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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why do some people consider being male to be essential to Marine's theme?

They're genetically modified super soldiers wearing tank-like armor, fighting for the Imperium. Why does that require them to be male?

Edit: Put another way, you can have Marines with almost any theme.

Vikings, tactical and smart soldiers, vampires, angels, knights of various stripes...
But women are a bridge too far?

Do you not feel why a faction that is inspired by Roman legions, is (now) organised into (knightly) orders/chapters, lives in monasteries, addresses each other as "Brothers" and calls themselves "Sons of their Primarch" is seen as having "male" being part of their identity? They are not required to be male, they simply have been written like it.

Women are not a bridge too far, it just collides with what is already established. Where "female" is the direct opposite of a "male", a "Viking" is an addition.

If Space Marines have been written with male and female recruits from the start, I would not have an issue with it. Halo is one of my favourite franchises, by the way. Spartans are both male and female and the universe up to and including Halo: Reach is awesome. (Haven't really spent much time with everything that came afterwards from 343 Studios)

 PenitentJake wrote:
I chose to go out of sequence and start with this chunk, because I want to remember it- I think it is reasonable; like you, I would prefer a Lore way in, rather than a retcon, and I don't think it's unreasonable to want that.

Cawl was a missed opportunity to have a somewhat logical explanation why it became possible now, without it feeling too forced as an insert. Bile is another angle that is still there. I'm open for better explanations, but this is the least GW should do.

 PenitentJake wrote:
So I agree that the piece you quoted was a bit heavy handed. I think most of us don't want to see the exclusion be this bold or explicit. Personally, one of the things I like about the Lore-based inclusion of FSM is that players who don't want FSM in their chapter could have the option of creating/ playing an all male chapter, an all male company, or even just an all male army.

However I do believe that at least some of the percentage of people who might take the inclusion of FSM as cause to quit probably ARE at least some of the people who are making actual women players uncomfortable... And with that percentage of people, letting them choose to leave because their male power fantasy is now an option and not the default might actually be a good thing. Again, GW doesn't have to explicitly tell them to GTFO, but if they would be sufficiently offended by FSM to leave, they might not have been all that positive an impact on the community in the first place.

I don't see how people who share the poster's opinion from my quote are any better than those who harass others for their (harmless) headcanon of FSM. Just because they have some common ground with one's own ideas should not and does not make the posted opinion tolerable. If I made a thread with the sole expression "to kick everybody out of the hobby who got a problem with MALE ONLY SPACE MARINES", I would expect the thread to be locked and my account to be suspended. This is clear bigotry on display.

While I see myself more on the "contra" side for this specific argument, but I'm open for it under specific conditions. Doesn't matter, I would be kicked out, just as someone who is openly harrasing FSM collectors. I can't sympathise with the quoted attitude.

 PenitentJake wrote:
It isn't 100% clear (to me) what you mean here. You've already said you're okay with FSM being introduced in a way that is lore consistent, which would EVOLVE (not ERODE) the "longstanding faction identity," so are you saying that is the alternative, or are you referencing others who have said that the problem would be less of an issue if Marines weren't the poster faction, and advocating that the diminishment of the Marine privilege is the ideal alternative, or are you saying that a combination of those two approaches is the ideal.

Either way, I would probably agree, because I'm not the biggest fan of the "there have always been FSM" retcon either, though depending upon implementation, I'd probably prefer it to the boys club status quo.

Ideally the focus would shift away from Marines, so other factions that are "naturally" more diverse get more attention.

 PenitentJake wrote:
Sure... but since other parts of your post seem to imply that you ARE okay with change being introduced to a faction over time via lore, and if that is truly the case, then I'm not sure why you need this piece in your post, because it does seem (in isolation) to be at odds with what you've said elsewhere, though I suppose your repeated use of the word "suddenly" does leave room for gradual, lore based change.

I'm not against the evolution of the lore, but against hamfisted decisions. Just retconning lore with that big of an impact with "it was always this way", when it is clearly written "to not have always been this way", is unacceptable to me. Female Custodes? Fine, they were basically a blank slate before their model introduction in 7th edition. GW should have taken the chance to say "everything about these guys was written decades ago, we start fresh with the first mainline model they ever receive and take the opportunity to change some parts of the lore from earlier publications". Trying to gaslight people on social media about it was and is an awful way to handle it. The fan comic with Tzeentch indoctrinating that one Guardsman that there always were female Custodes, in order to keep whatever he is doing a secret? Absolutely awesome.

Brothers of Battle? The Ecclesiarchy found another, interesting way to loop around it. The new soldiers they enlist into their armies are clearly not classified as male, regardless of any aesthetical resemblance.

The "sudden" is in my head from the original post I quoted, as that was the posters way of introduction. And my preferred way would be to switch the attention to other factions that already support male and female models.

The post is long enough as is, so forgive me if I'm not replying to everything. I acknowledge+appreciate your input on these matters and have nothing to add or argue against it, so I leave the other parts out.

What boggles my mind the most about this whole thing is that there are people who absolutely straighfaced seriously tie their enjoyment of marines with the explicit absence of women.

It's apparently not good enough to say, well anyone can be a marine, but if you want an all male force you can, no issues there at all.

No, they actually need to have women explicitly excluded from the faction, actual lore and text written to say 'girls can't be this', or their enjoyment of the faction is somehow ruined.

This idea is very definitely a them problem, because women being in the faction doesn't change how you can enjoy them, it changes how others can. Not being able to enjoy them because a girl COULD be one, is such an infantile position to take.

And it's also amazing that in this day an age, we wouldn't ever consider publically saying 'well I can only enjoy my army men if there are no black people in it', but sex exclusion still just fine.

Those water fountains were absolutely ruined for white people when they knew someone not white could use them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

They’ve gone from elite infantry to genhanced post-human ubermensch. The structure of their armed forces through history have been chopped and changed.

Hard disagree. They were extremely stable for over 20 years. They became post-human ubermench somwhere before 2nd edition, and their basic chapter setup held firm from a similar era until the horrible introduction of Primaris. I don't know the timeline exactly, but this is a time period spanning form 1992-3ish up to 2017 maybe? 25 years of stable "core marine identity", if you will. Certain things were expanded in that time, such as individual chapter variation in relation to that structure (like when the Salamanders and Black Templars were expanded upon), but these were always introduced as being exceptions to the codex norm.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

They’ve gone from elite infantry to genhanced post-human ubermensch. The structure of their armed forces through history have been chopped and changed.

Hard disagree. They were extremely stable for over 20 years. They became post-human ubermench somwhere before 2nd edition, and their basic chapter setup held firm from a similar era until the horrible introduction of Primaris. I don't know the timeline exactly, but this is a time period spanning form 1992-3ish up to 2017 maybe? 25 years of stable "core marine identity", if you will. Certain things were expanded in that time, such as individual chapter variation in relation to that structure (like when the Salamanders and Black Templars were expanded upon), but these were always introduced as being exceptions to the codex norm.

And yet GW was more than happy to change them with the primaris, which I know you don't like. But the point is that GW is more than happy to change it however they want.

It is an entirely artificial line to draw at one point within 40k's history and it's only done for these kinds of conversations - to justify sticking religiously to an interpretation of 40k lore like it's sacrosanct unchanging. Because if you accept that GW will change what they want when they want, and that 40k has looked different throughout it's history, then it doesn't hold water.

Being relatively stable for however long doesn't make it definitive as GW has been more than willing to show.

 a_typical_hero wrote:
The Horus Heresy is filling out blind spots that have not been mentioned before. We know it happened. We know some bigger events like the Siege of Terra. ..

We know, from post-RT fluff, that the 2 missing legions were still around at the time of the Horus Heresy, and most likely fought on Horus' side.

But nobody seems to be screaming from the rooftops about that particular change to the inviolable 'lore'...

 Hellebore wrote:
What boggles my mind the most about this whole thing is that there are people who absolutely straighfaced seriously tie their enjoyment of marines with the explicit absence of women.

It's apparently not good enough to say, well anyone can be a marine, but if you want an all male force you can, no issues there at all.

No, they actually need to have women explicitly excluded from the faction, actual lore and text written to say 'girls can't be this', or their enjoyment of the faction is somehow ruined.

This idea is very definitely a them problem, because women being in the faction doesn't change how you can enjoy them, it changes how others can. Not being able to enjoy them because a girl COULD be one, is such an infantile position to take.

And it's also amazing that in this day an age, we wouldn't ever consider publically saying 'well I can only enjoy my army men if there are no black people in it', but sex exclusion still just fine.

Those water fountains were absolutely ruined for white people when they knew someone not white could use them.

I don't think it's about "enjoyment" per se, but more a stance on a principle of whether or not such a thing can exist in a fictional universe. Is it ok for a faction to be all male? I think it should be. It seems ok to have an all-female faction. I understand that these two factions within the 40k franchise aren't treated equally, but there's probably other fictional universes in which the "position of dominant attention" is gender swapped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

They’ve gone from elite infantry to genhanced post-human ubermensch. The structure of their armed forces through history have been chopped and changed.

Hard disagree. They were extremely stable for over 20 years. They became post-human ubermench somwhere before 2nd edition, and their basic chapter setup held firm from a similar era until the horrible introduction of Primaris. I don't know the timeline exactly, but this is a time period spanning form 1992-3ish up to 2017 maybe? 25 years of stable "core marine identity", if you will. Certain things were expanded in that time, such as individual chapter variation in relation to that structure (like when the Salamanders and Black Templars were expanded upon), but these were always introduced as being exceptions to the codex norm.

And yet GW was more than happy to change them with the primaris, which I know you don't like. But the point is that GW is more than happy to change it however they want.

It is an entirely artificial line to draw at one point within 40k's history and it's only done for these kinds of conversations - to justify sticking religiously to an interpretation of 40k lore like it's sacrosanct unchanging. Because if you accept that GW will change what they want when they want, and that 40k has looked different throughout it's history, then it doesn't hold water.

Being relatively stable for however long doesn't make it definitive as GW has been more than willing to show.

I don't have the time to argue this point right now, but a franchise being dismissive of it's own established canon can really mess with the fandom and the reputation of the IP holders. You can't treat it as nothing. Or, you CAN, but that can be risky and have adverse effects.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 a_typical_hero wrote:
The Horus Heresy is filling out blind spots that have not been mentioned before. We know it happened. We know some bigger events like the Siege of Terra. ..

We know, from post-RT fluff, that the 2 missing legions were still around at the time of the Horus Heresy, and most likely fought on Horus' side.

But nobody seems to be screaming from the rooftops about that particular change to the inviolable 'lore'...

I mean, that's really not a lot of additional info.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd honestly stick with Brother. Officers might be referred to as "my Lady" though.

I think in the US armed forces women officers are still addressed as "sir".

But the point being made is that it HAD established canon and you are deciding that the retcon of THAT was ok because you prefer the new established canon.

It's a hypocritical position to take. Either canon matters or it doesn't.

In which case, the current version of space marines is definitively a retcon of how they were.

And you are ok with retcons, because you like that retcon more.

You can't say 'well the new version is definitive because X', the original was definitive as well. they didn't publish it and say 'gee whiz, this is crap filler until we come up with something new'.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Even the comment above about defining a woman. The scientific one is too much detail to repeat, people tend to mean the current social construct but do so with no knowledge of how that is different around the edges through time and different cultures.

I honestly don't think the social construct definitions are part of how most people think of "man" or "woman", fundamentally. I think (though I'd love to see some data on it) most people are going with the biological definition of "man" = adult human male, and "woman" = adult human female. As in, you could slap as many layers of gender expression as you like on top of it, but if the underpinning biology is still there then that's where the label will ultimately lay. (for most people)

You can't get more definitive than the literal first time something was ever published, space marines were introduced to the world in RT as was the 40k universe. And if you go back and look at it, most of that universe survives intact to today. They didn't completely scrub it out of existence and write a new setting. 40k RT is still pretty much the same setting it is today. Even Space marines were still gene enhanced super soldiers and modern 40k still has some chapters recruiting in exactly the same way as they did in RT. The Imperial Fists still recruit from gangers in necromunda.

And that was that, for several years until they started to retcon bits here and there. No one getting into 40k at that point had aspirations of space knight ubermasc warriors, because GW wasn't selling them that. You're fine telling the fans of those that their preferred version of space marines, literally the FIRST version, is wrong, but don't want the same thing to happen to your preferred version.

But you also tell people primaris suck and they shouldn't have done them. So sorry, it's a hypocritical position that you've taken, where a particular version of something has struck a chord with you personally and you've decided that is the objective definitive version in general.

And the overarching point is that you take your particular slice of GW's presentation of space marines more seriously than they do, because you don't like the old and discount it and don't like the new and discount that. But it also means any argument used from the 'canon is important' perspective can't be taken seriously.

 Hellebore wrote:
But the point being made is that it HAD established canon and you are deciding that the retcon of THAT was ok because you prefer the new established canon.

It's a hypocritical position to take. Either canon matters or it doesn't.

In which case, the current version of space marines is definitively a retcon of how they were.

And you are ok with retcons, because you like that retcon more.

You can't say 'well the new version is definitive because X', the original was definitive as well. they didn't publish it and say 'gee whiz, this is crap filler until we come up with something new'.

That's a drastic oversimplification. Rogue Trader is clearly an experimental time in the formation of the 40k universe, and within a few years Space Marines in particular became largely the thing which they were for that 20 years, and by many accounts fueled the company into what it became. I wouldn't call it "retconning" but rather "clarification" or some similar term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
You can't get more definitive than the literal first time something was ever published, space marines were introduced to the world in RT as was the 40k universe. And if you go back and look at it, most of that universe survives intact to today. They didn't completely scrub it out of existence and write a new setting. 40k RT is still pretty much the same setting it is today. Even Space marines were still gene enhanced super soldiers and modern 40k still has some chapters recruiting in exactly the same way as they did in RT. The Imperial Fists still recruit from gangers in necromunda.

And that was that, for several years until they started to retcon bits here and there. No one getting into 40k at that point had aspirations of space knight ubermasc warriors, because GW wasn't selling them that. You're fine telling the fans of those that their preferred version of space marines, literally the FIRST version, is wrong, but don't want the same thing to happen to your preferred version.

But you also tell people primaris suck and they shouldn't have done them. So sorry, it's a hypocritical position that you've taken, where a particular version of something has struck a chord with you personally and you've decided that is the objective definitive version in general.

And the overarching point is that you take your particular slice of GW's presentation of space marines more seriously than they do, because you don't like the old and discount it and don't like the new and discount that. But it also means any argument used from the 'canon is important' perspective can't be taken seriously.

I'm curious as to what changes in Space Marines from their RT inception to their late RT-2nd incarnation you're trying so hard to pin me with are. Because, honestly, there's really not much I can think of beyond the half-Eldar librarian and that Leman Russ was an "Imperial Commander". I think there are some gear options? I know there was a stat-shift in game terms too.

 Insectum7 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

Even the comment above about defining a woman. The scientific one is too much detail to repeat, people tend to mean the current social construct but do so with no knowledge of how that is different around the edges through time and different cultures.

I honestly don't think the social construct definitions are part of how most people think of "man" or "woman", fundamentally. I think (though I'd love to see some data on it) most people are going with the biological definition of "man" = adult human male, and "woman" = adult human female. As in, you could slap as many layers of gender expression as you like on top of it, but if the underpinning biology is still there then that's where the label will ultimately lay. (for most people)

This is not the place for that discussion.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

We know, from post-RT fluff, that the 2 missing legions were still around at the time of the Horus Heresy, and most likely fought on Horus' side.

But nobody seems to be screaming from the rooftops about that particular change to the inviolable 'lore'...

I mean, that's really not a lot of additional info.

Neither is 'Some Space Marines are women, actually...'

 insaniak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Is it about getting female heads for SMs (even though, given what has been said about the process, I would think they would be barely distinguishable from male SM heads).
Is this about changing the lore?
Is it about getting SM models with literal breastplate armour?

Outside of the grimier parts of Reddit and 4chan, very few people want boobplate on any of their models.

Most just want to see female characters represented.

We are gonna have to disagree on this point.
Since FSM came into my radar I have seen a LOT of smexy FSMs on various social media platforms. And I do mean a lot. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence but so is yours.

Now, I do wonder why the FSM would retain secondary sexual characteristics given the enhancements and the completely removal of primary sexual characteristics... but I have seen quite a bit of art what has rather turned me off of the idea.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

We know, from post-RT fluff, that the 2 missing legions were still around at the time of the Horus Heresy, and most likely fought on Horus' side.

But nobody seems to be screaming from the rooftops about that particular change to the inviolable 'lore'...

I mean, that's really not a lot of additional info.

Neither is 'Some Space Marines are women, actually...'

In quantity yes, but in quality no. I don't think (though correct me if I'm wrong) any revelations about the missing legions contradicted anything from preexisting lore.

Although, to clarify, you're talking to somebody who doesn't like a lot of the information brought to us with the HH novels.

thevintagegm wrote:

We are gonna have to disagree on this point.
Since FSM came into my radar I have seen a LOT of smexy FSMs on various social media platforms. And I do mean a lot. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence but so is yours.

Now, I do wonder why the FSM would retain secondary sexual characteristics given the enhancements and the completely removal of primary sexual characteristics... but I have seen quite a bit of art what has rather turned me off of the idea.

There is a difference between what people who enjoy that sort of art choose to draw, and what players actually want on the table.

But even in the art, from my experience, there was far more 'sexy' space marine art around ten or fifteen years ago than there is now. The sensibly dressed marine is by far more common, these days.

How much of it you see will obviously be down to what the algorithm thinks of your viewing preferences...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
In quantity yes, but in quality no. I don't think (though correct me if I'm wrong) any revelations about the missing legions contradicted anything from preexisting lore.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
In quantity yes, but in quality no. I don't think (though correct me if I'm wrong) any revelations about the missing legions contradicted anything from preexisting lore.

How is 'they were gone well before the Heresy kicked off' not a contradiction of 'they fought on Horus' side, at least at the start of the Heresy'...?

Oh fair enough. Thanks for the info.

I offer no comment other than to reiterate my general feeling that the HH novels talk too much.

thevintagegm wrote:

We are gonna have to disagree on this point.
Since FSM came into my radar I have seen a LOT of smexy FSMs on various social media platforms. And I do mean a lot. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence but so is yours.

Now, I do wonder why the FSM would retain secondary sexual characteristics given the enhancements and the completely removal of primary sexual characteristics... but I have seen quite a bit of art what has rather turned me off of the idea.

Of course some people will interpret it like that. But that is true for everything. Rule 34 and all that.

But try searching #femalespacemarines #femalespacemarine #femalespacemarineshowcase on Instagram. (The last one is particularly good as it is mostly limited to people who genuinely like the concept.) There are some "pin up" interpretations, but overwhelming majority is not that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'd honestly stick with Brother. Officers might be referred to as "my Lady" though.

I think in the US armed forces women officers are still addressed as "sir".

I'm not opposed to sticking to "my Lord" either. I'd certainly be interested in hearing different perspectives on the matter. Mine isn't terribly important.

From my low level understanding, women serving in most factions (imperial guard, eldar, i dunno others) are still able to have babies. There's probably new factions I don't know about since I stopped paying a lot of attention back in 5th/6th edition. Women space marines could not have children. The imperium needs more babies to feed the grimdark. The eldar are a dead/dying race that are decadant and have fallen in many ways.
Space marines seem to rely on gang fights and harsh contests to recruit, they don't just have a recruitment center in an office in a shopping mall to get aspirants. And even before puberty there's a big difference in physical ability between boys and girls, it gets more pronounced the closer you get to puberty, when you've got your plucky gang soldiers doin ritual combat to the death to earn the honor of becoming a space marine scout you would have weeded out any of the very few girls crazy enough to be in that situation.

And of course, people who want FSM always say "why do you care so much about not letting it happen?" to which I say "why do you care so much about changing almost 40 years of history and everything that comes with it in order to make a change you say is not a big enough deal for people to care about being against it."

I have yet to really hear any good explanation, "the flagship faction needs to represent men and women" is a valid opinion to have, but its a bad explanation to change so many things. Women are represented in 40k in many many factions already, heck tyranids and orks are 100% female.

And I mean, goodness, I remember people complaining about space marines being the "main poster faction" back in 3rd edition, sure you can still be tired of it, but if you're tired of it then quit already, I basically quit 40k in 6th edition, you can quit too.

BanjoJohn wrote:
From my low level understanding, women serving in most factions (imperial guard, eldar, i dunno others) are still able to have babies. There's probably new factions I don't know about since I stopped paying a lot of attention back in 5th/6th edition. Women space marines could not have children. The imperium needs more babies to feed the grimdark. The eldar are a dead/dying race that are decadant and have fallen in many ways.
Space marines seem to rely on gang fights and harsh contests to recruit, they don't just have a recruitment center in an office in a shopping mall to get aspirants. And even before puberty there's a big difference in physical ability between boys and girls, it gets more pronounced the closer you get to puberty, when you've got your plucky gang soldiers doin ritual combat to the death to earn the honor of becoming a space marine scout you would have weeded out any of the very few girls crazy enough to be in that situation.

And of course, people who want FSM always say "why do you care so much about not letting it happen?" to which I say "why do you care so much about changing almost 40 years of history and everything that comes with it in order to make a change you say is not a big enough deal for people to care about being against it."

I have yet to really hear any good explanation, "the flagship faction needs to represent men and women" is a valid opinion to have, but its a bad explanation to change so many things. Women are represented in 40k in many many factions already, heck tyranids and orks are 100% female.

And I mean, goodness, I remember people complaining about space marines being the "main poster faction" back in 3rd edition, sure you can still be tired of it, but if you're tired of it then quit already, I basically quit 40k in 6th edition, you can quit too.

Orks are not 100% female.
Nor are Tyranids.

Orks are agender (in-universe) that present (out of universe) as masculine.
Tyranids are also largely agender, with some (like the Tervigon) qualifying as female, but they are very distinctly not human or even close.

And gangs in 40k have plenty of women. Look at Necromunda, for example.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tyranids are also largely agender, with some (like the Tervigon) qualifying as female, but they are very distinctly not human or even close.

I always saw the Tervigon less as 'giving birth' and more like running at the enemy with a cyst full of Termagants

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tyranids are also largely agender, with some (like the Tervigon) qualifying as female, but they are very distinctly not human or even close.

I always saw the Terviogon less as 'giving birth' and more like running at the enemy with a cyst full of Termagants

Fair view as well.
But Nids are definitely NOT female representation for anything remotely resembling human, whether or not you could class them scientifically as female or not.

I'm not sure I've heard the problems of tradition so well summarized as I did when I read that people of today should be beholden to the ideas of people 40 years ago, so that it remains unchanged to someone who hasn't participated for 12 years.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
In quantity yes, but in quality no. I don't think (though correct me if I'm wrong) any revelations about the missing legions contradicted anything from preexisting lore.

How is 'they were gone well before the Heresy kicked off' not a contradiction of 'they fought on Horus' side, at least at the start of the Heresy'...?

The latest Lexicanum articles still list them as "vanishing" before the HH. Where does the part come from that they likely fought on Horus side?

The big thing about them always was that nowhere is it stated why the records were expunged, when even traitor legions were not treated that harshly. Wether they fought during the HH or not is not affecting that mystery, personal opinion aside.

BanjoJohn wrote:
From my low level understanding, women serving in most factions (imperial guard, eldar, i dunno others) are still able to have babies. There's probably new factions I don't know about since I stopped paying a lot of attention back in 5th/6th edition. Women space marines could not have children. The imperium needs more babies to feed the grimdark.

Pro-tip - women generally don't enjoy seeing themselves represented in fantasy as nothing more than baby-making machines. There's room for more than that.

There are a thousand chapters of Space Marines, each with (in theory) a thousand marines. There are hive cities with larger populations than we currently have on the entire planet. even if we reduce a woman's importance down to whether or not she can have children, the number of women recruited for Marine Chapters would be a mere drop in the ocean, well and truly eclipsed by those recruited for the Sororitas, or sacrificed to keep the Emperor alive, amongst other things.

Space marines seem to rely on gang fights and harsh contests to recruit, they don't just have a recruitment center in an office in a shopping mall to get aspirants. And even before puberty there's a big difference in physical ability between boys and girls, it gets more pronounced the closer you get to puberty, when you've got your plucky gang soldiers doin ritual combat to the death to earn the honor of becoming a space marine scout you would have weeded out any of the very few girls crazy enough to be in that situation.

Can you post the different statlines in Warhammer 40K for male and female guardsmen, please?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tyranids are also largely agender, with some (like the Tervigon) qualifying as female, but they are very distinctly not human or even close.

I always saw the Terviogon less as 'giving birth' and more like running at the enemy with a cyst full of Termagants

Fair view as well.
But Nids are definitely NOT female representation for anything remotely resembling human, whether or not you could class them scientifically as female or not.

Yes I know none of the women in my life would be happy being represented by a house sized monster than spits babies, for some reason.

 a_typical_hero wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
In quantity yes, but in quality no. I don't think (though correct me if I'm wrong) any revelations about the missing legions contradicted anything from preexisting lore.

How is 'they were gone well before the Heresy kicked off' not a contradiction of 'they fought on Horus' side, at least at the start of the Heresy'...?

The latest Lexicanum articles still list them as "vanishing" before the HH. Where does the part come from that they likely fought on Horus side?

Codex: Ultramarines.

The big thing about them always was that nowhere is it stated why the records were expunged, when even traitor legions were not treated that harshly. Wether they fought during the HH or not is not affecting that mystery, personal opinion aside.

The most likely explanation from before the HH series was that they took Horus' side but were completely destroyed during the Heresy - deleting them from all records would have been an ultimate punishment for their betrayal, as it made it as if they had never even existed. That couldn't be done with the other traitor legions, because they were still running around causing a ruckus. (Although I vaguely recall another theory floating around that at least one of them became the Grey Knights)

Changing their story to having been eliminated for some unspecified but vaguely hinted reasons sometime during the Great Crusade keeps the mystery and avoids GW having to come up with two more legions on the fly, but is still a change to established background material, which I'm told is a heinous thing worthy of hate and derision.

BanjoJohn wrote:
And of course, people who want FSM always say "why do you care so much about not letting it happen?" to which I say "why do you care so much about changing almost 40 years of history and everything that comes with it in order to make a change you say is not a big enough deal for people to care about being against it."

The real-life United States of America is still struggling to improve upon the inequities of 400 years of history. Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it should always be that way.

Edit: apologies to mods for my now-deleted post. I posted that reply without reading the rest of the thread, yet - including the warning.

Meh - have never really been bothered by this topic as I haven't really ever considered it adding any value to the storyline but potentially adding big old plotholes if it were changed.

On gender in 40k - it is already pretty much the most diverse fictional setting of any setting in any form of fiction. I can't think of any other fictional universe that has pretty much every corner of the gender spectrum filled in naturally without pandering to anyone, yet in 40k there is already everything (multiple non-binary races, all male factions, all female factions, gender neutral factions). If someone asked you to recommend a table top game where you could play as different gender identities, you would tell them 40k is the game for you.

On Marines (and I guess Custodes) specifically - it has come up repeatedly in the existing lore that everyone (Imperium and Chaos) is using every tool available to mass produce super soldiers, whether it's Bile and his clones or the Raven Guard trying to replenish their legion, or Guilliman and Cawl's excellent adventures. Adding female superhumans into the mix is inevitably going to raise the question of "can they have super babies?", which requires an answer of no (which is equally silly to no girl marines because hormones) in order to stop the whole lore come crashing down. If Custodes can have babies, why bother with marines? And why hasn't the Imperium made enough Custodes to replace marines yet and win the galactic war on easy mode? Likewise, if marines could reproduce via good old sex, that would surely be easier than the weird and often fatal rituals for transitioning a human, and why bother with the Guard or Sisters?

It's a lot easier to just accept there's nothing wrong with marines being male, and as far as representation goes - engaging with real people and expanding into different game formats to appeal to them > toy soldiers with boob plate.

 Insularum wrote:
Adding female superhumans into the mix is inevitably going to raise the question of "can they have super babies?", which requires an answer of no (which is equally silly to no girl marines because hormones) ...

Do you consider it silly that the process sterilises men?

Because I'm not really seeing a difference. Aspirants go through some pretty extreme surgical and genetic modifications. The idea that they can't reproduce afterwards isn't much of a stretch, particularly if it was deliberately built into said process precisely to force their reliance on Imperial resources to replenish their numbers.