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.

Tiberias wrote:
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.

Are you aware you're basically making the same joke that Michael Scott did in an early episode of the office about diversity? And that the meta joke 15 years ago was that the joke had been stale for a decade?

I was a teenager making hyperbolic jokes about political correctness 25 years ago.

Get a new joke.

I just have to say, your name is so perfect for this discussion.

Tiberias wrote:

 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.

Yup, as I suspected, the latter.

Enjoy your time under the bridge.

skchsan wrote:Precisely. That's all I'm saying. Don't justify 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 miscommunication) nonsensical crusade to bring social justice and equality into a fictional world involving plastic toy soldiers.

So, just to confirm - you support having a range of both masculine and feminine heads for Space Marines, and letting players determine how they want to include/represent them?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 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.

That's not what it is.

The picture itself is innocent - no one has a problem with it other than the fact it doesn't really make lore sense - do whatever you wish with your models though. Drawing attention from SJW is the crime against the hobby. The last thing we need is for Gameworkshop to Disneyfi it's products.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

skchsan wrote:Precisely. That's all I'm saying. Don't justify 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 miscommunication) nonsensical crusade to bring social justice and equality into a fictional world involving plastic toy soldiers.

So, just to confirm - you support having a range of both masculine and feminine heads for Space Marines, and letting players determine how they want to include/represent them?

No, I do not care one bit. I just find it absolutely disgusting that the "males" on the forum are trying to come up with way to be "more inclusive of women in the hobby" by defining what makes marines masculine, and by extension, are defining what female looks like and doesn't look like.

Recently, what bothered me from GW is the Cadian upgrade sprue - they give you a head with dreadlocks, and it was conveniently painted with dark skin. And back in 8th ed, the cover art of white scars codex KILLED me. Talk about slits for eyes, because he's supposed to be some sort of Asian descent. F-cking disgusting.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

And this gets to the heart of what any meaningful diversity training needs to undo: the idea that white and/or male isn't just white and male, but also "neutral," or "default." When people see female characters, or characters of color, as "representation" but they don't understand that making a character white or male is also a choice, that's a problem.

It’s always been the case that the players get to have whatever army they want to create.

I like the idea of GW/Warhammer Community spotlighting somebody’s army of/that includes female SMs to reinforce the decades-old standard that it’s a vast and vastly strange galaxy and us gamers can be as creative with our personal hobby projects as our imaginations allow.

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:


The picture itself is innocent - no one has a problem with it other than the fact it doesn't really make lore sense - do whatever you wish with your models though.

Are you calling Crimson a liar? They (oh no! singular they!) said people did have a problem with it, to the point where past pictures have resulted in threats and hate speech.

Seems like a weird thing to do to some random person on the internet they (look! I did it again! singular they!) don't know. Are you sure you know better than they (!) do what has or has not happened to them (!) or others like them (!)?

I don’t think Crimson’s example is very meaningful.

As a moderator myself, I’ve seen over a decade of argument around this topic. It tends to attract a lot of passion and a lot of (sometimes unconscious) insulting implications about whichever “side” one disgarees with. I have argued in the past that the topic should just be banned, outside of people posting their actual hobby work (conversions and homebrew fluff).

Again, the standard of what people think or how they behave IRL simply cannot be measured by anecdotes of online acrimony.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 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?

Can you point to the feminine looking space wolf? I think it is clear that...these are Viking themed hairstyles. Induced by actual wolf DNA in their geenseed. It's just further to the idea that you can't actually make a space marine look female by changing it's hair. IMO though - space wolves do look pretty stupid.

 Manchu wrote:

Again, the standard of what people think or how they behave IRL simply cannot be measured by anecdotes of online acrimony.

I'm not saying it does. But it's an independent problem if people are getting harassed online for posting pictures of female space marines, or if they are having those pictures deleted because it's "too controversial," even if it never happens to them in real life.

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:That's not what it is.

The picture itself is innocent - no one has a problem with it other than the fact it doesn't really make lore sense

So why was their picture taken down? Why, when *I* saw it, were there a bunch of comments being snarky about it being a woman Astartes, despite me also seeing plenty of "non-canon" colour schemes and designs in that group?

The picture is fine, because the model is fine. It's just a different head in some power armour.

Polonius wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

And this gets to the heart of what any meaningful diversity training needs to undo: the idea that white and/or male isn't just white and male, but also "neutral," or "default." When people see female characters, or characters of color, as "representation" but they don't understand that making a character white or male is also a choice, that's a problem.

Yes, absolutely true. "White male" isn't neutral or default, and so having non-white and non-male representation isn't "unnatural" or "forced diversity", and breaking away from that idea is very important to meaningful discussion on the matter.

Still a bit miffed that the 'mutation that allows some chapters to recruit women' wasn't used. Its about the only one that doesn't require Cawl to pluck yet more brand new things from his waste port.

 Manchu wrote:
I don’t think Crimson’s example is very meaningful.

As a moderator myself, I’ve seen over a decade of argument around this topic. It tends to attract a lot of passion and a lot of (sometimes unconscious) insulting implications about whichever “side” one disgarees with. I have argued in the past that the topic should just be banned, outside of people posting their actual hobby work (conversions and homebrew fluff).

Again, the standard of what people think or how they behave IRL simply cannot be measured by anecdotes of online acrimony.

Oh, I dunno, Manchu, we haven't seen a repeat of the DocThunder situation for a while, so things are improving!

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:Can you point to the feminine looking space wolf? I think it is clear that...these are Viking themed hairstyles. Induced by actual wolf DNA in their geenseed. It's just further to the idea that you can't actually make a space marine look female by changing it's hair. IMO though - space wolves do look pretty stupid.

You never mentioned "feminine". You said "You take away from that monster vibe when you strap on a pony tail wouldn't you agree?", as if a ponytail would make a Space Marine less of a "monster" - or, more specifically, in regards to your claims about them being agender (not asexual), that they would be gendered for having a ponytail.

Ponytails don't have genders. It's hair.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:


The picture itself is innocent - no one has a problem with it other than the fact it doesn't really make lore sense - do whatever you wish with your models though.

Are you calling Crimson a liar? They (oh no! singular they!) said people did have a problem with it, to the point where past pictures have resulted in threats and hate speech.

Seems like a weird thing to do to some random person on the internet they (look! I did it again! singular they!) don't know. Are you sure you know better than they (!) do what has or has not happened to them (!) or others like them (!)?

I think you are misunderstanding the issue here - the issue is facebook having the power to ban here. Imagine having a Facebook group with lots of people discussing this topic much much like Dakka? Suddenly a bunch of internet trolls start posting in a certain way as to rile up those passionate about their space marines (some people are really passionate about space marines mind you - myself included) it just turns into a barking war - people get banned - the group might get disbanded. There is no reason to take that risk. Just ban the topic. It's essentially - ban the topic or facebook will ban you.

You must understand. The majority of interest in this topic is not genuine. These are toys...I'm honestly surprised they have allowed this topic to be discussed. Though everyone is staying pretty behaved.

if people are getting harassed online for posting pictures of female space marines, or if they are having those pictures deleted because it's "too controversial”

Those are two different things. Arguably, the first doesn’t really happen. The second one happens not because gamers hate women, or whatever, but because gamers love to argue online past all reasonable standards of civility and this particular topic is a lightning rod for that — as Polonius mentioned, not over the idea of female SM themselves, but over the idea of what GW ought to do, make, focus on. We argue the same way about, and just as endlessly, about X or Y faction getting too little or too much support, etc.

If you want to do lady marines then go for it your hobby your rules ( if your against this but happy with any custom elements in your 40k (custom chapters regiments etc) you need to have a think about that)

That said I voted no

It’s not for me, I don’t see anything cool or fun about it and so many people do it that it’s not even a good way to make my dudes different and special.
But as long as your not trying to get gw to change the lore then go for it.

As a setting I don’t see the issue with having male “masculine” space marines and female “feminine“ sisters of battle (both hit the monastic warrior order theme)

I mean the 9th edition trailer where you had both a marine and SOB facing down the destroyer Lord together looked amazing.

In the end just because you or I think some thing is cool I don’t think that’s a good reason to change a setting to shoe horn in that cool thing.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Polonius wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

And this gets to the heart of what any meaningful diversity training needs to undo: the idea that white and/or male isn't just white and male, but also "neutral," or "default." When people see female characters, or characters of color, as "representation" but they don't understand that making a character white or male is also a choice, that's a problem.

Yes, absolutely true. "White male" isn't neutral or default, and so having non-white and non-male representation isn't "unnatural" or "forced diversity", and breaking away from that idea is very important to meaningful discussion on the matter.

I'd like to add that if you can actually "see" the race (edit: I can see how that can be misleading in 40k setting: here, race != faction) of your 28mm scale miniature figurines, chances are the problem is within the player and not the models.

Similarly, if you are trying to visually set apart 'gender' or 'sex' from a non-gendered, non-specific plastic toys, then chances are you are either looking for boobs, hourglass figure or pretty face.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:Can you point to the feminine looking space wolf? I think it is clear that...these are Viking themed hairstyles. Induced by actual wolf DNA in their geenseed. It's just further to the idea that you can't actually make a space marine look female by changing it's hair. IMO though - space wolves do look pretty stupid.

You never mentioned "feminine". You said "You take away from that monster vibe when you strap on a pony tail wouldn't you agree?", as if a ponytail would make a Space Marine less of a "monster" - or, more specifically, in regards to your claims about them being agender (not asexual), that they would be gendered for having a ponytail.

Ponytails don't have genders. It's hair.

The idea is about femininity isn't it? To make the models look more female? I assure you...hair is on the menu. Compare a space marine to a sister of battle. What is different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Polonius wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

And this gets to the heart of what any meaningful diversity training needs to undo: the idea that white and/or male isn't just white and male, but also "neutral," or "default." When people see female characters, or characters of color, as "representation" but they don't understand that making a character white or male is also a choice, that's a problem.

Yes, absolutely true. "White male" isn't neutral or default, and so having non-white and non-male representation isn't "unnatural" or "forced diversity", and breaking away from that idea is very important to meaningful discussion on the matter.

I'd like to add that if you can actually "see" the race of your 28mm scale miniature figurines, chances are the problem is within the player and not the models.

Similarly, if you are trying to assign 'gender' or 'sex' onto a non-gendered, non-specific plastic toys, then chances are you are either looking for boobs, hourglass figure or pretty face.

Exactly.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Oh, I dunno, Manchu, we haven't seen a repeat of the DocThunder situation for a while, so things are improving!

The way that whole thing ended was, Doc Thunder and I argued about the issue for a long time like in this thread.

But then something weird happened: we decided to collaborate on a homebrew backstory about his female Space Marines. We even co-wrote some fiction about it that is probably still around here somewhere.

That more or less ended the argument.

Go figure, spending your time doing the hobby rather than arguing about it! And I haven’t heard anything much from Doc since those days,

 Manchu wrote:

if people are getting harassed online for posting pictures of female space marines, or if they are having those pictures deleted because it's "too controversial”

Those are two different things. Arguably, the first doesn’t really happen.

So you're saying anyone saying it has happened, whether to them or to others, is lying, or at best mistaken?

If it's all a big hoax that people get harassed for posting pictures of female space marines, why would there be any need to delete those pictures? The only reason to do it is because the topic is apparently so controversial that you can't even allow the picture to be posted because it's going to set people off so much.

Can't really have this one both ways I don't think. If there's a need to ban pictures of female space marines because it sets people off too much, that means that, well, people are getting set off too much by pictures of female space marines.

Here's the thing.

I'm a big fan of corvus beli's infinity models. Pan-o has a lot of religious crusader/ knights templar themed power armoured troops. They're mixed gender whilst still adhering to the broad themes of the knightly orders. Look at the brotherhood of steel in fallout. They have female 'knights'. Look at starship troopers. It's always 'sir'.

Admittedly, 40k has different mood music. Its darker and grittier and dirtier. Older too. Industrial metal versus synth.The Imperium is a horrible, fascist dystopia. One 'modern' twist to the formula of one part of it doesn't unmake that formula or reduce or change the sheer horribleness of the setting. It just means everyone gets their hands dirty. It doesn't unmade an eternity of war and futility or change the mood music of the setting.

As folks say, you can do whatever you want. And you can. Hell, I just converted my justiciar to be walking a bulldog on a lead. People love it. Even though it is firmly based in 'silly', I get zero hate. I guess 'humour' and animal sentimentality gives me a get out of jail free card to step all over the lore for this? I just wish the lore in this case was more open ended, since you can do anything else with SMs, and folks who want to do fsms had something in the lore that would allow them to create the projects they want without the associated negativity that always comes their way - and fsm generates way more heat than almost anything else. Give the haters less ammo.

Manchu, do you have proof that people aren't harassed online for posting female SM? Because there's plenty out there that says otherwise. Just because you personally don't know anyone who makes female SM doesn't mean their experiences aren't there. IIRC scotsman said they were a recipient of harassing messages for posting a female SM or you could look up Wulfhidr's Angels of Purification, an entire project around normalising female SM because of the harassment they received.

 skchsan wrote:


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.

It's an honest question, I'm trying to understand and build a map of how this works. I'm asking because if your society defines woman in a specific way and you don't present that then what are you? If you don't act the social construct then you can't claim to be that gender, because that's all gender is. Could you describe what a woman is for me?

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:


The picture itself is innocent - no one has a problem with it other than the fact it doesn't really make lore sense - do whatever you wish with your models though.

Are you calling Crimson a liar? They (oh no! singular they!) said people did have a problem with it, to the point where past pictures have resulted in threats and hate speech.

Seems like a weird thing to do to some random person on the internet they (look! I did it again! singular they!) don't know. Are you sure you know better than they (!) do what has or has not happened to them (!) or others like them (!)?

I think you are misunderstanding the issue here - the issue is facebook having the power to ban here. Imagine having a Facebook group with lots of people discussing this topic much much like Dakka? Suddenly a bunch of internet trolls start posting in a certain way as to rile up those passionate about their space marines (some people are really passionate about space marines mind you - myself included) it just turns into a barking war - people get banned - the group might get disbanded. There is no reason to take that risk. Just ban the topic. It's essentially - ban the topic or facebook will ban you.

No, that's still pretty awful moderation. At that point, you may as well just ban every topic, because if you're that worried about trolls, and you won't actually get rid of them, then any discussion will just become troll bait.

It doesn't matter if you're pre-emptively deleting because of trolls, or because trolls already came in and ruined it - the solution is to ban the trolls.

Manchu wrote:

if people are getting harassed online for posting pictures of female space marines, or if they are having those pictures deleted because it's "too controversial”

Arguably, the first doesn’t really happen.

Arguably, it very much does.

skchsan wrote:Similarly, if you are trying to assign 'gender' or 'sex' onto a non-gendered, non-specific plastic toys, then chances are you are either looking for boobs, hourglass figure or pretty face.

I don't know. I assign male gender to my plastic toys, but I'm not looking for pendulous penises when I do it.

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

IanMalcolmAbs wrote:Can you point to the feminine looking space wolf? I think it is clear that...these are Viking themed hairstyles. Induced by actual wolf DNA in their geenseed. It's just further to the idea that you can't actually make a space marine look female by changing it's hair. IMO though - space wolves do look pretty stupid.

You never mentioned "feminine". You said "You take away from that monster vibe when you strap on a pony tail wouldn't you agree?", as if a ponytail would make a Space Marine less of a "monster" - or, more specifically, in regards to your claims about them being agender (not asexual), that they would be gendered for having a ponytail.

Ponytails don't have genders. It's hair.

The idea is about femininity isn't it? To make the models look more female? I assure you...hair is on the menu. Compare a space marine to a sister of battle. What is different?

Not all Sisters of Battle have hair. One of my favourite heads on the new Battle Sisters sprue is bald.
However, I would comfortably say that most people would define it as feminine.

Hair is not the arbiter of femininity. I mean, if you look on the new Battle Sister models, they cover a pretty nice range of faces and face shapes. If that were coupled with the Space Marines range of heads, you've got a pretty nice list of heads to choose and differentiate from.

 Irkjoe wrote:

 skchsan wrote:


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.

It's an honest question, I'm trying to understand and build a map of how this works. I'm asking because if your society defines woman in a specific way and you don't present that then what are you? If you don't act the social construct then you can't claim to be that gender, because that's all gender is. Could you describe what a woman is for me?

I can't define what a woman is for you, but I can tell you that (human) females are members of of the human race who are born of XX chromosomes and have reproductive organ capable of giving birth to an offspring.

Having boobs and pretty face and slender body does NOT define what a female is.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 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.

Yup, as I suspected, the latter.

Enjoy your time under the bridge.

skchsan wrote:Precisely. That's all I'm saying. Don't justify 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 miscommunication) nonsensical crusade to bring social justice and equality into a fictional world involving plastic toy soldiers.

So, just to confirm - you support having a range of both masculine and feminine heads for Space Marines, and letting players determine how they want to include/represent them?

Polonius wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
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.

Are you aware you're basically making the same joke that Michael Scott did in an early episode of the office about diversity? And that the meta joke 15 years ago was that the joke had been stale for a decade?

I was a teenager making hyperbolic jokes about political correctness 25 years ago.

Get a new joke.

Now wait a second, I thought lore consistency and continuity does not matter and old lore has no bearing on new lore whatsoever. So what's wrong with my proposition? I'm just asking for logical consistency here.

yukishiro1 wrote:Can't really have this one both ways I don't think. If there's a need to ban pictures of female space marines because it sets people off too much, that means that, well, people are getting set off too much by pictures of female space marines.

Exactly.

Irkjoe wrote:It's an honest question, I'm trying to understand and build a map of how this works. I'm asking because if your society defines woman in a specific way and you don't present that then what are you? If you don't act the social construct then you can't claim to be that gender, because that's all gender is. Could you describe what a woman is for me?

But social constructs are just that - constructed. There's nothing inherent about them. If you want to change that construct, whatever you do under the identity of that construct is contributing to the shape of that construct.

A woman is whatever a woman wants to be.

I can't define what a woman is for you, but I can tell you that (human) females are members of of the human race who are born of XX chromosomes and have reproductive organ capable of giving birth to an offspring.

Uhhh, not quite there. For example, there are humans born of XX chromosomes that don't have reproductive organs capable of giving birth to an offspring that would conventionally be called and may even identify as female/women.

skchsan wrote:I can't define what a woman is for you, but I can tell you that (human) females are members of of the human race who are born of XX chromosomes and have reproductive organ capable of giving birth to an offspring.

Having boobs and pretty face and slender body does NOT define what a female is.

Agreed with the latter, but I also have to disagree with the "reproductive organ capable of giving birth to offspring."
Infertility doesn't preclude someone's sex.

Just a note.

Tiberias wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Tiberias wrote:
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.

Are you aware you're basically making the same joke that Michael Scott did in an early episode of the office about diversity? And that the meta joke 15 years ago was that the joke had been stale for a decade?

I was a teenager making hyperbolic jokes about political correctness 25 years ago.

Get a new joke.

Now wait a second, I thought lore consistency and continuity does not matter and old lore has no bearing on new lore whatsoever. So what's wrong with my proposition? I'm just asking for logical consistency here.

Because you're being deliberately hyperbolic and inflammatory.

Don't play coy.