Another Gender Question (Actually Attempting Relevancy)

[Son of Carnelian]

Let me lay out what I'm asking here so that this thread does not devolve into the classic "can/should/will GW ever let" women as Space Marines happen. And I mean Space Marines as in Astartes. Not Sisters of Silence, not Sister of Battle. Astartes. So, to my specific question:

 

Could a female undergo the same enhancements undergone by individuals like Kor Phaeron, circa the Age of Darkness?

 

Since this enhancement does not involve geneseed or the troubling trope that the organ "only works with male chromosomes," could a woman undergo the same mixture of cybernetics and muscle-enhancers that make the pseudo-Astartes? I honestly think that it could work, given that nothing about what I have read in the novels invalidates a woman serving in that capacity. Yes, I know that the Space Marines would look at her askew and have trouble accepting her but that's what makes this concept interesting to me. Just for an example, Angron has been vocal about his respect for all his fellow slaves, no matter their gender. So purely hypothetically, if any of the women of his band of rebels survived, wouldn't he have said "set 'em up?" 

 

I dunno guys. I really like this. If I'm totally off-base, let me down easy. 

 

 

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah... I don't see any reason this wouldn't work.

[Tiberius Cato]

It is plausible, but I think the deeply ingrained fraternity amongst battle- BROTHERS would largely prevent such a thing. As far as we know it has always been males, ever since the days of the thunder warriors.

 

But if you want to make a lost legion composed of battle-sisters, I'd like to see such a thing!

[Slips]

I could see this as a thing used on higher ranking/veteran sisters of silence or Rogue Traders.

 

Since we're not talking about the whole Geneseed shebang and just cybernetics, muscle enhancements,etc. I see no reason why they would limit this in any way to anyone one with the Cash or Favor of a Primarch / The Emperor.

[Teetengee]

It would probably work, might take some adjustments to the process though to account for hormonal differences. It might also cause sterility/birth defects, but I don't think anyone would care.

[Grotsmasha]

*Nevermind, that's what I get for half-reading a question* 

 

I'ma go with plausible, I would put anything past the AdMech.

 

Cheers,

Jono

[b1soul]

Let me lay out what I'm asking here so that this thread does not devolve into the classic "can/should/will GW ever let" women as Space Marines happen. And I mean Space Marines as in Astartes. Not Sisters of Silence, not Sister of Battle. Astartes. So, to my specific question:

 

The thing is...men are naturally stronger, tougher, larger, faster. Physically men are superior thanks in large part to our testosterone. Mentally, men are also more aggressive again thanks in large part to testosterone. 

 

You could surgically enhance a woman, but why not take those same resources and use them to surgically enhance a man? You'd only use women if there aren't enough men. I'm not saying women are inferior beings to men...but physically they are weaker on average. The the grim darkness of the far future, there is no affirmative action. 

[Hyaenidae]

Never met a Lioness?

 

Alright.

[Wade Garrett]

Given that the only examples of these techniques we've seen are Kor Phaeron and Luther, I'd imagine that they're probably costlier and more complicated than the creation of a Legionary, not to mention that the end result is in many ways inferior (ex Kor being unable to see through the smoke and chaos on Isstvan V, and having to ask Erebus what was going on).

 

In theory, there's no reason at all exceptional individuals couldn't undergo the process (Tarasha Euten! Lotarra!) but a hundred thousand strong formation...why invest that many resources into something that costs more and yields a measurably inferior product when you can just make more Astartes?

[Kol Saresk]

I wonder what Flint would say to the misogynistic pseudoscience of "Men are physically superior to women"....... Ok, I lied. It's probably the same thing I would say.

 

Moving on, women can receive cybernetics in 40K. Women can receive juvenats. They can receive artificial organs. Essentially, the only thing we have never seen a woman get in 40K that a man can get is the gene-seed.

 

So, I would answer the question "yes, a woman could be raised to the level of Kor Phaeron and Luther if she so desired to and like them, she had the proper backing." And I feel that last bit is important because without their Primarchs backing them, neither one of them would have gotten the enhancements they did.

[apologist]

The thing is...men are naturally stronger, tougher, larger, faster. Physically men are superior thanks in large part to our testosterone. Mentally, men are also more aggressive again thanks in large part to testosterone. 

 

You could surgically enhance a woman, but why not take those same resources and use them to surgically enhance a man? You'd only use women if there aren't enough men. I'm not saying women are inferior beings to men...but physically they are weaker on average. The the grim darkness of the far future, there is no affirmative action. 

 

Partly true, from a real world perspective, but this is a galaxy where we have huge diversity in human phenotype – from ratlings to squats to beastmen. It's entirely possible that a recruiting world might produce stronger/physically more capable women than men – we even have House Escher from Necromunda as an example. That's putting aside the general reality that while there's a disparity between males and females at the extremes of physical fitness, that doesn't run through the general populace. A female athlete could very easily be fitter, stronger and faster than a large proportion of men, for example – even male athletes from different disciplines.

 

Further, the argument that you should feed the Astartes-making resources to the inherently physically more capable is moot in a galaxy with ogryns. The background has been fairly consistent in that it's the 'will to win' that's vital to a recruit, not their physical capability – as that's exactly what the geneseed/process is meant to override and improve. Part of the dystopian reality of the setting is the body horror that the Imperium can and will alter you physically.

 

So, a plausible in-universe explanation for the possibility of female pseudo-Astartes can be made. However, I'd note that the hypocrisy and general malaise of the setting is typified by general oppressiveness, reactionism and ultra-fascist policies – so misogyny unfortunately fits in right alongside the other more unpleasant aspects of humanity in the 40k setting. In the 30th Millennium, however, there's more of a sense of enlightenment and fair play – but even here I'd note that it's far from a liberal paradise.

 

To answer the initial question, 'Could a female undergo the same enhancements undergone by individuals like Kor Phaeron, circa the Age of Darkness?', I'd say 'yes, in theory'. I wouldn't personally have any problem with such a character/army – indeed, handled well, the concept provides a huge number of great story hooks, plot arcs and ideas. However, there's a great risk of it being handled or interpreted badly in tabletop terms (if that's the ultimate goal), so I'd say it's more of a headache than it's worth.

 

However, for an alternative setting, it's intriguing. Consider the following:

1) An Expeditionary fleet arrives at Nuceria. The Emperor deploys his troops to fight alongside Angron, convincingly defeating the highriders. A great number of the slave army survives.

2) Wary, but grateful, Angron joins the Crusade. He takes command of the Warhounds and demands that all survivors be offered the choice of joining the Legion.

3) Attempts to 'elevate' the first wave of female volunteers of the army fails, so Angron demands his chireurgeons use the pseudo-astartes techniques (as for Kor Phaeron, Luther etc.)

4) A small cadre of female 'Astartes' are created.

[b1soul]

There are plenty of super women in 40K...Callidus Assassins and Deathcult Assassins (many of them enhanced females) are well above the human average

 

 

That's putting aside the general reality that while there's a disparity between males and females at the extremes of physical fitness, that doesn't run through the general populace. A female athlete could very easily be fitter, stronger and faster than a large proportion of men, for example – even male athletes from different disciplines.

 

Did you bother to read my post? I wrote:

 

 

 

The thing is...men are naturally stronger, tougher, larger, faster. Physically men are superior thanks in large part to our testosterone. Mentally, men are also more aggressive again thanks in large part to testosterone. 

 

You could surgically enhance a woman, but why not take those same resources and use them to surgically enhance a man? You'd only use women if there aren't enough men. I'm not saying women are inferior beings to men...but physically they are weaker on average. The the grim darkness of the far future, there is no affirmative action. 

 

 

You are aware of the concept of averages? You don't compare female powerlifters to male table tennis players. You don't compare femaly Olympic athletes to male average joes. You compare like to like. You compare a female powerlifer to a male powerlifer, you compare a female sprinter to a male sprinter, you compare a female average jane to a male average joe. Furthermore, you don't compare the fastest female Olympic sprinter to the slowest male Olympic sprinter. You compare fastest to fastest, slowest to slowest.

 

I mean...I feel like I shouldn't have to be explaining this.

 

 

I wonder what Flint would say to the misogynistic pseudoscience of "Men are physically superior to women"

 

Stating that men are on average physically superior to women is not pseudoscience. On the contrary, it's actually science. It's called sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens

 

If I say "men are on average more intelligent", that's bollocks because it lacks scientific basis.

[apologist]

 

 

b1soul, on 12 Nov 2014 - 1:03 PM, said:
Did you bother to read my post?

 

Yes, and I decided to riff on your statements, rather than start an argument about them. Apologies for any offence caused.

 

All of these discussions have to take the 40k/30k universe as the setting, not the real world. Even if you accept the following statement as true:

 

 

Stating that men are on average physically superior to women is not pseudoscience. On the contrary, it's actually science.

 

It's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand owing to the rules of the universe under discussion.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

Actually, an enhanced female warrior was an idea I had a while ago for the profiles I've been doing.

 

She'd lead Clan Brannsar's Medusan auxiliaries [Clanguard], acting as the high commander for the Clan's Medusan presence, and she'd have been given that position soon after the discovery of Ferrus, meaning she'd be about 150 at the time of the Heresy, so she'd have a load of genetic & cybernetic re-working - bringing her to a level similar to Kor Phaeron. No idea for a name yet, but I'm working out some fluff to fit with the honorific 'Bitterblade'.

 

On a side note, I'd recon all the Medusan Auxiliaries would be 50 / 50 gender split - if you survive in a society as Darwinian as Medusa's, you're gonna have to be a capable fighter.

[Memento Of Prospero]

Actually, an enhanced female warrior was an idea I had a while ago for the profiles I've been doing.

 

She'd lead Clan Brannsar's Medusan auxiliaries [Clanguard], acting as the high commander for the Clan's Medusan presence, and she'd have been given that position soon after the discovery of Ferrus, meaning she'd be about 150 at the time of the Heresy, so she'd have a load of genetic & cybernetic re-working - bringing her to a level similar to Kor Phaeron. No idea for a name yet, but I'm working out some fluff to fit with the honorific 'Bitterblade'.

 

On a side note, I'd recon all the Medusan Auxiliaries would be 50 / 50 gender split - if you survive in a society as Darwinian as Medusa's, you're gonna have to be a capable fighter.

 

I recon she deserves the name of Crimson Sonja.

[b1soul]

 

It's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand owing to the rules of the universe under discussion.

 

 

No, it's rather relevant. You brought up Ogryns. You realise there's probably sexual dimorphism among Ogryns? Even if Ogryns don't exhibit sexual dimorphism, they are relatively few and they are really stupid.

 

The vast majority of your enhanced soldiers would be drawn from the regular human population, which exhibits sexual dimorphism. Males, on average, are physically more robust. They're more likely to survive any sort of extreme surgical enhancement. Males, on average, have higher testosterone, resuling in more mental aggression and greater physical strength. These attributes are rather cricitcal on the battlefield, especially in frontline soldiers who clash with the enemy. Melee is implausibly common on 40K battlefields. 

 

If you're a 40K general, you would generally pick men over women. You wouldn't have the time to go hunting for the exceptionally strong and aggressive women. You would just take the men. If the men are insufficient, you'd start recruiting women. That said, women would prefer non-frontline duties just fine. Female medics, engineers, communications officers, maybe even snipers and artillery gunners would perform just fine.

 

There's also the issue of how this enhancement works. Does it boost the candidate's physical capability based on his/her original physical capability or does it produce an almost uniform product regardless of the candidate's base physical capability? If the process produces equally strong and aggressive enhanced soldiers regardless of the gender of the candidate, then yes...I would agree that preferring men to women would be irrational. If strength and aggression are not important for the role of the enhanced subject (say they're trying to produce an enhanced infiltrator), perhaps a man would have very little advantage, if any, over a woman.  

 

 

Yes, and I decided to riff on your statements, rather than start an argument about them. Apologies for any offence caused.

 

No you didn't. If you had, you wouldn't have been talking about how a really strong female athlete might be stronger than a bunch of average joes.

[Memento Of Prospero]

 

 

It's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand owing to the rules of the universe under discussion.

 

 

No, it's rather relevant. You brought up Ogryns. You realise there's probably sexual dimorphism among Ogryns? Even if Ogryns don't exhibit sexual dimorphism, they are relatively few and they are really stupid.

 

The vast majority of your enhanced soldiers would be drawn from the regular human population, which exhibits sexual dimorphism. Males, on average, are physically more robust. They're more likely to survive any sort of extreme enhancement surgery. Males, on average, have higher testosterone, resuling in more mental aggression and greater physical strength. These attributes are rather cricitcal on the battlefield, especially in frontline soldiers who clash with the enemy. Melee is implausibly common on 40K battlefields. 

 

If you're a 40K general, you would generally pick men over women. You wouldn't have the time to go hunting for the exceptionally strong and aggressive women. You would just take the men. If the men are insufficient, you'd start recruiting women. That said, women would prefer non-frontline duties just fine. Female medics, engineers, communications officers, maybe even artillery crews would perform just fine.

 

There's also the issue of how this enhancement just works. Does it boost the candidate's physical capability based on his/her original physical capability or does it produce an almost uniform product regardless of the candidate's base physical capability? If the process produces equally strong and aggressive enhanced soldiers regardless of the gender of the candidate, then yes...I would agree that preferring men to women would be irrational. 

 

 

The assumption that the Astartes recruits are taken from the general population is flawed however. They do take a large swat of the male male population, but only the strongest survive to become Astartes. The same process could be applied to women. Sisters of batte are a good example of this, more so than silent sisters. And from what's left of "human" in an astartes after the geneseed/alterations seems rather moot to me.

 

And speaking of women armies, Dune comes to mind ;) 

[b1soul]

The assumption that the Astartes recruits are taken from the general population is flawed however. They do take a large swat of the male male population, but only the strongest survive to become Astartes. The same process could be applied to women. Sisters of batte are a good example of this, more so than silent sisters. And from what's left of "human" in an astartes after the geneseed/alterations seems rather moot to me.

And speaking of women armies, Dune comes to mind

We're not talking about Astartes. We're talking about physical augmentation similar to that performed on Kor-Phaeron. If the Imperium wanted to enhance a bunch of people in that manner, they would draw candidates from the regular human population. "Regular" as in "unaugmented", "regular" as in not abhuman. Last I checked, Astartes recruits are initially unaugmented and they're not abhumans

We also don't know whether the physical boost afforded by the Astartes transformation process is completely unrelated to the candidate's base physical "stats". That might be the case...that might not. I do know that the Astartes transformation process is highly dangerous. Males on average are more physically robust. A stronger male would be likelier to survive than a weaker female (and yes, I know some females are tougher/stronger than some male...I'm talking about averages)

Finally, Fish Speakers are cool

[Kol Saresk]

 

I wonder what Flint would say to the misogynistic pseudoscience of "Men are physically superior to women"

 

Stating that men are on average physically superior to women is not pseudoscience. On the contrary, it's actually science. It's called sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens

 

If I say "men are on average more intelligent", that's bollocks because it lacks scientific basis.

 

I'm aware of sexual dimorphism. That same science says that 1.)the average male typically has more muscle and generates it on a faster base and 2.)when individuals undergo physical training, the sexual dimorphism regarding muscle mass and strength becomes a very fine line that isn't worth considering.

 

So, since we're talking about women who are most likely trained fighters becoming cybernetically and genetically enhanced to be better soldiers, your argument becomes redundant because the actual science of sexual dimorphism says so. Ergo, "Men are physically superior to women" is pseudoscience. "The average male will naturally have more muscle mass than the average female" is sexual dimorphism.

 

And ultimately has nothing to do with "if women can receive enhancements similar to Kor Phaeron and Luther." If you want to argue why women shouldn't get enhancements, then unfortunately it is off-topic for this topic which is strictly yes or no, not "would you".

[ElectricPaladin]

I don't think it matters if men are X, Y, and Z more than women on average if what we're talking about is exceptional cases anyway. We're talking about a process that selects an extraordinary individual and then enhances them with training and modification to make them into a walking war machine. The fact that women are on average less suited to this process is completely irrelevant. Most men are unsuited to the process as well! If you're already looking for outliers, it doesn't matter that some of the people you might find are somewhat greater outliers.

 

I'd also like to point out that these supposed differences between men and women are vastly overstated. Men have a somewhat easier time putting on upper body muscle. Testosterone - which women have, too, by the way - has been shown to increase aggression.

 

The statement "...men are naturally stronger, tougher, larger, faster. Physically men are superior thanks in large part to our testosterone. Mentally, men are also more aggressive again thanks in large part to testosterone." is patently false. It is an enormous overstatement of several extremely limited facts. Men have a slightly easier time developing certain muscles and a chemical that men have a little more of makes some men more aggressive. That's it.

 

In other words, not only are you wrong - these vaunted physical differences don't amount to much - but even if you were right, you'd be wrong.

[Gorkimedes]

Since, excluding the Geneseed process, the  augmentation methods used by the Imperium appear to not have any stated gender requirements ( Biologis experiments, Juveant treatments, cybernetics, Assassinorum programs etc.) I don't see why not.

[Captain Nameless]

My mother, who was educated at the University of Chicago, a fairly liberal place, and who had travelled around Europe and Israel by herself, was of the opinion that, with the exception of a few "amazons", war was a "realm that women should not enter." that is direct quote from her after reading Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger.

 

We all agree that there are exceptional individuals suited for combat, let's leave it at that and, as Kol Saresk said, let's get back on topic.

 

One small issue; it should be sex, not gender. Gender is whether a word is masculine, feminine or neutral. Sex is whether an organism is male or female.

It's a pet peeve of mine.

[Conn Eremon]

Given that the only examples of these techniques we've seen are Kor Phaeron and Luther

Well, the Dark Angels did this to a lot more than just Luther, and it seemed implied that if you were not able to get the gene-seed, you got enhanced anyways. Before getting his head punched off, Nemiel's sergeant was an enhanced non-Astartes, I believe.

 

However, even the super-progressive Order seemed like a boys-only club, so I doubt they did anything like that to a woman.

 

As for my own opinion on OP's question: I am sure that is possible, and we have seen a huge amount of ways in which the base human form can be augmented, more than just how Kor and Luther were and perhaps even beyond.

[b1soul]

 

. . .

 

"I'm aware of sexual dimorphism."

 

You seem to be playing with words. You're saying "sexual dimorphism favouring male Homo sapiens does not mean men are physically superior on average"...when that's exactly what it means. 

 

"the average male typically has more muscle and generates it on a faster base" Ergo, "Men are physically superior to women" is pseudoscience. "The average male will naturally have more muscle mass than the average female" is sexual dimorphism."

"Men are physically superior to women (on average)" is not pseudoscience. More muscle mass is a major form of physical superiority. Saying men have more muscle mass is essentially saying men are physically superior unless you twist the meaning of "physically superior"

 

I understand that the word "superior" sounds less politically correct because "superior" is often used in the context of making a value judgement. I'm sorry if my usage has hurt your feelings. I'm not saying women deserve less respect in society.

 

"when individuals undergo physical training, the sexual dimorphism regarding muscle mass and strength becomes a very fine line that isn't worth considering"

 

Patently false. The difference in performance does not magically disappear because of training. What are you smoking? If we're talking about physical strength, look at Olympic world records for powerlifting. Male records are significantly superior to female records. If we're talking about endurance and more functional strength, look at cross-fit tournament records. Male records are signficantly superior to female records. Males and females all train intensively for these events. Look at almost any Olympic event. The male-female disparity is signficant and certainly worthy of consideration.  

 

That said, modern warfare doesn't require as much brute strength or physical endurance as ancient warfare. However, that doesn't mean male superiority is negligable after training. It's not. What that means is male physical superiority might not matter as much if soldiers aren't clashing in close combat. If it's all point and shoot, muscle mass becomes less important but it's still "worth considering" because melee is a real possibility in certain types of warzones. Now consider 40K warfare's rather ridiculous abundance of melee combat. Yeah, I would say muscle mass is important.

 

"So, since we're talking about women who are most likely trained fighters becoming cybernetically and genetically enhanced to be better soldiers, your argument becomes redundant because the actual science of sexual dimorphism says so."

 

No it doesn't. You're probably being very selective of what you're reading. The physical difference is real and significant. Greater and greater reliance on ranged weaponry certainly reduces the effect of that difference...but 40K is known for having plenty of melee combat.

 

"And ultimately has nothing to do with "if women can receive enhancements similar to Kor Phaeron and Luther." If you want to argue why women shouldn't get enhancements, then unfortunately it is off-topic for this topic which is strictly yes or no, not "would you"."

 

It's not off-topic, it's related. Women could receive enhancements but even if they could, there would be certain factors favouring men to receive those enhancements instead of women. In a highly close-combat-oriented universe, men would be more suitable for front line duty. Women would do just fine at range. However, if they're receiving all these strength and durability bonuses, I doubt they'll be avoiding melee combat.

 

If these enhancements produce almost uniform products regardless of base physical "stats", then yes, it wouldn't matter whether the candidates are men or women.

 

 

[Lucien Eilam]

these vaunted physical differences don't amount to much

 

In athletics and swimming, women's world record performances average 90% of the men's. In weightlifting, it's more like 75%. By anyone's measure, that's a huge difference, even among the most extreme outliers.