biologicallyfemale:

raritytalk:

(tumblr may or may not have jewed this up I am sorry maybe if its on full image it’ll look better)

in addition

- there are only two genders: male and female

- intersex (being born with male and female organs) is classified as a birth defect for obvious reasons

- “non-binary genders” is just cultural marxist bullshit

Original credit goes to autistickirby.

Wow! What a fundamental misunderstanding of biology and sociology!

- No there aren’t, as I will explain

- Intersex is

  • Not being born with male and female organs, it IS being born with secondary sex characteristics that can not be easily identified as male or female. 
  • "Defect" means "a shortcoming, imperfection, or lack." Nothing about the intersex body is "defective", it products everything a non-intersex body can. It’s classification as a defect is a by product of seeing not matching gender roles as "defective".

- OBVIOUSLY, which is why there have been non-binary gender roles before “cultural marxism” was even a thought you people invented. These gender roles include:

  • Akava’ine
  • Androgynos
  • Bakla
  • Bissu
  • Burnesha
  • Eunuch
  • Fa’afafine
  • Fakaleiti
  • Femminiello
  • Galli
  • Hijra
  • Kathoey
  • Khanith
  • Köçek
  • Mahu
  • Maknyah
  • Mukhannathun
  • Muxe
  • Sworn virgin
  • Takatāpui
  • Travesti
  • Tumtum
  • Two-Spirit people
  • Winkte
source
marxism-conference:

Classic poster produced by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia as part of the campaign against conscription during World War I. To mark the WWI centenary, Marxism 2015 will feature a series of meetings on the hidden history of anti-war resistance including ‘The Wobblies vs the war’ and ‘White feathers vs red flags: Women’s organisations and WWI’.

marxism-conference:

Classic poster produced by the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia as part of the campaign against conscription during World War I. To mark the WWI centenary, Marxism 2015 will feature a series of meetings on the hidden history of anti-war resistance including ‘The Wobblies vs the war’ and ‘White feathers vs red flags: Women’s organisations and WWI’.

Gough Whitlam in context - Tom Bramble

Gough Whitlam has died at age 98. I await the torrent of tributes from politicians who will praise his government’s social reform program in Australia but who themselves have spent their entire careers trying to bury it – free education, expansion of welfare programs, land rights, women’s rights, improvements to public service conditions and so forth.

Whitlam’s was the last Labor government that actually introduced reforms that improved working class life as opposed to the “reform” agenda of subsequent governments that have stripped away the meagre protections afforded Australian workers.

But the Whitlam government was a product of its time: it emerged out of a wave of working class and student militancy in the last years of the long post-war economic boom. This drove Whitlam into terrain that no subsequent Labor government has gone.

Its main priority was to give Australian capitalism a new lease of life, modernising it by cutting tariffs, recognising China and expanding public health and education to improve productivity (i.e. the rate of exploitation).

It needed to do these in an environment where workers, students, immigrants and Aboriginal people were banging on the door demanding change.

Whitlam, although having the image today as a crusading reformer, was right wing. On taking over the leadership from Calwell in 1967 he pushed the party’s policy on Vietnam hard to the right; he purged the left wing Victorian branch and made an open pitch to the middle class.

He supported state aid to private schools, opposed union action on political issues and strongly backed the US alliance. Whitlam joined the Liberal government in denouncing the 1969 motion passed by Victorian unionists calling on Australian soldiers in Vietnam to mutiny. If the left in the party today hails Whitlam as its hero, its predecessors hated his guts.

The ruling class, which had been prepared to give him a go in his early years, turned on the prime minister in 1975 not because he was a mortal threat. The working class militancy which had driven his reform program did not abate during his term in office. In 1974 the strike rate peaked.

At the same time the world economic crisis arrived on Australian shores. The ruling class now demanded a savage attack on the working class to squash strikes and roll back wages and welfare reforms. The government tried to oblige. The reformist treasurer Jim Cairns was sacked and replaced by the right wing former Ipswich cop Bill Hayden. The new treasurer’s first budget put the whole reform program into reverse.

And when the crunch came, the limits to Whitlam’s reform project were demonstrated starkly. Whitlam came from the establishment – he was a QC whose father had been Crown Solicitor – and he never broke from it. When the ruling class turned on him in 1975, he capitulated.

While urging his supporters to “maintain your rage” against the Kerr Coup, his actions (helped in large part by the ACTU and left union leaders) demobilised the hundreds of thousands of working class Australians who saw the coup, rightly, as an attack on the things they had won. They were loyal to Whitlam as a symbol of the gains that they had made since the late 1960s. Whitlam, however, betrayed them by channelling their anger into an electoral contest which, once the mass campaign had been choked off, had only one possible outcome – a landslide to Malcolm Fraser.

The Labor leaders, crying today for Whitlam and waxing lyrical about the wonderful era of reform, have moved so far to the right that Fraser, the wealthy grazier from western Victoria and tool of big business, is now to their left. That is the best indicator of Labor’s entire trajectory since 1975 and confirmation that the party is an absolute barrier to a revival of the radicalism with which Whitlam is today so fondly (and wrongly) identified.

From RED FLAG - the newspaper of Socialist Alternative

This is the best article you’ll read on Gough tbh. Couldn’t have put it better than a comrade, who said

"Vale Gough Whitlam, a lawyer who was on the right-wing of the ALP and spent much of his life fighting the progressive influence of the trade unions in the party, and sanctioned Indonesia’s decades-long occupation and devastation of East Timor.

The fact that a man like that could legislate for free education, public health care, and modernise aspects of social policy towards women, indigenous people etc, tells you more about those times than it does the individual.

But it also tells you a lot about our times, when it’s almost impossible to think of a substantive progressive reform introduced in the last 30 years. Social Democracy -the idea of capitalism with a human face - is dead, and nothing is more emblematic of that then the walking corpse that is Bill Shorten.”

rtrixie:

genghis-khanye:

foxaveclocs:

When whites ask for citations and sources it reminds me of stories during slavery when whites would ask slaves if they had passes and when the slave would produce a pass the white person would rip it up in front of their face Same shit different day

Holy shit, you spoilt little baby. You’re comparing fact checking to forcible enslavement. Your victim complex is so huge it has its own gravity well.

There it is, facts are now considered racist

genghis-khanye is a literal nazi jfc

source