Caitrin

Well apart from the problems already given by other posters there is the point about who and where the foreign teachers come from. I have some friends who come from Africa, India etc. and they are here teaching English. They may be okay at written English but their pronunciation/accent is a real problem. While I was holding conversation (only) class in a vocational college one of the points I mentioned was that of various accent. My friend from an African state, had finished his English Proper (grammar etc) class I asked him to join us. 75% of what he said was not understood. I feel that if a school is going to teach English, and any other language for that matter the teacher be standard native speaker.

the teacher should have a teaching decree, not just be a native speaker

Insisting on B.Ed degrees will instantly kill English learning in Thailand.

In Canada a teacher makes 45-55k a year. How are you going to convince that person to pay their own way to Thailand and get a job that pays 12k ?

With a TESL, I can teach ESL to non English speakers in Canada, why isn't that good enough for here?

Because you will be teaching TEFL at a language school in Canada that needs to ensure you are up to scratch to ensure its survival. If you are crap all the students will leave and it will go out of business. People with a 4 week "qualification" left pretty much to their own devices in a government school is a totally different situation. I doubt there are many 4 week TFFL or TSFL courses which make you qualified to teach Spanish or French at a high school in USA or the UK.

I have a B.A. in English (education track). I don't currently have my Texas certification, because of course, there are things you must do to get it and keep it over time. But it would only take me three months to acquire because I don't have to retake the pedagogy and methodology courses, although I would need to redo student teaching, I believe. Not that it would do me any good (and so far it hasn't been recognised anyhow) in my present circumstance.

To teach French? I believe I would need a B.A. or at least a minor in French, and I would need to have spent some time in a French speaking country enough to have daily functional command of the language, and I would need to do the three months I already mentioned. That would probably take two years and thousands of dollars, and I already have an education track degree!

So, yes, you're absolutely right.

Spanish is not seen as exotic, trust me. Being from a place where Spanish is spoken by 40% of the population as a first or second language, when I had a choice between Spanish and French, I chose French, because I thought it was all about studying a "foreign" language. Spanish is a language I heard every day. Saw written every day. I didn't speak it, nor do I speak it now, but my father does. It sure as heck wasn't a foreign language to me, so it didn't make sense to me to choose it as my "foreign" language.

I think part of the problem I have with my students, even sometimes my coworkers, is the idea that a language has to be foreign. Yet that very thinking is what causes students to think of the language as "unnecessary." "Foreign" immediately conjures up the idea "not applicable to my daily life." After all, if someone had told me learning Spanish in Texas not because I had to, but because it would significantly increase my potential economic opportunities, I might have considered it. I chose French because it was "the other," but that also meant I didn't view at as a serious endeavour with serious future consequences.

Someone mentioned the way the Philippines does things, and while I am intimately acquainted (due to my mixed students, and therefore visits to the PH specifically for educational reasons) with the problems of the PH's educational system, I agree that students are simply told from a very young age, "this might not be the language you speak at home, nor is it the only language you need to speak, but you need to be highly functional in English, and to that end, half of your courses will be in this language." While we can discuss serious issues with understandable accent, issues I have discussed with Filipino coworkers, it's hard to argue that educated Filipinos do not come out of their educational system with a high command of what is often their second or even third (local, Tagalog, then English) language.

English being seen as the "other" rather than as an actual important part of daily worldwide communication across multiple sectors is the issue. HTML? English. Programming? English. Aviation and maritime communication? English. International relations, such as treaties and accords? Often English is the main language, although they may be in others as well. This used to be Latin and then French, and for Asia, it was often Classical Chinese, but now it's.... English! English is not a foreign language for anyone in the world right now, because no can allow it to be considered foreign. It's a global business and mass communication language.

I'm greatly amused by the comments about "American" speaking students not understand "Brit" teachers and "Brit" students not understanding "American" teachers.

That right there tells me that the "teachers" in question have not taken communication courses which would help them move closer to the "Standard" of their media mainstream. I am from Texas, which is often considered a very strong accent, and it may still come out if I speak to old friends, drink a lot, or am very angry. Otherwise, my communication courses on diction (clarity, enunciation, intonation, etc) mean that under most circumstances I speak clear Standard American English and have little difficulty being understood by any other English speaker. That said, I have run into a variety of individuals from my own home state that I cannot understand, but never ones that have spent significant time obtaining a clear and educated accent, whatever accent that is. I have a friend from Birmingham who is outright unintelligible when she is speaking to her mother on the phone, but does she speak to me or anyone else that way here in Japan? Of course not. JT's comment about African-American Vernacular English (which actually draws its grammar from West African languages and has evolved due to the conditions under which slave groups from the same ethnicity were broken up) is also worth noting here.

This seems like a basic requirement of teaching English anywhere, including Thailand. There should never be a situation where two native English teachers from different parts of the world should fail to understand each other. That should be part of the teacher training process.

"Eliminate its dependency." Isn't that the proof in the pudding?

Thailand’s Education Ministry Seeks to Eliminate it’s Dependency on Foreign English Teachers

Japan and Korea have reduced their costs of native speakers of English as instructors by implementing a program aimed at unemployed recent college graduates of english in english speaking countries. It is called Jet in Japan. Japanese English Teacher. They make it look like the kids who graduated from college in the USA in English and Arts have won something after college! They give them a plane ticket and room and subsistence wages for 1 or 2 years with a limited English teacher work visa and place them in schools that request the service. And they supply enough work teaching English to CHOKE A HORSE. The English speaking kids just graduating from college like it. They feel they are getting one up on college graduates that spend the 1 or 2 gap years (time between undergrad and graduate school) playing video games and watching TV at Mom and Dad's. The Korean and Japanese students and school kids like it cause they get young motivated kids that want to teach English (not boozed and drugged up late middle-aged sex pervs). So hats off to Korea and Japan for finding a win-win and filling their countries with good young high quality english teachers. And once again Thailand? Oh my another bad policy announcement that will later back fire, later be denied, later be reversed, later we will get a claim it was a previous governments decision. Yeah that should do it.

Having worked in both programs, and served as an advisor to the JET Programme, you've mischaracterised them. First JET stands for Japan Exchange and Teaching, not Japanese English Teacher. In fact, that would be confusing, because native Japanese speaking teachers of English are known as JTEs, or Japanese Teachers of English. EPIK/GEPIK (the English Programme in Korea, or the Goyanggi-do English Programme in Korea) is essentially the same thing. Until recently wages were far above subsistence level, even in Japan, and for JET the apartment is not always provided, it is often just subsidised (mine have usually been subsidised, although I currently rent my own townhouse apartment, and therefore pay full price, but it means I am also firmly in control of my own housing). It is provided in Korea. JET also allows its members, not all of which are teachers (some are CIRs, who serve other international relations functions), only to remain in the program for a maximum of five years. Many choose to only stay one or two, but they receive a three year status of residence. JETs are not permitted to work outside of their JET duties, however, that is a JET stipulation and NOT a stipulation of the Ministry of Justice/Immigration. Many non-JETs who serve in the same role, have multiple jobs. I'm currently a non-JET and as mentioned, I have also worked for years as a journalist.

Also, I will tell you JET and non-JETs that do the same thing are the same, in general. I have met, and indeed worked with/supervised, some pretty awful JETs. I have also worked with non-JETs (dispatch or private hire) who are outstanding teachers with qualifications. Some of them were even turned down for JET! Although not provable, there have been rumours for years that JET admissions panels will intentionally avoid anyone who may appear to be too interested in Japanese culture, especially those who might be seen as a potential immigrant. This makes sense when you consider one of the additional rumours is that JET is less about hiring teachers to help create students who can speak English as it is about creating "goodwill ambassadors" who can go back to their home countries and speak well of their time in Japan to boost Japan's image. After eight years working in this field, I believe these rumours are accurate, and it has meant I have had to make many unusual and uncommon decisions as someone who is an actual naturalising immigrant with an actual teaching education and background. Up to including a massive effort to learn to teach English in Japanese and to pursue a normal Japanese teaching license at a Japanese university.

I agree with JT: the best teacher of L2 is one who speaks L1 and L2 as fluently as possible and yes, fluent is a range, because what is considered fluency depends on the communication environment and situation. My Japanese is fluent if I'm hanging out with 15 year old girls. It is not fluent if I am hanging out with particle physicists.

I see no problem with a more regulated program in Thailand for native English teachers, but EPIK and JET should serve only as models on what not to do, rather than what to do. There are many great things about both programs, but if actually teaching real English is the goal, they need reform. Of course, the goal might not be teaching real English... The question is, what is Thailand's goal?

I never suggested it was ideal. It is already clear Thailand for the most part isn't willing to pay the price for highly qualified native English speaking teachers. But I don't see how a trained teacher who can't speak English can possibly teach English to anyone.

The problem is, a teacher who isn't specifically trained in pedagogy and methodology, and possibly even child or adolescent psychology (or at least "psychology of learning") can actually do great harm to students. I agree a trained teacher who isn't actually trained in the subject that he or she is expected to teach (in this case English as a language for genuine communication) can't possibly teach English to anyone. However, a native English speaker without educational training can create bad habits in students without understanding how to correct them or excise them later. Sometimes I allow students to pick up bad habits very early on to more rapidly increase their ability to communicate thoughts, beliefs, desires, and goals, but I do so with a planned outcome of excising them later. This requires both training AND years of experience to implement.

Sometimes native English "teachers" do more harm than good.

Most Thai teachers of English that I know have a better understanding of English grammar than many native speakers and know that there are only two tenses in English, and no such thing as the "future tense". That said, their pronunciation is generally appalling and there will always be a need for Thai students to learn this from native speakers if they want to use English for anything except basic communication.

A true grammarian would know that the debate is not settled. While some grammarians argue that the use of the auxiliary verb will does not constitute its own future tense when combined with the "present tense" verb form, other grammarians in fact do argue that this constitutes its own future tense. In fact, there are those who argue that just because we use the same form of a verb to indicate the future ("we have a test tomorrow, and we have one now") does not necessarily mean that it's really acting as a present tense. They argue instead that its usage to mean the future automatically makes it a future tense in practice, and we should recognise it as such.

This is why Native English Teachers need to really be teachers, with actual training and experience. That way, they can teach both the grammar and the pronunciation. The decision to have pronunciation English "teachers" and Thai (or any other non-Native speaking) "grammar" teachers is that you have two people doing what should be a one person job. Of course that's a problem!

The biggest problem Thailand has is the country has so many dialects versions of the Thai language that the Thai teachers teaching English in a province school may likely come from an area that their Thai is not fully undrstood by the students in the English class, much less their use of English. So they're fighting 2 language barriers in many cases, thus a self-inflicted hurdle that the "brain trust" aka as Ministry of Education seems to have overlooked.

Of course hiring the thick accented foreign teachers to teach English as the case is at present who themselves cannot speak discernibly clear English, yet are contracted to teach Phonetics to Thai students.

Being located where Thailand is from own experience the most suitable people to teach English are New Zealanders. They peak what I call "straight English" same as people native of California. I speak as a foreigner (Dutch) graduated from 4-years college in NZ and PHD / J.D, degrees from California universities. I have recommended Thais to go to NZ to learn English, not a one of them has been disappointed with that recommendation.

I speak Standard American English (or SAE), also called "Broadcast English" in the United States, and it is an accent and pronunciation largely predicated on the belief that its use allows everyone all over the U.S. to tune into broadcast journalism and understand, regardless of the unique regional accents and dialects used across the country. Educated urbanites, of which many exist in California, have this accent. My word choices and spelling have been influenced by my experiences in Commonwealth communities (as you may have noticed), but my accent remains SAE. Trust me, urbane (not to be confused with "urban" which is often a codeword for "minority non-white") Californians do not share an accent with urbane Kiwis, although both should be very clear and easily understood.

I wont be popular but given the quality of a large percentage of the foreign teachers here I cant blame them. Yes there are very good committed teachers here from all backgrounds but unfortunately we all know that most are here for the booze and hookers and nothing else.

I don't know about "most" as I haven't done a survey (have you?), but you do have a point. However, rather than a negative response, let's have a thorough selection process. It is quite probable a portion of these undesirable NES teachers have degrees, so why is this normally the only criteria used for employment? Surely your ability in effective delivery, communication, pronunciation and passion for teaching should be taken into account.

"Should be" being the operative, but alas rarely considered, part of this. I have to say, that truth be told, it's often a case of "white? Check. US/UK/AUS/NZ? Check. BA in something, even underwater basket weaving? Check." ...and that's usually where they stop. In some of the places I have worked, I left because my co-workers would turn up the next day, reeking of sex and booze, in the same clothes they had on the previous day. They definitely had legitimate degrees. No mickey mouse shenanigans. They really did graduate from uni. But they sure as heck didn't have any educational training, pedagogy coursework, student teaching, or certification/licensing.

Honestly, native English speaking teachers don't need to be very expensive. Make the visa situation easier for them and many young native English speakers will want to do this for at least a few years just for the adventure. Yes, I'm saying they're willing to be exploited and it seems daft to me not to take advantage of that for the good of the future of Thailand. Yes, Thailand would benefit with better English.

Yes I understand just being a native English speaker doesn't make you a good teacher.

But I happen to think a native English speaker with even basic training in teaching is better than a trained teacher who can't really speak English.

Well said JT, I agree completely.

JT:

No. It doesn't work that way. Language teaching is a skill that requires levels of education and training. Thailand, along with my country of Japan, and several others in the region, already suffer from the "gap year" English man/woman-children. Enough, I say. Send ESL teachers abroad as part of their training, or hire qualified Native English Teachers with education backgrounds and experience. No more "adventurers." That's no way to teach what is oft-touted as a "core" subject across East and Southeast Asia.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

Hopefully they will get rid of the trashy teachers trying to teach English when English is not their first language. Half the time I can't even understand when the Filipino English teachers at my son's school try to talk to me in English.

I agree with you're first sentence, but I taught with two Filipino English teachers, and they spoke as if English was their first language.

My best student here in Japan is a native English speaking half-Filipino (Japanese father). Her English is as fluent as mine is, and significantly more fluent than some of the Latinos/Latinas I grew up with near the Mexican border. I thought she was either Asian-American or a "returnee" who had spent her childhood in the U.S. But that was not the case. I've also worked with Filipino teachers that run the gamut, based on their socio-economic starting point. Those who are upper middle class or higher will sound American, as you go down the socio-economic ladder, you find thicker and thicker accents. Which is to be expected, given that several Filipino languages still exist, not just Tagalog and Cebueno, but several others, especially in rural areas.

This is a pretty good idea. As if the British Council is doing the intensive 6 week training course I'd imagine that it'll be CELTA or similar that the Thai teachers are going through. Not only will it improve their English significantly, but it'll teach them how to teach more effectively.

As it's meant to be for the best English teachers at each school it'll likely be heads of department, or teachers who have the full support of the head of dept, and so they'll have the authority/status required to teach the other teachers.

"Slashing" the number of foreign teachers wouldn't be a good move at this stage, but long term that's where Thailand needs to head to. Also they didn't say if by foreign they meant NESs or non-NESs. As they need better Thai teachers, they can't rely on every school having foreign teachers, there simply aren't enough to go around, and so it just increases the inequality between the rich & poor schools.

My personal view is, and has been for a long time, that Thailand needs to spend money on teaching the teachers if they want to be successful. Foreign NES teachers are more expensive and often only stay teaching in Thailand for a few years. Comparatively Thai teachers start on less than half of the salary most foreigners are paid & can increase their ability over a career of 30-40 years, rather than just 1-5.

The current problem is though, that they start at such a low level that even after 30 years they're usually not as effective at teaching as a NES is after 3 years experience. Which is why the teachers need to have their level increased, courses like this one will help, but it's only (hopefully) the first step, the next step being reassigning foreign teachers from high schools to universities where they can teach the teachers. Thailand needs to look forward to the next generation, as it's already too late for this generation.

Frankly, the problem with all countries I've taught in or been to, including my current one where I'm obviously staying forever is that the countries don't have any interest in actually creating students who can communicate. It's all about "internationalisation."

Frankly, it's no different than the 8 years of French I took, with two major differences: 1) English really is the global language, at least for now, and my students really need English for opportunities where as a native English speaker, I did not need French 2) My teachers of French were fluent in both French and English, either because they were French individuals who naturalised, OR they had studied French for large parts of their lives, lived in a French speaking country for years, and usually spent significant if not all their university education in a French speaking curriculum. They were also certified/licensed/degreed.

I've an English education degree, am a career teacher, but also have other skills (most notably, I'm a journalist, and have been for a while). Along with graphic design and video editing skills, there are a number of industries I could work in aside from English teaching. I just happen to actually consider myself a teacher based on who I am, not on what I do to pay for beer money. This is in stark contrast to many of my "peers." As you say, Animal, many come to various countries (Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand) with the plan to only stay a few years, and with the intention to continue their uni days as much as possible. Given that they aren't really intended to create any kind of fluency, the system encourages this, which drops prestige, salary, and benefits for everyone.

I say, the "gap year teaching abroad" idea should end. It's bad for educational systems, it's bad for students, it's bad for career teachers. Thinking of "teaching abroad" for a year? Don't.

Just for reference, when referring to Americans, you should not call a southerner a "Yank." Yanks are northerners, and those from below the Mason-Dixon Line are likely to take it very badly indeed. While I understand the history of the use of Yankee by individuals from the U.K. (however you wish to define yourself), given the Revolutionary War, I would still strongly advise you to heed my warning and not call someone from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, or Texas (and probably not Tennessee or Kentucky either) a "Yank" due to the Civil War. Unless you want a bar fight on your hands. Then, by all means, go ahead.

Septic Tank wouldn't go down well then?

I imagine referring to anyone as a collector of human waste, regardless of region or nationality, would not "go down well," no.

if Thailand ever wants to be favorable for the EU or USA they better lose the whole term "farang" to begin with and treat all people the same.

i know what i wrote,is an open door for trolls ,let me reassure all trolls will be dealt with by the dragon

I never understand why white westerners object to the term farang. It is simply a word for a white non-Thai. If I can live with Americans calling me a Brit, when I am actually English, I can certainly stand Thais calling me a farang.

You are not English,you are a Brit unless you want devolution.Try having a discussion with our colonial brethren i.e. Ozzies and Yanks.I would never give up my nationality in favour of a country that looks down on me ( but not my money ).There are so many deniers here who have been disappointed and not found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and they are very adamant about how great this country is but in the same breath they slang of their mother land.I suspect they know they have no plan "B" and will fight tooth and nail to defend LOS,interpret as you wish.

Just for reference, when referring to Americans, you should not call a southerner a "Yank." Yanks are northerners, and those from below the Mason-Dixon Line are likely to take it very badly indeed. While I understand the history of the use of Yankee by individuals from the U.K. (however you wish to define yourself), given the Revolutionary War, I would still strongly advise you to heed my warning and not call someone from Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, or Texas (and probably not Tennessee or Kentucky either) a "Yank" due to the Civil War. Unless you want a bar fight on your hands. Then, by all means, go ahead.

In USA if you use a state golf course you pay a higher price if you come from out of state - if you go to a state university you pay a much higher price if from another state… and all for people of the same country… US Citizens..

The fellow who was, I forget the wording, grossly overpriced in Phuket - well, it was only $5-6 - not that big a deal really… I am sure an out of state round of golf would have cost him more and not even upset him - people pay these fees all the time in other places…

and yet, people seem to feel strongly here that they are being ripped off… ??

Again, can we PLEASE stop comparing locality based dual pricing schemes? It is not the same. It's a false comparison. It's not just misleading, it's flat out irrelevant.

It takes six months to establish residency in a U.S. state, typically, assuming you have legal residency in the United States. You will no more be charged extra as a non-national state resident than your national state resident neighbor. That's a local privilege that has nothing to do with nationality (let alone phenotype).

One way to lessen the outrage is to regard it as a 'Thai subsidy' rather than a 'farang tax'.

How many Thais would go to the parks and zoos and so on if they had to pay the outrageous sums we do?

I totally agree at last someone talking scene I lived in Thailand for 8 years and have always seen the dual pricing a a subsidy to Thais I paying a few hundred bhatt more is so problematic to some people then go somewhere else. its not like you go to these places every day

I can see how, if you moved to Thailand because of the decreased cost of living, and you don't make substantially more than a middle class Thai, you might be upset. As a tourist, given the low prices in general, I'm fine with dual pricing precisely because of the subsidy argument. I could even see an argument made, possibly, that getting the "Thai" price is a benefit of nationality. Afterall, states have the right to determine which rights, privileges, and indeed, obligations are reserved solely to their nationals. What I will not abide, however, is naturalised, mixed, or non-ethnic Thai nationals being charged more because of their national or ethnic origin. There's no valid excuse for that at all.

It's a tourist tax. Not a faramg tax

So don't flatter yourself, your not that special. It applies to tourists in many countries. Expats are visitors. Get used to it. Again don't flatter yourself, your not special.

Locals have to work for less than 300 bhat a day. And you kii nok complain?

Those who live and work in a country legally are residents not tourists. And depending on how immigration procedures are defined, expatriates are more often than not absolutely not visitors. You're conflating a non-national's lack of "right of abode/return" with "just visiting."

When legal residents, especially permanent residents, or naturalised Thais get charged because of nationality, national origin, or phenotype, that has nothing to do with "tourism." The individuals covered by those categories are not tourists.

Compared to temporary visitors, tourists indeed, such individuals absolutely are special.

Dual pricing happens all over the world Although I have lived here for nearly 25 years I still own a house in Greenwich London when the Dome was completed all residents had free access many countries in Europe have dual pricing so why does everybody pick on Thailand and call it racist a few Baht extra to help support the venue hardly going to break the bank

I've lived in four countries and traveled to about a dozen others. Most dual pricing that happens, in my experience, has been locality based. As in, as a tourist, I am charged more because I am not from that locality. A citizen from the same country but from a different locality would also be charged more.

What people are complaining about in regards to Thailand is that it is based not on locality but nationality, and sometimes not even nationality but on phenotype.

While I personally don't have a strong opinion either way, I am quite capable of seeing the difference between being charged more for not having residency status in a locality and being charged due to nationality, national origin, or phenotype.

Most short term tourists do not even know they are being Charged at a Higher Price. Some who do , just don't care, they can afford it they say.

Me, I just do not support any of the venues asking for a higher price, including restaurants and anything that see's a Farang as an extra charge.

Charge me 5 Baht extra, never see another Satang of mine.. Done..

Even the airlines here ( Not all ) have a double standard..

Think Farangs pay heavily, Japanese are the highest charged I have seen.. OH GOODY , JAPANESE, , $$$$$$ KA-CHING

That's because unlike other places in Asia, we have no real sociocultural framework of "haggling." Prices are clearly marked and rarely is there dual pricing. There are some very recent transport discounts for tourists, but that's the opposite of the issue here. Japanese residents and nationals are excluded. When my parents came and visited, they got to use special rail passes, being American tourists.

In addition, Japan is by nature a conflict-adverse society, so not only would it not really dawn on most Japanese to question the price they are being charged, but most would be made extremely uncomfortable if put in a position where they felt the only way to get a fair price was to complain. That doesn't mean they'd repeat the experience, extensively overcharging a Japanese tourist is a good way to ensure that quiet and unassuming foreigner you just fleeced will not only never, ever return, but will most certainly tell his or her friends not to visit. So while Japanese tourists are the least likely to make a scene, they are also the most likely to be deeply offended by being ripped off, and positively outraged (internally) that Thai society officially promotes it and the government is actively involved (since most Japanese view government's purpose as preventing things that would create disharmony, especially amongst guests).

So, sure, ka-ching, but only ka-ching once.

Thailand has no specific law against it but it can lead to complications, as Dr Ellis found out. Not sure, if he lost his Thai passport or wanted to bring matters to a head. Anyway it is extremely inadvisable for a Thai citizen to enter on a foreign passport.

I believe, and I would need to go digging through the various posted reports, that at least some articles say he lost his Thai passport and didn't want to bother waiting for another one to arrive. Even outside of my own context, I think I had always heard that it was inadvisable to travel through immigration without your passport for that country, if you are a national.

I did not realise that the UK allowed entering on a foreign passport. Interesting. I wonder if Japan and the U.S. are in the majority or minority of nations here, or if it's mixed, or if it's opposite. Even if Thailand has no law against it, it just seems like a bad idea.

Okay, I've tried the reasoned argument route, and clearly that isn't working. So let's just call out the crap.

Let me be blunt, unlike the majority of people here, perhaps all of them, as Howitzer correctly surmises, I do happen to know about this, as I'm on record as saying the last time this bullshittery about trans people came up. I have an academic and journalism background in covering these particular issues. The knowledge is out there if you want to actually bother doing the research yourself, or speak to professionals yourself, or, heaven forbid, speak to trans people about their own experiences.

And gender dysphoria is no longer classified as a disorder. It was removed from the list of disorders in the DSM and relisted as "gender dysphoria" in the DSM V. Why? Two reasons. The first is because the description dysphoria turns the source of stress a trans person experiences from an internal disorder to a reaction to terrible treatment in society. The problem isn't trans people, the problem is cis society. Basically, the people in this thread spreading misinformation and being openly transphobic? You're the problem. You're the cause of the stress! The second reason that it was relisted, as opposed to completely removed like homosexuality, is because many insurance companies rely on a psychiatric or psychological referral in order to agree to pay for the medical treatment. The insurance companies need to be reformed to accept that other physicians (like say an endocrinologist) are capable of making a medical diagnosis on a medical issue. But we're not there yet, so the decision to relist gender dysphoria was made for that reason. However, the choice to relist it should not be seen as a continuation of the earlier decision to consider it a disorder. It's not. That was the whole point of changing its diagnostic classification and, more importantly, changing the name.

Those are facts. Not opinions.

I still wonder why it is so prevalent in Thailand.

Without commenting one way or the other on why it is so prevalent in Thailand, there is a fairly large corpus of evidence to suggest the main trigger is psychological, though I don't have specifics. Hence gender re-assignment is often done solely to align the physicak body with the psychology of the individual.

It's not at all politically correct to say so, and many won't agree but it is my view, so if you don't like it you can flame away.

Many Thais are what I would suggest is a bit odd (in my opinion it's largely the consequence of a repressive culture and a sub=par education), and the incidence of mental illness in Thailand is huge (though the government denies it - which they would do, it's a really serious loss of face for a government of any persuasion).

Coffee time...

Put your flamesuit on if you wish, but just because you're entitled to your own opinions does not mean you are entitled to your own facts.

The corpus of evidence is actually increasingly suggesting the opposite. That there are a number of physiological and biological reasons for how gender identity develops in humans.

Much like so-called "ex-gay conversion therapy" the evidence shows that attempts to "fix" gender identity to conform to a badly flawed idea that humans are 100% perfectly dimorphic (we're not) causes irreparable psychological trauma. You can't "fix" what isn't broken, and when you try, that's when you start breaking things. Our sense of self, our personalities, our every existence as sentient being exists in the brain, and yet we still know very little about it.

Psychiatric professionals realise that changing the body (often more accurately, helping it be more dimorphic one direction or the other, vs a nondimorphic middle ground) in a society that expects a person's gender expression and presentation to match a certain dimorphic body type is the only way to minimise the outside stressors associated with gender dysphoria.

Trans people are perfectly normal, and the treatment is medical. It's just taking the majority, cisgender people, an awful long time to get onboard with that.

"Sensitize" is a code word for indoctrination. If you want to be gay then be gay. I won't bother you or question your lifestyle choice, but don't ask me or my children to buy into it or accept it as normal.

1) sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same. Trans people can be found across the sexuality spectrum.

2) neither sexual orientation nor gender identity are choices. When did you decide to be straight and/or cisgender? If you did, does that mean you, personally, could choose to be gay or trans (or to blow your mind here, both?)?

Considerable evidence now shows, and the vast majority of medical and psychiatric professional associations and their members agree, that sexual orientation and gender identity are a part of the human experience. Straight is a sexual orientation. Cisgender is part of one's gender identity.

You're not "normal," dude, because there is no normal. You're just more common.

Good. Cis people can sometimes have great difficulty grasping what is to a trans person obvious, and usually obvious from a very young age.

Now if only the Thai government would actually get on with the business of passing a law allowing one to change their gender assignment on documents. That would be more immediately meaningful.

you can't change your gender, you can only change your appearance.

If you modify a man till he looks like a woman, he is still XY genome and is not even theoretically able get children.

He is than a man who feels himself like a woman and looks like a woman, but still he is a man.

And this is why you need the class!

Gender != sex, and even if it did, there are multiple types of sex. Were you aware there are XY individuals born with vaginas? I bet you didn't, but now you do! Do you know about XXY or X0 or even XXXXY? How about the difference between MAIS and CAIS? How about hormone levels during fetal development and/or during puberty? How about brain structural and developmental differences? Did you know that approximately 1 in 1000 people have nondimorphic traits?

No? Then stop talking about it like you know this stuff.

Optad,

I, of course, am limited by my own experience with dual nationality which is:

However, once you are a Japanese national, you must enter and leave Japan using a Japanese Passport, even if you have a valid foreign passport.

and

Most U.S. nationals, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.