Another Gender Question (Actually Attempting Relevancy)

[b1soul]

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.

 

Deeply flawed logic...but that's what usually happens when you sacrifice reason for politcal correctness.

 

You agree that average males > average females?

 

Then you should agree that exceptional males > exceptional females

 

If the enhancement program is seeking top physical specimens, there will still be a preference for males. If you take all the exceptional males and average them and if you take the exceptional females and average them, the male average will in all likelihood be superior. Furthermore, there will be an elite group of males who are physically superior to all females. This is corroborated in real life athletics.

 

This of course doesn't mean circumstances would never permit a female to receive enhancements...but superior male physical performance at all levels is a biological fact. I can't believe people are actually disputing this or trying to minimise this. Wow...

[daveNYC]

 

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.

 

Those physical differences make for a 12 minute difference in marathon records, a 1 second difference in the 100m, 1m on the long jump and (roughly) about 100kg on any weightlifting.  That's a 10% difference (5% for the long jump), which is nothing to sneeze at.  You can argue that they are irrelevant once the various artificial enhancements kick in, but you can't just say they don't exist.

[apologist]

All of which is besides the point. Whether or not the resultant pseudo-astartes would be superior, inferior or functionally identical, the OP's question is:

 

 

 

Could a female undergo the same enhancements undergone by individuals like Kor Phaeron, circa the Age of Darkness?
[...]could a woman undergo the same mixture of cybernetics and muscle-enhancers that make the pseudo-Astartes?

[...]nothing about what I have read in the novels invalidates a woman serving in that capacity.

[...] 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?"

 

To which the answer is utterly unrelated to real-world arguments: it's a simple question, the answer to which is set entirely in the fictional universe.

[b1soul]

 

Those physical differences make for a 12 minute difference in marathon records, a 1 second difference in the 100m, 1m on the long jump and (roughly) about 100kg on any weightlifting.  That's a 10% difference (5% for the long jump), which is nothing to sneeze at.  You can argue that they are irrelevant once the various artificial enhancements kick in, but you can't just say they don't exist.

 

 

There's also a reason why sports are divided by sex

 

Kol, do you really think the worst/average/best female rugby team should go up against the worst/average/best male rugby team. How about boxing?

 

By the way, the women's "equipped" bench press record is 600lbs ("equipped" means the powerlifter is wearing a bench shirt)

The men's "equipped" bench press record is 1,100lbs

 

To which the answer is utterly unrelated to real-world arguments: it's a simple question, the answer to which is set entirely in the fictional universe.

 

Right...women can, but a logical argument based on real-life human physiology (most of which applies to 40K) could be made that men would be superior "raw materials" from which to craft enhanced soldiers likely serving as shocktroopers

 

It's a tangent but it's a related tangent

[ElectricPaladin]

 

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.

 

Deeply flawed logic...but that's what usually happens when you sacrifice reason for politcal correctness.

 

You agree that average males > average females?

 

Then you should agree that exceptional males > exceptional females

 

If the enhancement program is seeking top physical specimens, there will still be a preference for males. If you take all the exceptional males and average them and if you take the exceptional females and average them, the male average will in all likelihood be superior. Furthermore, there will be an elite group of males who are physically superior to all females. This is corroborated in real life athletics.

 

This of course doesn't mean circumstances would never permit a female to receive enhancements...but superior male physical performance at all levels is a biological fact. I can't believe people are actually disputing this or trying to minimise this. Wow...

 

 

Do not accuse me of "political correctness." I am not a hypocrite. I am not trying to please anyone. My opinions are genuinely my opinions, and I am not trying to be "correct" by anyone's standards except for the truth as I see it. You can take "political correctness" and shove it. Call me wrong. Call me ignorant. Call me a fool. But don't you dare accuse me of being a liar who is trying to be "politically correct."

 

I have no interest in engaging with the rest of your post. I do not debate with people who insult me.

[Kol Saresk]

All of which is besides the point. Whether or not the resultant pseudo-astartes would be superior, inferior or functionally identical, the OP's question is:

 

 

 

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

[...]could a woman undergo the same mixture of cybernetics and muscle-enhancers that make the pseudo-Astartes?

[...]nothing about what I have read in the novels invalidates a woman serving in that capacity.

[...] 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?"

 

To which the answer is utterly unrelated to real-world arguments: it's a simple question, the answer to which is set entirely in the fictional universe.

 

And from what we know of the question's relation to the fictional universe, that answer is yes.

[apologist]

And from what we know of the question's relation to the fictional universe, that answer is yes.

 

 

 

To which the answer is utterly unrelated to real-world arguments: it's a simple question, the answer to which is set entirely in the fictional universe.

 

Right...women can, but a logical argument based on real-life human physiology (most of which applies to 40K) could be made that men would be superior "raw materials" from which to craft enhanced soldiers likely serving as shocktroopers

 

It's a tangent but it's a related tangent

 

 

Brill – so we're all agreed that the basic conceit is justifiable in the 40k/30k universe :)

 

+edit+ Fixing quote box disaster! +

[Kol Saresk]

Essentially. Except for the off-topic "yet somehow related" tangent on why it should or should not be done when the OP specifically said he just wanted a yes or no answer.

 

But yes, we are essentially in agreement it can be done, irregardless of the whys.

[Teetengee]

 

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.

 

Deeply flawed logic...but that's what usually happens when you sacrifice reason for politcal correctness.

 

You agree that average males > average females?

 

Then you should agree that exceptional males > exceptional females

 

If the enhancement program is seeking top physical specimens, there will still be a preference for males. If you take all the exceptional males and average them and if you take the exceptional females and average them, the male average will in all likelihood be superior. Furthermore, there will be an elite group of males who are physically superior to all females. This is corroborated in real life athletics.

 

This of course doesn't mean circumstances would never permit a female to receive enhancements...but superior male physical performance at all levels is a biological fact. I can't believe people are actually disputing this or trying to minimise this. Wow...

 

Just because the averages are different doesn't mean that the maximums are different. That is a matter of distribution. For example if I had a 6 sided die that was weighted for more 4s and another that was weighted for more 3s, the average of the first would be better but the maximums and minimums of both would be the same.

That being said, if we assume that men and women both have Normal(the mathematical type) distributions with similar standard deviations, then higher average implies higher exceptionals. In general, the data as I understand it is that males at both high levels and on average tend to outperform women in strength and endurance but women outperform men in flexibility and pain thresholds, although data for such things are less easily measured.

[Iron Hands Fanatic]

When it comes down to it, basing our assumptions of what are 'normal' humans in the 30k universe on our species' current populations might not really work. These are communities that have dispersed across the entire Galaxy, in conditions so far removed from our own that many of these humans might have gene frequencies so different from ours that we might not even fall into the same species according to the traditional definition (the ability to produce fertile progeny). The selection pressures in many of these environments could create wildly different phenotypes from those we're familiar with.

 

Plus, it's extremely likely that when these communities' ancestral populations began their exodus to the stars, they underwent considerabe genetic engineering - as well as further engineering once they had arrived, in order to accelerate adaptation.

 

Considering the Imperium would encompass socieities of humans that would have such significant genetic divergence, at what point do humans become 'abhumans'? Existing background suggests the line drawn between the two has a largely asthetic basis - whereas a vast array of genes have little effect on external appearance, and genetic engineering mentioned above would likely be conducted in a way that conserved 'normal' human appearance as much as possible.

 

In the end, way too many variables to assume that phenotypes associated with males / females in our current population would be the same as those amongst the populations the Legions recruit from.

 

 

 

On a sidenote, from a purely Evolutionary standpoint, increasing androgeny in human populations in terms of gender-associated phenotypes (as in, male genotype frequencies altering to assist with roles typically filled by women & female genotype frequencies altering to assist with roles typically filled by men) would actually be advantageous long-term. This is because with the Y-chromosome gradually degenerating over time, males within Homo sapiens will eventually die out (although crazily far in the future).

[ElectricPaladin]

I do think it's interesting, on a meta level, the responses that this kind of question always gets. It seems to go like this:

• OP: Say... do you think that the ladies could do the thing?
• Some Posters: Oh, sure, ladies could probably do the thing.
• Other Posters: Yeah, that would be interesting if ladies did the thing.
• Yet Other Posters: I dunno, I wouldn't be interested in the ladies doing the thing.
• Inevitable Derailment: OMG WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LADIES CAN'T DO THE THING!
• OP: ...
• Inevitable Derailment: TESTOSTERONE! AGGRESSION!
• Some Posters: ...
• Inevitable Derailment: UPPER BODY STRENGTH! MUSCLES!
• Other Posters: ...
• OP: Well, this is a fictional universe, and-
• Inevitable Derailment: TESTOSTERONE!
• Some Posters: You know, statistics-
• Inevitable Derailment: MUSCLES!
• OP: ...

And yes, I know I'm being reductionist, but I just got accused of being "politically correct" despite the fact that I'm not running for anything, and I don't feel like being nice anymore. This position reeks of fragile masculinity. You know what the best counterpoint for this argument is? The United States military - the number one military in the world - has women in combat. Although they might not always be classed as combat troops, they still end up on the front lines, firing rifles, being fired at, carrying heavy gear, carrying their wounded squad-mates, and generally being more bad than most of us can ever hope to be. They are real, live, actual women soldiers, and if you think I'm wrong, go tell it to Tammy Duckworth who lost half her limbs to an insurgent's rocket while serving in a "non-combat" capacity. If I wasn't at work, I could find more examples of front line female heroism, but I'm busy and I have limited patience.

I don't know about you, but if I had a limited number of super soldier implants, I would not use sex as a qualification.

[Noctus Cornix]

And here I was hoping that this might have been a decent and respectable discussion. . .

 

Concerning your original question, Marshal Sampson, the answer is absolutely yes. There is, by no means, any reason why a woman cannot undergo genetic and mechanical enhancements to bring them to the same capabilities as  an Astartes. There's already proven fact that this is more than capable when you look at the Assassins who have been enhanced in just such a way albeit with a different purpose in mind. Simple as that and there really is no need for any more discussion on the matter.

 

Now, since we've strayed from this subject, allow me to say a few things... 

 

Firstly, this entire notion of women being physically inferior is antiquated beyond belief. The concept of this derives from the Hunter/Gatherer mentality before agriculture was developed years ago. We are no longer bound by such realities and we are now docile creatures at best. We have little need for muscle mass in the same respect that we once required. There is an average of greater muscle mass and height in men then women, yes? Of course there is but is that really relevant? No. Its not. We're discussing 7 foot tall genetically engineered killing machines that are developed from children between the age of 10 and 12 before puberty even begins to really take place. Most boys at that point can't even grow facial hair, let alone have any significant physical difference from a female that has lived the same lifestyle.  They are altered since childhood and their genetic code is virtually consumed by the processes. Having a slightly higher average of muscle isn't going to mean jack :cuss. Period. Another thing to keep in mind is that this is roughly twenty eight thousand years in the future. From the sheer amount the human body has developed over our recorded history, can you imagine how it would have changed in that span of time? This concept of muscle and physical superiority is ridiculous and arbitrary at best. The reason why there are no female space marines is because the process is refined to accept only male candidates based on their physical development and their hormone production. That is the only answer and reason for it and that's the only answer there needs to be. 

 

Secondly, I think it must be kept in mind that Space Marines are NOT Males, or atleast not in the base sense of how we define them. Space Marines are trans-humans, created to be killing machines. This is more prevalent when you look at Chapter Space Marines but it is also a facet of the Legion marines. Gender is no longer part of the equation. You're a killing machine, a living breathing tool for war. Period. They are called battle-brothers in the most basic sense of the term but the best way to put this is purely gender neutral, much in the same way that Mankind is used to describe all of humanity, not only males. There is no fraternity or sense of gender.  Talos makes note of this in the first short story he's in, and to quote the Talon of Horus as well

 

 

"We do not think you are a man at all, Khayon. We think you are a weapon with lingering traces of humanity."

 

That is roughly the best way to explain this. Space Marines are not men. Space Marines are Space Marines. 

[Spinsanity]

"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'd just like to point out that muscle mass is one aspect of physical superiority, but far from the only one. That women have two X chromosomes instead of only one means they have a backup in case of genetical defect, rendering them less prone to recessive genetical disfonctions, as an example, which is one reason why life expectancy statistics show women tend to live longer than men.

 

To say that men are superior to women based only on average muscle mass is extremely misogynistic and a clear example of selective bias.

[daveNYC]

And here I was hoping that this might have been a decent and respectable discussion. . .

 

Concerning your original question, Marshal Sampson, the answer is absolutely yes. There is, by no means, any reason why a woman cannot undergo genetic and mechanical enhancements to bring them to the same capabilities as  an Astartes. There's already proven fact that this is more than capable when you look at the Assassins who have been enhanced in just such a way albeit with a different purpose in mind. Simple as that and there really is no need for any more discussion on the matter.

 

 

I'd suggest that adult mortals can be enhanced to be similar yet less effective than Astartes.  Astartes are the top of the line in the setting when it comes to engineered killing machines.  It's more a fluff thing, but it'd be jarring if there were some way to enhance adult humans to Astartes standards that didn't come with some serious down side.

[Schultzhoffen]

....and that's why nobody can play nicely...must be the testosterone...;)

[KBA]

That is roughly the best way to explain this. Space Marines are not men. Space Marines are Space Marines. 

 

That's an interesting quote, but those 'lingering traces of humanity' start a galactic civil war. I think it's important to differentiate what characters say and what characters do, and at the end of the day, and in every Horus Heresy novel, we see the worst and best of that humanity boil, stir, and thicken plots. I think one of the central themes of the whole arc is when men are made gods, they are still men. Masculine decisions are made, and masculine actions take place; these aren't genderless creatures. And I'd theorize if women are made astartes, we'd see feminine decisions along with feminine actions too.

[Wade Garrett]

Feminine decisions? What does that even mean?

 

If instead of Primarch Genghis Khan, Primarch King Arthur, Primarch Spartacus, etc we had Primarch Ann Bonny, Primarch Joan of Arc, Primarch Atalanta, etc I don't think we'd see overmuch change vis-a-vis family feuds and burning galaxies.

[Daemon2027]

I always thought it might have to do with the geenseed, that it was intuned to males hence why only they could go through the process.

 

Does the likes of Kor Phaeron and Luther have the geenseed implanted as part of their process?

[Lucien Eilam]

So many straw men in so few posts.
 

You know what the best counterpoint for this argument is? The United States military - the number one military in the world - has women in combat. Although they might not always be classed as combat troops, they still end up on the front lines, firing rifles, being fired at, carrying heavy gear, carrying their wounded squad-mates, and generally being more bad:cuss than most of us can ever hope to be. They are real, live, actual women soldiers, and if you think I'm wrong, go tell it to Tammy Duckworth who lost half her limbs to an insurgent's rocket while serving in a "non-combat" capacity.

Did being brave and losing limbs help her beat the men's record for the clean & jerk, or is all of that irrelevant to the topic being discussed?

Nobody is disputing that women can be brave, strong, fast, or serve in the military. All anyone was talking about was whether the peak physical performance from a man was higher than or equal to the peak physical performance from a woman.

You stated that women can be just as strong and fast as the strongest, fastest men ("these vaunted physical differences don't amount to much"), then had a hissy fit because people pointed out that all the records for strength or speed are held by men, by a significant margin over the nearest woman. 
 

To say that men are superior to women based only on average muscle mass is extremely misogynistic and a clear example of selective bias.

 
Nobody is saying "men are better than women because they're stronger" or anything even remotely like it. Superior in the limited context being discussed, which is strength and speed.

[Conn Eremon]

Something to consider is that there is an example in lore of a female warrior that has a history with a Primarch, that does fulfill a role within the Legion but not as a Legionary warrior.

 

Corax had a girl that he was attached to during his earliest days. They were of similar age at that earliest moment and struck a friendship that lasted well into the Heresy. She grows up and fights for him when he makes his move against the Kiavahran tech guilds, and continues to serve him and the Legion well into her ancient and withered years, with Corax still being fond of her.

 

She seems like the perfect opportunity to be augmented in this way, but she isn't. It's possible that it was pondered and dismissed, that she either didn't want it or would be best served fulfilling a different role (everybody has their talents. I am not making a statement about gender superiority or lack thereof).

 

The fact that the possibility isn't even mentioned is most likely just because the author did not, would not or could not consider it. But it can be taken as implicit approval, if you take the logic that it would have been mentioned or noted if there had been something that had prevented such a thing from happening, like some sort of issue with the process or a cultural issue with the gender. The fact that it wasn't could mean that it is possible and acceptable, just not applicable to this particular circumstance.

 

But everything kind of hinges on how it's presented. I think the general lore question has been answered, but we really don't know how you intend to apply that to a specific case.

 

Daemon2027: No, they do not. This is what distinguishes them from their brothers. They are, more or less, equal as warriors. But they do not share the blood of the Lion/Messiah.

[Conn Eremon]

Did being brave and losing limbs help her beat the men's record for the clean & jerk, or is all of that irrelevant to the topic being discussed?

 

Relevant.

Irrelevant.

[Teetengee]

Clean and jerk doesn't have much to do with combat effectiveness in the far future of our game. Additionally, isn't motive force pretty much supplied by the power armor when in combat situations? Hence the power part? I always had the impression that raw strength only mattered for the space marines when something went horribly wrong or when fighting outside power armor (scouts for instance). Now endurance, pain tolerance, physical mass to absorb damage, those are all super relavant, but that very peak force that the marine's muscles can provide doesn't seem all that important.

[KBA]

Feminine decisions? What does that even mean?

 

If instead of Primarch Genghis Khan, Primarch King Arthur, Primarch Spartacus, etc we had Primarch Ann Bonny, Primarch Joan of Arc, Primarch Atalanta, etc I don't think we'd see overmuch change vis-a-vis family feuds and burning galaxies.

 

Anything guided by the feminine self, really. More passive, more sensitive, more nurturing. That isn't to say astartes haven't displayed those traits, but like men, more masculine attributes tend to come to the forefront of thinking, which is kind of my point.

[Wade Garrett]

The fact that an unarmored World Eater could break a Custodians chestplate with his bare hands suggests that Astartes strength may not be just the servomotors.

 

For a slightly less insane example, didn't the Luna Wolves in False Gods say that the Technocracy elite had power armor as advanced as theirs, but because of their lack of gene enhancement it was still like fighting children? Or am I mixing up books?

[Captain Nameless]

It was Horus Rising and it was specifically Loken was the one who said that, apart from that you have all the facts straight.