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.

 Grimskul wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Can a space marine transition?
I'm a trans woman. The fething "biologically male" crap gets thrown at me constantly. The whole "only men can be Space Marines" thing has always made me uncomfortable, not because of the setting, but because of the intensity of Space Marine players.

If I ever make a marine force, they'll probably wind up as Heretics for allowing all the marines to transition.

Hormones do AMAZING things to the body.

I will also add that it makes me uncomfortable, it’s pervasive in a lot of groups.

It’s the justification of it, within the setting and allowing so many groups to justify it externally.

As opposed to having a fictional story be required or expected to validate one's group identity? I think people are overstating and giving far too much power to one line in a faction's backstory. If something this little is seen as a weapon to be wielded by other people to "hate" on certain groups, I have no idea how you've survived on the internet for this long, never check youtube comments or anything on twitter.

Literally my post above, how have you survived… it’s perfectly possible to write this things by writers who are understanding of what they are writing about!
It’s not about validating identity, it’s about understanding the people you are writing about.
Things like this, can be part of the identity of 40k if people that understand them are writing about them.

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

Excellent point.

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

They're too tight with the AdMech to do anything nonbinary.

Hecaton wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

They're too tight with the AdMech to do anything nonbinary.

There are so many non-binary and binary trans programmers. So many computer jokes!

Apple fox wrote:
Space marines have there own chapter culture, transition could be so many things. They could within a chapter support it without any necessary changes to hormones or other things.
Being that a lot of space marines get described as sexless, it could be as simple as some marines have different rites and preparations, or hobby’s to keep the mind sharp in relaxation.

I suppose if by "transition" you mean "make no physical changes but choose that as their way to spend their 5 minutes of social time they are allocated per day between prayer and training" then I suppose there's nothing preventing them from doing it. It would seem fairly unlikely though, as the recruitment process selects for the kind of hyper-masculinity that a trans woman (even one who hasn't figured it out yet) is unlikely to have.

 Gert wrote:
Congratulations, you've turned this from being a legitimate concern over language being shared with that of transphobes to a discussion about whether Marines should be girls. Way to go.

Good point on the importance of language. Its easy to dehumanize a group via language. I remember like 15-20 years ago where I grew up people used to casually say "gay" to mean essentially "that is stupid". Same with all these "trans scares" that dehumanizes trans people. Language matters, and casually punching down at already in danger groups just normalizes the idea that those groups perhaps 'deserve' to be in that position.

I doubt any malice was intended with this, but language does matter. It is in part the problem with how normalized this kind of language is - its easy to just slip it without even thinking.

"Biological male" is normalized because it means someone is male, biologically. Transphobes use the term, but it is not a trasnphobic term.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"Biological male" is normalized because it means someone is male, biologically. Transphobes use the term, but it is not a trasnphobic term.

I do not think I have heard it used medically in the last 20 years, not even in Biology here. Only ever within discussions of transphobic groups or used by those groups.
Other terms are used as they are often more relivent, if needed.

Let me once again remind people that the transphobe-specific term "biological male" is not used in the GW quote:

“The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

And the GW quote absolutely does not contain anything like the transphobe use of "biological male" to mean "male who is claimed to be something else but is actually male".

I feel the reason it's not used much in biology is because it's more of a layman's term, rather than a specific biology term. But being a male. biologically, is a thing. I'm a male biologically. My girlfriend is a biological male. One of my best friends is a biological female. I wouldn't tell them "You're a biological fe/male" because that's just mean. But the idea that it's only used by transphobes, or is purely a transphobic term is really weird. I remember talking to a lot of trans people when it was becoming more acceptable to come out, talking about how they were biologically a different sex to their gender. Are you saying all of my trans friends are transphobic? Are you saying my girlfriend is transphobic?

I see nothing "phobic" about this. No fear, no attack, zero references to our reality, just describing an aspect of imaginary settings. Saying that all Space Wolves eat meat and drink beer isn't veganphobic or abstinentphobic, a half-hidden attack on something the author fears or abhores (as I understand "-phobic" behaviours) it's who they are in the setting.

What does biological male and female even means though?

A chromosome definition doesn't work, because XX males and XY females are a thing.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I feel the reason it's not used much in biology is because it's more of a layman's term, rather than a specific biology term. But being a male. biologically, is a thing. I'm a male biologically. My girlfriend is a biological male. One of my best friends is a biological female. I wouldn't tell them "You're a biological fe/male" because that's just mean. But the idea that it's only used by transphobes, or is purely a transphobic term is really weird. I remember talking to a lot of trans people when it was becoming more acceptable to come out, talking about how they were biologically a different sex to their gender. Are you saying all of my trans friends are transphobic? Are you saying my girlfriend is transphobic?

This could be a difference in use of language, or even changing language in different parts of the world.

I thought politics was banned?

Apple fox wrote:
I do not think I have heard it used medically in the last 20 years, not even in Biology here. Only ever within discussions of transphobic groups or used by those groups.
Other terms are used as they are often more relivent, if needed.

I dunno about medically, but I've heard the term used by people in the biological sciences, including trans people who are involved in research.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
What does biological male and female even means though?

A chromosome definition doesn't work, because XX males and XY females are a thing.

Depends on the case, but usually, for animals, it means "capable of reproducing through sperm in the adult state" and "capable of reproducing through ova in the adult state."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

This really should be the final word in this thread.

[EDIT]: And it will be mine...

Funny that. Because there's* a 70 page thread in another part of this forum with people whinging about what constitutes a "Space Dwarf". People seem very happy to demand that the new Leagues of Votann be altered to fit their real life outlook. These people want to change those Dwarves into something they currently aren't. So they must not be here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby. Because they want these Space Dwarves to look a certain way and aren't happy with how GW portrays them. So they must just be here to cause problems.

 Togusa wrote:
I thought politics was banned?

Well then ban OP lol

 Togusa wrote:
I thought politics was banned?

Ah yes, the two genders: 'Male' and 'Political'.

The discussion is relevant to gaming, and is therefore fine so long as it stays civil and on track.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I could see Iron Hands and other Flesh is Weak obsessed Chapters transitioning into non binary because Flesh is Weak.

Excellent point.

We certainly have examples - from the novel Imperator - of mechanicus characters who've done just that. The skitari commander who's one of the main protagonists considers themself non-gendered.

Of course since their combat chassis turns out to include both grav-repulsor units and rather a lot of automatic weaponry, they're one of the few individuals who could take the tasteless old joke and say "you know what, actually I DO identify as an attack helicopter...."

It’s generally okay to talk about hobby (therefore, on topic) subjects even if they have political dimensions. But don’t forget Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Let me once again remind people that the transphobe-specific term "biological male" is not used in the GW quote:

“The process by which Space Marines are created relies inherently on the hormonal and biological make-up of the human male, meaning that only males can be subjected to the transformation.”

And the GW quote absolutely does not contain anything like the transphobe use of "biological male" to mean "male who is claimed to be something else but is actually male".

As a person that's been targeted by transphobes, frequently. That's the way they talk about trans women.

I'm not male.
I was forced to play that role until I realized I didn't have to anymore.
I've had "male biology" thrown at me like a weapon.

The intensity with which fandom folks dig into this like a lifeline makes the community so scary to interact with.

If they can do what they do to create Space Marines, the AGAB (assigned gender at birth) wouldn't stand in their way at all.
The lore was written in a different time, updates won't destroy it.

 Blndmage wrote:
If they can do what they do to create Space Marines, the AGAB (assigned gender at birth) wouldn't stand in their way at all.

No, there's plenty of reasons it could. If it required upregulation of genes that are on a y chromosome, for example, it wouldn't be able to be performed on people without one.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
If they can do what they do to create Space Marines, the AGAB (assigned gender at birth) wouldn't stand in their way at all.

No, there's plenty of reasons it could. If it required upregulation of genes that are on a y chromosome, for example, it wouldn't be able to be performed on people without one.

Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you male. Also, you're adding to it

This right here is what I mean.
Your adding justifications that don't exist in the lore.

When it was written, dna sequencing wasn't really a thing. We've learned a lot since then,and if GW doesn't want that game to seen as toxic, let alone the community, they need to update things.

Do Sororitas accept MtFTrans? That's an even better question.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Do Sororitas accept MtFTrans? That's an even better question.

Good point.

 Blndmage wrote:
Having a Y chromosome doesn't make you male. Also, you're adding to it

In almost all cases it does so for humans. The cases where it doesn't are rare enough that they probably aren't relevant to the Astartes creation process; moreover, a whole bunch of aspirants fail during the process, which probably excludes people who don't fit a certain fairly strict biological profile.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Do Sororitas accept MtFTrans? That's an even better question.

I like the idea that they don't, only as it reinforces the dystopian theme. Whereas Riot Grrls in Infinity *do* let trans women into their "sisterhood." As long as you also believe in anarchism.

General Hobbs wrote:
https://www.goonhammer.com/editorial-transphobic-language-and-the-horus-heresy/?fbclid=IwAR1gjmxXbRz6STPqTIaZGEkNW83gpnO5YhW39CbPKzWn7U_e5hEC5knqC4g

Warhammer started in the late 80s, before hormone therapies were a big thing.
The universe has become so popular that there is a small subset who actually think hate wars are a good thing and fail to see the irony in the story.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If you can not find a faction that suits your desires, and instead must take an established on and alter it or demand it be altered to fit your real life outlook, agenda, afiliation and ideals, then you are not actually here for the health of the hobby or the sake of the hobby, but more or less just to cause problems.

This really should be the final word in this thread.

[EDIT]: And it will be mine...

One day I sincerely hope it WILL be the final word on the subject, but I don't have that kind of faith in people anymore...

You know there basically no public places on the internet having a discussion about this; Goonhammer certainly weren't, and 4chan isnt. Here is a good discussion, in which we can learn from one another. No one has - I think yet - been offensive, in part because I think there is a lot of naivety or not-knowingness around this subject.

I think it's important that medicine does emphasise the reality of a male sex or sexes, and a female sex or sexes. We saw that during the pandemic again - and find it in academic articles around understanding infection by sex (not gender). This includes publications in the BMJ's open access journal, the Canadian Journal of Public Health and others - no one I think would argue these are transphobic, even if of course transphobes can use that language. While there are sexes (or types of sexual characteristics), there are also genders, and it's really important also to accept and support people in finding and expressing the latter, but also understand that the former remains significant too.

There is also an important discussion to be had publicy around where rights do not mesh well. But as shared before it's important to read the largest survey of UK people on trans issues as it's a good sign overall - https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/ - a context in which GW itself is representative.

 Just Tony wrote:

One day I sincerely hope it WILL be the final word on the subject, but I don't have that kind of faith in people anymore...

Assuming that anyone calling for change is just trying to cause problems seems a bit of a stretch. It's possible for people to like something while also thinking there are things about it that can be improved.