, a lot of possible conflict, new vs old, stagnation vs innovation.... It's a golden opportunity for the lore.

Anyone who has ever seen a woman give birth knows you are right! Plenty of evidence is fighting of disease as well, as a medic I can attest to this.

For the emperor being a massive sexist is a great reason that it never happened before. And agree their is a window of opportunity open now.


I despised Primaris (and never bought one): they are a sales driver that has been force-fed into the lore. Female Primaris would, at least,Ake them serves some purposes aside trying to sell you your collection again.