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.

 Gert wrote:
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".

So the only legitimate in universe case of sexism in the hole 40k lore affects the chaos forces???

Can any one give me a reason that is not personal preference as to why Cawl would ve a legitimate enforcer of FSM and Bile wont??

The reason should not be that in the current GW marketing loyalist are the good guys and chaos are the baddies... Because all this FSM cause is aim precisely at changing decisevely GW marketing.

Some of the posters here are able to nit pick in a masterfull manner.

I'm at like page 44, and I'm not going through another 20 bloody pages of tripe written by people arguing in bad faith to find a link.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/
That's what I found, here's the bit that matters:

Editor’s Note: This article comes from one of yesteryear’s publications called Index Astartes I, originally printed in 2002, and the information contained within has been revisited and updated in many a Codex: Space Marines since. For posterity’s sake, we wanted to present the original article in full, despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years.

In the current 9th Edition Codex: Space Marines, there is one use of explicit depiction of male Space Marines in the "Creation of a Space Marine" section and it is the phrase "Gene-Sons". That's it. There is not a single piece of background in the current or previous Codexes (according to another poster) that says SM can only be mal because of zygotes, DNA, or whatever other pseudoscience people want to quote.
There isn't explicit contradiction but there sure as hell isn't any support for the claim either.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

I find this info on the AM very interesting. Thanks. Could you expand on it, please?

 Gert wrote:
I'm at like page 44, and I'm not going through another 20 bloody pages of tripe written by people arguing in bad faith to find a link.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/
That's what I found, here's the bit that matters:

Editor’s Note: This article comes from one of yesteryear’s publications called Index Astartes I, originally printed in 2002, and the information contained within has been revisited and updated in many a Codex: Space Marines since. For posterity’s sake, we wanted to present the original article in full, despite changes that have been rendered to the detail (some subtle; others less so) in the intervening years.

So... yeah. The same article I linked to then.

I'm just going to go ahead and press X to doubt then.

Vatsetis wrote:
So the only legitimate in universe case of sexism in the hole 40k lore affects the chaos forces???

Legitimate? No, because there is no legitimate reason for sexism. Suggesting that female SM would come from Chaos because CSM are "free thinkers" is a disingenuous point to make since the CSM are just as likely to not be ok with the change as loyalist Chapters, except the loyalists have Guilliman and some tall people in gold armour with pointy sticks that speak with the voice of the Emperor.

Can any one give me a reason that is not personal preference as to why Cawl would ve a legitimate enforcer of FSM and Bile wont??

What do you mean by personal preference? Bile is literally one of the evilest characters in the setting, which says a lot.

The reason should not be that in the current GW marketing loyalist are the good guys and chaos are the baddies... Because all this FSM cause is aim precisely at changing decisevely GW marketing.

GW marketing would have to do a complete 180 for the last 30 odd years to prevent SM and the Imperium from being seen as the "good guy" faction in 40k. The specific times Imperial forces are presented as less than paragons of goodness, people whine and moan for ages about it.

Some of the posters here are able to nit pick in a masterfull manner.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

I'm just going to go ahead and press X to doubt then.

It literally says that the information in the passage has been revised and revisited since the article was published in 2002. Read the rest of my post and tell me why I should listen to an out of print publication over a current one.

Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Again legendary level of nitpicking.

The current lore and how the lore "should" be according to your ideology are two separate things. Im trying to argue "in universe" as to why Astartes are indeed an all male force.

This shouldnt be problematic to anyone that dosent have a delussion that make them mix their desires with external reality.

The "not institutionally sexist" Imperium can have single gender Custodes and Sob but not single gender Adeptus Astartes?

And you ask why others think you argue based on preconceptions?

 Gert wrote:

Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.

We rarely stop to commend one another for the work they put in a thread like this; Just know that your efforts do not go unappreciated, at least by me.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.

We rarely stop to commend one another for the work they put in a thread like this; Just know that your efforts do not go unappreciated, at least by me.

Add another commendation and thanks for your sterling work Gert. You so eloquently phrase what I'm thinking in so many arguments.
It's genuinely appreciated.

 Gert wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

I'm just going to go ahead and press X to doubt then.

It literally says that the information in the passage has been revised and revisited since the article was published in 2002. Read the rest of my post and tell me why I should listen to an out of print publication over a current one.

To quote myself from earlier:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

The Warhammer Community article didn't say that [all of] (or what of) the material was supposedly outdated.
EDIT: In fact it doesn't say that it is outdated at all. It claims that 'changes have been rendered to the detail' (sic)

Which changes have been rendered? To which detail? Why are you assuming that this applies seemingly specifically to the part of the text which you don't like? Why are you even taking anything Warhammer Community say seriously - thy're not exactly known for their accuracy?

By your own admission, the current Codex: Space Marines refers to Marines only as male. There is absolutely no evidence that Space Marines can be female according to the 'current' background.

And so I ask again:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So is everything not in the current Codex: Space Marines non-canon?

Because that's what you're effectively arguing - that if it isn't explicitly in the [a] current book it isn't canon - and this is why arguments relying on 'retcon by omission' always devolve into contradictions and absurdities - because nobody actually believes that as a principle; it's always just some variation of 'well this doesn't count because I don't like it'.

 Gert wrote:
Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.

Oh please.

a) You don't HAVE to do this.
b) If you did do this every single day, you might have some better references and arguments
c) You've cited a source which seemingly doesn't exist; claimed that there's some time limit on background, and then immediately walked that back; attempted to misrepresent my arguments/claims; and now you're the one getting shirty?


And just to clarify, I'm fine with you (or anybody else) not liking that the background says that Marine aspirants have to be male. I'm fine with you (or anybody else) wanting to change that. What I'm not fine with is this strange rigmarole we've now been through where people have claimed that the background never really said that (untrue), or the background is beyond an arbitrary age limit and so doesn't count (illogical, terrible argument), or that GW said that the background wasn't valid (untrue), or that I'm some sort of big meanie for pointing these things out.

Happen I'm significantly less emotionally invested in this topic than you are. Perhaps take a couple of days off?

Vatsetis wrote:
Again legendary level of nitpicking.

The current lore and how the lore "should" be according to your ideology are two separate things. Im trying to argue "in universe" as to why Astartes are indeed an all male force.

This shouldnt be problematic to anyone that dosent have a delussion that make them mix their desires with external reality.

The "not institutionally sexist" Imperium can have single gender Custodes and Sob but not single gender Adeptus Astartes?

And you ask why others think you argue based on preconceptions?

From what I could parse of this - I agree that there should be female Custodes and male Sororitas along with FSM. You open the gates to all genders for internal consistency in an Imperium that lacks sexism as a flaw.

If I were to interpret things positively, what Smudge literally said is that they're okay with monogendered Custodes/SoB, not that it's the optimal outcome.

EDIT: Pronoun change

 Gert wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
So the only legitimate in universe case of sexism in the hole 40k lore affects the chaos forces???

Legitimate? No, because there is no legitimate reason for sexism. Suggesting that female SM would come from Chaos because CSM are "free thinkers" is a disingenuous point to make since the CSM are just as likely to not be ok with the change as loyalist Chapters, except the loyalists have Guilliman and some tall people in gold armour with pointy sticks that speak with the voice of the Emperor.

Can any one give me a reason that is not personal preference as to why Cawl would ve a legitimate enforcer of FSM and Bile wont??

What do you mean by personal preference? Bile is literally one of the evilest characters in the setting, which says a lot.

The reason should not be that in the current GW marketing loyalist are the good guys and chaos are the baddies... Because all this FSM cause is aim precisely at changing decisevely GW marketing.

GW marketing would have to do a complete 180 for the last 30 odd years to prevent SM and the Imperium from being seen as the "good guy" faction in 40k. The specific times Imperial forces are presented as less than paragons of goodness, people whine and moan for ages about it.

Some of the posters here are able to nit pick in a masterfull manner.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

I'm just going to go ahead and press X to doubt then.

It literally says that the information in the passage has been revised and revisited since the article was published in 2002. Read the rest of my post and tell me why I should listen to an out of print publication over a current one.

Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.

Lets put it this way... If I say that there can be sexism in the IOM, this is labelled as anathema... If I point out that chaos might be a better starting point for FSM because they are not as constrain by tradition as the loyalist... Im pointed into cases of sexism amongst CSM. This is nitpicking, and dosent look as very good faith to me.

If anything this shows sexism is a part of the setting (its debatable as to which extent, perhaps it shouldnt prevent FSM, but it certainly exists).

The IOM are not the good guys... And chaos arent just the bad guys... There is a lot of nuance to both factions (even in Bile).

Gert Im very sorry you feel that way about the thread, but you should be aware that you make others feel exactly the same way. Perhaps we should all step back a bit and be less controversial and more empathic to each other.

Winning an argument is pointless if at the end of the day all sides feel miserable.

I, for one, am pointing out that the interpretation of the lore I saw here aren't in line with how simple logic applied to fiction works.
You rely essentially on a concept of authorship abandoned almost a century ago: that's not how fiction works (specifically modern fiction based on commercial goals with multiple authors spanning across multiple games and decades).
It's an entire different topic, and you find it explained my post in the previous page (it's the last I think?). And again, it's 100% about the lore.

Also: of course discussion on forum are based on nitpicking, carefully selecting only part of the antagonize discourses, and applies all sorts of misrepresentation. It's implicit in on the forum asynchronous structure.
That said, I firmly believe that such tricks can't work and only damage those who use them... because the majority of the readers (which lurks, rather than write) are perfectly capable of discerning between a good faith argument, and a bad faith one.

grahamdbailey wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.

We rarely stop to commend one another for the work they put in a thread like this; Just know that your efforts do not go unappreciated, at least by me.

Add another commendation and thanks for your sterling work Gert. You so eloquently phrase what I'm thinking in so many arguments.
It's genuinely appreciated.

And another commendation for the hard work you have dedicated to this forum.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Again legendary level of nitpicking.

The current lore and how the lore "should" be according to your ideology are two separate things. Im trying to argue "in universe" as to why Astartes are indeed an all male force.

This shouldnt be problematic to anyone that dosent have a delussion that make them mix their desires with external reality.

The "not institutionally sexist" Imperium can have single gender Custodes and Sob but not single gender Adeptus Astartes?

And you ask why others think you argue based on preconceptions?

From what I could parse of this - I agree that there should be female Custodes and male Sororitas along with FSM. You open the gates to all genders for internal consistency in an Imperium that lacks sexism as a flaw.

If I were to interpret things positively, what Smudge literally said is that he's okay with monogendered Custodes/SoB, not that it's the optimal outcome.

Yes I also understand it that way. But what things are and what things should be are different planes of debate. People keep muddling the waters at this point.

If I explain that poverty and imperialism create the preconditions for terrorist organizations Im not endorsing terrorism.

If I explain that in the lore of the IOM there is room for single gender military organisations (because the Emperor was a misoginist and the IOM follows traditions blindly) im not endorsing sexism in the gamming community.

The issue is, the lore as it is now DOES give sexists ammo and cover. Real-word sexists, not fictional ones.

That could change-it won’t change the sexist individuals, but it will make it clearer who they are and that it’s not acceptable. Isn’t that something that should be strived for?

Specifically, I may add, when it comes with essentially no drawback at all?

Since everyone seems to be patting each other on the back.

Well done Hecatron, Damocles and vatsetis, you have all endured a lot of abuse and gaslighting for daring to stand up for yourselves and its appreciated you put the effort in, found sources proving your points and made fair arguments in favour of your stances, bigotry and hate are hard to stand up to and you should be applauded for doing so.

Sadly though football did not come home this night, the greatest tragedy.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yeah, we're all in agreement that lore exists, that much is evident...

Clearly not, since at least two posters now have claimed the opposite!

Agreement, perhaps not. But have I at the very least made clear of that much? Yes. I've already highlighted how the person we were replying to may have made an error in what they were claiming.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, where was that explicit lore? I don't believe I've seen it in any Codex or current publication.

Ah, we're off to the Codex, last refuge of a lore weasel.

I wouldn't exactly call myself a "lore weasel". Apparently, I'm the kind of person who doesn't regard the lore as "sacred" or "sacrosanct".

All I'm saying is that if it were so important, like how this whole thing about how relevant Space Marines being men was, you'd see it in a damned Codex. If it ain't in a Codex, is it really so important and critical to a faction's identity?

I mean, honestly, tell me a piece of lore that's absolutely critical to the identity of a faction that wasn't in it's Codex?

Again, I don't think I'm asking too much for you to quote exactly where this whole "women aren't a major part of the Imperial Guard" tangent comes from.

While Sandy Mitchell's Cain series is the main source for this

You mean the notoriously unreliably narrated and rather old BL book?

Forgive me, but of all the examples of "reliable data" you could give me, it certainly wouldn't be from a Cain novel.

(Particularly the aforementioned For the Emperor, which is still in print) it also turns up in Imperial Munitorum Manual

Books being in print isn't any sort of legitimacy. From what I understand, Ian Watson's 'Space Marine' is still sold by BL, and that's hilariously outdated.

I also own the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer, and that makes no reference to sex or gender at all. What does it say in the Munitorum Manual? If you could, screenshots would be very appreciated here.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Gaunt's Ghosts is not a typical guard novel series. Some of the other books openly mock it.

Isn't it typical? I seem to recall BL touting it as one of their most iconic and influential. If Gaunt's Ghosts isn't considered one of the most iconic and probably THE archetypical Guardsman series, what is?

Space Marine is not the example you like to think it is. 2nd Lieutenant Mira is literally the last officer left in the 203rd Cadian.

And is still qualified to lead. She faces no insubordination, or doubt in her ability to command the regiment as second lieutenant, let alone as a woman.

Not even Leandros, the most likely person to be a sexist assbag, comments on it.

The Indomistus trailer only has three guardsman in it, and the woman is the only one not disintegrated. While it's undeniable that she's in command at that point, in command of 'what'?

I never claimed "command" - I claimed service. Women Guardsmen are capable of service like any other Guardsman, and I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

And, to be blunt, Cadian PDF isn't the Guard, no matter how awesome they may have been. The only Cadian women to go off world served in mixed units such as the 203, the 'all female' ones, ie the majority, were assigned to the interior guard, Cadia's PDF, per Gunheads

Again, I made no claim about "all female" regiments. I simply stated that being a woman was no impediment to service, as evidenced by the 203rd.

Mixed gender Guard units are canon, and what's more, I see no reason they aren't *common* at that.

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Gert wrote:
More core than the 9th Edition Space Marine Codex? Thought not.
Would you like to post more nonsense or would you like to contribute something useful?

So is everything not in the current Codex: Space Marines non-canon?

That's not what was claimed. What was claimed was "non-core", not "non-canon".

There's a distinction.

Non-core would imply that this *isn't* considered a key aspect of the faction. For example, the fact that the Ultramarines use the "practical/theoretical" model. As far as I'm concerned, it's an important part of Ultramarines lore and canon, but is it "core" content? Of course not!

Something can be "canon", but not "core". That is the distinction that Gert is making here.

Lord Damocles wrote:Index Astartes I was published in 2002 (I'm pretty sure there was a later re-release of all of the volumes together too).

The Warhammer Community article didn't say that [all of] (or what of) the material was supposedly outdated.
EDIT: In fact it doesn't say that it is outdated at all. It claims that 'changes have been rendered to the detail' (sic)

Sorry, but all that does is put the entire document at risk of being outdated. As you say, "changes have been rendered to the detail" - which details? Without any specific information on those details, the entire document could be considered unreliable, as any of those "changes rendered to the detail" could affect anything.

End of the day, it's an unreliable document.

And and, the Community article (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2016/11/16/rites-of-initiation-the-making-of-a-space-marine/), which contains the stipulation that potential recruits be male, was published in 2016, so it's only a mere five years old!

A mere five years old, but that same document also reaffirms "changes have been rendered to the detail" - ergo making the whole thing useless for any empirical data, as we don't know what changes were rendered - as you so say.

Hecaton wrote:Uh, no, not at all. Can you show anywhere where it says that the Astartes process works on female humans? If not, we can assume that part wasn't changed or made outdated.

Buddy, that's no how it works.

We are told that things in the document are no longer considered up to date - "changes rendered to the detail". Therefore, we should not assume *anything* in that document is still relevant, other than as a snapshot of what 40k used to be. As a result, the whole "male hormones and tissue types" thing the document references cannot be considered as evidence - and therefore, there is no reason the Astartes process SHOULDN'T work on women.

Ultimately, that source exists. The legitimacy of it is in question.

IWhere in these codices does it say that female humans can be Astartes?

Where in the Codexes does it say they can't?

Vatsetis wrote:This sounds very sensible, but Primaris were introduced a few years ago (2017?) and remain an all male force... Which BTW shows that for GW the Astartes being male continues to be a significant part of the setting.

Or, and this is my cynical side talking, GW just stuck with what they already had, and simply didn't consider rocking the boat.

It wasn't that they felt Space Marines being all male was important, they just weren't sure how to appease their audience.

Again, we'll never know for sure, but just so I can put a pin in the "GW totally think Space Marines should be male" bubble now.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Again legendary level of nitpicking.

It really isn't. You're leaving pretty large holes that aren't for me to point out.
Don't call me highlighting faulty arguments nitpicking. You just do a disservice to yourself.

The current lore and how the lore "should" be according to your ideology are two separate things. Im trying to argue "in universe" as to why Astartes are indeed an all male force.

And I'm saying how "in-universe" is an entirely made up concept which has no internal justification. This is a world where sentient fungus wage war on space elves wearing organic bone-armour. "In-universe" is entirely arbitrary - and so I'm asking why the arbitrary decisions HAPPEN to exclude women.

Can you answer those questions?

This shouldnt be problematic to anyone that dosent have a delussion that make them mix their desires with external reality.

There we go, calling me delusional for questioning why a fictional universe has such arbitrarily stupid rules.

Again, it's not hard to answer why 40k apparently need to have these rules in place. At least, it shouldn't be.

The "not institutionally sexist" Imperium can have single gender Custodes and Sob but not single gender Adeptus Astartes?

Yeah. Why should Space Marine be single gender? Why shouldn't the Astra Militarum be single gender? Why shouldn't the Knights be single gender? Why shouldn't the AdMech be single gender?

If you're going to single one of them out, you at least should tell me why the others don't fit.

Why should Space Marines be mono-gender? Simple question.

And you ask why others think you argue based on preconceptions?

I don't know. Maybe it's because you don't have answers to fairly elementary questions of mine, and it's a lot easier for you to just claim that I'm biased or have preconceived notions?

And maybe I'd know, because I used to do that, before I realised how utterly stupid I was.

Lord Damocles wrote:b) If you did do this every single day, you might have some better references and arguments

I'd actually like to address this point. When the pro-women Astartes side make a point, it tends to be fairly well articulated, and in depth as to why the lore they disavow isn't exactly accurate.
And yet, almost universally, the anti-women Astartes "side" (much as I hate to devolve this to sides) simply just reject those factual observations and shift onto another argument that has been done to death.

You make it sound like "better references and arguments will save the day", but - and this isn't aimed at you - there are some people who will turn their back on any argument, no matter how well formed and analysed and unpicked, and simply call it some kind of SJW propaganda or "purging" or "silencing" or just "wrong".

I've seen it happen too many times. For some people, there isn't a "I can rationally come to an agreement", because they are so closed off. Which is why the point of this thread inevitably becomes "can I convince the lurker that this is right".

And just to clarify, I'm fine with you (or anybody else) not liking that the background says that Marine aspirants have to be male. I'm fine with you (or anybody else) wanting to change that. What I'm not fine with is this strange rigmarole we've now been through where people have claimed that the background never really said that (untrue), or the background is beyond an arbitrary age limit and so doesn't count (illogical, terrible argument), or that GW said that the background wasn't valid (untrue), or that I'm some sort of big meanie for pointing these things out.

No, that is fair. But, as I hope I've pointed out, in my own personal arguments, whatever the background says needs to be weighed with how relevant it is to that background, how often and prominently it is mentioned, and how important it is to the design of that faction.

And, for all the reasons I've expressed in this thread, I don't think that the 'Creation of a Space Marine' article, which, as you said, says about how only "male tissues" can have the treatment, is still relevant to the design of the Space Marine faction.

You're not a big meanie for pointing out what you have, but my point still stands - it's not core material, like some people so many dozens of pages ago have claimed it was.

Vatsetis wrote:Lets put it this way... If I say that there can be sexism in the IOM, this is labelled as anathema... If I point out that chaos might be a better starting point for FSM because they are not as constrain by tradition as the loyalist... Im pointed into cases of sexism amongst CSM. This is nitpicking, and dosent look as very good faith to me.

There can be sexism in the Imperium AND in Chaos. But the key point is that neither organisation have INSTITUTIONAL sexism, and that's simply canon. There's nothing wrong with saying that some people in the Imperium, or in Chaos, are sexist - but to act like either faction have any strong feelings either way on women's empowerment is simply untrue. Both the Imperium and Chaos are, institutionally, gender-neutral, and all I'm doing is reminding you of that.

It's not nitpicking to tell you that you're wrong in your judgement of the Imperium.

Vatsetis wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
From what I could parse of this - I agree that there should be female Custodes and male Sororitas along with FSM. You open the gates to all genders for internal consistency in an Imperium that lacks sexism as a flaw.

If I were to interpret things positively, what Smudge literally said is that he's okay with monogendered Custodes/SoB, not that it's the optimal outcome.

Yes I also understand it that way. But what things are and what things should be are different planes of debate. People keep muddling the waters at this point.

But that's the thing - you say "what things are" as if that's not what we're discussing. I'm well aware of what things are - what I keep asking is why they are, and I'm noticing that answers to that question keep eluding me.

If I explain that poverty and imperialism create the preconditions for terrorist organizations Im not endorsing terrorism.

If I explain that in the lore of the IOM there is room for single gender military organisations (because the Emperor was a misoginist and the IOM follows traditions blindly) im not endorsing sexism in the gamming community.

But I'm also not wrong for pointing out how, in the Imperium, most military organisations are mixed gender, and the Emperor did not even create the damned Space Marines, that was Amar Astarte, so unless you can point to me some exceptional reason, why should Space Marines be all-male?

I *know* that there's room in the Imperium for mono-gender forces, but I'm asking why it needs to be Space Marines in particular.

 DalekCheese wrote:
I’m a woman who likes 40k. I think femmarines could be rather cool.
Just my tuppence halpennyworth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

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

Oh, and yeah, I have nothing important to say. After all, I’m just a part of a demographic that’s uninterested in the hobby.

So Hecaton, this isn’t you saying that women like darlek cheese has nothing to say on the matter? Looks like it.

Is this again like me slinging insults and abuse at you that you couldn’t find when pushed? Stop trolling and say what you really think.

And to those saying the old fluff isn’t contradicted so still stands, can we agree that it’s old, 32 years old. Old by GWs own admission. Not in print, no, also true. Contradicted, no it isn’t. But that is entirely our point. It needs to be to stop people clinging to it as an excuse to allow abuse and exclusion. THATS the point of the thread. Change that but if lore, contradict it, either explicitly or just by including women. The fact it has been printed only in WD and WD anthologies and only about 4 times over 32 years is a sign it’s not the cement that holds the setting together. The fact it’s never made it into any codex section on making a marine is a sign that GW aren’t hanging their hat on it.

We are saying it needs changing. It needs contradicting. The fact it hasn’t been is a part of our whole argument, it isn’t a defence of it, it’s a flaw.

JNAProductions wrote:The issue is, the lore as it is now DOES give sexists ammo and cover. Real-word sexists, not fictional ones.

That could change-it won’t change the sexist individuals, but it will make it clearer who they are and that it’s not acceptable. Isn’t that something that should be strived for?

Honestly, thank you so much for summing up that in so few words.

I don't *care* what the lore says AS IS. I care what it enables people to do, what it prevents others doing, and WHY it should be allowed to continue to do that.

Formosa wrote:Well done Hecatron, Damocles and vatsetis, you have all endured a lot of abuse and gaslighting for daring to stand up for yourselves

Persecute yourself harder.

Show us this abuse, and when you do, I hope you show Hecaton's comments calling everyone on the pro-women Astartes side sexual deviants, and their outright ignorance of the voice of actual women in this thread.

I'll be waiting.





Also, and this applies for both sides of this, but in case any of y'all have your sigs turned off of whatever, I don't use he/him pronouns. It's a small courtesy, and I won't single anyone out on either side for it, but I've noticed several times that it's being missed, and I want to call it out here and now, if I can.
Ta.

Hecaton wrote:
And now he's going to pretend this never happened to avoid being wrong...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Also, and this applies for both sides of this, but in case any of y'all have your sigs turned off of whatever, I don't use he/him pronouns. It's a small courtesy, and I won't single anyone out on either side for it, but I've noticed several times that it's being missed, and I want to call it out here and now, if I can.
Ta.

Sorry, fethed that up. Edited at least my last post to fix that. FWIW I have a little trouble with that iRL; my language centers are just old enough that 'they' for a singular pronoun still requires a moment's conscious effort, but I'm trying. As someone who considers themselves masculine almost entirely by default (My honest answer to "What gender are you" these days is "I don't even fething know anymore") I'll do what I can.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Also, and this applies for both sides of this, but in case any of y'all have your sigs turned off of whatever, I don't use he/him pronouns. It's a small courtesy, and I won't single anyone out on either side for it, but I've noticed several times that it's being missed, and I want to call it out here and now, if I can.
Ta.

Sorry, fethed that up. Edited at least my last post to fix that. FWIW I have a little trouble with that iRL; my language centers are just old enough that 'they' for a singular pronoun still requires a moment's conscious effort, but I'm trying. As someone who considers themselves masculine almost entirely by default (My honest answer to "What gender are you" these days is "I don't even fething know anymore") I'll do what I can.

Similarly, saw this brought up a while ago, don’t have sigs on but was aware and apologies if I have git it wrong anytime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Since everyone seems to be patting each other on the back.

Well done Hecatron, Damocles and vatsetis, you have all endured a lot of abuse and gaslighting for daring to stand up for yourselves and its appreciated you put the effort in, found sources proving your points and made fair arguments in favour of your stances, bigotry and hate are hard to stand up to and you should be applauded for doing so.

Sadly though football did not come home this night, the greatest tragedy.

Where and when did these get abused, gaslit or anything, quotes now. I have ask Hecaton many times for examples of me abusing him as he claimed and had nothing because he hasn’t. This is some real jujitsu to turn yourselves into the victims here.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Honestly, I'm sick of having to do this every single day. This thread has single-handedly killed a boatload of joy this hobby gave me, so thanks for that.

We rarely stop to commend one another for the work they put in a thread like this; Just know that your efforts do not go unappreciated, at least by me.

Nice to know you appreciate lies and disingenuous argumentation then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cybtroll wrote:
Space Marine may based on astrology, or nipples. That's fine: but if they would be so, we will expect and explanation about how astrology or nipples are involved in process, and how this have other implications.
That is what the suspension of disbelief is about... Building a world with ots internal consistency: otherwise it's just a bad piece of writing with no bearing.

And I'm telling you, it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief that the process that creates Astartes only works on male humans. They don't have *science* in the Imperium, only cargo cult level understanding of technology. Even if the process *could* be modified to work on female humans, there's no guarantee that *anyone* in the Imperium has the insight to do so.

No one in the Imperium advances tech. Not one example to the contrary. Certainly they didn’t recently gain hover tanks and new Astartes. Nope, that’d be silly. /s

 Cybtroll wrote:
You rely essentially on a concept of authorship abandoned almost a century ago

It's not abandoned at all, and you yourself use it when it suits you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue is, the lore as it is now DOES give sexists ammo and cover. Real-word sexists, not fictional ones.

No it doesn't. They will have just as much ammo before and after. You're not protecting the ladies by agitating for female Astartes.

Evidence, please?

I’m not saying it’ll stop people being terrible. But it will make them stick out more, and encourage people to call them on BS. Even if it helps one in a thousand female or non-male gamers, that seems worth it to me, considering the cost is basically nothing.

CEO Kasen and Andykp, I don't hold it against anyone and I don't want to feel like I'm calling out or blaming any individual, I don't want to point fingers on either side here - it was just a reminder for anyone who might have their sigs turned off and might have missed it, but thank you all the same. The thought is appreciated.

Hecaton wrote:And I'm telling you, it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief that the process that creates Astartes only works on male humans.

And likewise, it doesn't break suspension of disbelief that it would work on both men, women, and everyone in between alike - or only on blond haired humans, or on humans with swell cleft in their chin, or on humans who went by the name Darren.

Ultimately, it's completely arbitrary, as I think we've settled on. So why is that arbitrary line drawn at women? That's the crux I'm trying to get to.

Andykp wrote:

So Hecaton, this isn’t you saying that women like darlek cheese has nothing to say on the matter? Looks like it.

No, I was saying that white, college-educated women who *aren't wargamers and have no interest in being so* shouldn't be consulted about what wargames should be like. That demographic is like the snark of niche hobby marketing.

Andykp wrote:
And to those saying the old fluff isn’t contradicted so still stands, can we agree that it’s old, 32 years old. Old by GWs own admission. Not in print, no, also true. Contradicted, no it isn’t. But that is entirely our point. It needs to be to stop people clinging to it as an excuse to allow abuse and exclusion. THATS the point of the thread. Change that but if lore, contradict it, either explicitly or just by including women. The fact it has been printed only in WD and WD anthologies and only about 4 times over 32 years is a sign it’s not the cement that holds the setting together. The fact it’s never made it into any codex section on making a marine is a sign that GW aren’t hanging their hat on it.

Nobody's using it for an excuse for abuse and exclusion. That would happen anyway.

Andykp wrote:
We are saying it needs changing. It needs contradicting. The fact it hasn’t been is a part of our whole argument, it isn’t a defence of it, it’s a flaw.

No, there are people in this thread claiming that the idea that female Astartes can't exist is nonsensical, or that the lore on the topic has been contradicted, which it hasn't.

I've also noticed that the pro-FSM side is overwhelmingly on the side of wanting an unironically heroic Imperium, which... miss me with that gak. A misconception of the Imperium as unironically heroic (aided and abetted by GW trying to portray a fascist, genocidal regime as heroic for $$$) is the first part of your problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
And now he's going to pretend this never happened to avoid being wrong...

Where is it updated to say that female Astartes are possible? Oh wait, it doesn't so I'm still right. Walk your lies and bs back.

When has Smudge, I, or anyone else advocating for inclusion said “The imperium is good!”

If I recall correctly, we’ve said they’re not sexist. Not sexist is a positive thing-but that hardly makes them good.