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.

most people that actually do it are doing so because they think it's neat

Spot on and IME totally accurate. There is a huge gap between people actually making an army and creating their own army background on the one hand and, on the other hand, arguing online about what kind of products a corporation ought to sell.

 Manchu wrote:

most people that actually do it are doing so because they think it's neat

Spot on and IME totally accurate. There is a huge gap between people actually making an army and creating their own army background on the one hand and, on the other hand, arguing online about what kind of products a corporation ought to sell.

Right, which means that Female Space marines aren't even really being fought over, any more than the Germans cared if they actually took the town of Verdun. It's just an excuse to vent bile, either against the limp wristed SJWs ruining your hobby, or the closed minded bigots ruining your hobby.

 Manchu wrote:
Asexual is also a term in biology, referring to a type of reproduction.

It can also be used more generally of people to mean lack of sexual activity.

And there is also the usage as a sexual orientation.

Anyhow, it’s true that regardless of SM having no concern for sexuality one way or the other, they are nonetheless gendered as male.

By what? word choice like brother ... because they are part of a brotherhood? Which is in fact - not gendered.

Brotherhood -
an association, society, or community of people linked by a common interest, religion, or trade.

Use of He/him pronouns? He is the default pronoun for anything non gendered. It's just English. You could always rewrite English if you have an issue with that.

Space marines are not human...Why is anyone so concerned with their gender?

By what?

All kinds of ways but most obviously/least open to problematizing, by being consistently referred to as males.

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Wow, that's absurd. Talk about giving the inmates control of the asylum.

I agree it is absurd, but it is not unusual at all. Female space marines are like a red rag to a bull to certain people. If you post pics of such conversions online, in many places negativity will follow, sometimes to utterly absurd degree. And these are not some random isolated incidents. If people could do their own stuff in peace, and people would treat this like other canon deviations like making loyalist versions of traitor legions etc, then it wouldn't matter that much (Cool loyalist World Eaters, mate!) But that simply is not the reality where we live in.

I used to think like you, but this insane hostility the mere idea of female marines garners is actually what has changed my mind about the topic. I want GW to officially back female marines to normalise them.

Yikes...you want to "normalize" the idea of sexualizing marines when they are asexual....I would like marine to remain Asexual because it makes sense. They are not human. They are monsters.

That's not what asexual means, and as someone with friends who *are* asexual, I don't think they'd appreciate being called "monsters" because of their asexuality - if that IS what you meant.

Asexual when referring to humans is in reference to their sexuality and sexual preferences. Asexual people do not feel sexual attraction.
You are referring to agender, people who do not have a gender, or you are referring to people who lack sexual organs. Neither of these are "asexual" necessarily, as you put it.

You take away from that monster vibe when you strap on a pony tail wouldn't you agree?

Boy, wait until you see the White Scars. Or Abaddon, for that matter.

It has to do with space marines are supposed to look a certain way.

And what way is that? What one-size fits all idea do you have in mind?

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:No I mean A sexual - space marines don't have sex organs. That is what that means.

No, it doesn't.

Asexual when talking about humans is referring to their sexuality. Not their genitalia.

Now, Space Marines probably ARE asexual as well, but that's not what you were referring to.

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:How else are you going to differentiate male/female features on a 32mm model covered in power armor?

I think Crimson did a fairly good job, as you can see in this thread, I believe.

which means that Female Space marines aren't even really being fought over

That’s correct.

Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now. And the most any of the rest of can do is weigh in with our own opinion, of no greater or lesser weight that the person who wants female SMs.

Anything beyond this gets into the territory of wanting to have some kind of authority over what other people “ought to” think about the subject.

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
By what? word choice like brother ... because they are part of a brotherhood? Which is in fact - not gendered.

I... what??

Brotherhood -
an association, society, or community of people linked by a common interest, religion, or trade.

Is Sisterhood also not gendered? If that's the case, why can't I have my Space Marines be part of a Sisterhood, and refer to eachother as Sister, but they're totally not gendered?

Use of He/him pronouns? He is the default pronoun for anything non gendered. It's just English. You could always rewrite English if you have an issue with that.

Laughably incorrect. The default pronoun for things non-gendered in the English language is "they". He/him isn't gender-neutral any more so than she/her is.

If you want gender neutral Astartes, then you should be using they/them pronouns, or a different *actually* neutral pronoun.

Maybe you need to go back to school.

Space marines are not human...Why is anyone so concerned with their gender?

They are human - transhuman.

But agreed. I don't know why people should be so concerned over their gender that they'd stop people having women ones.

Why not go all the way and eliminate all traces of inequality, sexism and issues of representation that apparently exist within this hobby.
Let's make an end times event where the necrons win and remain the only faction, so you only have genderless robots left. Lore can be changed after all, and all that GW publishes is then established lore and therefore automatically equally as good as anything that came before.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But agreed. I don't know why people should be so concerned over their gender that they'd stop people having women ones.

Because some people think "females" must be represented by the "feminine values" as established by the patriarchal society. If you note the poll options from the locked thread, the options call for different "degrees of female representation" through the lens of dice nerds who define women as "human beings with prettier, slenderer face shape, full bust, pinched waist & pronounced hip". It's offensive, really.

Just take the middle option in this thread:

"Amend the lore to suggest space marines have always included women, but they look like the men, so are usually mistaken for male marines"

"Oh, I'm sorry, you were so ugly I thought you were a male this whole time".

Explain to me exactly what female features were omitted so that such mistake could be made.

Come on guys.

Tiberias wrote:Why not go all the way and eliminate all traces of inequality, sexism and issues of representation that apparently exist within this hobby.

I mean, yes?? Don't we want a hobby which doesn't have sexism and inequality?

I'm trying to see if there's a trick question in this.

Let's make an end times event where the necrons win and remain the only faction, so you only have genderless robots left. Lore can be changed after all, and all that GW publishes is then established lore and therefore automatically equally as good as anything that came before.

First, Necrons aren't genderless - well, not all of them. The higher ranking Necrons have genders.

Second, if that's the only way you can see the hobby being truly equal, then I think you're perhaps a little bit missing the point. Either that, or deliberately so.

skchsan wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But agreed. I don't know why people should be so concerned over their gender that they'd stop people having women ones.

Because some people think "females" must be represented by the "feminine values" as established by the patriarchal society.

Do they? Which people? What "feminine values"?

If you note the poll options from the locked thread, the options call for different "degrees of female representation" through the lens of dice nerds who define women as "human beings with prettier, slenderer face shape, full bust, pinched waist & pronounced hip". It's offensive, really.

I don't know if you remember, but I don't think those words were ever uttered beyond your mind.

Not only that, but even if that *was* ever mentioned, you'd find that only 2% of people voted for it, and 31% wanted only headswaps, which has nothing to do with their bust, waist, or hip - and face shape was never mentioned at all.

Overall, I think this leads to a scientific analysis that you're trolling.

 Manchu wrote:

which means that Female Space marines aren't even really being fought over

That’s correct.

Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now. And the most any of the rest of can do is weigh in with our own opinion, of no greater or lesser weight that the person who wants female SMs.

Anything beyond this gets into the territory of wanting to have some kind of authority over what other people “ought to” think about the subject.

That pretty much sums up my opinion. I have no problem with people making their own fem-SM and their own lore to either fit within the lore or supersede it like fan-fiction. But to try and impose that over the hobby as a whole out of some maligned idea that they need to be validated on the official level to ward off people they wouldn't likely meet or play with IRL?

I dunno, the way a lot of the pro-FSM side go about it seems like they don't care about 40k lore (just change it! that mentality is what brought us the slippery slope of increasingly bizarre marine additions, from centurions, all the new flyers, to eventually primaris, which I'm still not a big fan of) and just care about representation, which you can find in so many other franchises. 40k need not be your end all, be all in tabletop wargaming for that need to be met.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

which means that Female Space marines aren't even really being fought over

That’s correct.

Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now. And the most any of the rest of can do is weigh in with our own opinion, of no greater or lesser weight that the person who wants female SMs.

Anything beyond this gets into the territory of wanting to have some kind of authority over what other people “ought to” think about the subject.

That pretty much sums up my opinion. I have no problem with people making their own fem-SM and their own lore to either fit within the lore or supersede it like fan-fiction. But to try and impose that over the hobby as a whole out of some maligned idea that they need to be validated on the official level to ward off people they wouldn't likely meet or play with IRL?

Can't the same be said the other way around?

To try and impose that "only male Space Marines" over the whole hobby as a whole out of some maligned idea that their warrior monk concept needs to be validated on the official level to "ward off" people they wouldn't likely meet or play with IRL?

I dunno, the way a lot of the pro-FSM side go about it seems like they don't care about 40k lore (just change it! that mentality is what brought us the slippery slope of increasingly bizarre marine additions, from centurions, all the new flyers, to eventually primaris, which I'm still not a big fan of)

It's not that we don't care about the lore. It's that its an intellectually void argument to say "well, that's just what the lore says".

Tell me *why* the lore says what it says. Tell me *what* it adds, not just that it does. Tell me *why* it needs to stay the way it is, instead of just telling me it stays because it's there.

Justify the lore to me, sell me on it, and maybe I'll see your point, instead of "but lore says this is canon".

Again, you say "increasingly bizarre", but that's the lore now. I thought that the lore was important?

and just care about representation, which you can find in so many other franchises. 40k need not be your end all, be all in tabletop wargaming for that need to be met.

Shall we get rid of guns too, because you can find them in other franchises?

 Grimskul wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

which means that Female Space marines aren't even really being fought over

That’s correct.

Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now. And the most any of the rest of can do is weigh in with our own opinion, of no greater or lesser weight that the person who wants female SMs.

Anything beyond this gets into the territory of wanting to have some kind of authority over what other people “ought to” think about the subject.

That pretty much sums up my opinion. I have no problem with people making their own fem-SM and their own lore to either fit within the lore or supersede it like fan-fiction. But to try and impose that over the hobby as a whole out of some maligned idea that they need to be validated on the official level to ward off people they wouldn't likely meet or play with IRL?

I dunno, the way a lot of the pro-FSM side go about it seems like they don't care about 40k lore (just change it! that mentality is what brought us the slippery slope of increasingly bizarre marine additions, from centurions, all the new flyers, to eventually primaris, which I'm still not a big fan of) and just care about representation, which you can find in so many other franchises. 40k need not be your end all, be all in tabletop wargaming for that need to be met.

I dunno, I find Crimson's argument and example pretty convincing. If people can't post pictures of female space marines on facebook because they're getting deleted by moderators due to concerns about hate speech and threats...maybe that does mean GW needs to come out and validate them, at least to some modest degree. It doesn't have to be any more than the "the galaxy's a big place, many things are possible, keep an open mind space cowboys!" that I suggested...but I am starting to think they probably do need to make some kind of statement that makes it clear that it is not acceptable behavior to send hate speech at somebody for the "crime against the hobby" of putting a female head on a marine body.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

which means that Female Space marines aren't even really being fought over

That’s correct.

Anyone who wants female SMs can have them right now. And the most any of the rest of can do is weigh in with our own opinion, of no greater or lesser weight that the person who wants female SMs.

Anything beyond this gets into the territory of wanting to have some kind of authority over what other people “ought to” think about the subject.

That pretty much sums up my opinion. I have no problem with people making their own fem-SM and their own lore to either fit within the lore or supersede it like fan-fiction. But to try and impose that over the hobby as a whole out of some maligned idea that they need to be validated on the official level to ward off people they wouldn't likely meet or play with IRL?

I dunno, the way a lot of the pro-FSM side go about it seems like they don't care about 40k lore (just change it! that mentality is what brought us the slippery slope of increasingly bizarre marine additions, from centurions, all the new flyers, to eventually primaris, which I'm still not a big fan of) and just care about representation, which you can find in so many other franchises. 40k need not be your end all, be all in tabletop wargaming for that need to be met.

I dunno, I find Crimson's argument and example pretty convincing. If people can't post pictures of female space marines on facebook because they're getting deleted by moderators due to concerns about hate speech and threats...maybe that does mean GW needs to come out and validate them, at least to some modest degree. It doesn't have to be any more than the "the galaxy's a big place, many things are possible, keep an open mind space cowboys!" that I suggested...but I am starting to think they probably do need to make some kind of statement that makes it clear that it is not acceptable behavior to send hate speech at somebody for the "crime against the hobby" of putting a female head on a marine body.

Honestly thinking about it, I'd be fine with even a step further removed, and them posting either a warhammer community article showing off a hobbyist's female space marines or doing it during a hobby hangout Twitch stream. Even that little validation would go a long way towards proving that "it's your hobby, you can do what you'd like".

 skchsan wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But agreed. I don't know why people should be so concerned over their gender that they'd stop people having women ones.

Because some people think "females" must be represented by the "feminine values" as established by the patriarchal society. If you note the poll options from the locked thread, the options call for different "degrees of female representation" through the lens of dice nerds who define women as "human beings with prettier, slenderer face shape, full bust, pinched waist & pronounced hip". It's offensive, really.

If feminine values established by society don't define women, then what does in your opinion?

@sgt smudge "He" has always been the correct way to refer to a person when you don't know if they're a man or woman. Everything you're saying is newspeak; just because "they" has caught on among certain types doesn't change the fact that it's a plural pronoun and violates number agreement.

I don't think this is a place for a in depth discussion of the history of English grammar, but that's simply wrong. We have examples of they used as a singular pronoun for a person of indeterminate gender that go back to at least the 14th century.

 Grimskul wrote:

That pretty much sums up my opinion. I have no problem with people making their own fem-SM and their own lore to either fit within the lore or supersede it like fan-fiction. But to try and impose that over the hobby as a whole out of some maligned idea that they need to be validated on the official level to ward off people they wouldn't likely meet or play with IRL?

Out of curiosity, what behavior crosses the line into "imposing?" And if they are responding to people saying their stuff doesn't belong in 40k, is defending it still imposing?

I dunno, the way a lot of the pro-FSM side go about it seems like they don't care about 40k lore (just change it! that mentality is what brought us the slippery slope of increasingly bizarre marine additions, from centurions, all the new flyers, to eventually primaris, which I'm still not a big fan of) and just care about representation, which you can find in so many other franchises. 40k need not be your end all, be all in tabletop wargaming for that need to be met.

The Lore has constantly evolved, and yes, it has changed almost from it's inception. It's not sacred scriptures, it's literally the adult version of saturday morning cartoons: simply designed to sell toys.

@sgt smudge "He" has always been the correct way to refer to a person when you don't know if they're a man or woman. Everything you're saying is newspeak; just because "they" has caught on among certain types doesn't change the fact that it's a plural pronoun and violates number agreement.

I've never heard this once in my 31 years of life. In fact, the first time anybody ever objected to my use of singular they was like, 2016? And I said the phrase "I called the doctor's office and got the receptionist. They said I could come in Thursday". The person who had previously objected to singular they thought for a second, agreed that that was a correct and normal phrase that they had heard and used many times before, and we moved on.

If anything, opposition to singular they is newspeak.

Rihgu wrote:

@sgt smudge "He" has always been the correct way to refer to a person when you don't know if they're a man or woman. Everything you're saying is newspeak; just because "they" has caught on among certain types doesn't change the fact that it's a plural pronoun and violates number agreement.

I've never heard this once in my 31 years of life. In fact, the first time anybody ever objected to my use of singular they was like, 2016? And I said the phrase "I called the doctor's office and got the receptionist. They said I could come in Thursday". The person who had previously objected to singular they thought for a second, agreed that that was a correct and normal phrase that they had heard and used many times before, and we moved on.

If anything, opposition to singular they is newspeak.

Look at you! You did it again! Singular they! To the stocks with you!

The singular they is completely standard in English for either people of indeterminate gender ("I saw a person fleeing from the scene of the crime. They were about five foot eight, wearing a cap and a full length coat. I didn't see their face.") or when the gender of the person is irrelevant (hence the use of "they" here for the receptionist - doesn't matter whether it was a he or she or a something else, so they is natural). Always has been. People who say otherwise are the ones who are confused.

Rihgu wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I dunno, I find Crimson's argument and example pretty convincing. If people can't post pictures of female space marines on facebook because they're getting deleted by moderators due to concerns about hate speech and threats...maybe that does mean GW needs to come out and validate them, at least to some modest degree. It doesn't have to be any more than the "the galaxy's a big place, many things are possible, keep an open mind space cowboys!" that I suggested...but I am starting to think they probably do need to make some kind of statement that makes it clear that it is not acceptable behavior to send hate speech at somebody for the "crime against the hobby" of putting a female head on a marine body.

Honestly thinking about it, I'd be fine with even a step further removed, and them posting either a warhammer community article showing off a hobbyist's female space marines or doing it during a hobby hangout Twitch stream. Even that little validation would go a long way towards proving that "it's your hobby, you can do what you'd like".

Yeah, agreed. I think that would be a really good move overall.

Irkjoe wrote:@sgt smudge "He" has always been the correct way to refer to a person when you don't know if they're a man or woman.

No, it hasn't, and no, it isn't.

"They" is the correct term, and has been since *Shakespeare*. If you found someone's phone on the train, you wouldn't say "oh, someone's lost his phone". You'd say "someone's lost *their* phone".

He/him is not gender neutral. Sorry, but that's the English language for you.

Everything you're saying is newspeak

Three things:
A - Strange way to say you don't know English
B - The entire language is newspeak. That's how the language was made.
C- You are, again, oblivious of the history of this language. They hasn't been a newfangled invention, it was used in a singlar gender-neutral context by goddamn Shakespeare.

just because "they" has caught on among certain types doesn't change the fact that it's a plural pronoun and violates number agreement.

I really think you need to get a refund from whoever taught you English, and whoever it was who taught you needs a refund from whoever taught them.

(Oh, look how easy that was! I used they as a singular. I bet you never even realised until I pointed it out.)



What am I to you, a plural?

 Irkjoe wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
But agreed. I don't know why people should be so concerned over their gender that they'd stop people having women ones.

Because some people think "females" must be represented by the "feminine values" as established by the patriarchal society. If you note the poll options from the locked thread, the options call for different "degrees of female representation" through the lens of dice nerds who define women as "human beings with prettier, slenderer face shape, full bust, pinched waist & pronounced hip". It's offensive, really.

If feminine values established by society don't define women, then what does in your opinion?

I'm actually appalled at this comment - I hope this was just a banter playing the other side of the argument.

The point is that there is no reason why the society has to define whether a person is male or female based on their outward appearances. This is outright flawed and discriminatory.

If a male dresses up as a female, is that person a male or female?
If a female wears a man's suit, is that person a female or male?
If a transgender went through gender change from she to he, and yet still wears "female" clothing (i.e. a sun dress), is that person female or male?
If a man with clinical "man-boobs" but otherwise fit, is that person male or female?

Let me reiterate: IT IS WRONG TO JUDGE ANYONE BY THEIR OUTWARD APPEARANCE.

There is nothing wrong with wanting or having "female", or 'quasi-female' for that matter, in your collection, but don't argue that it's for inclusivity purposes.

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Wow, that's absurd. Talk about giving the inmates control of the asylum.

I agree it is absurd, but it is not unusual at all. Female space marines are like a red rag to a bull to certain people. If you post pics of such conversions online, in many places negativity will follow, sometimes to utterly absurd degree. And these are not some random isolated incidents. If people could do their own stuff in peace, and people would treat this like other canon deviations like making loyalist versions of traitor legions etc, then it wouldn't matter that much (Cool loyalist World Eaters, mate!) But that simply is not the reality where we live in.

I used to think like you, but this insane hostility the mere idea of female marines garners is actually what has changed my mind about the topic. I want GW to officially back female marines to normalise them.

Yikes...you want to "normalize" the idea of sexualizing marines when they are asexual....I would like marine to remain Asexual because it makes sense. They are not human. They are monsters. You take away from that monster vibe when you strap on a pony tail wouldn't you agree?

Like...did you see that Ravengard Shrike model with the emo hairstyle? Did you see how that was ridiculed? It has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with space marines are supposed to look a certain way.

Sigh...do I need to point out that we have TONS of fething marines that style their hair in various ways? Like, come on. Just look at the space wolves sprue for five fething seconds, I don't know.

What the feth would putting a ponytail on a space marine do that the space wolves having half-gokus and side-braids and mohawks and.....ponytails hasn't already done?

Like seriously, I get the annoyance with changing the lore. I truly do. There are many, many changes to the lore in 40K that annoy me, and I have similar reaction to certain changes in other franchises.

But the thing is that lore has always changed, and especially in 40K it has never been terribly rigid, it has always been a nebulous, often contradictory mess. (Which is actually one of its strengths.)

And frankly, I don't see 'all marines are men' as thematically terribly important. It is more of a technical detail. For better or worse, I think far more thematically impactful changes have already happened in 40K. And furthermore, this certainly links to real world issues far more directly than whether space marines have 19 or 22 made up super organs or whether Necrons are unfeeling killer robots or space Egyptians or indeed even whether Primarchs are barely remembered myths of the bygone era or superheroes running around leading the Imperium.

The truth is that this topic garners completely disproportionate amount of vitriol, and it often reveals some rather nasty underlying attitudes. (Which of course is not to say that anyone who is opposed to the change has such attitudes.) So I really wish that people would honestly stop to consider if this one specific piece of lore is really that important. No one is suggesting getting rid of male marines, merely broadening the lore to allow other interpretations too.

The use of masculine nouns/pronouns to include woman and those of unknown gender was, and to a much lesser extent still is, proper. We spoke of mankind, bought things from Salesmen, and had union cards in "brotherhoods." I think even at the time, the whole "well masculine words include women too" was a fig leaf to cover the reality that those words referred to male exclusive or dominated usage, but it's know well known.

In some fields, terms that applied only to men are becoming more gender neutral, such as many female performers referring tot themselves as an "Actor" not an actress. On the flip side, my wive's grandmother sends us cards addressed to "Mr and Mrs. Polonius" which is very old school.

the point is, language is alive and fluid, but often is structured to reflect the reality of the people using it.

I am pretty sure every person who has ever objected to the singular they uses it themselves all the time (oh my god! I did it again!) without even realizing it.

 Polonius wrote:
The use of masculine nouns/pronouns to include woman and those of unknown gender was, and to a much lesser extent still is, proper. We spoke of mankind, bought things from Salesmen, and had union cards in "brotherhoods."

This is also true. But that's language for you - it isn't monolithic. English has both a firmly established tradition of the singular "they," and also a tradition of using male-gendered words to refer to both genders, ala "mankind" or "to each his own." Anyone who tries to deny either of these elements of the language is engaged in perpetuating false information, usually in furtherance of their particular agenda.

skchsan wrote:The point is that there is no reason why the society has to define whether a person is male or female based on their outward appearances. This is outright flawed and discriminatory.

So we should be allowed whatever heads we want on our Space Marines, from a variety of types, ranging from stereotypically masculine to stereotypically feminine, and it's up to use how we want to assign gender to them, and that's all canon?

Works for me!

If a male dresses up as a female, is that person a male or female?

Whatever they identify as.

If a female wears a man's suit, is that person a female or male?

Whatever they identify as.

If a transgender went through gender change from she to he, and yet still wears "female" clothing (i.e. a sun dress), is that person female or male?

Whatever they identify as.

If a man with clinical "man-boobs" but otherwise fit, is that person male or female?

Whatever they identify as.

Let me reiterate: IT IS WRONG TO JUDGE ANYONE BY THEIR OUTWARD APPEARANCE.

You're right. But these aren't people. Their plastic models. Plus, as I've just said, I'm not asking for the heads to have a label on them saying "this is a woman's head". I'm saying to give me a range of heads, that span a spectrum of both masculine and feminine. Then, let the players assign whatever gender they want to whatever head they want. Sound fair?

To be really fair, Space Marines wear helmets, which make a lot of this exercise somewhat... academic.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:Why not go all the way and eliminate all traces of inequality, sexism and issues of representation that apparently exist within this hobby.

I mean, yes?? Don't we want a hobby which doesn't have sexism and inequality?

I'm trying to see if there's a trick question in this.

Let's make an end times event where the necrons win and remain the only faction, so you only have genderless robots left. Lore can be changed after all, and all that GW publishes is then established lore and therefore automatically equally as good as anything that came before.

First, Necrons aren't genderless - well, not all of them. The higher ranking Necrons have genders.

Second, if that's the only way you can see the hobby being truly equal, then I think you're perhaps a little bit missing the point. Either that, or deliberately so.

You are right of course I deeply apologize. High ranking necrons can have genders which could possibly be grounds for sexism and inequality and representation issues, so let me correct myself. Let's make an end times event where the Tyranids win and remain the only faction left. So players have to play different asexual gribblies that eat each other....we have now achieved maximum inclusion and everyone will be happy. Lore wouldn't be an issue in this case like you surely demonstrated.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

skchsan wrote:The point is that there is no reason why the society has to define whether a person is male or female based on their outward appearances. This is outright flawed and discriminatory.

So we should be allowed whatever heads we want on our Space Marines, from a variety of types, ranging from stereotypically masculine to stereotypically feminine, and it's up to use how we want to assign gender to them, and that's all canon?

Works for me!

If a male dresses up as a female, is that person a male or female?

Whatever they identify as.

If a female wears a man's suit, is that person a female or male?

Whatever they identify as.

If a transgender went through gender change from she to he, and yet still wears "female" clothing (i.e. a sun dress), is that person female or male?

Whatever they identify as.

If a man with clinical "man-boobs" but otherwise fit, is that person male or female?

Whatever they identify as.

Let me reiterate: IT IS WRONG TO JUDGE ANYONE BY THEIR OUTWARD APPEARANCE.

You're right. But these aren't people. Their plastic models. Plus, as I've just said, I'm not asking for the heads to have a label on them saying "this is a woman's head". I'm saying to give me a range of heads, that span a spectrum of both masculine and feminine. Then, let the players assign whatever gender they want to whatever head they want. Sound fair?

Precisely. That's all I'm saying. Don't say that you put feminine head on a stereotypically male figure because [INCLUSION! YAY!] Do what you want, but don't spew your (non specific 'you' in case of miscommunication) nonsensical crusade to bring social justice and equality into a fictional world involving plastic toy soldiers as a justification.

Polonius wrote:The use of masculine nouns/pronouns to include woman and those of unknown gender was, and to a much lesser extent still is, proper.

Archaic, but proper.
They/them has always been acceptable, in the meantime.

We spoke of mankind, bought things from Salesmen, and had union cards in "brotherhoods." I think even at the time, the whole "well masculine words include women too" was a fig leaf to cover the reality that those words referred to male exclusive or dominated usage, but it's know well known.

Absolutely so - which kind of makes the claim that those are "gender-neutral" phrases a little improper.

Again, just to highlight that "they/them" is not only common, but also correct.

the point is, language is alive and fluid, but often is structured to reflect the reality of the people using it.

And when that reality was that the world was massively more male-dominated, and that you simply referred to things as male *because men were probably the most likely thing you'd be talking about*, that doesn't really mean it was "gender-neutral" all the same.

Not meaning to leap down your throat, I don't think you're arguing that they/them is wrong or improper, but he/him still isn't gender neutral. They/them is, and has been for centuries.

I just wanna make that absolutely clear to everyone.