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.

 Hellebore wrote:
If you explicitly tell your audience that this is not for women and that it will deliberately cater to stereotypical male tastes then sure.

But GW is not doing that with 40k.

It is pretty offensive to try and encourage women to join a fandom that explicitly condones for 'thematic' reasons the othering women.

It would be like encouraging black africans to join in on your apartheid RPG with all the white players and acting suprised when they reject it. It's super accurate and true to the lore is not an argument for supporting bigotry.

Ok wait, this is important: you lost me there. If we take my hypothetical from my previous post about a fictional setting that's peak male power fantasy: how would that be explicitly telling women that this is not for them? I am genuinely asking here because nothing about this hypothetical says "women not allowed" it won't appeal to a lot of women probably, it also probably won't appeal at least to some dudes, but you can't keep somebody from partaking in a piece of fiction.

The fact that this hypothetical would in all likelihood not appeal to a great many women is something different than than telling them "this is not for you!".

Also, just a small point on the side: Apartheid is not fiction.

Tiberias wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
If you explicitly tell your audience that this is not for women and that it will deliberately cater to stereotypical male tastes then sure.

But GW is not doing that with 40k.

It is pretty offensive to try and encourage women to join a fandom that explicitly condones for 'thematic' reasons the othering women.

It would be like encouraging black africans to join in on your apartheid RPG with all the white players and acting suprised when they reject it. It's super accurate and true to the lore is not an argument for supporting bigotry.

Ok wait, this is important: you lost me there. If we take my hypothetical from my previous post about a fictional setting that's peak male power fantasy: how would that be explicitly telling women that this is not for them? I am genuinely asking here because nothing about this hypothetical says "women not allowed" it won't appeal to a lot of women probably, it also probably won't appeal at least to some dudes, but you can't keep somebody from partaking in a piece of fiction.

The fact that this hypothetical would in all likelihood not appeal to a great many women is something different than than telling them "this is not for you!".

Also, just a small point on the side: Apartheid is not fiction.

GW specifically advertises on their platforms that 40k is for everyone. It is pretty problematic to advertise a product for everyone if it also includes actual exclusion of a portion of the users as part of that entertainment.

That apartheid is real was the point. Sexism is the only ism that doesn't get a fantasy equivalent. It's ported 1:1 into fiction.

You can explore apartheid in fiction between the xlrips and glortis and you won't be telling the reader they are excluded.

40k still only has 2 sexes, and so exclusion of one literally speaks to the reader. If there were male, female, qunale, and florp and they said florps were excluded from being techpriests because of their sex, it wouldn't literally speak to the reader as they aren't florps.

But if you said women can't X, then there ARE women reading, enjoying and experiencing. And you're telling them that they must enjoy their fictional escapism through the lens of realworld bigotry they actually feel.

Because again, GW explicitly market warhammer for ALL. They've used that phrase many times on their platforms.

Given that statement is explicitely exclusive, I would not use it seriously in any sort of argument in favor of the GW marketing itself to anyone.

Sorry, which phrase is explicitly exclusive? “Warhammer is meant for all”?

Tiberias wrote:

Ok, I'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is what I meant earlier: you used the example that if all jedi could hypothetically only be men as a bad case of representation. Fair enough, and I'm by no means saying that all jedi should only be men, BUT since we are talking about fiction here, I can't for the life of me find anything morally wrong in any sense if george lucas had imagined jedi to only be male always.
It would have been a terribly bad business move, since girls obviously also think jedi are cool and you want them as viewers/customers as well, but would I can't see how it can be called wrong from a moral standpoint since it's a product of his imagination.

Or let's do the even more extreme example that is going to get me flamed even more: let's say hypothetically you create a fantasy/sci-fi setting for the insecure nerds that you think get drawn to 40k: a pure 80s style male power fantasy -> all the heroes are like juiced up 80s action hero dudes with cheesey one liners. That setting becomes more popular and more mainstream. Would it then be morally wrong not to change/add something to that setting to increase representation? I honestly can't see a reason of how it could be morally wrong not to add these things since it is a piece of fiction.

Keep in mind I am absolutely fine with female custodes, I am bringing this up more as a point of principle about a writers freedom of expression in the genre of fiction.

Personally, I think trying to determine whether or not such a choice is morally "wrong" is getting into the weeds as it depends on tackling the concept of right/wrong/morality in general. Regardless of whether it's right/wrong, and regardless of whether it's profitable, it would functionally be putting up a barrier that will prevent some number of women from having a good time and making fond memories with the hobby. And that's a shame. And an avoidable shame at that. I'd argue that making jedi (or marines) exclusively male wouldn't (doesn't) really add much of value to the game/lore. It's a very... particular individual who can think that werewolf vikings and pyromaniacal mutants are cool but has their fun ruined by the notion that some of those werewolves/pyromaniacs have lady bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bobthehero wrote:Given that statement is explicitely exclusive, I would not use it seriously in any sort of argument in favor of the GW marketing itself to anyone.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:Sorry, which phrase is explicitly exclusive? “Warhammer is meant for all”?

Sorry.

"Warhammer is meant for everyone except bigots."

Thought that last part was implied. Funny how many people get offended by the idea of bigots not being welcome.

 Hellebore wrote:

Tiberias wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
If you explicitly tell your audience that this is not for women and that it will deliberately cater to stereotypical male tastes then sure.

But GW is not doing that with 40k.

It is pretty offensive to try and encourage women to join a fandom that explicitly condones for 'thematic' reasons the othering women.

It would be like encouraging black africans to join in on your apartheid RPG with all the white players and acting suprised when they reject it. It's super accurate and true to the lore is not an argument for supporting bigotry.

Ok wait, this is important: you lost me there. If we take my hypothetical from my previous post about a fictional setting that's peak male power fantasy: how would that be explicitly telling women that this is not for them? I am genuinely asking here because nothing about this hypothetical says "women not allowed" it won't appeal to a lot of women probably, it also probably won't appeal at least to some dudes, but you can't keep somebody from partaking in a piece of fiction.

The fact that this hypothetical would in all likelihood not appeal to a great many women is something different than than telling them "this is not for you!".

Also, just a small point on the side: Apartheid is not fiction.

GW specifically advertises on their platforms that 40k is for everyone. It is pretty problematic to advertise a product for everyone if it also includes actual exclusion of a portion of the users as part of that entertainment.

That apartheid is real was the point. Sexism is the only ism that doesn't get a fantasy equivalent. It's ported 1:1 into fiction.

You can explore apartheid in fiction between the xlrips and glortis and you won't be telling the reader they are excluded.

40k still only has 2 sexes, and so exclusion of one literally speaks to the reader. If there were male, female, qunale, and florp and they said florps were excluded from being techpriests because of their sex, it wouldn't literally speak to the reader as they aren't florps.

But if you said women can't X, then there ARE women reading, enjoying and experiencing. And you're telling them that they must enjoy their fictional escapism through the lens of realworld bigotry they actually feel.

Because again, GW explicitly market warhammer for ALL. They've used that phrase many times on their platforms.

I am sorry, but to me it simply does not follow to say that "warhammer is for all" must necessarily mean every faction has to represent everyone. This goes back to my hypothetical: that 80s style hyper male power fantasy will in all likelyhood not appeal to most women, but that writer is under no moral obligation to add/change anything. As I've said there exists no inherent barrier for you to interact with a piece of fiction, wether you like it or not is a different story entirely.

Where it becomes a problem in my book is if actual people (the writer, fans, whoever) start actually saying things like "we do not, want women in this fandom. We do not want them on conventions, we do not want them reading this.They do not fit here".
This is screaming obvious wrong: nobody can tell you what you like or should like, but in my understanding writing something that probably won't appeal to women, is in stark contrast to actually telling them not to interact or actually trying to keep them from interacting with that piece of fiction by not letting them into conventions or something along those lines. Which goes back to what I've said earlier: I don't see how there can be a barrier just within the text of that fiction, nobody can stop you from interacting with the text itself and enjoying it (not saying that you or anyone would necessarily actually always enjoy the hypothetical 80s male power fantasy fiction, my point is nobody can keep you from doing so were you to enjoy it).

This may sound harsh, and remember that I don't think that 40k should be an all male power fantasy (just making sure to point that out), but as I said this is a matter of principle about artistic freedom in my opinion: why would that writer be under any obligation to incoorporate your wishes?

Keep in mind I am saying this believing that it is your good right to want, demand and wish for anything in any piece of fiction to be changed to your wishes if this would lead to you more enjoying that piece of fiction. I am just also saying that the hypothetical writer of that piece of fiction is under absolutely no moral obligation to actually do that. And I really believe it would be wrong to call that hypothetical writer a bigot because of that.

Edit: Also, small sidepoint: I think saying sexism is 1:1 ported into fiction can absolutely be true, but 40k is strangely not a good example for this in my opinion. As bad a regime as the imperium is in 40k, it is strangely egalitarian: space marines aside you can become basically any position in the imperium if you are a woman, because the imperium does not care who they throw into the meat grinder. I think at least 3 high lords of terra are women in the lore if memory serves right (inquisition, administrarum, ecclesiarchy).

Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.

If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.

A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.

 Hellebore wrote:
Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.

If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.

A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.

I think you are ignoring my main argument a bit: If I were to write a fictional setting were there are is an all male paladin order front and center, I cannot for the life of me understand how it follows that I am saying that women can't or shouldn't be paladins in any setting anywhere. They just can't in this hypothetical setting. And that has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression, it just has to be or else that term has no meaning.

Similar with GW, which was my original argument: I cannot see how one could argue that it would be morally wrong or bigoted for them to not include female super warrior paladin types (though I would argue that marines are very far removed from what most people would understand a paladin to be in most settings). You may disagree and advocate for them to do it, but they are under absolutely no moral obligation to actually do it.

Edit: again, you might say that including female marines might draw more women to 40k since they feel more represented, that's a valid argument. To me it just doesnt follow however that anyone could claim that GW is morally wrong in not doing so. Again, that just has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression....it has to be, for that term to have any meaning at all.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


Sorry.

"Warhammer is meant for everyone except bigots."

Thought that last part was implied. Funny how many people get offended by the idea of bigots not being welcome.

Then it very much isn't for all, Hellebore seems to believe otherwise but using a line that implies that there's a but very much means it isn't for all.

GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.

robbienw wrote:
GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.

Why?

We have a whole temple for male nulls to train in already.

Ah, the most tepid of hot takes.

Sisters of Silence, like Astartes and Sororitas, but unlike Custodes have been explicitly single sex organisations since they were first introduced. And whilst we can debate until the cows come home whether they’re that way for good reasons, we at least have a reason for each of those.

As ever, whilst I don’t see a pressing need for that status quo to change, I wouldn’t be overly fussed if it did. With one caveat of purely personal preference.

It would have to come amidst a general shift in the background. Because for 10,000 years (longer for the Sisters of Silence, much less for the Sororitas), those institutions have existed as single sex, and have kept their numbers and combat effectiveness up just fine with it. And nobody in-universe has seen it as a drawback or limitation either.

Without intending to be definitive? For me, that would include the 1,000 per Chapter limit on Marines being increased, perhaps in recognition that with the state of the Galaxy, and Primaris thus far proving resistant to corruption and turning their coats, larger Chapters can deal with larger threats, putting greater pressure on roving Chaos Warbands, perhaps forcing them to ally into larger conglomerates of allies, the better to be ROFLstomped, inflicting more telling and lasting damage to their numbers.

And, following a Cawlian breakthrough, Imperial Genentech can now convert female candidates to Astartes, the better to meet that demand, effectively doubling the pool of potential recruits.

That tech is then shared with the Selenite Cult, enabling their process of creating blanks (my own head canon on that bit) to be applied to male candidates or zygotes or whatever it is that happens.

And that is necessitated, as the larger Space Marine Chapters is agreed, on the caveat each Ship has a contingent of Sisters of Silence to better guard its commanders against Chaos and its various threats and temptations.

Again, this is just an example, and not an advocation. But hopefully it goes some way to show the sort of developments I think would be necessary for such a big change.

 Bobthehero wrote:

Then it very much isn't for all, Hellebore seems to believe otherwise but using a line that implies that there's a but very much means it isn't for all.

Being a bigot is not an inherent quality. The bigots can stop being bigots and then they're welcome.

Lammia wrote:

robbienw wrote:
GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.

Why?

We have a whole temple for male nulls to train in already.

Why not?

They've never given a reason as to why the organisation is all female. We know there are male pariahs from the background on Inquisitorial retinues, the Ordo Sinister and the Culexus temple. There is no reason why male pariahs should be excluded from the organisation.

The contrast between Custodes and Sisters set in the heresy CCG is now gone, so that's not a reason for not having them either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ah, the most tepid of hot takes.

Sisters of Silence, like Astartes and Sororitas, but unlike Custodes have been explicitly single sex organisations since they were first introduced.

This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.

robbienw wrote:

This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.

They weren't though, and neither were marines.

In any case, the whole tread is just pointless whataboutism.

The idea that we now suddenly need male representation in things like the SoB or SoS displays an almost childlike immaturity. “Muuuuum, Johnny has a choc ice, Iiiiiiiii want a choc iiiiiice.” “But you already have a choc ice Timmy.”

The Custodes aren’t a particularly fleshed out faction, they’ve been background fluff for the majority of 40K, but it’s only in recent years that we’ve had models, books, codices etc. It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.

I don’t understand why anyone needs to feel like they’ve had something taken away from them, or that anything needs “even-ing up” that would now necessitate a retcon to the two female only factions.

It’s all striking me as somewhat pathetic and needy.

As far as female Culexas, the cover of Nemesis by James Swallow says it all:



I've generally gone with the "Male blanks are Culexas", but in Eisenhorn the Distaff network of Pariahs seemed to be mostly female. This is just a guess, but I'm thinking since females are generally more accepted by both genders female pariahs live longer. In the case of Bequin, she had a harsh life but was attractive, it was just hard getting work as a pleasure girl when people want to run away from you. It's reiterated time and again that Jurgen from the Cain novels is repellent, but most think it's just his stench.

Edit: After 5 seconds of searching, come to find out Boy Scouts now allows girls, but Girl Scouts will not allow boys.. Do with that what you will...

 General Kroll wrote:
The idea that we now suddenly need male representation in things like the SoB or SoS displays an almost childlike immaturity. “Muuuuum, Johnny has a choc ice, Iiiiiiiii want a choc iiiiiice.” “But you already have a choc ice Timmy.”

The Custodes aren’t a particularly fleshed out faction, they’ve been background fluff for the majority of 40K, but it’s only in recent years that we’ve had models, books, codices etc. It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.

I don’t understand why anyone needs to feel like they’ve had something taken away from them, or that anything needs “even-ing up” that would now necessitate a retcon to the two female only factions.

It’s all striking me as somewhat pathetic and needy.

Kinda have to ask: have you even read the original post? How am I needy and pathetic in wanting male sisters of silence? I wasn't even arguing that everything needs even-ing up like you say or everything needs to be 50:50, just that it would be cool if they included it. Explain that one to me.

On Custodes: first of all I said initially that I was fine with the change, BUT in all fairness it is a retcon: in both custodes codices (8th and 9th) it is stated that the noble families of terra give their sons as tribute. It doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things since they've now officially changed it, but saying it isn't even a retcon is just not correct.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

robbienw wrote:

This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.

They weren't though, and neither were marines.

In any case, the whole tread is just pointless whataboutism.

Well if you want to be condescending at least adress me personally. If I genuinely think male anathema psykana or sisters of silence would be cool and female custodes gives a precedence for that: how is that whataboutism? I said it would be cool if they extended the model range and made some of the dudes, how's that a bad thing?

robbienw wrote:

Lammia wrote:

robbienw wrote:
GW have to do a male Sisters of Silence equivalent now, they would be hypocrites if they didn't. Call them Brothers of Silence, or Oblivion Knights or something like that. Should be easy to work as a lore change as we have many examples of male pariahs.

Why?

We have a whole temple for male nulls to train in already.

Why not?

They've never given a reason as to why the organisation is all female. We know there are male pariahs from the background on Inquisitorial retinues, the Ordo Sinister and the Culexus temple. There is no reason why male pariahs should be excluded from the organisation.

The contrast between Custodes and Sisters set in the heresy CCG is now gone, so that's not a reason for not having them either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ah, the most tepid of hot takes.

Sisters of Silence, like Astartes and Sororitas, but unlike Custodes have been explicitly single sex organisations since they were first introduced.

This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.

Don’t make me go get my Rogue Trader books.

Now look what you’ve made me do.

Rogue Trader, pp133 wrote:The Adeptus Custodes is the Emperor’s inner guard, the members of which are privileged in being permitted to serve upon The Emperor, attending his needs, receiving and recording his directions. These men never leave Earth, and only rarely leave the Imperial Palace - and endless black hive of forbidden technology and subterranean passages delving deep within the bowels of the planet

Not bodyguards. Not post-humans clad in Auric armour.

Butlers. They’re Butlers and errand boys.

Therefore, being the earliest example, this am the truth tm, and all other retcons must be discarded until they’re once again just Butlers and errand boys. And possibly Groom of the stool. The Emperor’s personal Gong Farmers.

And whilst I’ve got it open…

Rogue Trader, same page wrote:The Legiones Astartes is known as the Space Marine (sic) it comprises of roughly 1000 independent fighting units called Chapters, each of roughly 1000 troops. Each Chapter has its own Commanders, one of whom holds the title Master of Marines. Each Commander is subject to the orders of top-ranking members of the priesthood - but only in a general, non-military sense. So, whilst a Commander may receive orders to destroy a target, the means to be employed are left to the Commander - his only duty is to succeed! The Space Marines represent The Imperium’s main strike-force of mobile warriors, ready to travel anywhere at anytime. Amongst men and aliens alike they are popularly called the Angels of Death

Hang up your Geneseed bucko, because that’s a retcon!

Do you want to keep playing this game? Becuase I’ve a complete set of Rogue Trader books to show the true origin of everything 40K.

We can even get really fun and call…

Rogue Trader page 109 wrote:The Adeptus Custodes forms the Emperor’s inner guard whose duties are to serve and protect the Master of Mankind. A continuous rota ensures that several hundred of these select warriors are active within the palace, as well a small elite of guardians who never leave The Emperor’s side. Their uniforms are traditional but effective, leather breeches and boots with a long black cloak over naked torso. Their helmet are ancient works of art; all enclosing and tall they impart a threatening, impersonal appearance as well as providing a battery of protective equipment and communicators. The weapons carried by these guards look very much like spears or spear-guns, but are in fact lasers build to resemble the traditional and symbolic guardian-spear which has long association with the Adeptus Custodes and which appears on their banners, badges and other regalia. The guards themselves never leave Earth, and only rarely leave the imperial palace where their duties lie - their place is by The Emperor’s side

A retcon, because it’s a later page you see, and is different information as they’re no longer Butlers, errand boys or Grooms of the Stool.

Still not post-human, no big shiny gold armour or owt.

Are you starting to see the problem, and that we can prove anything with facts?

 Crimson wrote:

robbienw wrote:

This is actually not the case, the Custodes were explicitly all male from their introduction. Hence the recent retcon furore.

They weren't though, and neither were marines.

In any case, the whole tread is just pointless whataboutism.

It's not whataboutism, that's a completely different thing

GW should modify the SoS in accordance with how they have modified the Custodes, as they are mirrored faction that work together. Its only fair. Really there is only one motivation for not doing it.

Both Custodes and Astartes were explicitly all male from RT onwards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Kroll wrote:
It doesn’t explicitly state in any of the background that they can’t be women. So this isn’t even a retcon.

It actually did though. They've been referred to as all male since RT, as we can see from Mad Doc Grotsniks quote. There are other lore statements pre-10th edition codex. Its 100% a retcon.

Sure, be happy with the change if you like it, but lets not pretend its not a retcon.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Don’t make me go get my Rogue Trader books.

Now look what you’ve made me do.

Rogue Trader, pp133 wrote:
The Adeptus Custodes is the Emperor’s inner guard, the members of which are privileged in being permitted to serve upon The Emperor, attending his needs, receiving and recording his directions. These men

Its appears i've made you prove my point for me, see the text in bold.

Men at arms. Servicemen. Mankind. The Imperium of Man. Firemen. And so on and so forth.

Still no mention of a “no smelly girls” policy (though having been a GW Till Monkey for a period, and a fan of live music, “no smelly people” is a sensible policy)

Tiberias wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Any argument for an egalitarian imperium only supports more women in things, not less. Thats like saying I cant be sexist I have daughters.

If marines were a minor faction that had as much popularity as genestealer cults then sure. But marines are the central pillar of 40k. They are the best at everything and have all the best stuff. But you can't be one of you're a girl.

A woman will literally never get to be a super warrior paladin of the imperium because girls.

I think you are ignoring my main argument a bit: If I were to write a fictional setting were there are is an all male paladin order front and center, I cannot for the life of me understand how it follows that I am saying that women can't or shouldn't be paladins in any setting anywhere. They just can't in this hypothetical setting. And that has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression, it just has to be or else that term has no meaning.

Emphasis mine. I don't think anyone is making the case that GW is trying to discourage people from having female space marines when they play like, Halo or some other franchise. But marines being the main face/focus of 40k means that gender-locking them makes the franchise a little less approachable and in-turn means that there are people not making happy gaming memories with you that they otherwise might.

It's like if Knights of the Old Republic only allowed you to make male characters. Or if pikachus, eevees/eeveelutions, and one of the starters were unavailable to female characters in the video games. Or if the Percy Jackson series made everyone male and had an arbitrary rule saying only boys can be demigods.

Similar with GW, which was my original argument: I cannot see how one could argue that it would be morally wrong or bigoted for them to not include female super warrior paladin types (though I would argue that marines are very far removed from what most people would understand a paladin to be in most settings). You may disagree and advocate for them to do it, but they are under absolutely no moral obligation to actually do it.

I wouldn't use the term "morally wrong" to describe it. Not sure who first started using that phrasing in this thread. I *would* call a baffling and lame choice that should probably be retcon'd if at all possible for the sake of spreading enjoyment to more people.

The term bigotry in this thread has, I believe, been aimed more at people who seem to have a problem with the notion of women being able to engage with the franchise more comfortably; not at GW or whoever wrote the boys-only/girl-only lore for various factions.

Edit: again, you might say that including female marines might draw more women to 40k since they feel more represented, that's a valid argument. To me it just doesnt follow however that anyone could claim that GW is morally wrong in not doing so. Again, that just has to be ok under the rubric of freedom of artistic expression....it has to be, for that term to have any meaning at all.

See above. Less "morally wrong," and more, "Baffling and lame."

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Men at arms. Servicemen. Mankind. The Imperium of Man. Firemen. And so on and so forth.

Still no mention of a “no smelly girls” policy (though having been a GW Till Monkey for a period, and a fan of live music, “no smelly people” is a sensible policy)

Doesn't work like that

It explicitly says "These men" in a singular way that can't confuse adult male with mankind as a whole. Not "These Custodymen", or "These Custodymen-at arms" or anything that would mean mankind. In this context, to mean what you claim it means it would have to have said something like "These people", or of course could have just said 'These men and women" if that was the actual intention.

And of course its not the only instance where this is stated.

I'm not sure why people have such a difficult time accepting its a retcon. There is no need to pretend it always was the case there have been female Custodes since 1987, just because GW has decided to change things now.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:


Sorry.

"Warhammer is meant for everyone except bigots."

Thought that last part was implied. Funny how many people get offended by the idea of bigots not being welcome.

Then it very much isn't for all, Hellebore seems to believe otherwise but using a line that implies that there's a but very much means it isn't for all.

Are you familiar with the paradox of tolerance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#:~:text=Karl%20Popper%20describes%20the%20paradox,to%20be%20intolerant%20of%20intolerance.

I'm trying to interpret your post as generously as I can, but it seems like you're bothered by the notion that people are okay with excluding bigots from the hobby. Or else nitpicking at semantics? Sincerely not trying to cast you in a negative light or put words in your mouth, but are you trying to make the case that we should avoid stepping on the toes of intolerant people?

Nitpicking at semantics.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Nitpicking at semantics.

Gotcha. Saying this with the best intentions: might want to be careful with that. Don't want to paint yourself in a bad light by accident.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Given that statement is explicitely exclusive, I would not use it seriously in any sort of argument in favor of the GW marketing itself to anyone.

I think you misunderstood what was very clear to many of us:

The statement "Warhammer is for Everyone" clearly means "Warhammer is not a safe place to express racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia."

I find it hard not to negatively judge people who looked at that and said "Hey, that excludes me because of my bigotry. Hypocrite!"



Edit: (and yes, speaking philosophically, "tolerance" is not a universal virtue or even value since it is only a means to an end and we do have to consider "tolerance of what?" But "tolerance of other people's race/creed/gender/etc" is not the same as "tolerance of other people's desire to exclude people based on their race/creed/gender/etc." The real value is in treating other humans well regardless of differences. But that conversation has been had enough times that people don't usually feel the need to bring it up- it only comes up when someone is discussing abstract ethical systems in detail or when someone is being intentionally obtuse and trying to find hypocrisy to make themselves feel better).

I don't feel excluded by the statement, really. What excluded me from 40k was the poor treatment of the Death Korps and Legends, but that's a topic for another time.

GW has no mechanism to stop those whose views they disagree with from buying their stuff and gaming with/collecting it, so it really is literally for everyone who wants to participate.

One of the things that bothers me is that I really don't see how being all men was ever a major part of Custodes identity. Including women in the recruitment takes nothing away from them.

Back on Sisters of Silence (for whom gender does form an identity) what if there is a reason why they're all women?

I mean, men and women can be blanks, and blanks are extremely rare, but also useful- so you'd think that the imperium would exploit all of the blanks- right?

So what if they aren't recruiting Sisters of Silence from the extremely rare blanks in the world- what if they're making them?

If they took an original blank and cloned her into a fighting force, that would fit with pretty much everything we know (and it doesn't involve splitting up the blanks and assigning them jobs based on gender).