SweatiePie

I don't know if gays can adopt in Thailand, can someone inform?

In a word, no.

Adoption in Thailand is controlled by the Child Adoption Centre of the Department of Public Welfare and although there is no legislation in Thailand specifically permitting or preventing gays from adopting, any couple (Thai or farang) has to be married (in a marriage recognisable under Thai law).

I know of a few (a very few) foreigners who have managed to get around this, usually with the consent and assistance of a child's parents, but usually brief "marriages of convenience" are involved.

At family reunions, the only problem is the "pity they won't have kids" thing.

I'm sure that won't stop you trying, though!

You may be surprised at just how effective the bush telegraph is in Thailand. I've lost count of the number of times I've been giving presentations and talking to schools or villages up-country and someone has said (in public!) "my brother's in Bangkok and he's gay but he doesn't think anyone here knows" and the only reaction is laughter. On the one hand it really isn't as big a deal as some people are afraid it may be, and on the other hand many Thais are worried (with some justification) that if they went home with a farang boyfriend everyone would assume that they had been "working". It isn't a problem for most of those that have been working, or for those in the upper income bracket (whose farang boyfriends may even be working!), but it can be a real worry for those in the "lower-middle" income bracket. Many farangs that seldom venture outside the city don't appreciate this, so they assume the worst.

(edit: and thanks for replying so reasonably)

Interesting story (although Crime Manager on Line is a bit like the National Enquirer!) and one which appears pretty conclusive.

31 years old and he looks and sounds like a cute and innocent 20 year old - he should be as popular in Klong Prem as I am sure he was when on-line.

You are obviously still being misled by your poorly researched sensationalist press articles, GK - you are simply wrong on all counts.

(edited)The practice until the end of 2005 was that openly homosexual people were banned from serving in Thailand's military. Until that time openly homosexual men and women were labeled as mental defectives. They are still precluded from serving. ..........The practice is to still ban openly gay and transgendered people from military service.

There is no "ban" on gays serving in the military; the restriction covers conscripting those who have had gender reassignment surgery (GRS) only and is documented as being on physical grounds - usually due to "chest deformity", for obvious reasons. Unless you know something that has escaped the rest of us there are no physical differences between gays and heterosexuals.

Most of those joining the military here do so as conscripts and not volunteers, although the proportion varies depending on employment opportunities; appearing "gay" was often attempted as a way of getting out of being conscripted and consequently the military have never banned gays from military conscription or service. Where the confusion arises for some farangs here is that whereas in the west gays are complaining about not being allowed to serve, here they are ( or were, prior to 2006) complaining only about the conscription system and the possibility of having to serve; if you know of any documented case in Thailand of a gay volunteer being refused by the military then I would like to see it.

The legal environment in respect to transgenders is an eyeopener. Read Regulation of the Medical Council Concerning Ethics in the Medical Profession Rules for Treatment in Sex Change Operations 2552 B.E. (2009 A.D.)

The law still treats those seeking gender reassignment as "ill". In particular; Clause 4. In this regulation:

Treatment for a sex change procedure means treatment of an illness or an abnormal state of mind by undergoing an operation to change (the physical characteristics) from a male to a female or a female to a male. It includes an operation or other treatment intended to permanently change physical characteristics or sex hormones,.......

Yes, GK, please read it - all of it. You'll find that it is in line with current medical thinking in the rest of the world and World Health Organisation classifications (IC 10). That medical thinking may be controversial, but so far Britain (since 2002) and France (since 2009) are the only countries where gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder (GID) is not egally classified as a "disorder" or "illness" or "abnormal state of mind".

Transgenders are still considered by the Thai military as mentally ill and of possessing an abnormal state of mind. The existing laws still ban such people from military service.The difference is that the term mental defective is no longer used.

Not just the "Thai military", or even Thailand in general. What part of this can't you understand? These are international standards applied world-wide with very few exceptions - as far as I know, although I believe there may be an instance in the Israeli DF, the British military is the only military service that allows and has allowed a transexual to serve and to continue serving post operation.

As I was told recently, "Do some research before spouting off what you know nothing about."

The question is, are they chicks with dicks or men with tits?

The answer is NEITHER.

Next ...

Hm. IMHO, the answer is BOTH. It depends on the individual person.

But following the discussion of a third sex and this not being anything new, Magnus Hirschfeld at the beginning of the previous century suggested the third gender for gay people.

Isn't gender defined by one's genitals and not their sexual desires?

Not necessarily, and in many western countries not legally (see my post above, posted at 23:44 yesterday). It is far from that simple. Sexual identity, sexual preference and sexual orientation can be totally different things.

I have always found it odd in Thailand that if a man becomes a women through surgery that they still have to remain a man on their ID and Passport. I am not sure if this is the case in most countries but I "think" in the US it is not. What if these women (ex-males) were to go to jail? Would they be housed with the women or men since they are listed as a man but now have breasts and a vagina????

Is there another country that has taken steps to recognize a 3rd gender? Seems Thailand is ahead of the game on this one but one really needs to wonder if this is a good, bad or indifferent thing.

To answer your questions, JC (and I wish those I asked would answer mine!):

"most" contries do not recognize legal gender reassignment (birth certificate/passport/marriage) yet, and even in those that do the circumstances vary considerably (sometimes even bizarrely).

In Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan (as long as they are unmarried and childless), Malaysia (at a judge's discretion), the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden and the UK those who have already had reassignment surgery are allowed to change their legal gender and marry. Ireland is in the process of introducing this legislation. Most countries do not define "re-assignment surgery", so it is not always necessary to have all the usual bits added or deleted to become a legal man or woman.

In India hijra and kothi (hijra are transgenders, some of whom have castrated themselves and are often known as aruvani, while kothi are more akin to cross-dressing fems) are legally men, but they may choose to register as men or women to vote.

In the USA it is up to individual states and most allow transsexuals to change their gender, although some states have never legislated for it and some (Idaho, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas) have refused (although Texas may at a judge's discretion). Only 13 states have legislation prohibiting discrimination based on gender and trans-genders have no protection under federal law or the ENDA. Interestingly 380 transsexuals from Mexico and other South American countries have been granted asylum in the States on the grounds of persecution in their own countries.

In Spain and the UK transsexuals can change their legal gender regardless of whether they have had any reassignment surgery or not as long as they can indicate "gender dysphoria".

In the UK it is still possible for transsexuals to change their legal gender each time they cross the border between England and Scotland.

In the countries above those going to gaol (jail for the American speakers) would be housed according to their latest birth certificate, although in most cases (except Japan) anyone who had had full reassignment surgery but who had not done the matching paperwork would be housed according to medical advice. In other countries, such as Thailand, it is usually at the judges discretion (and usually based on the birth certificate).

The only country I know of which "has taken steps to recognize a 3rd gender" is India, in the case of hijras, but this is very much a long term aim of the Sangama group rather than government policy, as homosexual activity was only legalised last year with the repeal of Section 377.

The article is so typical of the nation. Why TV continues to rely so heavily on the nation is beyond me.

Maybe its because The Nation owns TV?

Do some research before spouting off what you know nothing about. Thaivisa stands alone, owned by no outside interests. We had an advertising agreement with The Nation that has since lapsed. Nothing more.

My apologies - please note , however, there was a question mark in my post.

Very, very true, IJWT.

Not unique to Thailand at all, but for those looking for cheap sex (as many cruising the internet are, but by no means all) it may be wise to remember the axiom that you get what you pay for.

If correct (and I can find no reports of either name) then given the victim's identity I can understand why the BiB may have made some effort to find the murderer.

What a lively and interesting topic (and even a couple of posts by Tom that I agree with 100%)!

Thanks for pointing that out.

If only some of those, gay and straight, who are posting there were to post here as well ........

In the past at least, ladyboys trying to or being drafted into the Thai military were classified as having a mental illness.

Let's not get into another discussion of "ladyboys", JT, please!

Those who had "had full or partial sex-reassignment surgery" were (as I said).

Those who simply turned up dressed for the day in their sister's party frock with some Pampers stuffed down their blouse in order to avoid military service were not , regardless of their sexual orientation. Declaring that you were gay, no matter how shrilly or vocally, has never been a way of avoiding conscription in Thailand.

I still maintain Thailand is extremely tolerant of the gay people and all the other related types. It is the Farongs who have the prejudices.

In the cities there is a measure of tolerance, but things are quite different back in the villages.

I beg to disagree - strongly.

This is a topic that has been discussed on the Gay Forum recently and I cannot understand why some farangs are so set on this view - those few gay farangs who live in Thai villages and post here appear to disagree, and I cannot help wondering just how much time those who hold this view have actually spent living in a Thai village in comparison to their time in the Big Mango.

I visit schools and villages throughout rural Thailand all the time in connection with the PDA and from my own experience the urban acceptance vs rural rejection argument is just a myth, often started by Thais who, for one reason or another, do not want to take their farang b/f home and this is the easiest excuse to use.

Maybe it's not necessary. I came back from a Gay Pride Parade in NY several years ago and showed pictures to my gay friends. "...and this is the 'Gay Bicycling Group'..." My friends asked: "If somelike likes bicycling, why would they want to restrict it to gay friends?" Point I'm trying to make: In Bangkok it doesn't matter whether you are straight or gay.

Tom, again I couldn't agree with you and your friends more (a feeling that takes some getting used to!). For most (but by no means all) Thais the idea that all aspects of your social life should be controlled by and centre around your sexual orientation is simply baffling, and Dikes on Bikes and the like .would get relatively few takers.

The "military policy" of not admitting gays has not been "liberalised" - it never existed and is a figment of some people's imagination. There has never been any policy of not admitting gays to the Thai military (as I have explained recently on more than one thread in the Gay Forum). What has changed has been rejecting conscripts who have had full or partial sex-reassignment surgery on the grounds of mental health and rejecting them instead on physical grounds; nothing else. The most accurate thing the author of the link given by JT wrote was "I don’t know what actually goes on in the Thai GLBT community" !

I really believe a good portion of ladyboys in Thailand are not gay or attracted to me.

Are you sure you meant to say that?

It seems the author, while appearing to support a case (The gay case? The T-case?) really doesn't know what he is talking about. Maybe he is looking to improve his ranking as a journalist by stirring a controversy?

Tom, I couldn't agree more.

From the very start he's confusing sexual identity , sexual orientation, and sexual preference which are three totally different terms. Quite how the "room full of human rights activists and scholars" could be expected to know the "proper definition" of transgender defies belief, as there isn't one since it is an evolving broadbrush term which means different things depending on the context in which it is used.

The article is so typical of the nation. Why TV continues to rely so heavily on the nation is beyond me.

Maybe its because The Nation owns TV?

I know many gay Thais who act very straight when going to their upcountry home towns, and many have explained to me that in the village, nobody should know. I keep saying that if they let the village know that they are gay, nothing bad will hapen - so I am agreeing with you, but they don't. It's OK if you don't believe me, but I believe my friends. Cannot verify it either way.

Not saying I don't believe you Tom - I do believe that you believe those "gay Thais" you know, but it may be a bit of a Catch 22 as you can't "verify" for yourself how your Thai friends behave when in their home towns without going with them, which may rather give the game away.

I would be interested to know if you have ever been with them, and what happened, just as I would be interested to know if pauleddy had ever been to the village where his b/f said that gays had rocks thrown at them in another thread.

My point is that it is well nigh impossible for Thais to be openly gay in Bangkok, particularly for any length of time, with no-one in their home town/village knowing anything about it - word travels fast here and the one thing we like to do is gossip!

On the other hand it is unavoidable that a lot of Thais who have farang b/f's or are on the "scene" in Bangkok prefer that the farangs don't go to their home towns with them, for a variety of reasons, so rather than say they don't want them to go they simply present an excuse that a farang can understand.

I'm not saying that this is so in your case, or that you are wrong, just that I find pauleddy's idea that Thai gays get stoned in their home town, and yours that there's more "peer pressure" on gays to conform in the country than the city, and that anyone can get away with being openly gay in the big city with no-one at home being any the wiser to be rather curious ones. I wasn't brought up in a village, but having visited villages and village schools on a regular basis with PDA for a couple of decades its certainly not my experience or that of any other PDA volunteers I know.

That's Bangkok though. In the provinces, some people who are really gay may marry and beget children due to peer pressure. It's the same in every country.

I may have completely misunderstood you, Tom, but are you saying that in Bangkok (or any other city) its easier to fit in socially or at work if you're gay while "in the provinces" (rural areas) there's more peer pressure to fit in so its more likely that gays in the country will "marry and beget children" than those in the cities? And that you think that's "the same in every country"?

Somehow I don't think so, at least in Thailand. Family pressure may vary based on ethnic origin, and this may be relevant given the considerably higher numbers of Thai Chinese in the city than in the country, but that's all and in my own experience Thai Chinese are no more (or less) accepting of gay children than Tais. In the work place I would have thought that the opposite, if anything, would apply. In the rural areas the majority are self-employed or employed on piece-work with little structured promotion or employment conditions, while in the city employment and promotion is far more structured, whether it is in industry or in commerce, and the pressure to fit in and conform is consequently far higher.

Your idea may be right in certain circumstances in other countries, where someone in the Castro in San Francisco or, to a lesser extent, Le Marais in Paris may be under less pressure to conform than someone in Twin Forks Mississippi, but in "every country", including Thailand? I don't think so.

In Asia, several men (I don't have the percentage) who identify themselves as straight continue to have sex with men even after they get married - thus the term MSM (men having sex with men) came up quite a few years ago.

MSM is an all-encompassing term first used in a medical paper by the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia, in 1994 in research into HIV/Aids; it was (and is) used by epidemiologists to categorise sexual activity for analytical and research purposes. Nothing to do with men in Asia still having sex with other men after they get married, although they are MSM (as are gays and bisexuals who are sexually active, men who are straight but "gay for pay", and quite a few other groups); it doesn't have anything to do with sexual identity, which is a totally different concept.

I'm not quite sure I've fully understood what you wrote, so to clarify:

Issues regarding army service are usually in the most conservative domain of any society (just look at what's happening in America compared to say, the UK or Israel) and it is not surprising to find the armed forces of a country which has still barely emerged from Victorianism to be quite uptight about such things. In any case, there are plenty of GAYS in the Armed forces (and I know this for a fact)- it's just you can't go if you want to cross dress or have surgical alterations to a non-uniform gender.

"army service", including conditions for gays, are very different in the UK and Israeli armed forces, which is hardly surprising as the former has been all-volunteer for 50 years while the latter is largely conscript. I claim to have little personal knowledge here, but a friend of mine has (he is currently the "senior gay" in the British military!).

Are you referring to the States as having an armed forces which is "quite uptight" about gays and "a country which has still barely emerged from Victorianism" or Thailand? I presume it is the States, and although I don't have enough personal experience of the US to really comment I had not realised that things were quite as bad as they appear to be painted here.

I am also not sure which "Armed forces" you refer to as having "plenty of GAYS".

If Thai, you are not entirely correct: the Thai military has "plenty of gays" serving openly (and presumably some not so openly) and those who have already had "surgical alterations to a non-uniform gender" are identified at the conscription point during the medical examination and rejected on medical grounds (not mental grounds any more), but there is no such bar on those who "want to cross dress". Any such bar would be open to abuse as a way of avoiding conscription (as I have already explained) and so it is specifically not a bar to military service and conscription (although conscription officers are given a lot of leeway and common sense usually applies), or to continued military service. I believe the same general rules are applied in the Israeli military.

If American, then the rules are still clear: no-one openly gay.

If British, neither cross-dressing nor surgery is a problem (although I am told it is unusual!) and one WO2 (Warrant Officer class 2) continued to serve in the Army after a full sex change operation.

In fact, because there are so few public services of ANY kind here, it is possible to claim that government institutions are LESS discriminatory in that they serve everyone equally poorly- though there are some benefits to marriage and kids tax-wise and insurance-wise and so forth, which are mostly denied gay families world-wide at this time.

I am not sure what you mean by "public services" which we have "so few" of. Maybe this has a different meaning in the States, but as far as I was aware "public services" were such things as the military, fire services, police, sanitation, schools, medical treatment, etc. While we may not quite have the budget the US has for these services they certainly exist and most of those here (farang and Thai) are well aware of them. Some are open, justifiably, to criticism but some services are way above the standards in some Western countries - what comparable health care systems do you have in the States, for example? Do you have a free government clinic in every parish, paid maternity leave and maternity grants (for all tax payers), or any government funded treatment for those with HIV or AIDS?

A few particularly interesting points, although its difficult to know how significant low condom use is for males with same-sex partners without knowing if a condom was actually necessary for safe-sex in those cases:

Among the sexually active males, 93.1 percent said they had had sexual contact only with female partners, 3.2 percent said they'd had contact only with other males, and 3.7 percent said they'd had both male and female partners.

Among the sexually active females, 88.1 percent said they'd had sex only with males, 3.2 percent said they'd had only female partners and 8.7 percent said they'd had partners of both sexes.

Of all the sexually active teens, 9.3 percent reported at least one same-sex partner.

Students also were asked whether they considered themselves straight, gay or lesbian, bisexual, or "not sure." Of the teens with at least one same-sex partner, 38.9 percent answered "heterosexual or straight."

The study found that teens who reported partners of both sexes also reported higher-than-average rates of risky sexual practices, such as not using a condom during intercourse, as well as higher rates of partner violence and forced sex.

Far lower percentages of teens with only male or only female partners answered yes to the question about dating violence.

Of the males who reported both male and female partners, just 44.1 percent said they'd used a condom during their last sexual encounter.

The percentages for condom use during their last sex were 79.8 for males with only female partners and 62.3 for males with only same-sex partners.

As I mentioned in another post it was a combination of the Quakers, the Unitarians and Liberal Judaism who successfully lobbied the UK government to allow civil partnerships to be celebrated in religious settings, a practise which had previously been forbidden. It's something I would have expected the Quakers to do but, as I know little about Judaism, I'm not sure whether I should be surprised that Liberal Judaism got in on the act or not.

Where's Jing when you need him?

Very much "Liberal Judaism", I believe, as mainstream Judaism is very clear on the subject with different "degrees" of gay sexuality, particularly for lesbans and gays.

I had never come across the "Q" before in LGBTQ, but after I found out that it meant "questioning" rather than "queer" I suppose it makes a good deal of sense.

JingThing? As I said before, I may not have agreed with a lot of what he said but he was one of the very few regular posters here who had a broad knowledge base and I think the board is considerably poorer for his absence - as I think it is for JohnLeech's, who has e-mailed me that he too will no longer be posting here; by a very strange co-incidence I recently found out from him that we both went to the same school many moons ago!

I only just noticed that this article was copied from Tikkun, a Jewish blog, and referred to an article by Rabbi Noach Dzmura in the blog. Unfortunately it is not possible to read the article unless you pay to become a member, but I have to confess that I had never noticed Judaism as being particularly accepting or supportive of homosexuality and I have always thought that Judaism, along with Christianity and Islam (all religions originating in the middle east) were among the most homophobic around. Things may have changed, but as far as I was aware although the Torah allowed for homosexuality this was only on condition that those with homosexual urges never gave in to them and committed homosexual acts. To me that's frustrating, not supporting!

My BF comes from the N.E., and young gays in the village get rocks thrown at them. He did not "come out" until he hit 29, came to BKK and lived in trendy Aree with me.

Well that's a "new slant" for me and has got to be one of the wierdest things I've ever read here. I'm not doubting your BF, but if that happens/happened on a regular basis then its something I've never heard of, let alone experienced.

I wasn't brought up in a "village", but I've got a lot of friends who were and we regularly go to their villages and schools and I've never heard even a suggestion of anything like this. I can't think of any reason why this would happen in one particular village, particularly if its as routine and as acceped as it sounds, but not in others (and I've lost count of those I've been to).

I'd be very interested to know what the reaction to your BF was when you visited his village with him - did you notice any adverse reaction then, particularly by his friends and family, and what about those who threw rocks at him when he was young?

Maybe religion can help, but the article is more a story of one person's personal growth. Gay kids don't need religion. They need love, reassurance and peer group support. This kid is going to be just fine

Agreed GK, but that's all I agree with!

Phra Maha is a best seller, but he is not a religious icon - anything but! Thais consider him an "abbot for hire", ready and willing to appear anywhere where he can preach his particular version of Buddhism, particularly in the foreign media. "popular with rural people"? There's a difference between being popular and being respected - his views are certainly not popular.

And Phra Payom? The only reason he became popular was because he got involved in politics - nothing to do with his religious beliefs.

]Thailand too has its military issue; that of the overt public humiliation of transgenders or openly effeminate males at the public inductions.[/size]

This is based on the article you posted recently, which is out of date, sensationalist and simply untrue (as I posted there, where I would suggest any continuation of this particular point should be made)

I was surprised to read this too, partcularly from someone whom I had thought was at least knowledgeable about things in Thailand, if not always well informed.

Unfortunately many of the resident experts only "know" Thailand from observations of life in the malls, gogo bars and from the back of baht buses. Considering the source, I'm somewhat surprised that you're surprised.

The more I read here, the more aware I become of the difference between being knowledgeable and being well informed. As I said in another thread here, while I may disagree with much of what JT said I still think this particular forum is the poorer for his self-imposed exile.