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.

Klickor wrote:
There seems to be 2 groups here.

One group that thinks men are most likely a clear majority due to the same reasons we have mostly men in modern armies but that the exact ratios may very well be closer to 50% than the low % we have currently. There are after all a lot of differences between 40k and the Imperium and 2023 Earth. Most seem to be very open to some worlds being majority or even only female regiments though they think overall men would be most common. It is just an interesting discussion trying to find out where in the 1%-49% range the amount of women would be. It is more about facts and world building than any ideology or values.

Then there is a group that want it to be an almost 50/50 split due to ideology and uses arguments only for their side (when often the same enhancements/improvements/changes could as well work in the other direction) and think anyone who argues against them are sexists that don't want women at all in the Imperial Guard.

I disagree with your assessment here. Personally, I don't think there's strong evidence that the gender split is close to 50/50. (It might be, but I don't think we have the evidence to "prove" that it is.) However, I also don't think there's strong evidence that the gender gap is huge

Most of the arguments for a large gender gap in the IG seem to be boil down to some combination of:
A.) Well, men are biologically superior soldiers, so of course the IG are mostly men.
B.) Modern day millitaries are mostly men, so obviously that will always be the case forever.

Neither of those arguments hold up very well for the reasons that have been thoroughly discussed. So most of my posts have been pushing back against the assertion that we can confidently say there's a large gender gap or against the notion that points A and B above are sound arguments.

I haven't seen a lot of people arguing for a strict 50/50 split so much as I've seen people pushing back against the validity of point A and B above.

To me it looks more like a split between people who think the Guard is 25-50% female and those who refuse any ratio higher than 10% max female.

Personally, as a fan of Black Library and the FFG role playing games, I find the canon suggests the higher ratio of female representation rather than the lesser. If one dismisses all sources but the miniatures and codices, they could justify a smaller percentage. However, I think that ignores the bulk of the background material as well as the more recent move by GW to include more women in the miniatures range. The evident intention of the writers and now of corporate is to portray the IG as an equal opportunity meat grinder.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Klickor wrote:
There seems to be 2 groups here.

One group that thinks men are most likely a clear majority due to the same reasons we have mostly men in modern armies but that the exact ratios may very well be closer to 50% than the low % we have currently. There are after all a lot of differences between 40k and the Imperium and 2023 Earth. Most seem to be very open to some worlds being majority or even only female regiments though they think overall men would be most common. It is just an interesting discussion trying to find out where in the 1%-49% range the amount of women would be. It is more about facts and world building than any ideology or values.

Then there is a group that want it to be an almost 50/50 split due to ideology and uses arguments only for their side (when often the same enhancements/improvements/changes could as well work in the other direction) and think anyone who argues against them are sexists that don't want women at all in the Imperial Guard.

I disagree with your assessment here. Personally, I don't think there's strong evidence that the gender split is close to 50/50. (It might be, but I don't think we have the evidence to "prove" that it is.) However, I also don't think there's strong evidence that the gender gap is huge

Most of the arguments for a large gender gap in the IG seem to be boil down to some combination of:
A.) Well, men are biologically superior soldiers, so of course the IG are mostly men.
B.) Modern day millitaries are mostly men, so obviously that will always be the case forever.

Neither of those arguments hold up very well for the reasons that have been thoroughly discussed. So most of my posts have been pushing back against the assertion that we can confidently say there's a large gender gap or against the notion that points A and B above are sound arguments.

I haven't seen a lot of people arguing for a strict 50/50 split so much as I've seen people pushing back against the validity of point A and B above.

I think the sticking point is what people consider ‘a large gap’ is here. Is 30% large? 40%?

1) There’s a small minority (the Yorkie club ) arguing for <10% for a mix of real and spurious reasons.

2) There’s another small minority seemingly arguing for ‘it must be 50/50’ and quite aggressively putting down arguments to the contrary.

3) Most people I think are arguing for somewhere in between. (Fwiw IMO 30-40% is probably realistic, but ymmv)

The issue is (on both sides) I think that people intending 3) are giving arguments against 1) or 2) that is then interpreted as arguments for the other extreme.

The canon is certainly clear that women are in the guard in all ranks in enough numbers to be unremarkable, but not clear at all how big the proportion is.

I disagree on point 2 there. Specifically the “aggressively” comment.

As it stands? There are no observed or cited in-universe barriers to women joining up.

And given the mind meltingly high number of humans under arms within the Imperial Guard? A rough 50/50 split is….kind of the base to start from. Because the human population is going to be roughly 50/50 male and female, and with no signs of preferential recruitment, and some canonical citations of “we’ll take anyone and hop them up on Chems” recruitment practices? 50/50 remains the base assumption.

Those arguing “but if we look at the real world” are arguing from a bogus position. For a start, the numbers and arguments presented take no account of social pressures and preferences, let alone any sky wizardry that’s involved anything when considering a given state of affairs in 40K.

I think the sticking point is what people consider ‘a large gap’ is here. Is 30% large? 40%?

I think the range I gave in one of the early pages of the thread was 20%-50% on the basis that 20% was the absolute minimum I could imagine without gender getting remarked on more often in the novels. Not that I think 20% is *likely*, but I simply don't have any firm evidence to concretely assert it's any higher.

The reason I've argued against people who provide even higher numbers (ex: 30%) is that the arguments they used were points A and B quoted above and because they seemed to be firmly asserting a 30% maximum.

The issue is (on both sides) I think that people intending 3) are giving arguments against 1) or 2) that is then interpreted as arguments for the other extreme.

I believe you are correct.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

And given the mind meltingly high number of humans under arms within the Imperial Guard? A rough 50/50 split is….kind of the base to start from.

You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?

I mean if I google "Cadian Book" the first result is a female Cadian (the cover of Cadian Honor).

EDIT: The guardmen character in the first Space Marine game is also a woman, and the same applies in Pariah Nexus.
EDIT#2: The recent Leviathan book also features a female Cadian pov.

On societal pressures?

It is of course true that when it comes to making ever more smelly hoomans, women of child bearing age are somewhat of a more specialised and therefore “valuable” human resource. I mean, as a bloke I could, in theory, sire as many children in a year as the number of times I can get the Purple Headed Womb Broom to spill its naughty yoghurt in a given day, across a year. And that’s making babies the most primitive way. Women? Once every 9 or so months at the most, not allowing for a slight skewing for twins, triplets et al.

But. Once a woman has popped out say, three sprogs, a number purely for argument’s sake? She’s more than Upped The Numbers.

And in a brutal society such as the wider Imperium? Who’s to say they’re given any chance whatsoever on a give planet to raise those kids.

Dipping my toes into the unwashed waters of inceldom to consider such?

It’s entirely possibly that, by hook or by crook, all the women on a given planet are forced to bear three children by the age of 23, starting at age 18.

Doesn’t have to be from The Ol’ Fashioned. Could be compulsory IVF type conception, with anonymised and purified Baby Gravy. To remove anything hitching a ride in the Population Paste and to ensure in so far as possible the kids are born hale and healthy.

After that age of 23? Population is already suitably bolstered. So off to the Guard you go. Even earlier if the first IVF didn’t take, because you’re clearly no good to the Planet Tateyslaphead.

That post is something else.
Grotsnik, you have a hell of a way with words!

Thank you!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I disagree on point 2 there. Specifically the “aggressively” comment.

As it stands? There are no observed or cited in-universe barriers to women joining up.

And given the mind meltingly high number of humans under arms within the Imperial Guard? A rough 50/50 split is….kind of the base to start from. Because the human population is going to be roughly 50/50 male and female, and with no signs of preferential recruitment, and some canonical citations of “we’ll take anyone and hop them up on Chems” recruitment practices? 50/50 remains the base assumption.

Those arguing “but if we look at the real world” are arguing from a bogus position. For a start, the numbers and arguments presented take no account of social pressures and preferences, let alone any sky wizardry that’s involved anything when considering a given state of affairs in 40K.

There have been some posters who’ve been pretty aggressive yes. Not everyone pushing for 2) but noticeable.

WRT the rest of your comment, see Lord Damocles’ reply.

Wyldhunt wrote:

I think the sticking point is what people consider ‘a large gap’ is here. Is 30% large? 40%?

I think the range I gave in one of the early pages of the thread was 20%-50% on the basis that 20% was the absolute minimum I could imagine without gender getting remarked on more often in the novels. Not that I think 20% is *likely*, but I simply don't have any firm evidence to concretely assert it's any higher.

The reason I've argued against people who provide even higher numbers (ex: 30%) is that the arguments they used were points A and B quoted above and because they seemed to be firmly asserting a 30% maximum.

The issue is (on both sides) I think that people intending 3) are giving arguments against 1) or 2) that is then interpreted as arguments for the other extreme.

I believe you are correct.

I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.

WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.

We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.

But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.

I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.

WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.

We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.

But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.

I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.

But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.

I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.

Arbites, like the Storm Trooper Corps are recruited from the Schola Progenium. As are Commissars, some Inquisitors, the Adeptus Sororitas and other non-military Adeptus.

One could argue that due to the pressures brought by the Sororitas and Commissarist, that the Storm Trooper corps may be disproportionately male.

Commissarist and Inquisition of course want the best and brightest. Sororitas will recruit the most faithful of which lasses are left, leaving only Complete Headbangers unsuitable for the sort of discipline required by the others for the Storm Troopers.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Sticking your finger in your ears and saying "la la la la if its not in the sacred GW texts its not real" doesn't lend any credence to your argument. Using data and historical norms from the real world is far more valid than whatever you think you are accomplishing and anyone with a brain is going to dismiss you entirely.

What argument is that? I'm not schizophrenic to make a bold declaration on an aspect of the setting without a canonical source to back me up. The absolute most I'd be willing to say is that there are "probably" less guardswomen than guardsmen but I wouldn't even debate that point.

Because I'm not an idiot you see.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Sticking your finger in your ears and saying "la la la la if its not in the sacred GW texts its not real" doesn't lend any credence to your argument. Using data and historical norms from the real world is far more valid than whatever you think you are accomplishing and anyone with a brain is going to dismiss you entirely.

What argument is that? I'm not schizophrenic to make a bold declaration on an aspect of the setting without a canonical source to back me up. The absolute most I'd be willing to say is that there are "probably" less guardswomen than guardsmen but I wouldn't even debate that point.

Because I'm not an idiot you see.

Then nothing would prevent you from agreeing that my theorized 30% Female/70% male mix is a likely possibility, or indeed the most likely possibility. Given that we have no canon indications of what the actual ratio is, only that women do exist in the guard and are nothing notable.

Going by which real world militaries have large numbers of women in them and their presence is not notable, the ratio I have proposed is seems to be a perfectly acceptable one as it tracks with real world trends in egalitarian societies. Which are the best thing in absence of any canon sources.

I would further say that anything above 40% would be anomalous as due to human behavioral trends and their effects on society and culture causing fewer women than men to enter combat related jobs. And since the Imperium has zero time or inclination to enforce any sort of parity there is nothing at the macro scale which would artificially increase the % of women above what I would say is the baseline of somewhere around 30%(based on the real world). You would need a planet which has a culture that has significantly deviated from human cultural and societal norms from the past tens of thousands of years for women to be equally or even preferentially chosen/inclined for combat duties, and then it would only be that planet's regiments that would be effected.

If you don't like "the real world" as evidence thats fine, but its better than the absolutely nothing anyone is putting in opposition to it. And since any sort of fictional setting uses the real world as a baseline because it kinda has to I am confidant in asserting this in absence of anything that directly contradicts it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Commissarist and Inquisition of course want the best and brightest. Sororitas will recruit the most faithful of which lasses are left, leaving only Complete Headbangers unsuitable for the sort of discipline required by the others for the Storm Troopers.

I wouldn't say the stormtroopers are less disciplined than the Commissars and Inquisition. I would say it has more to do with personality types and aptitude.

Commissars and stormtroopers both need to be highly disciplined. But Commissars also need leadership qualities and the personality for that, the more sedate and obedient individuals stay as line stormtroopers.

The Inquisition's manpower draw is probably so small that its effect on the pool is probably negligible. They just pluck any exceptional individuals on a case by case basis, be they exceptionally fanatical and by the book or if they're raucous troublemakers. If anything, the Inquisition probably takes a lot of people who would otherwise be unfit for Commissar duty but they have other uses.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.

WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.

We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.

But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.

I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.

But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.

I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.

There’s also the very real question of how significant said dimorphism in a society where Little Girls aren’t actively dissuaded from rough and tumble games, sports and general play. Where whatever education there is isn’t trying to send kids down a given lane.

Take my friend. She’s been a Paramedic for over twenty years. And despite being a titchy 5’2”, she’s strong as an Ox, certainly from when we were dating I’ve no shame in confirming she’s a good deal stronger than I, despite me being a foot taller. Because my job is sedentary, and I’ve never been that fussed for going to the gym or weight training etc.

Yeah but there's a reason anecdotes don't matter, I could have used the %'s of women who passed the basic I passed, the infantry course I passed and the infantry course I was staff on and come to the opposite conclusion, really, especially if you compare the male %'s.

If they have low minimum requirements and don't prioritize the top scorers and just recruit on other metrics or randomly then a cultural shift can have a good impact compared to how it is today.

But if the requirements are higher or they prioritize the top scorers on physicality to the guard and have the rest be PDF or security or something like that then it shouldn't matter much if girls grow up to be equally as physical.

The difference between adults that are in fit conditions is huge between men and women, especially if there are no PEDs involved. It would probably just take you a couple of weeks or months to reach the level of your Paramedic friend when it comes to strength, at least for the upper body, if you truly tried with that size and sex advantage. Half of it is just about teaching your body to exert the necessary forces and that can be learned quite quickly. Untrained people can, unless extreme situations (parents under adrenaline doing heroic acts to save their kids etc), exert a much lower % of their true strength they already have than trained people. For a lot of men they just need to get the technique and motor patterns down and suddenly their upper body strength is at the level of an elite female athlete.

But since we don't really know how much value the Imperium puts on other characteristics on their recruits relative to their physical stats we don't know how much it matters.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Yeah but there's a reason anecdotes don't matter, I could have used the %'s of women who passed the basic I passed, the infantry course I passed and the infantry course I was staff on and come to the opposite conclusion, really, especially if you compare the male %'s.

It's clear from certain posters here that they insist upon a moralistic fallacy , what makes you think that they'd be inclined to listen to a rational argument at all?

I really like comically dumb arguments here trying to use 'real world ratio' as any sort of gospel. Not only most of them are based on societal factors (which would be really different in 40K), but would simply be laughably wrong after tens of thousands of years of evolution and genetic engineering on mass scale during DAoT.

To easily demonstrate why the ratio arguments are so stupid, let us look at US army. In 1916, it had ZERO minorities in combat units (Harlem Hellfighters were established in December 1917). After WW1, as US army was downsizing, they were mostly purged out of the ranks as 'thanks' for their service due to you-know-what and it became lily white boys only establishment again. In 1948, 32 years later, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned segregation and discrimination within the Army. The ratio in the same 32 years shot up, then down, then massively up - did minorities 'suddenly' became fit/unfit for the army or was their low ratio purely based on BS social suppression that had no basis in reality?

Today, minority men ratio in US Army is actually twice that of their % in population (because Army tends to disproportionately attract people from poorer regions with less perspectives, which in USA due to historical reasons often means minority majority ones). Does this mean minority men are now twice as fit for the army as white ones, or would that ratio based argument be equally as idiotic as 1919 one and in fact all males are equal, it's just social pressure (that can often change on a whim in just a few years) that dictates it often based on factors that have no basis in rationality or logic, factors that the culture of 40K populations notably lacks based on its lore presentation?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?

This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well. Even less than a decade ago nearly 100% of GW painted models shown annually were white Caucasian males only club, today ratio is still not ideal but you see a lot more women and not-white (by facial features too, not just paint) models shown instead. Did the setting change, or did GW just told artists to be less wrong about it?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

I think we might be pretty aligned then, other than your envisaged range is a bit wider in both directions.

WRT your points A&B above, B is imo mostly without merit (at least from a Watsonian perspective) but, while I think A as specifically put is spurious (and the ‘so therefore <10%’ clearly ridiculous), a slightly broader point of human sexual dimorphism (as irl and generally presented as the average in 40k) means on average men tend to be larger and thus commensurately stronger/more robust/faster (though obviously with an *absolutely huge* overlap in the two ranges). Thus if there is a physical minimum, a higher proportion of men will be over it, wherever that minimum is set. Obviously this is irrelevant to skill, which is another factor that is not sex dependant at all.

We don’t know how much impact this has but, as Lord Damocles points out, GW generally seem to present men as being more common, and IMO that would be the most explanation.

But IMO that’s more a 30-40% level bias, not a <20% level bias which imo does not align to how common women are presented as in the guard.

I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.

But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.

I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.

There’s also the very real question of how significant said dimorphism in a society where Little Girls aren’t actively dissuaded from rough and tumble games, sports and general play. Where whatever education there is isn’t trying to send kids down a given lane.

Absolutely. Going mainly off the Varangantua short stories, the men and women among the various ganger/enforcer/private army factions seem to be roughly equally capable of kill each other. And the women involved aren't presented as one-in-a-million rarities or anything like that. At least in the context of Varangantua, women appear to be perfectly capable of stealthing around, parkouring through scenery, and gunning down their male opposites. So when it comes to practical lethality, sexual dimorphism doesn't seem to have a huge impact.

Does anyone remember the thread where a poster listed all of the characters described as two meters tall or over two meters tall, and then how tall all their comrades were, and concluded people in the 41st millennium were taller on average than modern humans?

Funny stuff, but taken literally it seems to imply there’s been some genetic modification or strong evolutionary pressure in the DAOT.

 Crimson wrote:
What we actually know about female IG: they exist, and are common enough to be unremarkable. That's it.

This is my stance entirely. Percentages are not relevant really. What we “know”, there are enough women that’s it’s not uncommon. Head canon the rest and there will be wild variation by regiment.

What I dint like is the sexist arguments and pseudoscience BS some posters have used. If you want to see ideology at work in this bread look no further than those posts. At least my ideology (inclusion and don’t be a cock) is overt, I’m open and honest about it, I dont try to hide behind crappy science and real world bias.

 Irbis wrote:
I really like comically dumb arguments here trying to use 'real world ratio' as any sort of gospel. Not only most of them are based on societal factors (which would be really different in 40K), but would simply be laughably wrong after tens of thousands of years of evolution and genetic engineering on mass scale during DAoT.

To easily demonstrate why the ratio arguments are so stupid, let us look at US army. In 1916, it had ZERO minorities in combat units (Harlem Hellfighters were established in December 1917). After WW1, as US army was downsizing, they were mostly purged out of the ranks as 'thanks' for their service due to you-know-what and it became lily white boys only establishment again. In 1948, 32 years later, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned segregation and discrimination within the Army. The ratio in the same 32 years shot up, then down, then massively up - did minorities 'suddenly' became fit/unfit for the army or was their low ratio purely based on BS social suppression that had no basis in reality?

Today, minority men ratio in US Army is actually twice that of their % in population (because Army tends to disproportionately attract people from poorer regions with less perspectives, which in USA due to historical reasons often means minority majority ones). Does this mean minority men are now twice as fit for the army as white ones, or would that ratio based argument be equally as idiotic as 1919 one and in fact all males are equal, it's just social pressure (that can often change on a whim in just a few years) that dictates it often based on factors that have no basis in rationality or logic, factors that the culture of 40K populations notably lacks based on its lore presentation?

There is no significant difference between races but there are massive differences between sexes in certain aspects. Difference between the races are in the low single digit % or less in certain sports when pushed to the extremes (some might even just be selection/survivorship bias) but difference between sexes is easily 10 times that or more in almost everything physical and is not comparable at all to racial minorities. Even if we remove all social barriers there are still biological barriers. Some of the % people have been throwing around here are based on physical tests that are related to biology and don't care about social barriers.

Some cultural/societal "barriers" do come from biology as well that make women a bit less likely to be soldiers than men even if there would be no differences in actual performance. Just the fact women can get pregnant while men can't should at least make women be less than 50% and men above 50% if all else exactly equal since I assume the guard isn't forcing pregnant women to the front lines.

Real world ratios also aren't taken as a gospel but as an indication to why we would see less women. No one has argued that they should be exactly the same ratio in the Imperial Guard as modern militaries. Most people have even said it is likely there are more women in the guard than in real world militaries so the numbers from our world which have more societal/cultural barriers than the Imperium should probably be taken as a minimum % of women.

It is this kind of arguing that I called out in my post about not arguing in good faith and coming from how someone wants it to be rather than trying to find out how it is. The only one seeing these arguments as gospels that can't be refuted are the ones arguing like you do now. You are straw manning their positions.

 Irbis wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?

This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well.

Right. Ok. So by your argument we can't actually use any material released by GW then.
Seemingly we also can't use any reasoning based on real-world factors.
So what would you use?
Presumably not just 'what feels good' for you, since by that line of reasoning, 0% female could be just as accurate and reasonable an answer!

 Irbis wrote:
I really like comically dumb arguments here trying to use 'real world ratio' as any sort of gospel. Not only most of them are based on societal factors (which would be really different in 40K), but would simply be laughably wrong after tens of thousands of years of evolution and genetic engineering on mass scale during DAoT.

To easily demonstrate why the ratio arguments are so stupid, let us look at US army. In 1916, it had ZERO minorities in combat units (Harlem Hellfighters were established in December 1917). After WW1, as US army was downsizing, they were mostly purged out of the ranks as 'thanks' for their service due to you-know-what and it became lily white boys only establishment again. In 1948, 32 years later, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned segregation and discrimination within the Army. The ratio in the same 32 years shot up, then down, then massively up - did minorities 'suddenly' became fit/unfit for the army or was their low ratio purely based on BS social suppression that had no basis in reality?

Today, minority men ratio in US Army is actually twice that of their % in population (because Army tends to disproportionately attract people from poorer regions with less perspectives, which in USA due to historical reasons often means minority majority ones). Does this mean minority men are now twice as fit for the army as white ones, or would that ratio based argument be equally as idiotic as 1919 one and in fact all males are equal, it's just social pressure (that can often change on a whim in just a few years) that dictates it often based on factors that have no basis in rationality or logic, factors that the culture of 40K populations notably lacks based on its lore presentation?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
You can start at 50/50, but then once you've looked at the depictions in the miniatures, the artwork, the fiction, the specific examples of Valhalla and whatever the Shadowsword planet was called, is there any movement on that 50%?

This is a really argument because artwork/models are being done by biased (even if subconsciously) subcontracted artists who are not lore writers and often don't even know lore that well. Even less than a decade ago nearly 100% of GW painted models shown annually were white Caucasian males only club, today ratio is still not ideal but you see a lot more women and not-white (by facial features too, not just paint) models shown instead. Did the setting change, or did GW just told artists to be less wrong about it?

Using race to argue your point is dumb because, unlike sex, race does NOT play into physical fitness, strength, etc...

And in fact, this actually reinforces my point regarding how women will make up a smaller % because of personal choices. Minorities are overrepresented in modern militaries due to minorities being on average poorer in most modern societies, thus the incentives and benefits of the military are more attractive. And when you adjust for poverty the ratios of race go away entirely. This is the effect that personal choice and preferences can have on representation in a volunteer setting, and it has been well established IRL women tend to choose not to enlist even when they have the opportunity. This would depress their representation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
What we actually know about female IG: they exist, and are common enough to be unremarkable. That's it.

This is my stance entirely. Percentages are not relevant really. What we “know”, there are enough women that’s it’s not uncommon. Head canon the rest and there will be wild variation by regiment.

What I dint like is the sexist arguments and pseudoscience BS some posters have used. If you want to see ideology at work in this bread look no further than those posts. At least my ideology (inclusion and don’t be a cock) is overt, I’m open and honest about it, I dont try to hide behind crappy science and real world bias.

It is not sexist to say that in the real world women tend to avoid military service. It is a fact. Why is it the case? Nobody really knows why, just that it is true. Nothing indicates that this would have changed by the 41st millenium, so it would be wise to presume this remains the same.

It is not sexist or pseudoscience to say there are physical differences between men and women that lead a moderate edge in physical and combat related activities for men, its basic biology. Does this prevent women from doing those things? No. It just means they aren't as good at it all else being equal.

This would all conglomerate in women making up a smaller % of the Imperium's forces. But since the Imperium is egalitarian in the broad senses, this would still lead to a significant portion being women. In my estimate, this would line up nicely with real world military forces that are egalitarian. Roughly somewhere around 30%, plus or minus 5% to account for fluctuations and local planetary customs.

It is not sexist to say that in the real world women tend to avoid military service. It is a fact. Why is it the case? Nobody really knows why, just that it is true. Nothing indicates that this would have changed by the 41st millenium, so it would be wise to presume this remains the same.

We do know why though, right? As others have pointed out earlier in this thread, they avoid military service due to cultural factors. And as has been pointed out and argued, culture in the 41st millennium is pretty different from modern cultures including in some very significant ways that currently depress the percentage of women in the millitary.

It is not sexist or pseudoscience to say there are physical differences between men and women that lead a moderate edge in physical and combat related activities for men, its basic biology. Does this prevent women from doing those things? No. It just means they aren't as good at it all else being equal.

But what is the % impact of that sexual dimorphism? Again, as we've pointed out elsewhere in the thread, physical strength doesn't seem like a huge factor in the 41st millenium so long as you can hit those minimum requirements. And it seems like there are plenty of women in the 41st millenium who would meet those requirements. Quoting myself from earlier:

I mostly agree with this. While I think the impact of sexual dimorphism has been overstated in this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if it had *some* measurable impact on the gender gap. Generally speaking, I get the impression that the physical requirements aren't especially high (see: anecdotal evidence about the arbites plus examples of guard from planets with notably lithe populations) and that the galaxy seems to be absolutely full of physically fit women. That is to say, I don't think there's a shortage of women capable of meeting whatever the physical requirements for the IG are.

But on worlds without something in place to shrink the gap, sexual dimorphism does lend the average man a slight edge in physical strength over the average woman. If there are systems in place that reward that edge (ex: planets that put recruits who can do more pushups into more glamorous units that are more likely to be tithed), I could see the impact of sexual dimorphism being non-zero on the overall gender gap within the IG.

I'd still be reluctant to assert a 40% maximum though. For all I know, the impact of sexual dimorphism might only create a 1% gap.

This would all conglomerate in women making up a smaller % of the Imperium's forces. But since the Imperium is egalitarian in the broad senses, this would still lead to a significant portion being women. In my estimate, this would line up nicely with real world military forces that are egalitarian. Roughly somewhere around 30%, plus or minus 5% to account for fluctuations and local planetary customs.

Where are you getting 5% from? Is it just your gut estimate? Why does it make sense to you that the gender representation in a setting with dramatically different cultural norms would line up so well with real-world culture? Wouldn't the expectation be a major departure from today's stats?

It feels like you're dismissing the impact of cultural norms (which I feel would be a bigger factor than sexual dimorphism) by just going, "No one knows!" (Even though we kind of know.) And then you're suggesting that we should default to the gender gap matching up with the modern world for some reason?

Is that reason cultural factors (which you seem to be handwaiving away and thus not accounting for the differences between the modern world and the imperium) or biological factors? If the latter, then I don't think biological differences alone are compelling evidence for asserting a specific range of 25%-35%.

EDIT: Reminder, my main beef here is not that women might be less common than men in the IG; it's that you seem to be making some really specific assertions about % using arguments that seem to fall apart under scrutiny.

Why the hell would he ratios be the same as today in the military, and which military today would you compare it to. The US? Why? Some armies in he world today have no women in combat roles, others much more? When this setting was created you weren’t allowed to be gay in the UK military. So should there be no gay people in the guard because that’s how it was in the real military? That whole argument is absolute rubbish. Not only that, but maybe, just maybe the tests that women are failing more often than men to join the US army aren’t selecting the best soldiers but are biased towards selecting what men think makes the best soldiers, ie being men???

The rules in the imperium state that the top 10% go to the guard. But all the lore and fluff shows that that top 10% isn't that great. It’s decidedly average for the most part. So either the pdf are woeful or those selected aren’t always the top 10% as promised. This alone negates any claim that women wouldn’t make it into the top 10%, this isn’t elite sports we are talking about here, it’s mass mobilisation of a population.

So all this pseudoscientific BS about muscle mass, bone density and fast vs slow twitch muscle fibres is one irrelevant and two, wildly inaccurate. I have a degree in anatomy and work in a medical field and it pains me to hear “science” being used to justify someone’s prejudices. That’s the only fact here, that people claiming all this crap are being sexist and trying to hide it behind misused scientific nonsense.

Anyone who says we can reasonably presume that cultural and societal norms literally 40,000 years in the future won't be different than what they are now is not someone worth taking seriously.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Anyone who says we can reasonably presume that cultural and societal norms literally 40,000 years in the future won't be different than what they are now is not someone worth taking seriously.

Anyone who disregard everything they don't like and never comes with any arguments of their own is someone that should probably shut up. Especially when they start with misrepresenting people before dismissing them and aren't even being dismissive against the actual arguments but made up ones.

I think everyone, I even mean this in a literal sense, EVERYONE has argued that there are different norms in the Imperium and that overall it is more equal between the sexes than our modern world and that this makes it likely that there is a higher % of women in the Imperial Guard compared to modern militaries.


To Andykp.
Who said the ratios would be the exact same? I think the person you are quoting is saying that there would be still be an imbalance in the ratios, just like in real life, but not that the ratios would be the exact same as in real life. More egalitarian societies will have more women serving. Do we have 30% women with +-5% depending on country right now on earth in combat roles? We don't, not even close yet he presents that as his view and you think it is rubbish. Are you even reading what he wrote or did you just assume what he wrote since he is a "sexist" according to you?

I would also like to know what is "pseudoscience BS" about the biological differences between men and women from Andykp. Is it just that people aren't using the correct terms or isn't showing studies and you don't like it on an emotional level and thus try to dismiss by calling it that because you can't actually disprove it? If you are working in a medical field and have a degree in anatomy and think it is all nonsense then perhaps you could just prove it all to be wrong for us by showing us the real science behind it? Right now it reads to me that you have no arguments against it at all and are just resorting to name calling.

Please chill down with all this accusing people of being sexist women haters just because they have a different view. Even if some people here were to be sexist it doesn't really change the arguments and unless you can prove it is just sexist nonsense and has no logic behind it then don't call them that. If you want to prove them to be sexist start with actually reading what people write and refute it in good faith. If they really are sexists you will now show that to everyone else that is reading this thread. If it turns out that you can't then it might actually be you who have a biased opinion and should do some reflection.

Mods should probably lock this thread even though I like this kind of discussions.