New Sex Change Regulations Set To Take Effect

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT

New sex change regulations set to take effect

By Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

Published on October 28, 2009

New sex change regulations set to take effect

A group of transexuals call for the right to get "Miss" as a title in

their national identification cards.

A card here refers to the woman in its inset photo as a Mr.

Areeya Milintanapa, a 26yearold transvestite, had hoped to undergo sexual reas?signment surgery at a private clinic in Bangkok next year, but her plans have hit a setback - new regulations by the Medical Council of Thailand.

The council moved recently to strictly control sexchange operations and require that transgender people consult a psychiatrist, live as a woman for a year and receive hormone therapy before being such an operation is allowed.

For Areeya the new rules are an inconvenience. "I have already spent my whole life as a woman - since I was a little boy - and why [do] I have to live as a woman for another year to undergo sex change surgery?" she said.

Areeya said she had wanted to be a woman since she was a young boy. She said she had played with dolls like girls did and wore her mother's skirts.

"I know myself that I have always been woman not a man."

Areeya, who married an American man three years ago, said she started doing research and finding out information on sexchange surgery over many years, by consulting transgen?der people who had undergone sex reassignment operations, before making a decision to undergo the operation herself next year.

"This [operation] was going to be a special gift for me to cel?ebrate the New Year," she said.

But her plan has been set back a year as the new regula?tions mean she cannot under?go a sexchange without seeing a psychiatrist first.

"The council want to make sure that they [transgender people] really want to be a woman and spend the rest of their lives as a woman, forever, not for a second," council pres?ident Dr Somsak Lohlekha said.

"Sex reassignment surgery would affect the physical body [of the person undergoing the operation], as well as people's mental health and society around them."

The council's new rules will be enforced from November - next week. They will require transgender people to consult psychiatrist to assess people's mental state before they are allowed to get hormone thera?py from endocrinologists. After that they have to live as a woman for a year before they can under?go a sex change.

Somsak said at least two psy?chiatrists must give guarantees for transgender people who want to undergo a sexchange.

Foreigners seeking to have such operations here must get approval from a psychiatrist in their country of origin as well as a psychiatrist in Thailand before undergoing surgery.

After the operation, sur?geons and physicians must fol?low up on their patient's condi?tion and provide appropriate medical treatment.

The new regulations require that surgeons or physicians undertaking the sexchange be registered with the Medical Council. They must also treat any complications that occur following surgery.

Surgeons who violate the new regulations face warnings or the threat of having their medical licence revoked.

Dr Panom Ketman, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists of Thailand, said one year of liv?ing as woman should be enough to evaluate if a transgender person is ready for sexchange surgery.

"During this period, they have more time to ask them?selves whether they really want to be a woman or not. If they are absolutely sure, psychiatrists will allow them to undergo such surgery," he said.

Dr Paiboon Jittrapai, of Thailand's Royal College of Surgeons, said the new rules would lift standards for sexchange operations. They would also help screen transgender people who really need sexchange surgery.

He said some patients had committed suicide after a sexchange operation as they had later rejected changing sex.

"Some transgender people underwent reassignment sur?gery because they wanted to do it for their job, such as per?forming in a cabaret show, not because they want it for their lives."

Transgender Women of Thailand chairperson Yollada Suanyot expressed satisfaction with the new regulations but said relevant agencies, such as the Interior, Foreign and Justice ministries, should revise laws to allow transgender people to change their gender title from Mr to Miss.

"Basic women's rights are also fundamental needs for transgender people," she said. "We also want the respect in human dignity, the same as any?one else."

Areeya said things would be easier if she could change from being a 'Mr' to a 'Miss', as she could then register a married certificate like other women.

"I just want my life to be complete as a woman. Why do I have to go to another country to be allowed to register a marriage certificate with a man who I love? Why can't this country where I was born give it to me?" said a business transgender woman.

-- The Nation 2009/10/28

[TAWP]

Actually, if the procedure is already done for the top-part and the person in other ways are infact looking like a woman, it should be proven that they know how the 'reactions' from the 'society around them' [sic] will react to their change. It has already, externally, happened.

The last step of the operation could therefor be seen as a minor change for most people one step away from the patient, with only the patient and the immediate family to consider. Just hope they focus on the well-being of the person and not perceived reactions from others...

[crocodilexp]

More bureaucracy certainly won't help. The one-year wait is an onerous requirement. However, consultation with a psychologist, requiring the surgeon to be properly registered and the patient to be of age are fairly sensible ones.

As for the ID card issue, it's a murky. If it were allowed, should the government require the big cut to be done and verified for the ID change? Or should a simple declaration be sufficient ("feeling like a woman")? Requiring the verified cut smacks of a gross invasion of privacy, but just a declaration opens a slippery slope (if one doesn't want to serve in the army, just declare himself a woman).

It would seem much less controversial to just allow gay marriage, rather than gender changes on an ID card. Not sure how liberal Thai powers-that-be are about this. Common folk certainly don't care much, i doubt there'd be solid opposition compared to the west.

[Tiger7Moth]

More bureaucracy certainly won't help. The one-year wait is an onerous requirement. However, consultation with a psychologist, requiring the surgeon to be properly registered and the patient to be of age are fairly sensible ones.

As for the ID card issue, it's a murky. If it were allowed, should the government require the big cut to be done and verified for the ID change? Or should a simple declaration be sufficient ("feeling like a woman")? Requiring the verified cut smacks of a gross invasion of privacy, but just a declaration opens a slippery slope (if one doesn't want to serve in the army, just declare himself a woman).

It would seem much less controversial to just allow gay marriage, rather than gender changes on an ID card. Not sure how liberal Thai powers-that-be are about this. Common folk certainly don't care much, i doubt there'd be solid opposition compared to the west.

A perfect example of a government unable to handle issues of importance to millions, inappropriately getting involved in the lives of individuals. Just wondering, are people found guilty of gambling, drug use, ..... forced to have consultations with a psychologist. How about politicians guilty of accepting bribery?

When all needed public projects are completed, criminal activity has been eliminated, the economy is going great, political factions are not at each others throats - then, maybe the government can consider trying to be helpful to individuals in a non-intrusive way.

Such, ridiculous BS!!

[ScubaBuddha]

More bureaucracy certainly won't help. The one-year wait is an onerous requirement. However, consultation with a psychologist, requiring the surgeon to be properly registered and the patient to be of age are fairly sensible ones.

As for the ID card issue, it's a murky. If it were allowed, should the government require the big cut to be done and verified for the ID change? Or should a simple declaration be sufficient ("feeling like a woman")? Requiring the verified cut smacks of a gross invasion of privacy, but just a declaration opens a slippery slope (if one doesn't want to serve in the army, just declare himself a woman).

It would seem much less controversial to just allow gay marriage, rather than gender changes on an ID card. Not sure how liberal Thai powers-that-be are about this. Common folk certainly don't care much, i doubt there'd be solid opposition compared to the west.

A perfect example of a government unable to handle issues of importance to millions, inappropriately getting involved in the lives of individuals. Just wondering, are people found guilty of gambling, drug use, ..... forced to have consultations with a psychologist. How about politicians guilty of accepting bribery?

When all needed public projects are completed, criminal activity has been eliminated, the economy is going great, political factions are not at each others throats - then, maybe the government can consider trying to be helpful to individuals in a non-intrusive way.

Such, ridiculous BS!!

Not BS, actually, this brings Thailand into conformity with the western world in terms of the standards of care recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Thailand has more male to female transexuals per capita than any other country in the world. Prior to this law, Thai doctors were left to determine what prerequisites were needed, if any. It's safe to say there is a lot of men choosing the surgery for financial gain rather than a personal feeling they are female. Psychiatric evaluations and waiting periods are a good thing. Shouldn't matter much really, just like everything else here a quickie reassignment surgery will still be able to be had for a little extra baht.

Edited October 28, 2009 by Scubabuddha

[on-on]

Gamblers and drug users, to use the aforementioned example, can become un-gamblers and un-drug users by changing behavior. Major invasive surgery that has lasting and irreversible physical effects is another matter entirely. From what I recall these current laws stem from the tide of twenty-somethings here recently who had surgery when they were very young (as it is traditionally openly available here, and cheap) and realized they had made a mistake when they got into adulthood, but the end result of the laws is actually pretty typical for developed countries. That's not even getting into the psychiatric concerns related to gender dysphoria and various transgender identities. There is of course a raging debate about the topic, but most people seem to agree that undergoing the hormone treatment and seeking psychiatric care for some period of time to determine the nature of the individual's transgender identity is a perfectly reasonable step. Trained medical professionals are already ahead of this law here in The Kingdom. You can't waltz into any of the top hospitals that do this surgery in Bangkok and expect to have surgery without having undergone the psychiatric and hormone components, so all the law is doing is keeping the less professional operators from performing these procedures without the proper diligence.

EDIT: I see I've been beaten.

Edited October 28, 2009 by on-on

[BSJ]

As they say in France "Ahpenis is a Madam with no dick" I hope that translated right!www.google.com.au/

[Tiger7Moth]

Gamblers and drug users, to use the aforementioned example, can become un-gamblers and un-drug users by changing behavior. Major invasive surgery that has lasting and irreversible physical effects is another matter entirely.

so all the law is doing is keeping the less professional operators from performing these procedures without the proper diligence.

EDIT: I see I've been beaten.

As a child I saw my family destroyed by my father's gambling - and gambling is pervasive in Thai society. It is beyond my imagination that more harm is done by Transgender surgery than by gambling.

With regards to "so all the law is doing is keeping the less professional operators from performing these procedures without the proper diligence" - do you really believe this? How is the law being enforced? At what cost - and by whom, the BIB?

Does this issue really affect so many as to be more important than issues that affect society as a whole - as in, doesn't the government have more important concerns?

I don't wish anyone harm, but, I still think this is BS.

"WPATH is most known for publishing the Standards of care for gender identity disorders, but also provides information for professionals and consumers, sponsors scientific conferences and offers ethical guidelines for professionals.". Sufficient as far as I am concerned - no need for this to be an unenforceable law put in place by a government with more important (affecting millions of people), issues to deal with.

[on-on]

As a child I saw my family destroyed by my father's gambling - and gambling is pervasive in Thai society. It is beyond my imagination that more harm is done by Transgender surgery than by gambling.

I appreciate your emotional distress, but it has no bearing on the situation at hand. Gambling can be a horrible addiction for some, many people have issues with it. Still, gambling and invasive surgery have no relationship to one another. I was simply answering the earlier comparison, not trying to extend it. I don't want to discuss it further because it detracts from the actual topic at hand. In other words it doesn't matter what your experience with gambling is, we're discussing a surgical procedure related to transgender issues.

With regards to "so all the law is doing is keeping the less professional operators from performing these procedures without the proper diligence" - do you really believe this? How is the law being enforced? At what cost - and by whom, the BIB?

I simply stated what the law is intended to do, not how it's being enforced. Obviously I can't comment on enforcement since the law goes into effect in November. I can certify that my comments on the professional hospitals not allowing this are correct. I'm not sure what you're even debating here if you're in favor of the procedure being allowed willy nilly. If they don't enforce it and more 16 year olds get to have invasive surgery on a whim only to regret it later then it's a win for you. Still, your question is predicated on a logical breakdown, so I can't answer it.

Does this issue really affect so many as to be more important than issues that affect society as a whole - as in, doesn't the government have more important concerns?

Does every issue have to be the most important issue to society as a whole to be legislated on? Modern society would grind to a halt if we only ever handled the single most contentious and important issues one at a time. Not to mention the question of who decides what that is. This one's dragging the topic further afield again. Edited October 29, 2009 by on-on

[Likenitstill]

This seems reasonable. Just being a normal foreigner here we have to continually jump through hoops and follow the procedures, good on the government to actually put this in place.

As for woman's rights? Well when did they ever start to worry about that....My wife's Thai and they haven't ever seemed to care about her rights!

Maybe they should look into the products being sold here, perhaps they are tweaked with female hormones. I have no problems with seeing a few beautiful looking ladyboys around but something is definitely wrong here because 1 out of 10 are likely a man. I went to the Central shopping plaza the other day and my family and I just wanted to have a nice visit. Besides the blaring loud music everywhere we kept contently getting harassed by isle sales women

Edited October 29, 2009 by Likenitstill

[animatic]

At the cost of these surgeries, and the typical pay scale of most young Thais,

this is HARDLY done on a whim.... Most times it is a long drawn out attempt to

'dig up the cash' to do it, and with a very strong intent of the end goal to be achieved.

[Kimera]

This seems reasonable. Just being a normal foreigner here we have to continually jump through hoops and follow the procedures, good on the government to actually put this in place.

As for woman's rights? Well when did they ever start to worry about that....My wife's Thai and they haven't ever seemed to care about her rights!

Maybe they should look into the products being sold here, perhaps they are tweaked with female hormones. I have no problems with seeing a few beautiful looking ladyboys around but something is definitely wrong here because 1 out of 10 are likely a man. I went to the Central shopping plaza the other day and my family and I just wanted to have a nice visit. Besides the blaring loud music everywhere we kept contently getting harassed by isle sales women

If your post is saying that 1 out of 10 of the Ladyboys you see are men, then I can tell that 9 plus will be men

[crazyswede]

Wonderful news!

555

[Tiger7Moth]

As a child I saw my family destroyed by my father's gambling - and gambling is pervasive in Thai society. It is beyond my imagination that more harm is done by Transgender surgery than by gambling.

I appreciate your emotional distress, but it has no bearing on the situation at hand. Gambling can be a horrible addiction for some, many people have issues with it. Still, gambling and invasive surgery have no relationship to one another. I was simply answering the earlier comparison, not trying to extend it. I don't want to discuss it further because it detracts from the actual topic at hand. In other words it doesn't matter what your experience with gambling is, we're discussing a surgical procedure related to transgender issues.

With regards to "so all the law is doing is keeping the less professional operators from performing these procedures without the proper diligence" - do you really believe this? How is the law being enforced? At what cost - and by whom, the BIB?

I simply stated what the law is intended to do, not how it's being enforced. Obviously I can't comment on enforcement since the law goes into effect in November. I can certify that my comments on the professional hospitals not allowing this are correct. I'm not sure what you're even debating here if you're in favor of the procedure being allowed willy nilly. If they don't enforce it and more 16 year olds get to have invasive surgery on a whim only to regret it later then it's a win for you. Still, your question is predicated on a logical breakdown, so I can't answer it.

Does this issue really affect so many as to be more important than issues that affect society as a whole - as in, doesn't the government have more important concerns?

Does every issue have to be the most important issue to society as a whole to be legislated on? Modern society would grind to a halt if we only ever handled the single most contentious and important issues one at a time. Not to mention the question of who decides what that is. This one's dragging the topic further afield again.

"I'm not sure what you're even debating here if you're in favor of the procedure being allowed willy nilly. If they don't enforce it and more 16 year olds get to have invasive surgery on a whim only to regret it later then it's a win for you. Still, your question is predicated on a logical breakdown, so I can't answer it."

Well, then you must be a dullard. I do not have a logical breakdown, you do. I am talking about the priorities of the government and the use of limited time and resources. I have made this very clear in my comments about matters affecting millions vs matters affecting a much, much smaller percentage of the population. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

I could make many more comments regarding your lack of logic including your ascertain that I am suffering from emotional distress - my father's actions happened over 40 years ago. I am under no emotional distress, I was giving an example of a situation involving individuals and families as opposed to society as a whole. And, my obvious ongoing point is that the government should first spend time and resources on issues that affect society as a whole.

As an example, consider the suffering, hunger, loss of jobs, deaths, etc caused by the ongoing Red Shirt vs Yellow Shirt situation. Wouldn't the governments time be better spent on resolving this conflict? The simple act of disrupting Swampy airport last year has impacted tourism and cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. The impact on the lives of millions of Thai people has been devastating.

It is surely unfortunate that a small number of individuals may suffer due to premature decisions to change sex, but, not very important in the overall scheme of things. Just the way it is!

[Tiger7Moth]

As a child I saw my family destroyed by my father's gambling - and gambling is pervasive in Thai society. It is beyond my imagination that more harm is done by Transgender surgery than by gambling.

I appreciate your emotional distress, but it has no bearing on the situation at hand. Gambling can be a horrible addiction for some, many people have issues with it. Still, gambling and invasive surgery have no relationship to one another. I was simply answering the earlier comparison, not trying to extend it. I don't want to discuss it further because it detracts from the actual topic at hand. In other words it doesn't matter what your experience with gambling is, we're discussing a surgical procedure related to transgender issues.

With regards to "so all the law is doing is keeping the less professional operators from performing these procedures without the proper diligence" - do you really believe this? How is the law being enforced? At what cost - and by whom, the BIB?

I simply stated what the law is intended to do, not how it's being enforced. Obviously I can't comment on enforcement since the law goes into effect in November. I can certify that my comments on the professional hospitals not allowing this are correct. I'm not sure what you're even debating here if you're in favor of the procedure being allowed willy nilly. If they don't enforce it and more 16 year olds get to have invasive surgery on a whim only to regret it later then it's a win for you. Still, your question is predicated on a logical breakdown, so I can't answer it.

Does this issue really affect so many as to be more important than issues that affect society as a whole - as in, doesn't the government have more important concerns?

Does every issue have to be the most important issue to society as a whole to be legislated on? Modern society would grind to a halt if we only ever handled the single most contentious and important issues one at a time. Not to mention the question of who decides what that is. This one's dragging the topic further afield again.

"I'm not sure what you're even debating here if you're in favor of the procedure being allowed willy nilly. If they don't enforce it and more 16 year olds get to have invasive surgery on a whim only to regret it later then it's a win for you. Still, your question is predicated on a logical breakdown, so I can't answer it."

I am talking about the priorities of the government and the use of limited time and resources. I have made this very clear in my comments about matters affecting millions vs matters affecting a much, much smaller percentage of the population. And, my obvious ongoing point is that the government should first spend time and resources on issues that affect society as a whole.

As an example, consider the suffering, hunger, loss of jobs, deaths, etc caused by the ongoing Red Shirt vs Yellow Shirt situation. Wouldn't the governments time be better spent on resolving this conflict? The simple act of disrupting Swampy airport last year has impacted tourism and cost thousands upon thousands of jobs. The impact on the lives of millions of Thai people has been devastating.

It is surely unfortunate that a small number of individuals may suffer due to premature decisions to change sex, but, not very important in the overall scheme of things. Just the way it is!

Lastly, for you to say "If they don't enforce it and more 16 year olds get to have invasive surgery on a whim only to regret it later then it's a win for you" is insulting and inappropriate. For anyone to suffer for any reason is not a win for me. I have no desire for anyone to suffer for any reason. I am however in favor of maximizing the use of resources for the benefit of the maximum number of people - so, the overall amount of suffering is as little as possible.

[DegenFarang]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Edited November 1, 2009 by DegenFarang

[DegenFarang]

I also smell a new cottage industry about to pop up. Ladyboy Psychiatrists who will rubber stamp any crazy, drugged up mangled beast who walks into his office.

[screamingeagle]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Or why not make them wear a yellow star and put them in a ghetto? Better still, forcibly castrate them and tattoo a number on their arms. You should be ashamed of yourself

[neverdie]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Yes absolutely disgraceful. Please post a picture of yourself, so we can work out what sticker should be placed on you, for everyone to see. I'm already coming up with a few ideas, but in order to stay within forum guidelines I will refrain from posting them. Clearly you are a .

[neverdie]

I also smell a new cottage industry about to pop up. Ladyboy Psychiatrists who will rubber stamp any crazy, drugged up mangled beast who walks into his office.

I smell something too & it absolutely stinks

[DegenFarang]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Or why not make them wear a yellow star and put them in a ghetto? Better still, forcibly castrate them and tattoo a number on their arms. You should be ashamed of yourself

There soul reason for the operation (in most cases) is to fool foreigners into having sex with them. Why do you think the Phuket police are having a big ladyboy crackdown ahead of the US Marines arriving this week.

If there is some other reason so many men in Thailand choose to become women, please do enlighten me. It is my understanding that the primary reason is so they can go into the sex industry. This would be fine and dandy if the majority of their customers actually knew they were sleeping with a ladybody, however this is not the case - most think it is actually a woman.

[DegenFarang]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Yes absolutely disgraceful. Please post a picture of yourself, so we can work out what sticker should be placed on you, for everyone to see. I'm already coming up with a few ideas, but in order to stay within forum guidelines I will refrain from posting them. Clearly you are a .

It would no doubt be a butterfly sticker.

[neverdie]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Yes absolutely disgraceful. Please post a picture of yourself, so we can work out what sticker should be placed on you, for everyone to see. I'm already coming up with a few ideas, but in order to stay within forum guidelines I will refrain from posting them. Clearly you are a .

It would no doubt be a butterfly sticker.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Klu Klux Klan sticker

[DegenFarang]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Yes absolutely disgraceful. Please post a picture of yourself, so we can work out what sticker should be placed on you, for everyone to see. I'm already coming up with a few ideas, but in order to stay within forum guidelines I will refrain from posting them. Clearly you are a .

It would no doubt be a butterfly sticker.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Klu Klux Klan sticker

Because I don't like ladyboys? Wow. Is this forum really full of ladybody lovers or is it just a civil rights issue?

I read once in a book that most of the long term expats prefer ladyboys. I thought it could never be true. Maybe it is...

[DegenFarang]

By the way KKK is way off. I cried when Barack Obama was elected my president and minored in Black Studies at University. I'm a California bleeding liberal - for gay marriage and very against any kind of racism in America. However this is Thailand. It's a very racist society in its own right, classist as well. I don't think there is anything fundamentally unethical about not liking ladyboys - given that their sole intent is to dupe people into thinking they are women and paying them for sex.

[neverdie]

By the way KKK is way off. I cried when Barack Obama was elected my president and minored in Black Studies at University. I'm a California bleeding liberal - for gay marriage and very against any kind of racism in America. However this is Thailand. It's a very racist society in its own right, classist as well. I don't think there is anything fundamentally unethical about not liking ladyboys - given that their sole intent is to dupe people into thinking they are women and paying them for sex.

So out of the 300,000 to 400,000 ladyboys in Thailand you are suggesting that all of them are out the trying to dupe moronic tourists into having sex with them for cash???

I would suggest, although obviously there are no statistics on the issue but there would be more females on the streets trying to dupe tourists than there would be ladyboys......strangely though, you havent suggested that all females be branded something.

Can you see the point Im trying to make?

[screamingeagle]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Or why not make them wear a yellow star and put them in a ghetto? Better still, forcibly castrate them and tattoo a number on their arms. You should be ashamed of yourself

There soul reason for the operation (in most cases) is to fool foreigners into having sex with them. Why do you think the Phuket police are having a big ladyboy crackdown ahead of the US Marines arriving this week.

If there is some other reason so many men in Thailand choose to become women, please do enlighten me. It is my understanding that the primary reason is so they can go into the sex industry. This would be fine and dandy if the majority of their customers actually knew they were sleeping with a ladybody, however this is not the case - most think it is actually a woman.

Definition from Wikipedia:

"People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves."

In other words, in the case of Lady boys, "a woman's mind stuck in a male body".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-usi-1 The reason there are so many here and in South east Asia, is that Buddhism does not discriminate against them, and they are tolerated by society whereas in the Judeo/Christian tradition, they are persecuted. Hence, transsexuals in the west hide themselves away with mounting mental problems.

The primary reason is NOT to go into the sex industry. Most lady boys know what they are in their early adolescence and some times even earlier. Some go into the sex industry for the same reason women do: they have poor families which they feel obliged to support.

You really should show some tolerance.

[DegenFarang]

By the way KKK is way off. I cried when Barack Obama was elected my president and minored in Black Studies at University. I'm a California bleeding liberal - for gay marriage and very against any kind of racism in America. However this is Thailand. It's a very racist society in its own right, classist as well. I don't think there is anything fundamentally unethical about not liking ladyboys - given that their sole intent is to dupe people into thinking they are women and paying them for sex.

So out of the 300,000 to 400,000 ladyboys in Thailand you are suggesting that all of them are out the trying to dupe moronic tourists into having sex with them for cash???

I would suggest, although obviously there are no statistics on the issue but there would be more females on the streets trying to dupe tourists than there would be ladyboys......strangely though, you havent suggested that all females be branded something.

Can you see the point Im trying to make?

The females on the streets are not trying to dupe tourists, they are giving the tourists exactly what they want - sex with a woman.

Possibly I am ignorant about the % of ladyboys who engage in prostitution and that Thailand for some reason just has more men than any other place in the world who wish to undergo surgery to become women. I have always assumed that nearly all ladyboys do this for the money - and that the majority of their customers are not aware they are sleeping with a 'woman' who used to be a man.

Are these false assumptions?

[DegenFarang]

Less ladybodys can never be a bad thing. Maybe some of the government officials made a trip down Nana after 2am. It is 98% ladyboys roaming the steets. Nearly the same way on Walking Steet after 3-4am - 75%+ ladyboys. Lonely tourists who struck out earlier in the night and are drunk are surely dragging home these 'women' - and regretting it in the morning, if they even ever find out.

What % of people who bang ladyboys do you reckon actually know they are banging a ladybody? For expats I'd say its less than 40% - four tourists it has to be less than 15%. Pretty terrible. I dare say in all of the drunken encounters I've had over the years, the odds of me not having accidentally taken one home have got to be astronomical. Anybody who regularly takes home bar girls and the like and says otherwise has self delusions on a grand scale.

Get rid of the ladyboys I say, or make them wear big purple patches on their shoulder or something.

Or why not make them wear a yellow star and put them in a ghetto? Better still, forcibly castrate them and tattoo a number on their arms. You should be ashamed of yourself

There soul reason for the operation (in most cases) is to fool foreigners into having sex with them. Why do you think the Phuket police are having a big ladyboy crackdown ahead of the US Marines arriving this week.

If there is some other reason so many men in Thailand choose to become women, please do enlighten me. It is my understanding that the primary reason is so they can go into the sex industry. This would be fine and dandy if the majority of their customers actually knew they were sleeping with a ladybody, however this is not the case - most think it is actually a woman.

Definition from Wikipedia:

"People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves."

In other words, in the case of Lady boys, "a woman's mind stuck in a male body".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-usi-1 The reason there are so many here and in South east Asia, is that Buddhism does not discriminate against them, and they are tolerated by society whereas in the Judeo/Christian tradition, they are persecuted. Hence, transsexuals in the west hide themselves away with mounting mental problems.

The primary reason is NOT to go into the sex industry. Most lady boys know what they are in their early adolescence and some times even earlier. Some go into the sex industry for the same reason women do: they have poor families which they feel obliged to support.

You really should show some tolerance.

Are you suggesting that if Western countries were more tolerant of men getting sex changes that there would be THIS MANY ladyboys walking the streets of America and Europe? There is no way for either of us to prove our point but I find this very hard to believe.

Where do you get your information about 'most ladyboys' knowing they are trapped in a mans body from an early age? Have you done extensive field research with them or read about or spoken to somebody who has? Or is this anecdotal evidence taken from one or two ladyboys you talked to. If it is the later, their opinions are useless as you can't take the case of one or two people (or even 10 or 100) and apply their circumstances to the entire population of ladyboys. Thai's also lie like crazy and it would be a huge loss of face for them to admit they did it for the money. This could be the standard line they give everybody when asked why they did it - just like all bar girls say the reason they are working in the bar is to take care of their family, and they just want a good man and they love you so much - and oh my buffalo is sick please give me some money. I haven't spent much time talking to ladyboys but I'm sure they have a similar line of BS.

In practice I do show tolerance. I've never openly insulted a ladyboy. In fact I always joke with them when they try and grab me on the street saying 'sorry, i'm looking for a ladybody'. It is my private belief however that so many of them roaming the streets of tourist filled places in Thailand is not a good thing and I'd like to see it gradually decrease over time. I think this move by the Thai Government shows that they agree.

Edited November 1, 2009 by DegenFarang

[on-on]

At the cost of these surgeries, and the typical pay scale of most young Thais,

this is HARDLY done on a whim.... Most times it is a long drawn out attempt to

'dig up the cash' to do it, and with a very strong intent of the end goal to be achieved.

The thing I'd say is to look at the internal consistency of the law with respect to the age factor. It's targeted at stopping people under 18 from having these procedures. How many Thai people under 18 have had a long time to save up money for a sex change? While I personally never implied that all or most people seeking a sex change are doing it on a whim, I definitely did say that the people this law targets are doing it on a whim and that was (if you read it in context) clearly facetious language. Still, I stand by the implication that the law targets protecting people who are under 18 who haven't undergone relevant hormone treatments and psychiatric evaluations - if anyone falls under that category then they're basically jumping into the surgery willy nilly in context to how serious a surgery it is. We're talking about invasive surgery here that completely alters the body and can result in some serious health issues (as can any major surgery) and that's important to keep in mind. As importantly, it's a surgery that completely alters a person physically and actually removed organs. That is a huge, huge deal regardless of whether gender is involved.

So, if someone's under 18 and hasn't undergone the relevant hormone treatments and psychiatric evaluations prior to having this procedure done I think you have to ask yourself how they managed at the age of seventeen to struggle for years to save up the thousands of dollars we presume they're paying to begin this process and what kind of medical professional would perform the procedure. They don't go to Bumrungrad or Yanhee, they start off by going to some doctor who castrates them for a couple hundred dollars and then they do it piecemeal from there as they can afford it. Facial feminization here, adam's apple shaving there - etc. This is why you see that odd range of katoeys, some of whom look like finished women and others of whom still have manly features. There was a big hubbub about this last year which lead to the initial furor. Like all media circuses it was surely overblown, but it does contain a kernel of truth. Here's a sample story:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a2wYAQhtYUX0

There are some issues with the law, like its use of mental illness, but the basic intent is very sound. You essentially don't want teenagers deciding to have invasive surgery that has serious and irreversible physical ramifications without the proper treatment and evaluation and the only reason there's a law now is because this was actually happening.

I also smell a new cottage industry about to pop up. Ladyboy Psychiatrists who will rubber stamp any crazy, drugged up mangled beast who walks into his office.

Heh, definitely this is what's going to happen. Any law requiring some kind of certification everywhere in the world is a great excuse for scammers to set up shop selling certifications. Edited November 1, 2009 by on-on