# Female Space Marines



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

I don't know about you all but I am glad that GW finally retconned that stupid "only men can be space marines" rule in the 6th edition.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

They did?

Must have missed that bit?


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Uh, any books and pages you can give us reference to this?

And it wasn't so much a rule as the 'science', which kind of made sense in its own way.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

I read through all of 6th ed and their is not a single reference to the gene seed being keyed to the male hormones. Logically if they do not say that space marines are all men (the way they specifically mention that the sisters of battle are all women) then space marines can be either gender.


----------



## Farseer Darvaleth (Nov 15, 2009)

GabrialSagan said:


> I don't know about you all but I am glad that GW finally retconned that stupid "only men can be space marines" rule in the 6th edition.


Maybe you're thinking of Sisters of Battle? They're not actual Space Marines, and they've been around for a long time. Not sure what you've got confused with?

I think if GW had actually introduced female Space Marines, we might have noticed it by now.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

GabrialSagan said:


> I read through all of 6th ed and their is not a single reference to the gene seed being keyed to the male hormones. Logically if they do not say that space marines are all men (the way they specifically mention that the sisters of battle are all women) then space marines can be either gender.


Does it explicitly state that Garro is not trapped in the throne room rubbing his knob on the big E's face? 
'cos, you know, if it doesn't say he isn't then he must be!


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> Does it explicitly state that Garro is not trapped in the throne room rubbing his knob on the big E's face?
> 'cos, you know, if it doesn't say he isn't then he must be!


The difference being that Garro in the Golden Throne does not make sense while retconning a stupid rule like all space marines are male makes perfect sense. Only a misogynist douche bag would think that it is a good idea to say that only men are capable of transcending to the lofty ranks of **** sapien astartes.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Lux?


----------



## SonofMalice (Feb 5, 2012)

Oh no, not this again. Didn't we just have this discussion before the site crashed? I distinctly recall that being the case. Regardless I am going to say this. If it makes you feel better to have women be space marines fine but only in the very VERY oldest lore will you find even a mention of the concept. If you look at 99.99999% of the printed works, codices, and WD articles you are bound for disappointment however. Honestly I've just started thinking of them as sexless beings since they are sterile (as far as I know) after implantation. Also goes hand in hand with the whole Angels of Death thing. It is worth noting, as someone else will eventually, that they refer to themselves EXCLUSIVELY as male.


----------



## Captain Stillios (Mar 8, 2009)

Sounds like Lux has a clone...


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

SonofMalice said:


> Oh no, not this again. Didn't we just have this discussion before the site crashed? I distinctly recall that being the case. Regardless I am going to say this. If it makes you feel better to have women be space marines fine but only in the very VERY oldest lore will you find even a mention of the concept. If you look at 99.99999% of the printed works, codices, and WD articles you are bound for disappointment however. Honestly I've just started thinking of them as sexless beings since they are sterile (as far as I know) after implantation. Also goes hand in hand with the whole Angels of Death thing. It is worth noting, as someone else will eventually, that they refer to themselves EXCLUSIVELY as male.


That was before 6th ed.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

GabrialSagan said:


> The difference being that Garro in the Golden Throne does not make sense while retconning a stupid rule like all space marines are male makes perfect sense. Only a misogynist douche bag would think that it is a good idea to say that only men are capable of transcending to the lofty ranks of **** sapien astartes.


Then clearly GW are misogynistic douche bags as that is the way it is. No amount of internet complaining is going to change that, if you would like to sculpt GS boobs on your space marines than by all means do, then post pictures of them for me to laugh at.:laugh:


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Hardly. Men are stronger than woman, it's a biological fact, sure you get some weak guys and some muscular women, on the whole men are always going to be stronger, and from a psychological standpoint, men are more intimidating than women are. Ergo, if your going to create super soldiers and your only going to take the best of the best, of the best who somehow didn't die from all the trials, the your going to take the men. Because the simple unsexist fact of the matter is, the strongest and fittest man is going to win out over the fittest and strongest woman.

I get the feeling though your either going to be a troll about this or a feminist who won't see sense, so I do wonder why I'm wasting my time on this.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Angel of Blood said:


> Hardly. Men are stronger than woman, it's a biological fact, sure you get some weak guys and some muscular women, on the whole men are always going to be stronger, and from a psychological standpoint, men are more intimidating than women are. Ergo, if your going to create super soldiers and your only going to take the best of the best, of the best who somehow didn't die from all the trials, the your going to take the men. Because the simple unsexist fact of the matter is, the strongest and fittest man is going to win out over the fittest and strongest woman.
> 
> I get the feeling though your either going to be a troll about this or a feminist who won't see sense, so I do wonder why I'm wasting my time on this.


Or lux who seems to be in category of his own.

IMO the imperium would be allot better if women were denied any form of office.

Example.



In ciaphas cain the emperors finest mara or whatever her name is caused allot of problems if she wasn't in a position of authority. Then it wouldn't have happened.


There I said it can we move on.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Hang on, not only have we had this all before, it was you who started it last time:

http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=117398&highlight=female+space+marines

What, was everyone arguing this point over eighteen pages last time not enough for you?


----------



## Dragblud da scrunka (Mar 26, 2009)

That has made my year. After skimming the last thread about this another one by the same person. I am cackling like a mad man right now. Just do it in your world there can be as many female space marines as you like just keep it to yourself.

Sorry to double post but what about female orks?

And fixed the double post for you-darkreever


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Dragblud da scrunka said:


> Sorry to double post but what about female orks?


Well technically since Orks are fungi they don't actually have a sex; though I believe there were a few models of female Orks. (And in blood-bowl the Orc team did have cheerleaders.)


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

I think we found ourselves a Lux! His last thread got shut down, so he attempts to troll through another name.


----------



## SonofMalice (Feb 5, 2012)

Angel of Blood said:


> Hang on, not only have we had this all before, it was you who started it last time:
> 
> http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=117398&highlight=female+space+marines
> 
> What, was everyone arguing this point over eighteen pages last time not enough for you?


Called it. I KNEW this was waaayyy too familiar. And wasn't 6th released BEFORE September? That's the date of your last thread. Why do we need to get in a brouhaha over this after an 18 page long thread that was started after 6th came out?


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> Then clearly GW are misogynistic douche bags as that is the way it is. No amount of internet complaining is going to change that, if you would like to sculpt GS boobs on your space marines than by all means do, then post pictures of them for me to laugh at.:laugh:


I am pretty sure that this is what a woman would look like in space marine armor.

As to women being stronger than men and all that crap, as it was pointed out Space marines are not human anymore. 

Who is Lux?


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Nah, that's just a skinny bloke in power armour, he clearly didn't eat his greens.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

SonofMalice said:


> Called it. I KNEW this was waaayyy too familiar. And wasn't 6th released BEFORE September? That's the date of your last thread. Why do we need to get in a brouhaha over this after an 18 page long thread that was started after 6th came out?


I had not read 6th ed at that time. So I was ignorant of the books contents. Then I was arguing that GW should change canon to incorporate female astartes. After reading 6th ed I realized that all references to space marines being exclusively male had been removed.

I am not arguing that space marines should include females. I am stating my praise of GW for making it happen. 

If I am wrong, then tell me on what page of the 6th ed rule book does it say that I all space marines have penises?


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

If I am wrong tell me on which page it states that Necrons do not have Mickey Mouse stencilled on their butts!


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> If I am wrong tell me on which page it states that Necrons do not have Mickey Mouse stencilled on their butts!


Again. That makes no sense while female space marines makes perfect sense. 

Norm, why does the idea of a female astartes bother you so much?


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

Not again... :suicide:


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

I have no problem with then at all. they're your toys, do what you want with them. Just don't make up nonsense in an attempt to validate your own opinions. 

Could you point to a page that says X of the Ultramarines 3rd company is a woman? 

Any female Blood Angels you could name?

Salamanders? 

Soul Drinkers?


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

You bother me more than the Flat Earth Society. You really do.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Ahh the wheel of time turns once more.

So Femme SMs again, does that mean we are due the Squat thread sometime soon?


----------



## SGMAlice (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm a Woman, who likes Women, Who found relatively solid proof there was atleast once some Female SM's and who has written up a Homebrew Female SM Chapter.
I'm the poster girl for the idea!

GW like big strong muscular men wearing overly large cups. ITS DONE!

It is doubtful that we will ever see it happen any further than the Sisters Of Battle. Sh*t Happens, Let. It. Go.


Alice


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> I have no problem with then at all. they're your toys, do what you want with them. Just don't make up nonsense in an attempt to validate your own opinions.
> 
> Could you point to a page that says X of the Ultramarines 3rd company is a woman?
> 
> ...


Larana of the Iron Warriors.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Viscount Vash said:


> Ahh the wheel of time turns once more.
> 
> So Femme SMs again, does that mean we are due the Squat thread sometime soon?



Its funny you mention squats. Did anyone else notice that the 6th edition makes reference to squats as being among the living abhuman species? It is on page 405 in the appendixes.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

You mean this Larana? http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Kroeger#.UN9g7KwsEVA

Hardly qualifies as an Astartes


----------



## SonofMalice (Feb 5, 2012)

Ok, fair enough. As most of us have said if you want to consider your SMs female that is entirely up to you. As a xenos player this has never been an issue for me. I am just saying that an omission of something is not proof in and of itself. Even less so when the majority of the sources say the contrary. If they said, plainly, that Space Marines could be man or woman then I would be the first to agree with you. Instead all you are pinning this on is them NOT saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE in bold letters in the new rulebook. It is also NOT IMPOSSIBLE that Ferrus Manus is still alive as a robot on Mars. 

In any case I wouldn't want to take your enjoyment of the setting away. If you want a chapter of female space marines by all means have at! Could be really fun working out the details. However, there is no need to try and get everyone else to validate it for some reason. It won't work now just like it didn't work last thread.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

normtheunsavoury said:


> You mean this Larana? http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Kroeger#.UN9g7KwsEVA
> 
> Hardly qualifies as an Astartes


Hardly is the operative word there.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> Larana of the Iron Warriors.


Its a girl wearing demonic armour, NOT A SPACE MARINE.

but honestly female marines do not bother me.
only thing I know of the fluf is that Females are less compatible with the genetetical engineering and implantation needed to become a space marine.

hell nobody should care about it in my opinion its all science fiction anyways, a good background story for it would make it more fun in my opinion.
BUT I will personaly NEVER believe in female space marines in 40K but thats my personal preference.

To be honest about something else the OP seems hold an unreasonable grudge towards GW about the whole thing.

besides that it never was a rule that only men could be space marines, it was a piece of backed up fluff.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> Hardly is the operative word there.


She doesn't have any of the implants, nor any of the training. She's a possessed slave wearing power armor. She's not a space marine. Thats not an example.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

That example just proves how much of a blinkered idiot you are. 

Remember folks, don't argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> That example just proves how much of a blinkered idiot you are.
> 
> Remember folks, don't argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.


I will admit. It is not the best example. But remember that 6th ed has not been out that long. It takes time to produce literature. It may take a few months or years before the authors realize the fertile literary that has been opened but by the retconning. 


Has anyone found the "all space marines have penises" line in the 6th ed book yet? I am flipping through 6th ed and have not found it.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> She doesn't have any of the implants, nor any of the training. She's a possessed slave wearing power armor. She's not a space marine. Thats not an example.


The Thousand Sons don't have implants either. Does that mean that they are not space marines?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> I read through all of 6th ed and their is not a single reference to the gene seed being keyed to the male hormones. Logically if they do not say that space marines are all men (the way they specifically mention that the sisters of battle are all women) then space marines can be either gender.


Page 10 of the SM Codex "development of Battle _Brothers_ "

Codex trumps rulebook.


----------



## SonofMalice (Feb 5, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> The Thousand Sons don't have implants either. Does that mean that they are not space marines?


The ones that are left alive do. The rest....yeah not really SMs in any sense any more.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GabrialSagan said:


> The Thousand Sons don't have implants either. Does that mean that they are not space marines?


They were marines, once. Now they are possessed suits of power armor full of sand. So, strictly speaking, no.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> I will admit. It is not the best example. But remember that 6th ed has not been out that long. It takes time to produce literature. It may take a few months or years before the authors realize the fertile literary that has been opened but by the retconning.
> 
> 
> Has anyone found the "all space marines have penises" line in the 6th ed book yet? I am flipping through 6th ed and have not found it.


No where does it say there are marines without them either. There is however 20 od years of established lore that says that you have to be male to be a SM and if they were going to retconn it as you claim they have... they would have done it a little more obviously.

There there honey pot, its ok, one day you'll realize what a complete tit you've been. As others have said you want to make you Space Marin Battle Brothers women you go right ahead, its not like I'm ever going to have to meet you in person and deal with your wishful thinking face to face.



GabrialSagan said:


> The Thousand Sons don't have implants either. Does that mean that they are not space marines?


They did have them yes and then they got turned to dust by the Rubic. Are they Astartes? No, were they before hand? Yes, unlike your poster girl, who never was and never will be. Piss poor example. Come back when you have some real evidence I'm sure all of us are waiting with baited breath for your return...k:


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> No where does it say there are marines without them either. There is however 20 od years of established lore that says that you have to be male to be a SM and if they were going to retconn it as you claim they have... they would have done it a little more obviously.


It seems pretty obvious to me. It is not my fault that your misogyny blinds you.


----------



## Dragblud da scrunka (Mar 26, 2009)

Misogyny - The hatred or dislike of women or girls. Gabrial Im sorry to say its not the fact everyone and GW are misogynsts its the fact that women aren't SM end of. Its like saying Im racist because Black people aren't white!? Take a step back there is no hate or emotion in this discusscion just talk...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Perhaps if you can tell me how the term "Battle Brother" can be interpreted as including Battle Sister?


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GabrialSagan said:


> It seems pretty obvious to me. It is not my fault that your misogyny blinds you.


Misogyny? Right, now you're just being a twat. No one here has ever expressed any view or opinion which reveal a hated of women. If you were being a particularly pissy individual, you could catagorize some posts as mildly chauvinistic, but not misogynistic. Perhaps you should stop riffling through the rulebook looking for shit that isn't there and refocus your attention on a more careful examination of your dictionary. Unless, of course, you're just trolling. If that is the case.... Well.... Yay for you. 

Then again, you could just be an idiot. If that is the case, my sympathies.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

gen.ahab said:


> Misogyny? Right, now you're just being a twat. No one here has ever expressed any view or opinion which reveal a hated of women. If you were being a particularly piss individual, you could catagorize some posts as mildly chauvinistic, but not misogynistic. Perhaps you should stop riffling through the rulebook looking for shit that isn't there and refocus your attention on a more careful examination of your dictionary. Unless, of course, you're just trolling. If that is the case.... Well.... Yay for you.
> 
> Then again, you could just be an idiot. If that is the case, my sympathies.


No you don't hate women, you just think that calling someone a part of the female anatomy is an insult.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> The Thousand Sons don't have implants either. Does that mean that they are not space marines?


thousand sons have been transformed from space marines into Mindless automatons by magic.

I'd say that don't truly count anymore since they are walking pieces of armour.


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

Okay, let me get a point across here. If you can't accept this Gabe, then I suspect you suffer from mythomania. 40k is set in an unfair universe. A lot of what happens in it is very far from terms of an equality act. It doesn't reflect Games Workshop's opinions however.

Women being space marines in basic terms isn't outside the box thinking. In 40k, however, it's just one of those unfair things that is a fact of the universe. If it does change, I'll eat my hat. So Games Workshop writers became tired of telling everyone that Space Marines are male. If they'd wanted to announce that they were to include females in their number, they'd have written that in.

If, however, you truly feel that a grimdark universe needs females in it's already established demigod-like fighting force of men, you'd be missing the point. Besides, to argue that this should be the case is almost to say that unfathomable slaughter, xenophobia, propaganda, fascism, communism and a great many other things of the universe are completely fine.

Yes, it's unfair, but that's just part of the universe, and that's what adds the spice to it. Often-times it only serves to highlight what an injustice it is. If you can't accept it, or keep it to your personal imaginings, maybe you'd just be better served trying to ban 40k outright? It's just an incredible strange quibble to have is all.

~Blackwire


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> It seems pretty obvious to me. It is not my fault that your misogyny blinds you.


I'm a misogynist because I don't agree with you despite you not having any concrete evidence at all to back your claims up and theres an overwhelming amount of evidence saying your wrong? Cool story bro you'll have to forgive me for not loosing any sleep over your judgements of me and that all SM's are men. Maybe you're just jealous of the fact that 99% of us can do that whereas it seems you spend all your time frantically trying to justify your bullshit theories to others because maybe just maybe if you make other people believe them as well then that little shred of doubt in your heart will go away.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> No you don't hate women, you just think that calling someone a part of the female anatomy is an insult.


Would you prefer dickhead ?


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

I'm starting to think we have some extreme feminist here.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> No you don't hate women, you just think that calling someone a part of the female anatomy is an insult.


*looks down, checks his chest* Yes I do have something could be classified as a tit as I thought. 

If you think that "tits" are the sole property of women... well I don't think I need to point out the irony of that statement.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

From Wikipedia:

Although sometimes used as a reference to the female genitalia, the word twat is more often used in various other ways:
As a derogatory insult, a pejorative meaning a fool, a stronger alternative to the word twit - 'He can be a complete twat' (often used in the UK)
To hit something (or someone) hard or violently - 'Let's get out there and twat it!'


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GabrialSagan said:


> No you don't hate women, you just think that calling someone a part of the female anatomy is an insult.


See, the wonderful thing about that is that it just means you're being an abrasive jackass. So, if it makes you feel better, I could also call you a dick, which would allow me to deliver the same message, and avoid the feminine component. 

I do love compromise.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

This thread has gotten me through 3 hours of slow retail work. So much hilarity.

Thanks!!


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

Imagine the word YAWN, in 10 foot high letters and you'll grasp how seriously I'm taking you.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

What I want to know is if you _are_ modelling Female's in Power Armour ..... do you put breast cups in the armour or not?


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Angel of Blood said:


> Imagine the word YAWN, in 10 foot high letters and you'll grasp how seriously I'm taking you.


Only 10 foot high? I think you might be taking Gabe a bit more seriously than most others there Angel :grin:


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> What I want to know is if you are modelling Female's in Power Armour ..... do you put breast cups in the armour or not?


What if all the augmentation turns them in to men? There's something that hasn't been brought up. I mean, I've seen female body builders have a pretty reduced cup size from muscle growth...maybe that happens to them when they receive one of the many organs that change humans into astartes?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm not meaning Space Marinenated Women I am meaning women wearing power armour. Inquisitors, Warband members etc


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Oh. Well fine then. I guess you could look to the all female army in the 40k universe for your answer to that...SoB's wear power armour that have chests.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

ntaw said:


> Oh. Well fine then. I guess you could look to the all female army in the 40k universe for your answer to that...SoB's wear power armour that have chests.


Sure, I'm just wondering how IRL valid that is.


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

IRL....in real life?


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

ntaw said:


> IRL....in real life?


SoB armour is less power and more Armour compared to space marine power armour.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Would you prefer dickhead ?


Dickhead, asshole, fucktard, troll, asswipe, meecrob, moron, retard or mad genius. It does not really matter what you call me. The point is that when this misogynist barbarian decided to come up with the worst insult he could the end result of his pondering was to call me a part of the female anatomy. 

If that does not indicate a hatred of the fairer sex, I don't know what does.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> *looks down, checks his chest* Yes I do have something could be classified as a tit as I thought.
> 
> If you think that "tits" are the sole property of women... well I don't think I need to point out the irony of that statement.


I was not referring to the word "tit" (though men don't have tits, they have nipples, something completely different, that is besides the point) I was referring to his use of the word "twat"


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Yes in real life would a woman want her tits shoved into two separate metal enclosures (padded? Lined with hessian for the SoB?) that protrude from her chest? 

OR

Would the prefer a flat profile and go with a sports bra arrangement?


----------



## ntaw (Jul 20, 2012)

Somehow I feel like he could've done better. If that was his worst insult, he has no place on the internet.

I would hope for their sake they would go with the sport bra idea.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

ntaw said:


> This thread has gotten me through 3 hours of slow retail work. So much hilarity.
> 
> Thanks!!


You are welcome.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

knowing some women in the military the sports bra would be more practical.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> ...I don't know what does


I'll go with that.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> Imagine the word YAWN, in 10 foot high letters and you'll grasp how seriously I'm taking you.


...evidenced by the fact that you keep replying?


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

this treat is about as well executed and discussed as a fisherman trying to kill a large fish by smashing it into the ground multiple times. clumsy, barbaric. CRUDE. 
not just the OP but the people trowing around insults as well. its a shamefull display and an act unworthy of this forum in my opinion.

but what I am wondering about. GabrielSagan. what did you expect when you made this treat? what kind of discusion where you looking for?
Didn't you at least suspect that the general public still won't accept female space marines as a do able concept?
I've looked into your history and I've seen that you made at least ONE similiar treat wich ended up going much the same way as this one is going now.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

GabrialSagan said:


> The point is that when this misogynist barbarian decided to come up with the worst insult he could the end result of his pondering was to call me a part of the female anatomy.
> 
> 
> If that does not indicate a hatred of the fairer sex, I don't know what does.





Magpie_Oz said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> Although sometimes used as a reference to the female genitalia, the word twat is more often used in various other ways:
> As a derogatory insult, a pejorative meaning a fool, a stronger alternative to the word twit - 'He can be a complete twat' (often used in the UK)
> To hit something (or someone) hard or violently - 'Let's get out there and twat it!'


Nope the word twat does not exclusively refer to the female sex organ. But then again if you could actually read you would know that. Nice and self centered of you to think that though. I'm fairly certain "this misogynist barbarian" could have come up with a better insult if he wanted to as well. I know I certainly could.



GabrialSagan said:


> I was not referring to the word "tit" (though men don't have tits, they have nipples, something completely different, that is besides the point) I was referring to his use of the word "twat"


So you are saying that no men have tits? Don't make me show you an image of a man with tits. Nobody wants that. Likewise I'm fairly certain that nobody here wants to see a woman who lacks enlarged mammery glands to support the other side of that argument. (Not that there is anything wrong with either of these things - before you jump down my misogynistic throat for suggesting that nobody wants to a flat chested woman).


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> ...evidenced by the fact that you keep replying?


You're just out for a fight, aren'tcha Gabe? You're drifting off topic (female space marines). You haven't even responded to my rather well put together post, demonstrating a valid reason not to get your hopes up. Insulting.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

From Wikipedia again

"Both men and women develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. However, at puberty, female sex hormones, mainly estrogen, promote breast development, which does not occur in men, due to the higher amount of testosterone. As a result, women's breasts become far more prominent than those of men."

Tits = Breasts


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> Dickhead, asshole, fucktard, troll, asswipe, meecrob, moron, retard or mad genius. It does not really matter what you call me. The point is that when this misogynist barbarian decided to come up with the worst insult he could the end result of his pondering was to call me a part of the female anatomy.
> 
> If that does not indicate a hatred of the fairer sex, I don't know what does.


'barbarian' the 'fairer sex', you realise it's hard to take someone calling everyone misogynists seriously when they are quite clearly quite the misandrist.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> ...evidenced by the fact that you keep replying?


Oh I'm still replying just to see how retarded and illogical you can go, doesn't mean I have to take you even slightly seriously.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Okay. The absence of a certain line of information does not in any way indicate that the opposite is indisputable canon. This discussion cannot become valid unless GabrialSagan is willing to acknowledge that. 

Saying female space marines is canon simply because the brb does not mention males specifically for space marine creation is akin to saying men can join the Adeptus Sororitas. 

Well for my next project I'm doing an all male SoB force. It's gonna take me a while to file all the boobies off and sculpt new flat armour plating, but it's definitely gonna be worth it. 


Now on a serious note, Gabe you have two options. Present some current canon evidence to support you claim, or stop posting insistent nonsense. We have a thread for that elsewhere. 

Also, we can stop with the insults now.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Blackwire said:


> Okay, let me get a point across here. If you can't accept this Gabe, then I suspect you suffer from mythomania. 40k is set in an unfair universe. A lot of what happens in it is very far from terms of an equality act. It doesn't reflect Games Workshop's opinions however.
> 
> Women being space marines in basic terms isn't outside the box thinking. In 40k, however, it's just one of those unfair things that is a fact of the universe. If it does change, I'll eat my hat. So Games Workshop writers became tired of telling everyone that Space Marines are male. If they'd wanted to announce that they were to include females in their number, they'd have written that in.
> 
> ...


I think you are neglecting that the Imperium is a gender blind society. There are female inquisitors, arbites, clerics and bureaucrats. The only branches of the Imperium that have gender biases are the SoB and the SoB were a late edition to the 40k lore and meant to be GWs version of a female space marine.

Have you ever read a 40k book?

the SoB are always portrayed as either getting their asses kicked or as being crazy religious zealots who end up dying. Do I even need to bring up the khornate knights?

When I noticed that their are no direct references to all space marines being male in the rulebook I thought to myself _wow, GW has progressed, maybe warhammer fans are ready to embrace the 3rd millennium._ So I thought I would see how people responded to this omission of astartes gender bias. I thought maybe people would embrace the idea that it might be a woman's face under those helmets. 

Instead I find people saying things like "women can't be space marines because they are not as strong as men." and "GW doesn't make space marine armor with boobs." 

I thought that maybe, just maybe, people would look at the omission about gender and go "female space marines...awesome." 

Am I surprised, not really, disappointed, a little.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> Oh I'm still replying just to see how retarded and illogical you can go, doesn't mean I have to take you even slightly seriously.


You are welcome to read the thread as it progresses without posting on it. If you are posting it means that you care, that you want your opinion to be heard and you think that other people care what you say (because only a masochist posts of a forum where one believes that people don't care what one says).


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> I think you are neglecting that the Imperium is a gender blind society. There are female inquisitors, arbites, clerics and bureaucrats. The only branches of the Imperium that have gender biases are the SoB and the SoB were a late edition to the 40k lore and meant to be GWs version of a female space marine.
> 
> Have you ever read a 40k book?
> 
> ...


you are being very Biased and judgemental.
nobody ever said girls are not strong enough, also I'm pretty sure that the boobarmour was just a joke they stopped taking you seriously. and I cannot completely blame them.

Female marines could be awesome but your take on it makes it obvious you are relatively new to all this, I've played since third edition and a lot more have. I practicly grew up with "due to this and this reason females cannot become space marines, and the Imperium is very hostile towards new technology" 

Imagine if GW suddenly said OKAY GUYS GIRLS CAN BE SPACE MARINES NOW.
I'd have a hard time taking that, even if in a way it would be cool and be some great diversity. 

In the end Fluff is Fluff and that's that.


Its not like people not accepting female marines as a possible concept are haters of womankind.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> Okay. The absence of a certain line of information does not in any way indicate that the opposite is indisputable canon. This discussion cannot become valid unless GabrialSagan is willing to acknowledge that.
> 
> 
> Also, we can stop with the insults now.


I acknowledge that their is no canonical truth in the absence of an affirmative statement.I also acknowledge that in the absence of an affirmative statement their is canonical ambiguity. When you have an ambiguity things are open to interpretation.

If you read my first post, note I did not say that their are female space marines. I said that GW removed rule that all space marines must be male. It might seem like a small distinction, but it is vital to understand where I am coming from.

The way that the 6th ed rule book is written you can say that women can become marines. That does not mean that they do, but it does mean that you can tell anyone who says "all space marines must have a penis." that that is not necessarily true anymore.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

GabrialSagan said:


> Dickhead, asshole, fucktard, troll, asswipe, meecrob, moron, retard or mad genius. It does not really matter what you call me. The point is that when this misogynist barbarian decided to come up with the worst insult he could the end result of his pondering was to call me a part of the female anatomy.
> 
> If that does not indicate a hatred of the fairer sex, I don't know what does.


Considering it inspired this much rancor, my feeling is that it was more than likely sufficient. Oh, and twat was my attempt to keep it somewhat tame. 

As Magpie said, I would tend to lean towards the "I don't know what is" bit. I don't actually hate women, just so we're clear on that. Has anyone ever told you your reactions are a bit extreme? 

Anywho, I am in favor of the sports bra idea. The idea of a bullet cavity in the middle of their chests doesn't seem like a good one.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Haskanael said:


> you are being very Biased and judgemental.
> nobody ever said girls are not strong enough, also I'm pretty sure that the boobarmour was just a joke they stopped taking you seriously. and I cannot completely blame them.
> 
> Female marines could be awesome but your take on it makes it obvious you are relatively new to all this, I've played since third edition and a lot more have. I practicly grew up with "due to this and this reason females cannot become space marines, and the Imperium is very hostile towards new technology"
> ...


Why would it be so hard to accept? So many things have been changed over the years. Canon has been written and rewritten so many times that its hard to keep track of what is and is not accurate.

There was a time when half-eldar were canon.
There was a time when space marines could use shuriken launchers.
There was a time when the the tech priest's would not study alien artifacts.
There was a time when beastmen were allowed in the IG.
There was a time when the squats were extinct.

Canon changes. This is just another change and a pretty small change at that.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> I acknowledge that their is no canonical truth in the absence of an affirmative statement.I also acknowledge that in the absence of an affirmative statement their is canonical ambiguity. When you have an ambiguity things are open to interpretation.


This is not necessarily true, especially when you have other current sources which still adhere to previous fluff. As was pointed out, current codexes still state that only male aspirants are accepted, and numerous novels still paint the same picture. 



GabrialSagan said:


> If you read my first post, note I did not say that their are female space marines. I said that GW removed rule that all space marines must be male. It might seem like a small distinction, but it is vital to understand where I am coming from.


But they have NOT removed the rule for the reasons I stated above. I don't think we are blind to where you are coming from. If anything, you seem to be refusing to see what is plainly written in black and white across various sources. 40k is NOT contained within a single book and has not been for as long as I can remember. 



GabrialSagan said:


> The way that the 6th ed rule book is written you can say that women can become marines. That does not mean that they do, but it does mean that you can tell anyone who says "all space marines must have a penis." that that is not necessarily true anymore.


Per above, it still is. That's all there is to say. We can wait and see what GW does with future codexes and sourcebooks, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> Why would it be so hard to accept? So many things have been changed over the years. Canon has been written and rewritten so many times that its hard to keep track of what is and is not accurate.
> 
> There was a time when half-eldar were canon.
> There was a time when space marines could use shuriken launchers.
> ...


I do believe those changes where during the dark days when rogue trader 40K came to an end.

and honestly I don't see the problem why Females cannot become space marines?


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Haskanael said:


> I do believe those changes where during the dark days when rogue trader 40K came to an end.
> 
> and honestly I don't see the problem why Females cannot become space marines?


There was a time when half-eldar were canon. (RT)
There was a time when space marines could use shuriken launchers.(2nd ed)
There was a time when the the tech priest's would not study alien artifacts.(3rd ed)
There was a time when beastmen were allowed in the IG.(2nd ed)
There was a time when the squats were extinct.(5th ed)

Canon changes, all the time.


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

GabrialSagan said:


> I think you are neglecting that the Imperium is a gender blind society. There are female inquisitors, arbites, clerics and bureaucrats. The only branches of the Imperium that have gender biases are the SoB and the SoB were a late edition to the 40k lore and meant to be GWs version of a female space marine.
> 
> Have you ever read a 40k book?
> 
> ...


Yes, the Imperium is a gender-blind society, just as it is an atheist democracy. And please, just because you're making announcements with no proper citing (a.k.a. assumption) don't assume I haven't read 40k books. You're just full of assumption aren't ya?

I've always thought the Adepta Sororitas awesome. I loved the fact that they're not just armoured bikini fantasy cover girls. That armour looks like it could take more punishment than a concrete wall! I love that their faith is so powerful that it transcends any other Imperial forces'. Space Marines and the Imperial guard, after-all, do not will about miracles willy-nilly through their unfaltering belief in the Emperor. Talk about dedication. They are truly awesome.

FYI, Night Lords are my favourite books thus far. I'm in as far as _Blood Reaver_ and that is bloody awesome. I also have a copy of _Daemonifuge_. No 40k comic is as well-written or intriguing as Ephrael Stern's.

You know what other group suffers from horrible cookie-cutter writing? Space Marines.

It's just you're taking something already established, and going, 'Look, all you know is lies! I can prove it to you! It's on a bit of paper... that I left at home. You guys have to believe me.' Maybe just stop the charades? There are awesome women in 40k. The Adepta Sororitas prove this to be so.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> You are welcome to read the thread as it progresses without posting on it. If you are posting it means that you care, that you want your opinion to be heard and you think that other people care what you say (because only a masochist posts of a forum where one believes that people don't care what one says).


Mmmmm yes and no. I care because your being illogical, I care because your being outright misandrist, declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be a masochist, yet somehow missing the hypocrisy. I also care that you felt the need to make another one of these threads after your last one met almost this exact same reaction. You say your...disappointed? Because we choose to stick to the established fluff and not create ideas out of nothing. So yeah, I care because I think people like you or theories like these belong in the 40k fluff board, this is homebrew area.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> There was a time when half-eldar were canon. (RT)
> There was a time when space marines could use shuriken launchers.(2nd ed)
> There was a time when the the tech priest's would not study alien artifacts.(3rd ed)
> There was a time when beastmen were allowed in the IG.(2nd ed)
> ...


you have proven me wrong congratulations.

NOW why does it seems so bad to you that females cannot become space marines?


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Angel of Blood said:


> Mmmmm yes and no. I care because your being illogical, I care because your being outright misandrist, declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be a masochist, yet somehow missing the hypocrisy. I also care that you felt the need to make another one of these threads after your last one met almost this exact same reaction. You say your...disappointed? Because we choose to stick to the established fluff and not create ideas out of nothing. So yeah, I care because I think people like you or theories like these belong in the 40k fluff board, this is homebrew area.




See. I knew you cared about my opinions. Which is more then I can say for yours.


----------



## Insanity (Oct 25, 2011)

Wow...I haven't actually read it all yet, but this thread has gotten to 10 pages in less than 12 hours :shok:


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Haskanael said:


> you have proven me wrong congratulations.
> 
> NOW why does it seems so bad to you that females cannot become space marines?


Nothing "wrong" per se. It just seems backwards and stupid. Assuming that GWs fanbase would continue purchasing 40k figures if the all male rule was retconned (which I assume silence on the matter being the equivalent of opening the matter to interpretation.) I cannot think of a single good reason to make all space marines men.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Insanity72 said:


> Wow...I haven't actually read it all yet, but this thread has gotten to 10 pages in less than 12 hours :shok:


Yeah... :biggrin: :king:


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

GabrialSagan said:


> Nothing "wrong" per se. It just seems backwards and stupid. Assuming that GWs fanbase would continue purchasing 40k figures if the all male rule was retconned (which I assume silence on the matter being the equivalent of opening the matter to interpretation.) I cannot think of a single good reason to make all space marines men.


if it is backwards and stupid then the sisters of battle being female only is also backwards and stupid.

and dont give me the crap that they are called "sisters" because the space marines have always been spoken of as a brotherhood. hence they call eachother battle BROTHERS.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> Nothing "wrong" per se. It just seems backwards and stupid. Assuming that GWs fanbase would continue purchasing 40k figures if the all male rule was retconned (which I assume silence on the matter being the equivalent of opening the matter to interpretation.) I cannot think of a single good reason to make all space marines men.


Yes, but your personal reasons for wanting marines to be female are irrelevant. It isn't what GW has written and you're arguing with the wrong people if you want that to change.


----------



## Insanity (Oct 25, 2011)

OK, not sure if this has been mentioned, since I can't be bothered reading through all the pages 

But 2 things, one isn't it Codex > BRB? So if it states in the SM codex that it's tied to the male genes or whatever, then that's what it is. Two, I remember reading somewhere that due to the female form being weaker on average, their bodies cannot handle the process.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> Yes, but your personal reasons for wanting marines to be female are irrelevant. It isn't what GW has written and you're arguing with the wrong people if you want that to change.


You are missing my point. The change has been made. Space marines can be female. I don't need to make the argument to GW because they already removed the penis prereq from canon.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Insanity72 said:


> OK, not sure if this has been mentioned, since I can't be bothered reading through all the pages
> 
> But 2 things, one isn't it Codex > BRB? So if it states in the SM codex that it's tied to the male genes or whatever, then that's what it is. Two, I remember reading somewhere that due to the female form being weaker on average, their bodies cannot handle the process.


This was true in 2nd ed through 5th ed. We are talking about 6th ed.


----------



## Insanity (Oct 25, 2011)

Yes but like I said, it's always Codex over BRB. So just because it's not mentioned in the BRB, it is mentioned in the Codex, so it would still stand that only males can undergo the process.


----------



## Insanity (Oct 25, 2011)

It's like saying, just because the BRB never mentioned anything about the Dark Eldar harnessing the power of black suns, doesn't mean they don't do that anymore.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> You are missing my point. The change has been made. Space marines can be female. I don't need to make the argument to GW because they already removed the penis prereq from canon.


No, you are missing MY point. Absence of something in ONE source dies not retcon fluff appearing in numerous other sources. Regardless of which is more recent, the codexes from the previous edition are still current fluff sources until new editions of them are released. 

That is how it works. That is how it has always worked.


----------



## Angel of Blood (Aug 18, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> See. I knew you cared about my opinions. Which is more then I can say for yours.


Oh my heart bleeds. You word that as if I care what you think, I don't, I care about the effect this has on the boards and the fact that it doesn't belong here.

This isn't going anywhere, you've clearly made your mind up that this has supposedly happened, despite only you being able to see it and you aren't going to change your opinion, you just want everybody else to change theirs so it agrees with yours. 

Have fun guys, I'm out, feel free to find me if you have a real fluff question.


----------



## GabrialSagan (Sep 20, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> No, you are missing MY point. Absence of something in ONE source dies not retcon fluff appearing in numerous other sources. Regardless of which is more recent, the codexes from the previous edition are still current fluff sources until new editions of them are released.
> 
> That is how it works. That is how it has always worked.


Tell that to DC comics, Marvel Comics, Games Workshop, Tim Kring, Fantasy Flight Games, White Wolf Publishing, Wizards of the Coast, Disney and any other corporate copyright owner. 

Retconning is part of modern media. It just is the way it is. One source does retcon all that came before it.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

GabrialSagan said:


> One source does retcon all that came before it.


Sorry, but Games Workshop have never worked this way. A new rulebook supercedes the older ones, it does not however render every other codex, novel and source article invalid simply by virtue of it's being shinier. 

Your arguments are not making sense anymore, the thread is devolving so I'm just going to end it right here. 

If you wish to try this again, I advise you do some research into how Games Workshop have handled their fluff in the past, how canon works in this particular hobby and how to present solid proof for your claims. Instead of asking for loose interpretations based on what isn't there rather than what is. 

Locked.


----------

