How would being a lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender be viewed in the 40k universe?

With the way the Imperium is about many things, would being anything other than 'straight' be considered acceptable or a big no no, from the authorities point of view?

About to start playing in a dark heresey campaign and considering making my character gay, or at least bisexual.

Sadly, as with anything else, the answer is "it depends on the world."

That said, Dan Abnett has had several gay or lesbian characters in his books. Generally, he doesn't make an issue of it... just an offhand mention... an none of the other characters react to the notion as if it was particularly significant. My impression, based on that, is that sexual orientation isn't a big deal in Abnett's view of the 40K universe.

It's a view I can agree with because, honestly, when the other guy has three eyes, poison claws and fangs, who cares about the sexual preferences of your non-mutated neighbors.

Im ruling that as long as you go with humans (regardless of gender) then it is okay in the eyes of the Imperium and Ecclesiarchy alike.

Since the Imperial Creed does not include any "sanctity of the union of man and woman" or similar crap, and the fact that it is pretty much expected of mankind to multiply like hypersexual rodents (meaning there will not ever be any short supply in soldiers, slaves, workers etc.) there's no reason for it to include any "no gay relationships" clause.

Adding to the fact that quite a few Black Library novels have included a few gay characters (and they weren't really persecuted for it).

Im guessing that mankind in general is a bit too preoccupied to care about an individuals sexual orientation. (unfortunately I guess this would go for paedophilia as well, but what can you do. It's a dark and grim future after all, and it's people doesn't have the luxury of idealism)

Although gay/lesbian seems to be ok as far as other posters are concerned, transgender might be viewed as a minor mutation with all the negatives that that impies in the 40k universe

s.k.

Solomon Kane said:

I guess that would depend on wether they are natural hermaphrodites or have underwent surgery/hormonal treatments. In the latter case there is obviously no mutation involved, and arguably some of the surgical procedures in the 40k-verse are far more radical than a sex change operation.

I would also say that it depends on the world, and how much your fellow players are comfortable with the subject. Now that said some within the Inquisition and the Ministorum may see homosexuality as a form of mutation or insanity.*ducks* I am only pointing that out because of the fact that it is different than the 'norm', and most within the Imperium are totally against anything that is even slightly different from the norm. *finds nearest hard cover with atmospheric filtration*

T-800 said:

Get out from under there and stand up for your theories!

Still, the question here is whether sexual orientations would actually warrant the attention of individual Inquisitors or Ministorum officials. Sure, you will find the most peculiar opinions.

Like for instance in the Ravenor Omnibus I read about a typical Red Circus called "Carnivora". A Red Circus is basically an arena for gladiatorial blood sports, and within Imperial standards it was perfectly legit to run such an operation and to visit such an establishment. But you can bet your ass (... ehm, perhaps not the best thing to bet in a conversation about alternative sexual orientations? But you get the idea) that there was a Redemptionist protest rally outside the arena wall's wailing about how the spectators should repent their sins, and that watching violent blood spectacles will lead to sin and damnation and yadayadayada.

In other words, not much more attention than your average american abortion clinic with crazed catholics (not saying all catholics are crazed, but there are definetly crazed individuals within every group in society no matter how you look at it) outside trying to convince women that they are murdering babies by going through such an operation etc. etc.

So while you can probably always find a group that will have objections towards your way of living or anyone elses way of living, (just like in the real world) the issue here is whether it would really warrant the attention of important officials or not. And frankly, when mankind is beset by aliens and daemons and such, something as tame as homosexuality would probably not even be as much as a blip on an Inquisitors radar. In fact, an Inquisitor deciding to make it his or her mission to purge all homosexuals would probably be accused of... well "malpractice" or something by his or her sector conclave.

You promote people to become Inquisitors to fight REAL threats, not because they are to chase after their own personal grudges.

In my current group, one of the characters plays a gay noble born adept. And it has worked out without any problems for the whole "in game chemistry" (maby not the best choice of words). He is quite useful at solving problems, even if he has a lisp. And the guy even saved my hard-as-nails moritat assassin, when he passed out due to fatigue, from cultists who tried to carry him back to their master. It's an alternative way to play a character, nothing more or less. He is more or less a bit of a coward/pansy. But it makes for some excellent rollplaying, and its a nice change of events to have a character that is all about solving problems with your mind, and being afriad of combat, and acting like a wimp. (It's also quite fun to see my friend, who used to be a US Marine and is probably the strongest guy I know, play to be a complete and total coward who likes men.)

However, as for the Ecclesiarchy and the Imperial fluff view on it (as was mentioned previously) it depends on the world. I'm fairly certain that military worlds such as Cadia it would be strictly outlawed, as would oral sex, based on the fact that any sexual contact that does not result in children is a waste of time and resources. But some more noble societies may have the ancient-greek stance on it: ""women are for babies, men are for pleasure"". So yes, it depends on the world. But dont make the decision based on the stance of it. It would be very interesting to see a character who is homosexual, from a world that advocates it, join the inquisition. Then in his travels he gets shipped to a world where any homosexuals are to be arrested (like Cadia). It would make for a decent story and some fun rollplaying.

I've seen a thread like this some time ago which ran on in the same vein .. until some intervened and started about political correctness in regard to homosexuality and how this affects what's being written here ...

.. the 41st millennium is a scary, oppressed place where deviancy of the norm is always considered a sin, where the government is a theocratic totalitarian dictatorship, where the mindset is Medieval, and where there is a Ruinous Power always trying to subvert people into debauchery and perversion. Given all that, I would think that on most worlds homosexuality and transgenderness is NOT accepted. It's different and strange and therefore forbidden and sin, in the eyes of most people.

Ofcourse that doesn't mean homosexuality doesn't exist Look at our own world ... many societies (in fact most, at the moment) have negative views on it and sometimes even prosecute gays, but that doesn't mean that no one is gay.

I would imagine that, in a universe as vast an diverse as 40k, there would be little attention payed to wildly varying cultural norms vis-a-vis sexuality. As long as humanity keeps reproducing, I doubt anyone would bother to get involved. Afterall, Space marines have to have fun too. : )

That said, there would certainly be worlds where such practices were roundly condemned, as well as worlds where they are part of the normal institutions of the society (as in much of the pre-judaic civilizations we have on record.)

Furthermore, I think offworlders probably have licensce to act however they want, and sufficed to say nobody messes with the inquisition, personal eccentricities notwithstanding.

As far as the ecclesiarchy goes, I think the catholic model (procreation above all) is probably a safe place to start. That said, the ecclesiarchy -like the catholic church in medieval times- is only one arm of society, and is not all-powerful. It can always be ignored by the acolytes(presuming it even has an opinion on the subject).

Well, I wouldn´t argue, but there are few examples in actual fluff:

-At the start of For the Emperor , Ciaphas Cain is trying to calm down the Naval captain whose provost/armsmen was killed when he tried to disperse vicious guardsmen brawl. Cain noted, that he suspects some much closer relationships between the captain and his provost. Both were IIRC male. Cain also said that it was against regulations, but agains regulations of no relationships between officers/subordinates!

- Caves of Ice and later CC novels feature lesbian pair of Valhallan guardwomen, with no curius or weird remarks from Cain or anybofy else (altough Cain mentions that one of them, Maggot, is ravening lunatic and she would charge a necron with rusty bayonet when defending her girlfriend)

-In Lord of Night , there was adrogynus underhive gang. One of them badassest.

-Prior to the events of Rebel Winter , Commissar Daridh Al Kariff got disgraced for son of one powerful misunderstanded their friendship and falled in love with him. Not that would be a problem, but Kariff tried to solve this "problem". and sonnie shot himself from grief. And papa-general got angry.

Warhammer 40 000 is utterly grimadark world with oppresive and intolerant atmosphere and medieval mindset, but it´s centered mostly (of course, every world is different) on other things than sexuality (ok, ok, Slaanesh:P). Who are opressed have their dark secrets, which could feature many things which are forbidden on that world and powerful- well, they are the opressors so they can screw males, females, hermaphrodytes, children, groxes, pleasure-servitors, cherubs, mutants, anything. But of course, everything too much is way towards corruption and Inquisition would have their means of "solving" the problematic matters.

I recommend "They are all Slaanesh cultists here!" columm in Rejoice for you are true adventure in Purge the Unclean, and Tattered Fates also gives you a some insight of the life of powerful.

The Laughing God said:

I'll grant you that, but I think you're assuming that the "norm" of the 41st millennium in regards to sexuality is the same as the norm in the stereotype of middle America. I think the examples from the fluff contradict that, suggesting instead that a variety of sexual orientations is the excepted norm in the wider Imperial society (if such a thing can be said to exist).

They joy of DH and the 40k univers is that you can take any real worl or period of history give it some las guns and the inperial faith and its 40k so really sexuality is completly subvjective acording to the world of origin. bear in mind that were talking about the galaxy here with every posibly type of world you can imagine from elizibethan puritan worlds where any breaking of the social ordoer and standards in punished to pleasure wolrds where women walk around naked for your enjoyment where sexuality is no issue and the only crime is murder and everything between, you cant give one rule for this issue that covers every world.

LuciusT said:

Good point.

Another thing to consider here is the fact that in the real world, no one has been able to provide any solid, scientific proof that homosexuality must be "abnormal" in any way. The only reason for it being considered deviant is the fact that statistics indicate that there are more heterosexuals in the world than homosexuals.

But we have to ask ourselves, does that necessarily mean that the smaller group must be an abnormal one? And in that regard, abnormal in relation to what exactly? Nature?

It is a very biased and unscientific view that the "natural" way of things are the ways that lead to procreation. That implies that nature would have a "thought out" plan with how things are supposed to work. But we don't have any proof of that. Nature is not a person, able of thought an reasoning. It's just a natural force. Dumb, unintelligent and unaware. It just exist simply because it's what it does. How could a human or a group of humans even begin to "understand" the motivations of nature?

We can't. It's impossible. We can only observe nature, and draw OUR OWN concluscions. But that still doesn't make our concluscions the "true" ones, because we really have no idea what is really normal or abnormal, natural or unnatural. And given the fact that every day more proof of homosexuality co-existing with man throughout mans entire history, should give some interesting perceptions of the phenomena.

But I digress, my main point here is that one should tread very carefully when they try to preach for others what is "natural" and what isn't natural, especially regarding such a natural species like humans. We're all products of nature, how could ANYTHING we ever do ever be "unnatural"? Why is chimpanzees picking fleas of eachothers backs and eating them any more natural than humans inventing atomic bombs?

You'd have to have an almost... "unnatural" insight into natures motivations to know that, wouldn't you?

Which of course bring's us to your point. We can't know for sure that people in the year 40.000 will have the same "agreement" on what is considered to be natural or the norm, and considering the scientific advances, anthropological advances and even the very things mankind has encountered in the universe at large during that time, it's pretty safe to assume that we can't just assume that the people in WH40K have the same values and perceptions like some of the more pseudo-religious nations of todays world.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Scientifically speaking, homosexuality is a biological dead-end (barring any outside "input" or outside assistance. Two men cannot create a baby by themselves, nor can two women, without assistance from the opposite sex). Therefore, yes, science has shown that homosexuality is not the optimal orientation for the continuation of species.

However, it could be that nature "causes" people to "be" homosexual as a way of reducing the overall population. The only problem there is that would posit that "nature" is somehow "aware".

As for 40K, there are so many other things to occupy one's mind, that I believe the notion of "omg there's a gay!" is the last thing people think about.

Rainbow Warriors from the first edition Warhammer 40k are GW's gaurdians of sexual freedom.

Illithidelderbrain said:

Assuming that there was an inherent risk of EVERYONE suddenly being homosexual. Science has yet to explain the function of all naturally occuring phenomena, and the problem with much of the established science is the fact that as soon as something that can't be explained by your standard misunderstood darwinian theories, they always explain it away as "abnormalities".

Now when you think about it, that's pretty much the same thing religious people do when they explain away the things occuring that doesn't sit right with their religion. Like the several inconsistencies in the bible, or the fact that God let's infants die horrible deaths, they just explain it away with: "God works in mysterious ways..."

Which is all fine and dandy if you want to feel better about yourself, but it's not very scientific. Being scientific implies that you keep an open mind and try your very hardest to stay as objective and neutral as possible in order to find out whats true. Calling different sexual orientations a "biological dead-end" or "natural abnormality" implies that you have an unnatural understanding of what the biology or nature "wants". Which is pure speculation and nothing more, because NO ONE knows what nature wants. You might as well ask yourself what the sun wants, because it is an equally unanswerable question.

But since you initiated the speculations, how do you know that homosexuality isn't just nature's way of keeping a species from getting overpopulated or preventing the deaths of children whose biological parents are unable to care for them? I mean, making sure that orphaned kids are being taken care of by parents whose sexual orientation wouldn't normally lead to giving birth to more children sounds like a pretty sound tactic in order to make sure that children are being taken care off, without increasing the risks of overpopulation. Don't you agree?

But, like I said, this is all speculation. And the same goes for every single scientist that has pondered over the question so far. Scientists know thus far that homosexuality exists, but they don't know why. They have diferent theories and speculations, but they don't KNOW and they can't PROVE their theories and speculations either. And why? Well because nobody knows what nature wants, heck no one can even be sure of whether nature or biology is actually able of "wanting" anything. It is a pretty random and "dumb" natural force after all. Does the wind have a specific goal when blowing in a certain direction?

Illithidelderbrain said:

See! That's the line of thinking I want you all to ponder over instead of just having blind faith in posited scientific theories. Remember, science isn't a religion and shouldn't be treated as such. Which means that just beause Darwin or Einstein or Hawking said something it doesn't necessarily make it so. Scientists have throughout the ages been proven wrong extremely often, that's how science works. If everybody just had a blind faith in science then this wouldn't happen. You can't have scientific progress if no one challenges the established theories and agreements.

But to adress the things you said here. Biological studies have in fact showed that homosexuality begins at a biological level. There is something that sets homosexuals brains apart from heterosexual ones. Some less scientifically inclined people will probably have you believe that this is due to a "disease" of some sort, but considering the fact that historians uncover homosexual behaviour stretching further and further back in time, and the fact that other species of animals have been witnessed to engage in homosexual acts as well you just have to ask yourself the question: how can we be so sure that it must be a "disease", when it seems so naturally occuring?

And once more: how can ANYTHING man does ever be unnatural when we are just as a natural species as chimpanzees or ants? We're all products/side-effects of nature (depending how you want to look at it), therefore no behaviour can ever be unnatural.

Illithidelderbrain said:

Oh yes, that's very true. However as a GM I'd definetly raise an eyebrow if a player decides to create a PC with an unusual sexual orientation. And this is not due to scepticism, but rather appriciation that her or she want's to explore that venue in roleplaying. Although we have a pretty open gaming enviroment in my group, it still takes a lot of guts.

All this scientific "reasearch" about homosexuality is completly unnessisary. It's simple to prove that homosexuality is genetic using psychology sociology. With all the negative stigma attached to homosexuality and homosexuals in modern day american society, why would anyone choose it? Because as much as I hate to say it, sociologicly speaking the majority of heterosexuals look down and dislike gay people, for religious reasons mostly, but also because it's something they dont understand. Granted, there are a great number of heterosexuals (like myself) who have no problem with the gay community, they are a minority compaired to the hater-heteros. So why would anyone choose homosexuality in a society that openly bash them?

Ira said:

I'd just like to point out that psychology and sociology are NOT scientific disciplines. They are based on pretty sub-standard theories and have yet to prove themselves as viable scientific methods. (not the most popular thing to say in this day and age, but it doesn't make it less true).

That being said, you can't prove that something is genetic only by looking at it from a psychological and sociological point of view. Just because something comes with a social stigma it doesn't guarantee that people won't be drawn to it some way or another.

Racist beliefs also carries a huge social stigma, but you don't see that stopping people from becoming outspoken racists now do you?

However, the more scientific branches of study (like biology for example) have been able to isolate certain differences between the heterosexual brain and a homosexual one. After reaching sexual maturity, they don't look and behave alike in certain aspects. Which is a very interesting scientific finding. The problems arise when some anti-intellectual idiots proclaim that it must be due to a deficiency or "disease" of some kind. There isn't much basis for such statements, but bigotry tends to find it's way into every sector of society. Sadly even into academic and scientific circles. Which is why you should never just accept something that a scientist or an academic say. If someone has a theory it should be thoroughly tested before being accepted, and it should be kept under constant scrutiny from there on...

Illithidelderbrain said:

whether something is optimal or not has no bearing on whether it's natural or not. As Varnius pointed out, nature dose not have a grand plan and is not particularly smart. Nature is not sentient, nature dose not have plans for things. Nature is just a collective term we have for things that come about regularly, on their own, and without our medaling. What nature dose is not always optimal, it's just what nature dose or, better yet, what things of a natural origin do. After all, piles of species have become extinct over the course of life on Earth. Some because they couldn't adapt to changes quickly enough and others because they simply weren't an "optimal" build. They were still natural and did natural things that ended their natural lives or had those natural lives ended by other natural things engaged in natural activities.

Just because something is "natural" dose not make it perfect, optimal, or even good. It just means that what ever it is came about due to happenstance caused by the chain of events that have been in motion since time began and not the direct medaling of sentient creatures.

All this discussion of whether its science or not, or genetic or not, or natural or not is entirely irrelevant to the original post and most of the longer more passionate posts clearly show their writers present views on the issue bleeding through.

The issue at hand has zero to do with what makes sense in "reality" or our present day world.

All that is relevant here is specualtion on how various sexualities would be treated by the Imperium/Humans in the 40k setting.

Both the argument that they don't care because its just not important stacked against aliens and chaos is a perfectly valid view.

But then again, the religious sects of the Imperium have some pretty crazy and sometimes extreme views as to what is or isn't sin, and it doesn't have to make sense. So the interpretation that it wouldn't be the norm and the xenophobic nutbags of the Imperium would shoot gays on sight is also a potentially valid view of the setting.

All this nature or science has or hasn't shown whatever discussion is an argument where you people are acting like the Imperium is rational.

HA!

DocIII said:

Please, let me demonstrate the relevance fo this discussion and the original post.

When we think about crazy religious fanatics and oppressive forms of government, we assume that it is somewhere along the line of the Third Reich and the Catholic church. Naturally these two examples have shown a tendency at frowning upon a variety of sexual orientations, and naturally, most people would assume that the Imprium of Man would have pretty similar views.

BUT! (the big "but")

One must take into account the insane amount of time that has passed betwen our year 2000 and the year 40.000. Scientific discoveries, opinions, religions etc. etc. are bound to have risen and fallen during this time. And while most homophobic views today can be traced back to christianity, islam, judaism and other monotheistic religions with a clause forbidding homosexuality, the people of 40K doesn't have that frame of reference accessible.

So we can't just assume that homosexuality (or even paedophilia for that matter) is considered as bad then as it is today. Times change, and societies change with it. What is common knowledge today might be completely forgotten tomorrow. And just imagine how many "tomorrows" that will transpire between today and the forty-first millenium!

I mean, just compare our views on firearms in comparison to theirs! Today only a minority seems to think that owning, using and brandishing firerams is acceptable. In 40K, leaving your home without a gun or a weapon of some sort would be like leaving your home without your pants on.

from france

okay i don't care about people sexuality as long that it is between willing adulte. if i don't like i just watch in a other direction. i don't care about god. no master no god. but **** **** what do you have against only the catholics church. okay they are litlle bit extreme but do you forgot the

w a s p because it s suit you fine? actually the differents protestants churchs are quite good at doing the same excess and sometimes worst. last time i check "jesus camp" are para-military wasp camp. ther is no camp lead by the catholic church to cure you from rock and roll.

okay sorry and i am honestly sincere in this appologies but it was begining to bother me.

so back to the subject as it was mentioned before it depends on the planet and its culture. but more than this easy answer the only reference of explicite restriction on sexuality and reproduction i can think of in in mechanicum is when zouche explained the policy of a tyran who genocide people who oppose is programe of selected reproduction. less restrictive and more interrestin is the policy of gene selection explained in "legion" in this books it seem that as long the genes selection is met the sexuality is not an issue.

the common point? they both dates back before faith takes in in the empire of man. after that i can't remenber that sexuality is a issue in all that i read about the warhammer 40.000 universe. more often it s quite the opposite. just watch about the escher in necromunda. their male are described as weak inbecelistic and... well; are they burn for that? no! not only no one cares about the way they breed but no one is interested in the way they live their sexuality.

so again sorry

the 8 spider said:

Don't worry mate. It was just one example.

If you want the whole story then I can admit that I have something against pretty much all religious groups that don't stick to the virtue of keeping their religion to themselves. Regardless of whether they are catholic zealots trying to prevent women from going into abortion clinics, crazed muslims steering airplanes into tall buildings, or mad variations of protestants that build para military compounds and molesting children. I keep a special and tidy little box of contempt where all of them will fit.

So as long as you keep your worship of a possible higher entity to yourself, and make sure you only introduce people to your faith who have ACTIVELY searched you out first and have an inherent wish to learn your particular ways of worship, then we could be the best of friends if you want.

If however you try to push your religious beliefs onto others (be it by "missionary" actions or by discouraging women outside abortion clinics), and take away rights of certain people you or your god doesn't like, then we're gonna have issues with eachother. Remember, that according to your faith God almighty will sort us all out in the end. He will send us secular sinners to hell and you pious believers to heaven, so there is no need to start wars of faith or trying to shove down your particular religious beliefs down the throat of people who clearly aren't interested. God is powerful enough to sort us all out in the end, so you needn't worry that someone who don't belong in heaven will stain it with their presence.

Now that we've cleared that up, we can move on.

//Thus spake Varnias Tybalt, spawn of nihilism, misanthropy and sin

from france

well thanks i wasn't in defence in a partcular kind of faith. as i said no master no god. i have the same feelings against all religions; i must concede that athéisme can somewhat in philosophical point of wiew be considered as a religion. it s just that i don't send my cat tearing appart opponents to that belief. yes a cat the closest think of a weapon i possess. it has the unrialbe, tearing, pissing everywhere, awake you with an awful breath qualities. so be aware of the cat you believers. just a joke to cool down.

the 8 spider nihhilistic, mysanthrope and who possess a cat