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.
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 "competirive edge".
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.
Literally all those words except "mutations" are applicable if Cawl and the IOM are the enactors of the FSM program.
(Irony mode on) I suppose that the extreme xenophobia and religious dogmatism of the IOM make them a much better vessel for female representation than the chaos free thinkers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 17:06:55
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.
Yeah gonna say this never happened, mind you the people in question consider criticism abuse and words violence so from their perspective they may genuinely believe it.
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.
No I read the thread just listening to make sure my assessments were correct and I was proven so many times, not by you though, I think of everyone here you are the only honest one even if we disagree, so if you say you are doing it for good reasons, I believe you.
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?
see the lore matters here but not when considering marines are all male, come on now be consistent please, I only suggest it as a compromise, as to an explanation, the sisters are so infused with the power of faith that they are enhanced spiritually and physically by it, the blunted minds of spaces marines precludes them from undergoing the same transformation, thus we now have super soldier sisters (although I would say they already fit that theme).
as to the segregation, theme, nuns and monks, the heavy religious themes of the 40k setting fit this perfectly and as others have correctly pointed out you cannot remove this theme without fundamentally changing the setting which is something people do not want, its an integral part of 40k.
You also seem to disagree that the text from 30 years again is outdated? Show me where it’s current please?
I do not need to, you are yet to provide evidence that it has been invalidated, I can cite the most recent book featuring all male space marines to show its still valid, you cannot do the same, this is not a valid vector of criticism for you and to steel man your argument for a moment this is pointless as you cannot "win" from this perspective, revealed preference shows that marines can only be male as they are only male and when we look into why we see its down to the genetic markers from the gene seed, this is long established and a constant in the 40k setting.
there are valid questions and vectors though, such as Fabious Bile, Cursed founding etc. these are the things you should concentrate on as the above is a non starter, incidentally this is exactly the kind of thing I would be expecting to talk about in the background forum, this should have been moved to off topic ages ago but nevermind eh.
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.
Oh the irony, because that is exactly what I think Gert is doing, just the act of disagreeing with him causing him to become aggressive to the point he decided he would claim my criticisms were insults, this passive aggressive attack is very childish and exactly in keeping of the "victim" mentality he, and you, are claiming I am displaying.
As for gatekeeping, mate, the people that have been pushing this kind of thing are the biggest gatekeepers around, I have no doubt if this forum was run by such individuals I would already have been booted for the sin of disagreeing, seen it happen many many times to others.
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 "competirive edge".
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.
Literally all those words except "mutations" are applicable if Cawl and the IOM are the enactors of the FSM program.
(Irony mode on) I suppose that the extreme xenophobia and religious dogmatism of the IOM make them a much better vessel for female representation than the chaos free thinkers.
I think the issue is, for a representation point of view, only allowing women if they are a mutation brought about by the evil protagonists isn’t great. In all the literature, in all the back ground, chaos are the advisory. The. It’s not great that they are the only ones allowed women.
That said I personally am not against chaos having female marines, but don’t think it should be limited to them. No reason why imperial Marie s can’t be female either.
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.
Yeah gonna say this never happened, mind you the people in question consider criticism abuse and words violence so from their perspective they may genuinely believe it.
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.
No I read the thread just listening to make sure my assessments were correct and I was proven so many times, not by you though, I think of everyone here you are the only honest one even if we disagree, so if you say you are doing it for good reasons, I believe you.
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?
see the lore matters here but not when considering marines are all male, come on now be consistent please, I only suggest it as a compromise, as to an explanation, the sisters are so infused with the power of faith that they are enhanced spiritually and physically by it, the blunted minds of spaces marines precludes them from undergoing the same transformation, thus we now have super soldier sisters (although I would say they already fit that theme).
as to the segregation, theme, nuns and monks, the heavy religious themes of the 40k setting fit this perfectly and as others have correctly pointed out you cannot remove this theme without fundamentally changing the setting which is something people do not want, its an integral part of 40k.
You also seem to disagree that the text from 30 years again is outdated? Show me where it’s current please?
I do not need to, you are yet to provide evidence that it has been invalidated, I can cite the most recent book featuring all male space marines to show its still valid, you cannot do the same, this is not a valid vector of criticism for you and to steel man your argument for a moment this is pointless as you cannot "win" from this perspective, revealed preference shows that marines can only be male as they are only male and when we look into why we see its down to the genetic markers from the gene seed, this is long established and a constant in the 40k setting.
there are valid questions and vectors though, such as Fabious Bile, Cursed founding etc. these are the things you should concentrate on as the above is a non starter, incidentally this is exactly the kind of thing I would be expecting to talk about in the background forum, this should have been moved to off topic ages ago but nevermind eh.
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.
Oh the irony, because that is exactly what I think Gert is doing, just the act of disagreeing with him causing him to become aggressive to the point he decided he would claim my criticisms were insults, this passive aggressive attack is very childish and exactly in keeping of the "victim" mentality he, and you, are claiming I am displaying.
As for gatekeeping, mate, the people that have been pushing this kind of thing are the biggest gatekeepers around, I have no doubt if this forum was run by such individuals I would already have been booted for the sin of disagreeing, seen it happen many many times to others.
I have shown as have we all, the text in question is not in print now, was last printed 4 years ago, and is missing from every spacemarine codex ever. Incidental, every spacemarines codex ever also has a section on the creation of a speace marine in it, and in each and every one that bit of information is missing.
So as a new comer into the game, I look at all the in print information about marines now, and where does it say that it is male only?? NOWHERE! So how is that, as you claim, a “fundamental change to the setting”?
And as for you swaying abuse doesn’t happen? WTF? Open your eye mate. I’ve seen it first hand, it’s been in this thread, and not as you claim in your daily mail way snowflake vulnerableness. Actual real death threats and bigoted abuse. On a face book page I got called a [see forum posting rules], homo and slow just for giving a positive comment on someone else’s picture of a female marines. So if your stance is that the abuse doesn’t happen then you need to get your head out the sand and come back and talk to us when you are prepared to look at the reality of the situation.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 17:24:16
Literally all those words except "mutations" are applicable if Cawl and the IOM are the enactors of the FSM program.
(Irony mode on) I suppose that the extreme xenophobia and religious dogmatism of the IOM make them a much better vessel for female representation than the chaos free thinkers.
Despite it absolutely being the case, the Imperium is not treated as the "bad guys" so we have to take that into account when we consider this change.
Cawl and Bile are both "mad scientists" but in different ways. Cawl is "mad" because he is made up of like 10 different people. Bile is "mad" because he is a CSM and also has a colossal ego that makes him think he is the smartest person in existence.
Also, look at the difference in what their creations are. Cawl improved the Space Marines and created new weapons equipment for them. Bile made the New Men who are mutant humans that exist to kill SM and his other "enhancements" often kill the individual or render them insane.
Yeah gonna say this never happened, mind you the people in question consider criticism abuse and words violence so from their perspective they may genuinely believe it.
I said I wasn't going to interact with Formosa but this is ignorant and extremely dangerous. Here's a hint, when people provide you with evidence of women hobbyists saying they've been sent harassing messages and death threats because they made female SMdo not brush it off as people getting offended over nothing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 17:33:48
I said I wasn't going to interact with Formosa but this is ignorant and extremely dangerous. Here's a hint, when people provide you with evidence of women hobbyists saying they've been sent harassing messages and death threats because they made female SMdo not brush it off as people getting offended over nothing.
I agree, lying or exagerating about harassment is ignorant and extremely dangerous as it makes people no longer trust the real cases that could be happening, and if "anyone" says they are being harassed without evidence I reserve the right to require evidence, the accusation alone is not enough, innocence until proven guilty and burden of proof are fundamental and entirely fair requests.
feel free to PM me the evidence and I am happy to change my position and will publically admit I was wrong and apologise, the evidence I require is that the harassment must be widespread as you claim, specifically about FSM and conversions and actual legitimate threats otherwise I will just dismiss this as a cynical attempt at emotional manipulation and victim culture in order to shut down the conversation.
This is way off topic so any further discussion of this point I will only reply via PMs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have shown as have we all, the text in question is not in print now, was last printed 4 years ago, and is missing from every spacemarine codex ever. Incidental, every spacemarines codex ever also has a section on the creation of a speace marine in it, and in each and every one that bit of information is missing.
It is still part of the background and still adhered to, you cannot show me a single female space marine that would override the previous "lore" of the setting, none of you have been able to provide any credible refutation of this fact
So as a new comer into the game, I look at all the in print information about marines now, and where does it say that it is male only?? NOWHERE! So how is that, as you claim, a “fundamental change to the setting”?
to a newcomer looking at the art, models etc. seeing the clearly male models with no traditionally feminine traits, overly masculine ones and then looking to the novels and seeing all the marines are male, the reasonable inference is that only men can be marines especially with the preponderance of strong female characters in the books, also should this hypothetical new person wish to google it they will find that the gene seed is coded to males, as above you cannot refute this fact and all you have on the subject is your opinion which you are entitled to even if its factually incorrect.
I said
"as to the segregation, theme, nuns and monks, the heavy religious themes of the 40k setting fit this perfectly and as others have correctly pointed out you cannot remove this theme without fundamentally changing the setting which is something people do not want, its an integral part of 40k."
in a separate paragraph for clarity, the religious themes are fundemental, monks and nuns are expressions of that and as such part of that fundemental theme, add male sisters and you break that theme, add female marines and you break that theme.
create another faction with combined monastic and nunnery themes and you have the inquisition, but this is neither the sisters nor the space marines and just as much an important part of the setting.
I deleted the foe outrage part as I do not believe it is genuine and is a way of taking us off topic, want to discuss it further PM me on the subject.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 18:02:38
I might point out that most of that translates them to being better subjects for this sort of transformation than men are? Or that fact that the canon SM transformation in no way resembles how one would actually produce a superhuman?
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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???
Gert said:
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.
I thought that this thread had demostrated that there were no scientific reason for SM to be male only (IE: that the actual process of generating SM was indeed gender neutral and could be applied also to female candidates). If that is the case it must be the will of the Emperor (because he is a misogynist or because any other hidden reason) to make ONLY male Primarchs and ONLY male SM. So from an in universe perspective the authorities of the IOM in the 41st Millenium will surely assume that it was the will of the Emperor / and or an equally holy tradition the reason why SM were an only male brotherhood. There is no need for an explicit reasoning on the matter (many lore elements in 40K arent explicitly explained, nor would a dogmatic theocracy like the IOM need such explanation, just like many traditions in real world societies arent explicitly reasoned but nevertheless are enforced and adopted)
On the other hand one can also assume than neither the Emperor, Custodes, Primarchs, or SM are indeed male but rather (based on the "unreliable narrator" nature of 40K lore) gender neutral/ nor defined and therefore can be taken as She/He/They/X... frankly this would be a much more inclusive approach if GW really wanted to make a step forward towards representation and inclusivity in 40K.
Lets me explain. GW could simply make an official statement that in the 40K gender and race (amongst others) as we understand them in the early XXI century no longer divide humanity and that therefore all humans of the setting can be assume to have any gender or race (or current identity characteristic) no matter the pronouns or descriptions given in the codexes, BL books or whatever lore source (so if Leman Russ is described as a male is just again a matter of the "unreliable narrator" or a "bad translation to low gothic"). Accordingly all future 40K kits depicting human beings (dosent matter if they are named charecters or simple troops) will be supplied with the appropiate male/female/non binary head options. This is the only way that 40K can have representation and inclusivity in a manner that is coherent with how human rights are understood in the XXI century. Compared to this the FSM approach is a very limited endeavaour which lacks any real significance.
PD: sorry I make a mistake with the quote presentation in my post, hope the reference can be understood.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 18:31:23
Vatsetis wrote:(Irony mode on) I suppose that the extreme xenophobia and religious dogmatism of the IOM make them a much better vessel for female representation than the chaos free thinkers.
Again, xenophobia and religious dogmatism never stopped the Imperium having women Guardsmen.
I keep seeing this argument of "but the Imperium's EVIL, why would they want to have women" - we see no institutional sexism in the Imperium, so this argument makes no sense to me.
Formosa wrote:
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.
Yeah gonna say this never happened
And this is exactly what we mean about you not being "polite", or why I doubt you when you claim that you're not insulting anyone and are being entirely in good faith.
You're outright dismissing death threats and abuse. You fundamentally reject the actual victims of this. How are we supposed to take you seriously when you won't take anyone else seriously?
mind you the people in question consider criticism abuse and words violence so from their perspective they may genuinely believe it.
Like how many of the anti-women Astartes folks seem to think that being called out on their ridiculous takes is "purging" and "silencing"?
The difference is that one group are being abused because they put different heads on their plastic models. The other group are just being told that their arguments are kinda stupid.
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?
see the lore matters here but not when considering marines are all male, come on now be consistent please, I only suggest it as a compromise, as to an explanation, the sisters are so infused with the power of faith that they are enhanced spiritually and physically by it, the blunted minds of spaces marines precludes them from undergoing the same transformation, thus we now have super soldier sisters (although I would say they already fit that theme).
But Sisters *aren't* Space Marines any more so than Guardsmen are Space Marines. I don't get why you're trying to erase the very good niche that Sisters have, and try and act like they're just women Space Marines.
Arguably, that's exactly *why* we need actual women Space Marines - because Sisters aren't it, not just from a gameplay perspective, but from a design one, an aesthetic one, and a themed one.
as to the segregation, theme, nuns and monks, the heavy religious themes of the 40k setting fit this perfectly and as others have correctly pointed out you cannot remove this theme without fundamentally changing the setting which is something people do not want, its an integral part of 40k.
And as Deadnight and I have both illustrated, the heavily religious theme (if it even exists for Space Marines) doesn't preclude the existence of women Astartes.
And again, I'm more than happy to argue that Space Marines, as a holistic faction, do not embody "religious" traits any more so than any Imperial faction does. And, lest I neglect to mention it, most branches of the Imperial military are gender-neutral.
You also seem to disagree that the text from 30 years again is outdated? Show me where it’s current please?
I do not need to, you are yet to provide evidence that it has been invalidated
Show me where it says in the Codex that Space Marines must be all male, and why.
I can point to the Codex, and the lack of any evidence of this supposedly critical piece of identity.
I can cite the most recent book featuring all male space marines to show its still valid
I can point at a book only featuring male guardsmen as a reason why they're all male - but we all know that they're not.
this is long established and a constant in the 40k setting.
A constant that appears in only, what, four written publications?
There's more lore out there about Abaddon's sword than there is about Space Marine gender.
this is exactly the kind of thing I would be expecting to talk about in the background forum, this should have been moved to off topic ages ago but nevermind eh.
We are discussing the background - namely why the background is the way it is, instead of myopically accepting ridiculously exclusive lore.
As for gatekeeping, mate, the people that have been pushing this kind of thing are the biggest gatekeepers around
Show us where you were gatekept by people asking for women Space Marines.
I have no doubt if this forum was run by such individuals I would already have been booted for the sin of disagreeing, seen it happen many many times to others.
"Sin of disagreeing"? As we've seen, there's nothing wrong with disagreement, some bloke and I have been disagreeing about aspects of this for pages at a time - but thankfully, some bloke has never resorted to blatantly sexist arguments, because they seem to be a person of integrity.
Formosa wrote:I agree, lying or exagerating about harassment is ignorant and extremely dangerous as it makes people no longer trust the real cases that could be happening
So why are you ignoring it now?
and if "anyone" says they are being harassed without evidence I reserve the right to require evidence, the accusation alone is not enough, innocence until proven guilty and burden of proof are fundamental and entirely fair requests.
Sure. Show us the evidence here about all your claims of people wanting to "take power". Your claims how the pro-women Astartes "side" are "gatekeeping". Your claims on how you're being "purged and silenced".
I'm notoriously patient.
I have shown as have we all, the text in question is not in print now, was last printed 4 years ago, and is missing from every spacemarine codex ever. Incidental, every spacemarines codex ever also has a section on the creation of a speace marine in it, and in each and every one that bit of information is missing.
It is still part of the background
In obscure publications - not exactly a piece of critically important lore, really.
and still adhered to, you cannot show me a single female space marine that would override the previous "lore" of the setting, none of you have been able to provide any credible refutation of this fact
No-one's claiming it's not adhered to. What people are saying is that it's an utterly inconsequential and pointless piece of lore, so why does it need to exist?
to a newcomer looking at the art, models etc. seeing the clearly male models with no traditionally feminine traits, overly masculine ones
What "overly masculine" traits? How is a helmeted Space Marine "overly masculine?"
and then looking to the novels and seeing all the marines are male, the reasonable inference is that only men can be marines
Like how I can infer that Guardsmen can only be male, because there's barely any women Guardsmen models? Right?
especially with the preponderance of strong female characters in the books
That's not what preponderance means.
also should this hypothetical new person wish to google it they will find that the gene seed is coded to males
And I can google "lore" that tells me the Ultramarines have a half-Eldar Chief Astropath, or lore about how Abaddon is an armless failure.
Googled lore isn't always accurate or reflective of importance.
in a separate paragraph for clarity, the religious themes are fundemental, monks and nuns are expressions of that and as such part of that fundemental theme, add male sisters and you break that theme, add female marines and you break that theme.
Evidently, you haven't been reading Deadnight or my own posts on the matter, because you'd see that, because of the vast array of monastic traditions, there is no requirement to be male.
Space Marines cover such a massive range of aesthetic and cultural designs - why is "no women" such a critical one to focus on?
CEO Kasen wrote: 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.
Huh? No, your disagreements with the study of female-written narratives aside, the study I linked about women being less thing-oriented than men, on average, was very robust. And people here were stunningly unaware of basic genomics, that gak's googleable.
Again, I can generally assume that when y'all stop engaging with one of my points, it's because you know you're beat in that area.
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 "competirive edge".
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.
Literally all those words except "mutations" are applicable if Cawl and the IOM are the enactors of the FSM program.
(Irony mode on) I suppose that the extreme xenophobia and religious dogmatism of the IOM make them a much better vessel for female representation than the chaos free thinkers.
I think the issue is, for a representation point of view, only allowing women if they are a mutation brought about by the evil protagonists isn’t great. In all the literature, in all the back ground, chaos are the advisory. The. It’s not great that they are the only ones allowed women.
That said I personally am not against chaos having female marines, but don’t think it should be limited to them. No reason why imperial Marie s can’t be female either.
But Im not saying that FSM are to be limited to chaos. Im just saying that chaos (you known the free thinker faction not constricted by tradition and dogma like the IOM) could be the one to START having FSM and later (in universe, in the marketing and modelling it could be done simultaneously) the loyalist can adopt them not to lose the edge.
Its very annoying that my words are sistematically manipulated and misquoted in this thread. I really hope is not intentional, but fellow posters should perhaps read other post more carefully.
CSM are restricted by certain traditions and dogma though. There's literally an example of a female warrior in the Bile novels who is actively shunned and kept away from command because she is female, despite being an excellent fighter and devoted adherent of Slaanesh that is as strong and tough as a CSM.
Chaos isn't "free-thinking" it's just not "Imperial thinking".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 18:46:52
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.
I thought that this thread had demostrated that there were no scientific reason for SM to be male only (IE: that the actual process of generating SM was indeed gender neutral and could be applied also to female candidates).
Not exactly. The thread demonstrated that if there were biological reasons, they would be entirely arbitrary. Not that there was no scientific reason at all. There totally *could* be a biological reason - but it would completely and utterly arbitrary, not based in any actual real science.
If that is the case it must be the will of the Emperor (because he is a misogynist or because any other hidden reason) to make ONLY male Primarchs and ONLY male SM.
The problem with this is that we have mixed gender Guardsmen, Solar Auxilia, AdMech, Knight Houses, and basically every other Imperial military branch.
If the Emperor was such a raging misogynist, why are *any* Imperial military arms mixed gender?
So from an in universe perspective the authorities of the IOM in the 41st Millenium will surely assume that it was the will of the Emperor / and or an equally holy tradition the reason why SM were an only male brotherhood.
Again, guardsmen.
There is no need for an explicit reasoning on the matter (many lore elements in 40K arent explicitly explained, nor would a dogmatic theocracy like the IOM need such explanation, just like many traditions in real world societies arent explicitly reasoned but nevertheless are enforced and adopted)
But it's completely incongruous with *everything else we see about the Imperium*.
Hell, the Emperor didn't even make the Space Marines. That was the work of Amar Astarte - the head scientist of the Astartes project, hired by the Emperor, and a woman.
On the other hand one can also assume than neither the Emperor, Custodes, Primarchs, or SM are indeed male but rather (based on the "unreliable narrator" nature of 40K lore) gender neutral/ nor defined and therefore can be taken as She/He/They/X... frankly this would be a much more inclusive approach if GW really wanted to make a step forward towards representation and inclusivity in 40K.
Possibly, but as I've said, representation without visibility isn't representation.
Now, if GW went ahead and just included Astartes with female pronouns and presentation, that would be good.
Lets me explain. GW could simply make an official statement that in the 40K gender and race (amongst others) as we understand them in the early XXI century no longer divide humanity and that therefore all humans of the setting can be assume to have any gender or race (or current identity characteristic) no matter the pronouns or descriptions given in the codexes, BL books or whatever lore source (so if Leman Russ is described as a male is just again a matter of the "unreliable narrator" or a "bad translation to low gothic"). Accordingly all future 40K kits depicting human beings (dosent matter if they are named charecters or simple troops) will be supplied with the appropiate male/female/non binary head options. This is the only way that 40K can have representation and inclusivity in a manner that is coherent with how human rights are understood in the XXI century. Compared to this the FSM approach is a very limited endeavaour which lacks any real significance.
I don't mind that - but as I've said, representation needs to be *visible* to be truly representative. So, if you include the male/female/non-binary (being non-binary myself, that doesn't mean androgynous. Just to clarify) heads, that's fine - including in the Space Marines though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 18:56:47
Vatsetis wrote:(Irony mode on) I suppose that the extreme xenophobia and religious dogmatism of the IOM make them a much better vessel for female representation than the chaos free thinkers.
Again, xenophobia and religious dogmatism never stopped the Imperium having women Guardsmen.
I keep seeing this argument of "but the Imperium's EVIL, why would they want to have women" - we see no institutional sexism in the Imperium, so this argument makes no sense to me.
Another misquote. You are mixing and confusing arguments I made at different moments of the thread.
I wasnt arguing about the existence or not of institutional sexism in the Imperium, but rather that chaos but be a better vessel to introduce FSM into the setting.
Hecaton wrote:Again, I can generally assume that when y'all stop engaging with one of my points, it's because you know you're beat in that area.
Like how you've not responded or engaged at all with mine?
Or, perhaps, like I assume you've done with mine, they're just tired of dealing with those points. The difference is that they're tired of your awful takes, and you're tired of my calling you out on them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, xenophobia and religious dogmatism never stopped the Imperium having women Guardsmen.
I keep seeing this argument of "but the Imperium's EVIL, why would they want to have women" - we see no institutional sexism in the Imperium, so this argument makes no sense to me.
It varies by writer. Lore states that majority of guard regiments are single gender, but female generals seem to be incredibly rare (only three are known in Lore) and, attempting to deal with it makes up the bulk of the internal drama of the regiment in For the Emperor if you review the insults being thrown back and forth between troopers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 18:54:58
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Vatsetis wrote:(Irony mode on) I suppose that the extreme xenophobia and religious dogmatism of the IOM make them a much better vessel for female representation than the chaos free thinkers.
Again, xenophobia and religious dogmatism never stopped the Imperium having women Guardsmen.
I keep seeing this argument of "but the Imperium's EVIL, why would they want to have women" - we see no institutional sexism in the Imperium, so this argument makes no sense to me.
Another misquote. You are mixing and confusing arguments I made at different moments of the thread.
I wasnt arguing about the existence or not of institutional sexism in the Imperium, but rather that chaos but be a better vessel to introduce FSM into the setting.
This is so sad.
It's not really a misquote - at least, that is completely how the original quote read to me. And again, it's another misunderstanding of what we're doing for "female representation". Representing women through CSM is pointless in the same way it's pointless representing them in Harlequins - because CSM aren't the flagship faction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Lore states that majority of guard regiments are single gender
Source?
but female generals seem to be incredibly rare (only three are known in Lore)
And I don't know any generals in lore that carry a power axe, yet I can find plenty of them represented on tabletop without people telling me they're non-canon.
End of the day, they're not rare because of an explicit reason, they're rare because we don't get stories about them, which could be due to real world reasons.
attempting to deal with it makes up the bulk of the internal drama of the regiment in For the Emperor.
And in other stories, there's no issues with it whatsoever, and the women members of the regiments are just as valued as the men.
Similarly, I can point to Space Marine stories where they're dealing with closet heretics and corruption within the Chapter - does that mean that all Space Marine Chapters are rife with corruption and heresy?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 18:56:22
Sure, I'll explain in more detail why what you're saying is wrongheaded and based off an incorrect understanding of the science.
Saying that women are "more resilient to changes" is an incredibly generalized statement that isn't meaningfully true; one can say that men are more resistant to changes in one area, and women are more resistant in others. One study that shows that female humans have favorable outcomes from trauma-hemorrhaging; big deal. All you've shown is that yes, the sexes are meaningfully biologically different. That *increased* the likelihood that the process only works on one sex or the other. It doesn't say that women are more responsive to fantastical sci-fi processes designed to make them superhuman.
Your comment about the process of making Astartes working on weak boy, therefore it must work on strong women, fails because we do not know the mechanism of action of the process. As I've said before, it might work via upregulating genes on the Y chromosome that are not found in female humans, and therefore a weak boy makes a workable candidate where even a peak-health girl does not.
You claim that women are "used to experience hormonal imbalances," but, for example, hormonal birth control works in women because their system of hormones that controls their reproductive system is more easily disrupted. The male analog is more resilient; hormones can lower the sperm count, but not remove fertility altogether the way it can in women. Your ideas about "WOMEN ARE STRONGER THAN MAN" are fairy tales that you believe for ideological reasons, not truths. The sexes are different, biologically. The process to create Astartes is a fictional process; one could easily say that it only works on male humans *due to these biological differences.*
You don't define "Stronger" in a way that is applicable to the fictional process used to create Astartes, and you don't show that women are stronger than men. You aren't proving anything, and, to be frank, given your amateur-level understanding of English I don't think you're doing much reading of technical documentation like scientific papers with any sort of understanding.
Cybtroll wrote: Really opposing to Crawl introducing female marine can't stand on Amy lore argument.
Yes, yes it can. It's a fictional process, it can only work on people with three nipples if you want it to.
It varies by writer. Lore states that majority of guard regiments are single gender, but female generals seem to be incredibly rare (only three are known in Lore) and, attempting to deal with it makes up the bulk of the internal drama of the regiment in For the Emperor if you review the insults being thrown back and forth between troopers.
I mean there aren't many AM characters to begin with. Creed (may or may not be dead), Kell (dead), Yarrick, Straken, Harker, Nork, and Raine. So yeah there aren't a whole lot of ranking women characters but there's been plenty in BL novels which is where representation tends to shine through anyway. But again it's an issue with GW portraying 40k as a boys game and featuring very few female characters.
Vatsetis wrote: Its very annoying that my words are sistematically manipulated and misquoted in this thread. I really hope is not intentional, but fellow posters should perhaps read other post more carefully.
You know it is, and honestly the mods should step in and do something about it, but I'm guessing that at least one of them has a strong bias here, where they think that the pro-FSM side is allowed to hurl abuse but any impoliteness sent back at them is forbidden.
Lets me explain. GW could simply make an official statement that in the 40K gender and race (amongst others) as we understand them in the early XXI century no longer divide humanity and that therefore all humans of the setting can be assume to have any gender or race (or current identity characteristic) no matter the pronouns or descriptions given in the codexes, BL books or whatever lore source (so if Leman Russ is described as a male is just again a matter of the "unreliable narrator" or a "bad translation to low gothic"). Accordingly all future 40K kits depicting human beings (dosent matter if they are named charecters or simple troops) will be supplied with the appropiate male/female/non binary head options. This is the only way that 40K can have representation and inclusivity in a manner that is coherent with how human rights are understood in the XXI century. Compared to this the FSM approach is a very limited endeavaour which lacks any real significance.
I don't mind that - but as I've said, representation needs to be *visible* to be truly representative. So, if you include the male/female/non-binary (being non-binary myself, that doesn't mean androgynous. Just to clarify) heads, that's fine - including in the Space Marines though.
[
Is there any reason why the IOM has to be 100% misoginistic or 100% inclusive regarding gender? this is how historical societies actually work (this is the reallity of the US and many other military today), so it only makes the setting more "feasible". Mixed imperial guard can exist in a setting together with male only astartes and female only sorotitas.
I understand your end goal, but your framing of the issue is not the only legitimate, please stop arguing in such a manner.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:03:50
Hecaton wrote: honestly the mods should step in and do something about it, but I'm guessing that at least one of them has a strong bias here, where they think that the pro-FSM side is allowed to hurl abuse but any impoliteness sent back at them is forbidden.
Ah, the old "the mods are biased, that's why the people calling me out haven't been silenced".
Again - "impoliteness" - bold words coming from the person claiming that everyone pro-women Astartes is only in it for sexual deviancy.
Y’know I think I’d say something right about now- but oh, wait, I’m
-female
-white
-well-educated
And thus I’m part of a demographic that has nothing relevant to say. Thanks to Hecaton for that post a little while back reminding me of the fact.
See that stuff above? Completely true. All of it, every single word. Stands to reason.
DalekCheese wrote: Y’know I think I’d say something right about now- but oh, wait, I’m
-female
-white
-well-educated
And thus I’m part of a demographic that has nothing relevant to say. Thanks to Hecaton for that post a little while back reminding me of the fact.
Are you interested in wargaming? Since you're here, I assume you are. If you thought that that's what I was saying than you misread me, possibly willfully.
End of the day, they're not rare because of an explicit reason,
Other than the explicit lore statement that Women only make up about 10% of the guard and that for a very long time Jenit Sulla was the ONLY canon female Lord General in the Guard.
And in other stories, there's no issues with it whatsoever, and the women members of the regiments are just as valued as the men.
Funny, I can't think of any of them where it doesn't come up to some degree outside of Gaunt's Ghosts, and maybe Minka Lesk, and I seem to recall some friction even there. Maybe there's some new books I haven't read yet.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Vatsetis wrote: Is there any reason why the IOM has to be 100% misoginistic or 100% inclusive regarding gender?
Not at all. I've made it very clear I'm fine with Custodes being all-male and Sisters being all-female. But I'm questioning why the Space Marines need to be all-male, because the Imperium clearly isn't institutionally sexist.
Why?
this is how historical societies actually work (this is the reallity of the US and many other military today), so it only makes the setting more "feasible".
So, we should just get rid of power armoured super soldiers in general, because they're not historical either, so that makes the setting more "feasible"?
Again, feasibility - why is it more feasible to imagine that we can fight sentient fungus monsters, but not have women Space Marines?
Mixed imperial guard can exist in a setting together with male only astartes and female only sorotitas.
Yes, they can - but that doesn't answer why Space Marines need to be male in the first place.
It's not because the Imperium is sexist. It's not because of biology (because biology is arbitrary in the creation of a made up Super Soldier) It's not because the monk aesthetic prevents it.
So why do Space Marines need to be all male?
I understand your end goal, but your framing of the issue is not the only legitimate, please stop arguing in such a manner.
Sure, but when I'm pointing out how there's problems in the claim that "the Imperium is institutionally sexist", that's not an improper argument. I'm not being rude in addressing that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:11:10
I mean there aren't many AM characters to begin with. Creed (may or may not be dead), Kell (dead), Yarrick, Straken, Harker, Nork, and Raine. So yeah there aren't a whole lot of ranking women characters but there's been plenty in BL novels which is where representation tends to shine through anyway. But again it's an issue with GW portraying 40k as a boys game and featuring very few female characters.
None of the women were generals from BL besides Sulla until Wolfs Honor. FFG was actually more inclusive than BL was when it came to women in positions of authority (other than Inquisitors, and maybe even then)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:09:45
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
DalekCheese wrote: Y’know I think I’d say something right about now- but oh, wait, I’m -female -white -well-educated And thus I’m part of a demographic that has nothing relevant to say. Thanks to Hecaton for that post a little while back reminding me of the fact.
Are you interested in wargaming? Since you're here, I assume you are. If you thought that that's what I was saying than you misread me, possibly willfully.
End of the day, they're not rare because of an explicit reason,
Other than the explicit lore statement that Women only make up about 10% of the guard and that for a very long time Jenit Sulla was the ONLY canon female Lord General in the Guard.
Again, where was that explicit lore? I don't believe I've seen it in any Codex or current publication.
And in other stories, there's no issues with it whatsoever, and the women members of the regiments are just as valued as the men.
Funny, I can't think of any of them where it doesn't come up to some degree outside of Gaunt's Ghosts, and maybe Minka Lesk, and I seem to recall some friction even there. Maybe there's some new books I haven't read yet.
Gaunt's Ghosts is the main one, as well as the Severina Raine novels. If we're including other media, we can include the Indomitus trailer, the Space Marine video game, and explicit lore about Cadia, where women are only judged by their service, not their gender - just like men.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:11:43
Vatsetis wrote: I thought that this thread had demostrated that there were no scientific reason for SM to be male only (IE: that the actual process of generating SM was indeed gender neutral and could be applied also to female candidates).
That's the exact opposite of the case - I provided the direct quotation earlier in this thread in response to the false claim that it didn't actually exist:
Also, expectations are a funny thing. I've recovered both the Index Astartes 1 and 2. I was pretty sure somewhere a mention to the Marine gender would appear. Guess what? Wasn't there.
I always implied it, but in the entire two book there isn't a single mention to the fact that Marine are male (aside from some gendered pronouns). Reading all the 19 steps of the implantation process and the implications of that makes even clearer that neither the sex or the gender of the candidate have any bearing.
'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.' 'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7 (my emphasis)
Vatsetis wrote: I thought that this thread had demostrated that there were no scientific reason for SM to be male only (IE: that the actual process of generating SM was indeed gender neutral and could be applied also to female candidates).
That's the exact opposite of the case - I provided the direct quotation earlier in this thread in response to the false claim that it didn't actually exist:
Also, expectations are a funny thing. I've recovered both the Index Astartes 1 and 2. I was pretty sure somewhere a mention to the Marine gender would appear. Guess what? Wasn't there. I always implied it, but in the entire two book there isn't a single mention to the fact that Marine are male (aside from some gendered pronouns). Reading all the 19 steps of the implantation process and the implications of that makes even clearer that neither the sex or the gender of the candidate have any bearing.
'These considerations mean that only a small proportion of people can become Space Marines. They must be male because zygotes are keyed to male hormones and tissue types, hence the need for tissue tests and psychological screening.' 'Rites of Initiation: The Creation of a Space Marine' in Index Astartes Volume I, pg.7 (my emphasis)
Yeah, we're all in agreement that lore exists, that much is evident - the issue is that it's so very rarely published and in such an obscured manner, I don't understand the importance that people have ascribed to it, and as such, how relevant it really is.
It's a small distinction, but I don't want to be misrepresented here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/11 19:14:10
