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.

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

No

No

Yes, but probably not intentionally.

Couldn’t get the page to load, so I assume this is about the latest HH rulebook reprinting the old “Astartes can only be boys” fluff, which is more easily seen as misogynistic in my eyes. And I’d chalk it up to lazy copy-pasting rather than an agenda.

(If this article is about something else, please quote the relevant bits here.)

What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.

That the whole thing opens with a self-righteous attempt to paint themselves as above other community sites makes the whole thing even worse. Disgusting.

It is the language used. "Biological male" has become a common term in transphobic rhetoric.

Is it intentional? probably not, it is GW we are talking about, they routinely fail to proof read their rules so I doubt they would bother to think about the implications of the terms they use in their fluff.

No, that article is just someone looking for a reason to be outraged. Sex =/= gender, and the GW quote is very clearly referring to "males" not "men". Nothing about it suggests any intent to invalidate trans people, or that the subject of gender or identity or anything like that is even relevant.

(The whole male-only thing is still silly from a plausibility point of view, but we're talking about an organization that is in-universe explicitly a bunch of backwards idiots who don't understand their own technology. It's absolutely fluff-accurate for them to have a middle-school level understanding of sex and genetics.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Couldn’t get the page to load, so I assume this is about the latest HH rulebook reprinting the old “Astartes can only be boys” fluff, which is more easily seen as misogynistic in my eyes. And I’d chalk it up to lazy copy-pasting rather than an agenda.

Yep, that's what it is. The quote they're objecting to:

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

Nah.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.

I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

This is exhausting... I think the term/phrase 'Transphobic' has lost all meaning now as it so quickly gets thrown around, and does more to harm Trans individuals, as it makes them seem perpetually offended.

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft.

Edit.
I always took that old bit of fluff to highlight the dangers of an all male group. How it magnifies the worst of their attitudes as they are not being balanced by the other sex. It was meant as a warning of what happens when the 2 sexes don't work together.

 Tyran wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
What a load of pretentious nonsense. There is SO MUCH out there that is actually transphobic, but here they are writing an article attacking something which isn't. By labeling a dry scientific statement as transphobic they sell the idea that trans individuals are simply looking to get offended over innocuous content. Absolutely not the case, but this one article does more damage than ten which actually support transgender rights by providing evidence bigots can use to discredit them.

I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

How would you write the statement then?

For that matter, how would you rewrite 40k fluff to avoid any statements that could possibly offend any discriminated minority? Because that is the proposal at hand.

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

But remember that the lore is written from a semi-fictional point of view. The Imperium probably doesn't understand any of the nuances of sex or genetics, they're operating on a level of "if there's a bit sticking out give him space marine stuff". It would be completely out of place and awkward to get into those nuances and start talking about the very rare edge cases, especially given the fact that this is a brief throwaway line that isn't even the focus of the book.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

That's really reaching. Is it a simplified view of sex? Yes. Is it in a context where a more nuanced version of sex would be relevant to the topic? No. Does it claim that sex determines gender and that trans people are really their "biological sex"? Absolutely not.

It lays out the premise that the biological composition of a homo sapiens individual which is genetically male is a prerequisite for becoming a Space Marine. That is quite clearly not transphobic and even the writers of the article knew that, the argument is based that the wording of the statement is somehow transphobic, and because of one sentence they raise the question of all 40k being transphobic.

There is quite literally no better way to promote ongoing discrimination against transgender people than posting articles like this one.

These crybabies never stop complaining.

Absolutely insufferable.

I don't like the idea that everything these days has to be rewritten or fashioned to be politically correct. The 40k universe is fiction, I don't think it should have to pander to anybody, really. Remember these people will never be satisfied, they will push and push until what we are left with is something unrecognizable.

In the end I don't think art should have to tread an ideological line. It's a fictional universe, if you don't like it, don't partake in it. People these days seem soft, sensitive and frail of mind, sheesh.

 stonehorse wrote:
This is exhausting... I think the term/phrase 'Transphobic' has lost all meaning now as it so quickly gets thrown around, and does more to harm Trans individuals, as it makes them seem perpetually offended.

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft.

It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

Sure, you can argue there isn’t much harm here, but it’s definitely a “no gurlz” statement canonized into the fluff.

Edit.
I always took that old bit of fluff to highlight the dangers of an all male group. How it magnifies the worst of their attitudes as they are not being balanced by the other sex. It was meant as a warning of what happens when the 2 sexes don't work together.

I find this to be a stretch, although a valid interpretation of modern fluff. However, word from the designers is there were female space marines in the earliest days of the game, but they didn’t sell, and GW received complaints about them, so they changed the background to fit with their customers’ attitude.

No.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
This is exhausting... I think the term/phrase 'Transphobic' has lost all meaning now as it so quickly gets thrown around, and does more to harm Trans individuals, as it makes them seem perpetually offended.

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft.

It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

Sure, you can argue there isn’t much harm here, but it’s definitely a “no gurlz” statement canonized into the fluff.

Edit.
I always took that old bit of fluff to highlight the dangers of an all male group. How it magnifies the worst of their attitudes as they are not being balanced by the other sex. It was meant as a warning of what happens when the 2 sexes don't work together.

I find this to be a stretch, although a valid interpretation of modern fluff. However, word from the designers is there were female space marines in the earliest days of the game, but they didn’t sell, and GW received complaints about them, so they changed the background to fit with their customers’ attitude.

I see your point about 'That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that it marginalises a group of real life people is just daft'. Was incorrect. It should have read:

That old bit of background is lazy, sure. However claiming that this harms trans individuals in real life is just daft.

I vaguely remember those Female Space Marines. If I recall correctly that was during the Rogue Trader days, the background was all over the place back then. Sadly the GW fan base at the time was pretty much a sausage fest, things have improved, which is great.

Marines being all Male comes from a different time, I'd wager that most real world militaries at the time were pretty much all Male. Action films were dominated by Strong Males, being aggressive. The designers would have grown up in that world, so their views/ideas/etc would have been shaped by it.

Now I think it is good to reinterpretation it as a warning against single sexed communities/lodges/organisations/etc.

Edited because I can't type words tonight apparently!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

How would you write the statement then?

For that matter, how would you rewrite 40k fluff to avoid any statements that could possibly offend any discriminated minority? Because that is the proposal at hand.

To be honest I do not know, as the whole "male only Space Marines" is inherently bs* and inherently discriminatory, so I would simply not write it. Leaving aside complications with transphobic terms, it also reeks of misogyny.

*So you are telling me that the process requires hormones traditionally associated with the male gender, something we have been able to trivially replicate for more than a century by this point.

Moreover, my reply to you was because "dry scientific statement" is factually wrong, regardless if it is discriminatory or not.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
I wouldn't call any of it a "dry scientific statement". Biologists that study sex did not make those statements, as scientific research regarding sex has found out that sex, like any other biological process, is an extremely complicated process full of moving (and poorly understood) parts. GW trying to simplify it in one sentence is not a dry scientific statement.

But remember that the lore is written from a semi-fictional point of view. The Imperium probably doesn't understand any of the nuances of sex or genetics, they're operating on a level of "if there's a bit sticking out give him space marine stuff". It would be completely out of place and awkward to get into those nuances and start talking about the very rare edge cases, especially given the fact that this is a brief throwaway line that isn't even the focus of the book.

There is the further issue is that it is hard to believe the Imperium can be that ignorant when it comes to biology, not when they go around with biologically enhanced super soldiers and deploying super biological weapons.

Specially when the Astartes were first created by the Emperor, and later modified by Cawl, who the text presents as scientific geniuses, so it is hard to accept they are that ignorant. But I guess that is one of the inherent issues of writing supposedly smart characters, the writers are rarely that smart.

Like everything else in 40k, it is pseudo science, the issue here is that it is pseudo science regarding sex, which has been used to hurt trans people.

That's really reaching. Is it a simplified view of sex? Yes. Is it in a context where a more nuanced version of sex would be relevant to the topic? No. Does it claim that sex determines gender and that trans people are really their "biological sex"? Absolutely not.

Unlike goonhammer, I do not believe that the text is an example of intentional transphobia, but rather another example of writers writing stuff they are unfamiliar with. But the fact that simplified views of sex have been used to hurt trans people is sadly a reality of transphobia. If we didn't live in a world in which people use terms like "biological male" to attack transwomen, then I wouldn't have much of an issue with the text presented by GW, but yet sadly we do live in such world.

Also while we are at it, any simplified view of scientific concepts is likely wrong, a lot of times out of necessity of the sheer complexity of science. This is best shown when it comes to scientific journalism as depicted on this meme:



This isn't inherently bad, because science fiction is built on faulty science. Star Wars, Star Trek, 40k, Halo, Mass Effect, etc. Unless it is hard science fiction, it is likely built misusing scientific concepts.

But sex is a difficult topic, and thus should be approached with care. No one cares if you get the theory of relativity wrong when building your FTL drive, people do care if you try to present false statements regarding sex as science.

 Tyran wrote:
To be honest I do not know, as the whole "male only Space Marines" is inherently bs* and inherently discriminatory, so I would simply not write it. Leaving aside complications with transphobic terms, it also reeks of misogyny.

Just to confirm: you do know that the space marines are the bad guys, right? That they should not be expected to align with modern progressive views on gender/equality/etc?

*So you are telling me that the process requires hormones traditionally associated with the male gender, something we have been able to trivially replicate for more than a century by this point.

40k =/= real life. In real life we can do many things that are impossible for the Imperium.

There is the further issue is that it is hard to believe the Imperium can be that ignorant when it comes to biology, not when they go around with biologically enhanced super soldiers and deploying super biological weapons.

It's not hard to believe at all. The entire premise of the setting is that the Imperium is a bunch of ignorant fanatics looting the work of the greater civilization that preceded them. They don't really understand any of their technology, they can only attempt to follow the user manuals as best they can and hope nothing breaks. I could absolutely believe that female space marines (or similar genetically engineered soldiers) existed and were common in that greater civilization but now the Imperium only knows "put the mariney bits in the strongest boys".

Unlike goonhammer, I do not believe that the text is an example of intentional transphobia, but rather another example of writers writing stuff they are unfamiliar with. But the fact that simplified views of sex have been used to hurt trans people is sadly a reality of transphobia. If we didn't live in a world in which people use terms like "biological male" to attack transwomen, then I wouldn't have much of an issue with the text presented by GW, but yet sadly we do live in such world.

So how much detail is GW obligated to go into? Do they need to include a page-length explanation of how XX/XY is a simplified middle school science class version of sex determination and describe all of the various edge cases?

people do care if you try to present false statements regarding sex as science.

But nobody is presenting it as science! This is a rulebook, not a genetics textbook, and it is presenting the rules for a bunch of ignorant barbarians fighting genocidal holy wars against literal demons from hell, space elves who had so much kinky sex they tore a hole in reality and created a new chaos god, and rioting British soccer fans led by Margaret Thatcher. If you're treating anything ever said in 40k as truth then you are completely missing the point of the setting.

Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.


Adding a “no girls” phrase to what could be their next flagship product is an unnecessary error. No one would have reduced purchases due to a lack of “no girls” phrasing, but some people will reduce it due to the presence of such. And GW really just doesn’t need any more ill will at this point in time. Just seems like a needless own-goal to me.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.


Adding a “no girls” phrase to what could be their next flagship product is an unnecessary error. No one would have reduced purchases due to a lack of “no girls” phrasing, but some people will reduce it due to the presence of such. And GW really just doesn’t need any more ill will at this point in time. Just seems like a needless own-goal to me.

I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

If so, do people really need everything to represent them in order to enjoy it? Isn't the joy of escapism the act of escaping what, who, and when we are?

As for own goals, I doubt GW not having Female Space Marines is going to be their undoing, and we suddenly see people stop buying Space Marines. Heck, the Primaris always reminded me of that scene from the Simpson's where Malabo Stacey got a new hat and the kids went crazy for it... even more as the Primaris range has been peddled out.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Just to confirm: you do know that the space marines are the bad guys, right? That they should not be expected to align with modern progressive views on gender/equality/etc?

40k =/= real life. In real life we can do many things that are impossible for the Imperium.

It's not hard to believe at all. The entire premise of the setting is that the Imperium is a bunch of ignorant fanatics looting the work of the greater civilization that preceded them. They don't really understand any of their technology, they can only attempt to follow the user manuals as best they can and hope nothing breaks. I could absolutely believe that female space marines (or similar genetically engineered soldiers) existed and were common in that greater civilization but now the Imperium only knows "put the mariney bits in the strongest boys".

We both know that GW has often strayed from that premise, see the Primaris, see any piece of lore in which the Space Marines are shown as the heroic protagonists.

So how much detail is GW obligated to go into? Do they need to include a page-length explanation of how XX/XY is a simplified middle school science class version of sex determination and describe all of the various edge cases?

I would prefer they wouldn't go into it at all. There is plenty of lore that should be ignored and forgotten: this, that time Grey Knights bathed in the blood of Sisters of Battle (thankfully that one got retconned), the sheer stupidity that is the Tau's lack of FTL.

But nobody is presenting it as science! This is a rulebook, not a genetics textbook, and it is presenting the rules for a bunch of ignorant barbarians fighting genocidal holy wars against literal demons from hell, space elves who had so much kinky sex they tore a hole in reality and created a new chaos god, and rioting British soccer fans led by Margaret Thatcher. If you're treating anything ever said in 40k as truth then you are completely missing the point of the setting.

Perhaps, but GW's has often also completely missed that point, so I think I can be forgiven from missing it too. 40k does have the issue that GW's has been unable to decide if the setting is supposed to be purely satirical or something more serious. And that is actually quite problematic when it comes to satire.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

In no way, shape or form. People need to stop peddling this nonsense that representation matters in every single facet of our existence, least of all in fiction. It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports), and it's entirely the prerogative of any author to have a culturally/ethnically/sexually homogenous group of people depicted in their fiction for whatever reason they see fit. This does not infringe on anyone's rights, nor does it marginalize people in the real world. It's an absurd notion, to be quite frank.

 BertBert wrote:

It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports)

... have you ever watched the Olympics?

At most you can say that sports select towards certain biological qualities, but they are not homogeneous.

 Tyran wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports)

... have you ever watched the Olympics?

At most you can say that sports select towards certain biological qualities, but they are not homogeneous.

They are homogenous in the sense that they are separated into the categories men/women, which would be analogous to the Space Marine question.

 stonehorse wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Again, Space Marines may be the villains, but they are also the poster boys of the IP, which is reflected in the sheer number of space marine products compared to the next most popular faction. They are faction that needs to appeal to everyone, as they are the face of the company.


Adding a “no girls” phrase to what could be their next flagship product is an unnecessary error. No one would have reduced purchases due to a lack of “no girls” phrasing, but some people will reduce it due to the presence of such. And GW really just doesn’t need any more ill will at this point in time. Just seems like a needless own-goal to me.

I just want to make sure I am reading this right. Is your argument 'as Space Marines have no Female representation, Females will not buy them'.

Not exactly. Some women won’t buy them. Some men, too. And some will just buy into AOS instead because they feel more welcome, something I’ve seen happen with a few younger customers of both sexes.

Also, many existing customers will feel less welcome gaming at the store if they believe this attitude is widely held. As described in the many threads on GW’s decline during the Kirby years, the network effect is strong and discouraging people from gaming in communities hurts the game.

I am not saying the company will lose millions, the end is upon it. Just, this is not ideal for the company and could combine with other factors, like poor rules and price hikes, to hurt the company in the medium-long term. And it was totally unnecessary.

If so, do people really need everything to represent them in order to enjoy it? Isn't the joy of escapism the act of escaping what, who, and when we are?

Some people do. Many, maybe most, think it is nice to be represented yet don’t need it. And some don’t even care at all.

Remember that films like Black Panther and Wonder Woman received outsized success for finally serving people hungry for representation. Lots of people want representation and will pay to have it.

As for own goals, I doubt GW not having Female Space Marines is going to be their undoing, and we suddenly see people stop buying Space Marines. Heck, the Primaris always reminded me of that scene from the Simpson's were Malabo Stacey got a new hat and the kids went crazy for it... even more as the Primaris range has been peddled out.

Agreed for the most part. I still think they are leaving a significant chunk of money on the table and also showing their ass to potentially loyal customers.

 BertBert wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 BertBert wrote:

It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports)

... have you ever watched the Olympics?

At most you can say that sports select towards certain biological qualities, but they are not homogeneous.

They are homogenous in the sense that they are separated by men/women, which would be analogous to the Space Marine question.

Even then that doesn't apply to all sports.

And of course the analogy falls apart because Space Marines are not a sport, they are a military force, and military forces are not homogeneous when it come to gender.
We cannot even justify it as the IoM being sexists because the Imperial Guard has guardswomen.

 BertBert wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


It doesn’t marginalize women by excluding them (in terms of self representation at least) from the top-selling, most iconic, best-supported faction in the game?

In no way, shape or form. People need to stop peddling this nonsense that representation matters in every single facet of our existence, least of all in fiction. It's okay for certain subsets of people to be homogeneous in real life (e.g. in sports), and it's entirely the prerogative of any author to have a culturally/ethnically/sexually homogenous group of people depicted in their fiction for whatever reason they see fit. This does not infringe on anyone's rights, nor does it marginalize people in the real world. It's an absurd notion, to be quite frank.

1. This is an insane misrepresentation of what I wrote. Ironic, considering. You even must have read my sentence about it not causing much harm before deleting it so you could pretend I said it did.

2. Rights? What the hell do you think we’re talking about here?

2. Authors are free to write stupid crap and customers are free to call it stupid crap and recommend other people don’t buy it. That is what we’re discussing here. To what extent is GW’s latest crap stupid, and how many people will decide not to buy it, with the particular stupid crap under discussion being the old “no girls” bit.

3. I think we have a different understanding of the term “marginalized”, and I admit that could be my error. I took is as meaning “to make unwelcome”, which has nothing really to do with rights, but more to do with telling women “no girls” here.

4. When people tell me representation matters to them, I believe them. When they pay big bucks to see representation on screen, company accountants should believe them.

Maybe people need some context behind why this is gaining traction.
In the UK there is currently a very loud and very visible anti-trans movement going on. I'm not talking about some wackos going on local radio, I'm talking about the national news circuit like the BBC bringing noted transphobes on as "experts" and not booking any actual trans folks, thereby stacking the opinion in favour of people who often want to see said trans folks dead.
Warhammer (like so much other nerd stuff) is a refuge for people who don't "conform" and for those people to see the stuff spouted by people who hate them in their hobby, it's not exactly brilliant.

As for GW specifically, the section that goes into "detail" (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) hasn't been printed in a main GW publication for years. Apparently, it was printed in Betrayal (which came out 10 years ago BTW) but I don't have that to hand to check. The SM Codexes don't use it and only ever just acknowledge the fact that Marines are all dudes without going into pseudo-science that also happens to be used by transphobes.

It's not direct malice, and AFAIK nobody is claiming it is, rather it's harm caused by inaction or inadequacy.