Time To Bring Gay Rights In Thailand Out Of The Closet

[jcbangkok]

As for many gays and transgener folks being in the sex trade ... it is a way to make a better living than most jobs in Thailand, This is an issue of economics and education and not sexuality. Secondly, I would venture to guess that a good number of so-called gays in the sex trade are not even gay but simply trying to make a buck. Many of the gay porn starts in the US are actually straight but it pays better and their is more work. Chances are if you see somebody openly displaying their "gayness" it is because they are advertising (often for work). Being gay shouldn't mean you are a walking homo advertisement.

This topic is about gay or transgender people in Thai society and the issues and problems of these people have very little to do with US-american porn movies.

Sorry about your comprehension skills but I cannot help you with this. But please go right on searching out my posts and advertising your level of pettiness and ignorance. It has actually become amusing.

[jcbangkok]

I was referring specifically to ladyboys (see initial post) and referred to anecdotal evidence that 4 of my friends have been robbed by katoi hugger/muggers

Maybe your friends should avoid streetwalkers...

I on the other hand have never been robbed by anyone. It is how you pick them (women, friends, whatever). (Knock on wood.)

Certainly one incident is not worthy of judging an entire group but I can tell you I was also robbed (pick pocketed) by a lady boy. The first time I was in Singapore she/he approached me on the street and began touching me in a very friendly way trying to proposition me. I tried to be nice as I declined and then noticed later the $300 (Sing) was gone. Luckily she was still in the same area (hugging up on another man) after I discovered I was robbed and I was able to get my money back since she didn't want the police involved. At the time this person did this, I was simply taking a walk and was not trying to pick up women. I was actually photographing outside Orchard Towers (waiving my tourist badge to all). I even became suspicious she/he was trying to pick-pocket me because she/he kept coming back on me as I politely declined. But she was good and had no idea she ever got her hand in my pocket. Obviously I was unaware at the time that there are many warnings about lady boy pick-pockets and was more concerned with being polite and I was kind of finding the whole lady boy encounter interesting. So, I certainly learned a lesson but I am not to blame because somebody stole from me.

Bottom line, a victim can learn to be more aware but I wouldn't be too quick to blame the victims of a crime be it robbery or rape. Lucky for you that you have never been robbed and most people I would guess have not. Although we can always be more aware of our safety and property there is not anyone who is safe from being robbed or being the victim of a con ... regardless of how careful they think they are.

[jcbangkok]

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?

[SweatiePie]

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.

[Jingthing]

There are of course many people born with ambiguous genitalia. At that point, usually the parents must decide which sex to go with. Sometimes, later on the person so assigned decides that was the wrong choice. And so it goes ...

[SweatiePie]

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."

[Jingthing]

In Thailand -- gay marriage not allowed. This impacts gay expats of course who cannot marry their Thai partners and enjoy the same immigration benefits as straight expats.

There are no anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals in regards to employment and housing.

There are no constitutional protections like in South Africa.

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

Any issues or non-issues about military service are trivial compared to the above except in the cases where transgendered people were stigmatized as mentally ill for life.

Sexual orientation comes out when people talk about their families, dating, work social gatherings etc. Those who suggest gays live in the closet forever are condemning an entire class of people to live a double life, to live a lie. Unless you have ever needed to do that, you have no idea the kind of mental anguish that can mean. Straight people who say we don't know you are straight and you are not announcing it all the time are clueless. WE KNOW YOU ARE STRAIGHT! Trust me, most of you are flaming straight, you don't need a parade, you are everywhere, loud and clear, all the time.

BTW, I am surprised nobody commented on my theory stated in a previous post about why there does appear to be greater numbers of ladyboy type persons (as opposed to regular homosexuals) in Thailand than you would expect to occur naturally. It's just an idea, but I thought it was worthy of discussion.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[endure]

Gays are people, they love people.

Jing Jing Jingthing.

[TAWP]

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with if a person wants to marry their pillow...

Call me old fashioned, but I do. (Could be good for sex though.) Gays are people, they love people.

'True love can take many forms. In this case, it has taken the form of a Korean man falling in love with, and eventually marrying, a large pillow with a picture of a woman on it.'

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow

[SergeiY]

I really believe a good portion of ladyboys in Thailand are not gay or attracted to me. They simply have chosen the life to make money. I also don't have statistics but it seems very apparent that many working ladyboys are scam artists and well known to be pickpockets. While the sex trade in general may not be the most moral crowd, 99 out of 100 times a working girl is not going to steal from you but I would venture to say that more than 50% of the working ladyboys will steal from anyone give the chance. Chances are if one hugs you as you walk down the sidewalk, they are not interested in trying to get you as a customer but are trying to relieve you of cash in your pocket.

With that said, I have nothing against people wishing to switch genders but do find it also bizarre considering what they have to go through the rest of their life medically as well as the results often leaving them not looking like the opposite gender but simply looking like somebody "trying" to be the opposite gender.

I remember reading that ladyboys in Thailand have a MUCH MUCH higher rate of suicide. I wonder if it is because they get older and can no longer work successfully. I personally believe the large number of ladyboys in Thailand is simply a result of them wanting to make money in the sex trade and really not much concern beyond with living in the now. Maybe they are gay too but it seems clear their motivation for change is purely economical.

Do you know transgender people only from your visits to the gogo bars?

[Jingthing]

I don't think there is even one group in the entire world lobbying for equal marriage rights for lovers of horses. Or dogs. Or corpses. Or jars of marmite. Such people have a right to lobby for such rights if they want to.

But these things have absolutely nothing to do with the international struggle for equal civil rights for gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Gays have no special responsibility to lobby for horse lover marriage rights any more than straight people. It is bigoted to presume that gay people would be or should be any more inclined to support horse lover marriage, etc. than straight people would. This is something for the horse lovers to bring up, and guess what, they never will.

Horse lovers is just an example here. Substitute any other of the cockamamie excuses people like JC bring up to demonize gay people by falsely associating them with these absurd oddities.

Yes, societies do draw lines. Gay people are lobbying to change the lines for purposes of public policy. In some countries we have won massive victories, in others things are going backwards (such as Sudan where there is an attempt to make being gay a capital offense). Obviously, the feelings of individual people who may be offended or disgusted by gay people cannot be legislated. Public policy can.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[rubl]

Widespread ignorance and prejudice has to be acknowledged then tackled with a programme of education

When reading this first sentence of the OP I think we must be on the right track. Both ignorance and prejudice have been visible more than enough in the last 113 posts.

I'm not sure though we're ready to continue with step 2: a program of education

Edited November 1, 2010 by rubl

[Jingthing]

I fully stand by my comment and I am a very native English speaker. Let the readers judge. This thread is about gay/lesbian/transgender gay rights in Thailand. It is not about bestiality.

Next ...

Edited November 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[jackr]

Education can play a key role in battling this ignorance and Thailand should review and revise its curriculum in order to fill the gaps regarding this issue.

Here's some education for you; stop parading them around on TV for all to see - namely kids - as if it's normal.

Another related issue is how all Thai boys are exposed to and therefore influenced by a pelthora of transgender influences. During the course of their formative years, when young boys see daily examples of transgendered men dressing like and acting like girls - who are funny and popular, then it can't help but compel many of those boys to become like that. To a large degree, those transgenders are big influences and peer models. Perhaps it's no surprise that a large % of Thai boys grow up to emulate transgenders (studies at Thai schools show the % at upwards to 20%). It would be no surprise if Thailand leads the world in that dept.

Spot on, brahmburgers. Most worrying if one has a son.

I have absolutely no problem with people doing what they want, but why the need to flaunt it and get in people's faces? Just keep it to yourself <deleted>.

[Jingthing]

Show the links please, brahmburgers, of the Thai school studies saying 20 percent of Thai boys identify as ladyboys. I don't believe it is anywhere near that high. So prove it, or admit you can't.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[mca]

Miletski believes this is not a reduction in interest but a reduction in opportunity

Sorry that just tickled my funny bone.

[cdnvic]

Ok, I cleaned out a bunch of posts that kept harping on homosexuality = bestiality and removed one poster for a period of time. Not everyone is comfortable with other people's sexual orientation and that's fine because people have a right to disagree, but to equate it with something so sickening is just hateful and rude. No further trolling like this will be tolerated.

Edit: Calling people "homophobe" just because they disagree with you is also flaming and will be dealt with as such (1 more post removed)

Edited November 2, 2010 by cdnvic

[endure]

Education can play a key role in battling this ignorance and Thailand should review and revise its curriculum in order to fill the gaps regarding this issue.

Here's some education for you; stop parading them around on TV for all to see - namely kids - as if it's normal.

Another related issue is how all Thai boys are exposed to and therefore influenced by a pelthora of transgender influences. During the course of their formative years, when young boys see daily examples of transgendered men dressing like and acting like girls - who are funny and popular, then it can't help but compel many of those boys to become like that. To a large degree, those transgenders are big influences and peer models. Perhaps it's no surprise that a large % of Thai boys grow up to emulate transgenders (studies at Thai schools show the % at upwards to 20%). It would be no surprise if Thailand leads the world in that dept.

Spot on, brahmburgers. Most worrying if one has a son.

I have absolutely no problem with people doing what they want, but why the need to flaunt it and get in people's faces? Just keep it to yourself <deleted>.

You have absolutely no problem with people doing what they want as long as that person is not your son?

[animatic]

Interesting that some feel it's ok if gays exist as long as the don't advertise their sexuality. But the act of being 'yourself' is not something that can be regulated in this way. And that is part of the gay rights argument. If they are gay, they why are they not allowed to be open about this in the world. It's only those afraid of this that object.

Most open gays in Thailand are just calmly giving off little clues to their preferences, same as women and men do in proximity to those they are interested in. This is how mating occurs. One can't expect men and women to ONLY express their preferences at night in bars, when their preferences exist 24/7, so why should we expect gays to ONLY express their preferences in certain bars in certain times.

And this doesn't mean flouncing around doing Sally Bowles in Tesco at 8am.

AT the same time, there are clues to preferences that are naturally expressed

within the various subcultures of the gay world and these take on different levels of obviousness, and are typically moderated by good taste and the feelings of others in most situations.

The only ones calling for their not showing anything demonstrative,

are those afraid of their very existence being shown in the open.

In other words fine be gay, but stay in the closet and don't threaten my peace of mind.

And this is the the very issue addressed by the OP, the right to be themselves,

and not be labeled as close to necrophiliacs, pederasts and bestiality lovers.

And to have the world lose it's fear and just let them get on with life, and be themselves, with opportunities to find consenting partners in Tesco or a hotel lobby or on the baht bus, with out fear of beatings or public scorn.

On route to that potential is the legality of their existence being codified and the legality of civil unions between them. This would give a greater sense of correctness to their basic decisions in life. One great fear of those who disagree is that this encourages more gays, and worse their own children might go that other path. But that again is a misdirection in the argument. The gays are gay anyway, and the kids that will be gay will do it in the closet at home and be themselves in the rest of the world, and often leave anywhere near home to actually be themselves. i.e. living a lie with their family. More family suffering from prejudices of society.

I agree that Thai boys do get more than the typical exposure to ladyboys, but I also think, that there is a genetic and cultural predisposition to gayness at a higher percentage in this particular genetic pool, and only the narrowness of the overlaid prohibition has slowed or tempered the self outing of many of them. This is anecdotal observation, and not empirical, but I suspect it is valid.

Edited November 2, 2010 by animatic

[Ijustwannateach]

Or we can just say the Gays should deal with "it" since it is the way it is. My entire point is that people have a right to make their views on gay people known as much as gays have right to make their preferences known. However, both should understand advertising their beliefs is going to get negative reactions regardless of the city size.

But in reality ... you are correct. And I am not saying you are one of these people but it just irks me a bit when people scream for equal rights for one group while denying the rights of another group because they don't agree with their position.

People very emphatically do NOT have the right to make inflammatory, bigoted opinions wrongly disparaging minority groups known on Thaivisa, as you have by now no doubt discovered. To be absolutely clear, any post even marginally suggesting that homosexuality is inherently comparable, even slightly, with a criminal or psychologically perverse activity, will earn a posting holiday.

People who go down the 'letting gays be public risks our children' road are walking on thin ice, too.

[geriatrickid]

Alright SweatiePie it seems you have quite the fixation of trying to show that you are right and I am wrong.. Fine. If you wish to make that claim, then you have show that I am wrong. Simply having a hissy fit doesn't do the trick.

We'll start with this gem of genius; "You are obviously still being misled by your poorly researched sensationalist press articles, GK - you are simply wrong on all counts."

You say I am mislead and I am wrong. Ok. Instead of saying I am wrong, back it up. I have stated the obvious and the facts that are in place. What are you trying to say because you are all over the place.?

You claim that 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."

What are you? Some sort of tour agent trying to sell Thailand as some sort of gay paradise? I did not claim there was a ban on homosexuality per se, rather, there is a defacto practice of removing open homosexuals from serving. Yes, homosexuals serve in the Thai military, but they are not open about it. Not if they expect to make a career out of the military or to attain a command rank. Please name one openly gay Thai military officer. Just one. You can't can you? The quote I provided from the Lt. General made the major newspapers and he was hushed up afterwards. No retraction was ever made. It sums up the mindset of the military command structure. There is also such a thing as discriminatory practice that acts as a defacto policy. I'd be surprised if if there were known gays in the Royal Guards or other household regiments. You know what General Prem's views were right? Now please pick up the navy blue book with the insignia on it that you no doubt read as you prepared your case to show that I am wrong. Go read the regulations in respect to maintaining the honour, decorum and dignity of HM armed forces. Do you see the sections that deal with dishonoring or disgracing the branch of service? And what about the regulations applying whether the person is in an unofficial or private capacity? What about the section on maintaining the highest morality? Now go look at the pictograms that show the "commandments". No stealing, no lying or other dishonesty, no indecency or inappropriate physical behaviour, and of the duty of respect and loyalty to the crown?

Ok, so now that you are now an expert on the induction practices and discipline common to the Thai military. Just how much time have you spent in a Thai officers mess, mister? Do you have any idea as to the comments that are made? You are not the base commander that makes the decisions as to how his camp operates, and you are not the NCO that will harass and pick on a conscript because he is deemed to be too effeminate. Human rights laws do not apply in practice once you enter a military facility. Do you understand that? I dare you to go and bing your 'tude up to the XO on duty and see what happens. Go right ahead and tell him that you think its wonderful that there are all sorts of homosexuals serving. You will get a flat out denial. Ask the gay people that served. Were they out to the NCOs and officers? The answer will be no. Why do you think that is?

You have gone off on a tangent in respect to the medical regulations. Yes I have read the medical regulations. It's part of my f*ckn job . How other nation's deal with the issue is not germane. All that matters here is that the definitions in the Thai regulations treat sex gender reassignment as a mental health issue. You want to go off to fantasy land and reference other countries. Fine. Read the regulation again. There is no reference to gender dysphoria. You are referencing other countries, but their guidelines are significantly different and more importantly, they don't make the rules for Thailand. My reference to the regulations is that they provide insight into how decisions are made and the mindset of the decisionmakers. Women's health care, particularly cancer screening gets short shrift in Thailand. Part of the reason is attributable to the fact that not enough women are making the health care management decisions. By the same token, homosexual health issues are often given lower priority because there is no incorporation of the client group's needs and/or views. Health care delivery decisions for rural village women are usually decided by middle aged males in Bangkok. Go into any major western city and you will find gay communities integrated with the health care delivery system. That is not the case in Thailand. It is not because of discrimination, because everyone is excluded. However, the organizational structure is such that it enables discriminatory health service delivery decisions.

You are an outsider looking in and are trying to plaster on your delusional hopes. What counts is now things are applied and what the practice is. The Thai human rights regulations prohibit discrimination and yet ads still run every day specifying the physical appearance, age and sex of of prospective candiates, Think about that. Discrimination is part of the social fabric. it is normal in Thailand.

[Jingthing]

Discrimination is part of the social fabric. it is normal in Thailand.

Yes, exactly. This is of course a much wider issue here than discrimination based on sexual orientation, which does of course exist here. To those who say ending discrimination here based on race, religion, age, skin color, etc. is more important than ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, I would ask why? Aren't we all people who when discriminated against suffer in exactly the same ways?

[cdnvic]

One inflammatory comment deleted, one belligerent response deleted as well. As promised, suspensions have been given out.

[sjaak327]

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. There was a public announcement in 2005 that the military would stop labeling openly homosexual conscripts as mental defectives which then barred from servce. Natee Teerarojjanapong had organized a campaign to protest the use of the mental defective label. The 2005 announcement was in respect to the decision to stop using the mental defective label. The most telling statement was this;

"We are not going to allow them into the army because it would cause a lot of disorder, but the move is designed to address the complaints and to boost human rights." Lieutenant General Arthon Lohitakul

The practice is to still ban openly gay and transgendered people from military service.

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,.......

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.

Why would anyone expect the Thai military to adopt a practice that runs contrary to national practice? There is no legal recognition of same sex marriage in Thailand right? There isn't even a a recognition of "civil union" as practiced in the west. Having a marriage ceremony is quite different than being able to legally register the "marriage" down at Amphur office.

Follow the line of logic and it will most likely cause many foreign gays residing in Thailand to go into denial; The current Thai law allows the civil rights of mentally ill persons to be curtailed. The civil code does not permit the marriage of mentally ill people. If the current government practice is to affix the label of mentally ill to some homosexuals and transgenders (as demonstrated by the military medical review board and by the law respecting the "treatment" of transgender sexual reassignment, what does that really reveal about the political mindset of the government? Tolerance should not be confused with an acceptance of legal rights and protections.

Your last sentence deals with the people who seem to believe that Thailand is the most tolerant country in the world when it comes to gays. Until the Thai Governement allows equal rights (like same sex marriage, civil union and others) that statement is pretty damm false.

Look at countries like the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, all three western countries, where there's not only tolerance, but acceptance of legel rights and protections, something that is totally absent in Thailand.

[geriatrickid]

Your last sentence deals with the people who seem to believe that Thailand is the most tolerant country in the world when it comes to gays. Until the Thai Governement allows equal rights (like same sex marriage, civil union and others) that statement is pretty damm false.

Look at countries like the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, all three western countries, where there's not only tolerance, but acceptance of legel rights and protections, something that is totally absent in Thailand.

Bingo. I should have just asked you to write instead of me. You did it in a fraction of the space and words and without confusing people like I did.

I am not beating up on Thailand because, yes it is certainly far easier to live here if one is "different". Different meaning just that, and not intended as an insult to anyone. I'm different as I am sure a great many other foreigners are different too. However, an easier life doesn't necessarily mean equal. No place is perfect.

In Thailand it is just easier find a little bit of happiness if one has the means to be independent both in thought and in lifestyle and has the desire to be happy. At the end of the day, we can't change the social fabric, but we can at least try to be polite and respectful with whom we live.

[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.

[Richb2004v2]

Show the links please, brahmburgers, of the Thai school studies saying 20 percent of Thai boys identify as ladyboys. I don't believe it is anywhere near that high. So prove it, or admit you can't.

A totally random cross section, honest.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Richb2004v2

[SweatiePie]

Alright SweatiePie it seems you have quite the fixation of trying to show that you are right and I am wrong.. Fine. If you wish to make that claim, then you have show that I am wrong. Simply having a hissy fit doesn't do the trick.

We'll start with this gem of genius; "You are obviously still being misled by your poorly researched sensationalist press articles, GK - you are simply wrong on all counts."

You say I am mislead and I am wrong. Ok. Instead of saying I am wrong, back it up. I have stated the obvious and the facts that are in place. What are you trying to say because you are all over the place.?

GK, while what you have stated may be obvious to you that does not make it correct, nor does it make your opinions "facts". It is difficult to "back up" the non-existence of something under any circumstances. How does one go about proving that a law or policy does not exist? If you are so sure there is such a ban then the onus is on you to prove it, which you have failed to do despite my asking you " 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." To that I can add: if you know of any instance where a serving officer or soldier has been dismissed from the military for being gay, again I would like to see it. Without those you have nothing to support what you claim.

I am sorry if I appear "all over the place"; I was trying to respond to your points in the order they were made.

What I am "trying to say" in a nutshell is that I quite agree that Thailand is not a gay paradise, or any other sort of paradise - I don't know of any country that fits that description. Nor is Thailand free from prejudice or discrimination, but the arguments you have chosen to make are simply not valid. Your oft repeated point about gay recruits being rejected as "mental defectives" is relevant today as basing arguments about racial discrimination in the USA on slavery not yet being abolished. They are both history, not current practice.

Although I may appear "all over the place" again, I will try to reply to your points and questions in turn; I have chosen purple to try to distance myself from your harangue.

What are you? Some sort of tour agent trying to sell Thailand as some sort of gay paradise?

No, I have never been in commerce nor have I made any such suggestion.

I did not claim there was a ban on homosexuality per se, rather, there is a defacto practice of removing open homosexuals from serving. ......

Wrong, yet again, in your conclusions and your implications. The policy is one of not conscripting those who are transgender, and the general practice (not always applied, as it is too much of an escape route in a largely conscript military) is one of not conscripting those who are openly gay. This, as I have attempted to point out, is radically different to one of "removing open homosexuals" which you refer to. In the west gays are complaining about not being allowed to serve and being discharged, while here the complaint is about the possibility of being made to serve; hardly the same thing. Being "openly gay" doesn't necessarily mean shouting it from the rooftops or in the media, or wanting someone else to shout it from the rooftops for you.

Please name one openly gay Thai military officer. Just one. You can't can you?

I can't "name one openly gay Thai military officer. Just one", for the simple reason that to do so would not only be unverifiable but it would be contrary to this Forum's regulations and I have no moral right to do so. Does that mean there are none? No. Even in the British Army, where gays are not only allowed but actively recruited (at Gay Pride events, for example ) there are only three openly gay officers on the Regular Army List who can be publicly named, of whom only one holds "command rank". Does that mean there are only three openly gay officers in the British Army? Possibly, but probably not. Does it mean there aren't any at all in the Thai Army and that I don't know of any? No, on both counts.

The quote I provided from the Lt. General made the major newspapers and he was hushed up afterwards. No retraction was ever made. It sums up the mindset of the military command structure.

There was nothing to retract. What you quoted was correct, and what Lt Gen Arthon said was not only correct but rational and reasonable: "We are not going to allow them into the army because it would cause a lot of disorder, but the move is designed to address the complaints and to boost human rights." What possible reason could the Thai Army have for conscripting transgenders (particularly those who had GID or had had full or partial GRS) and allowing them to serve, which was the group he was specifically referring to? Would their being conscripted, against their will, have been likely to "cause a lot of disorder", or would it have been of any benefit to the Thai military? My opinion, for what little it may be worth, would be the former.

There is also such a thing as discriminatory practice that acts as a defacto policy. I'd be surprised if if there were known gays in the Royal Guards or other household regiments. You know what General Prem's views were right? Now please pick up the navy blue book with the insignia on it that you no doubt read as you prepared your case to show that I am wrong. Go read the regulations in respect to maintaining the honour, decorum and dignity of HM armed forces. Do you see the sections that deal with dishonoring or disgracing the branch of service? And what about the regulations applying whether the person is in an unofficial or private capacity? What about the section on maintaining the highest morality? Now go look at the pictograms that show the "commandments". No stealing, no lying or other dishonesty, no indecency or inappropriate physical behaviour, and of the duty of respect and loyalty to the crown?

Strange. Amongst all those regulations", "sections" and "no's'" you haven't mentioned a single one which says "no homosexuals". Why not?

Just how much time have you spent in a Thai officers mess, mister?

Although I can't be positive, I would imagine probably considerably more than you. My father was a relatively senior officer in the Thai Army, as are two of my brothers.

Do you have any idea as to the comments that are made? You are not the base commander that makes the decisions as to how his camp operates, and you are not the NCO that will harass and pick on a conscript because he is deemed to be too effeminate. Human rights laws do not apply in practice once you enter a military facility. Do you understand that? I dare you to go and bing your 'tude up to the XO on duty and see what happens. Go right ahead and tell him that you think its wonderful that there are all sorts of homosexuals serving. You will get a flat out denial. Ask the gay people that served. Were they out to the NCOs and officers? The answer will be no. Why do you think that is?

No, I have never been a "base commander" or an NCO in the Thai Army. Have you? Yes, I do have a reasonable idea of the comments made, at least in my presence. The Thai Army does not have "XO"s; this is strictly an American and a Navy term; we have unit 2i/c's whom I have never had any problem with when talking about gay issues (although I am realistic enough to realise that this would not have been very likely under the circumstances). Were some gays "out to the NCOs and officers"? Some certainly were, but the majority almost certainly weren't - rather like those in most similar professions in most countries.

You have gone off on a tangent in respect to the medical regulations. Yes I have read the medical regulations. It's part of my f*ckn job .

Oh dear. In that case I am surprised that you insist on looking at them in total isolation.

How other nation's deal with the issue is not germane. All that matters here is that the definitions in the Thai regulations treat sex gender reassignment as a mental health issue. You want to go off to fantasy land and reference other countries. Fine. Read the regulation again. There is no reference to gender dysphoria.

Please read rather more carefully (particularly if it is part of your "fuc_k*n job"). Clause 6 very clearly states that the regulations concern "a person with behavior indicating confusion regarding his or her sexual identity". While it is possible you may disagree, that is a textbook definition of exactlygender dysphoria / gender identity disorder (GID) " is. what "

You are referencing other countries, but their guidelines are significantly different and more importantly, they don't make the rules for Thailand.

No, I was "referencing" the World Health Organisation. The only "other countries" I mentioned are the only two in the world whose regulations and whose terminology are "significantly different" to Thailand's regarding GRS. All other countries which regulate GRS use similar legal terminology (referring to GID as a "disorder" or "illness" or "abnormal state of mind") and have broadly similar regulations which is hardly surprising given the position of the WHO, so any "insght" to any "mindset" is into that of the WHO, not the Thai government. Whether Thailand should follow Britain or France's example is a different matter (I happen to think it should), but the worst Thailand can be accused of is being in line with the rest of the world.

Women's health care, particularly cancer screening gets short shrift in Thailand. Part of the reason is attributable to the fact that not enough women are making the health care management decisions........Health care delivery decisions for rural village women are usually decided by middle aged males in Bangkok.

Sorry, I know I said I'd try to follow you "all over the place", but this is a bit too much like a mad woman with an attack of diarrhea even for me.

You are an outsider looking in ......

Really? I thought you were the outsider here, not me!

Edited November 2, 2010 by SweatiePie

[arco27]

Hopefully the day will come when such discussions will no longer be needed, the day when all humans will be equal and treated with respect.

All evil in this world is perpetuated by people who discriminate in one form or an other.

Ethnicity, Nationality, Religion, Sexuality, Gender, mental and physical handicaps etc etc

we are one human family and live on a fragile little planet - if we all work together for the common good this could be a great place

[geriatrickid]

Well, Sweatepie your reply has been enlightening. I can now understand your mindset. No matter what I say, there will be continued disagreement so I won't argue your position further. However, I do note the following;

I referenced the military regulations which you dismissed;

Strange. Amongst all those regulations", "sections" and "no's'" you haven't mentioned a single one which says "no homosexuals". Why not?

mmkay. Anyone that has dealt with codes and regulations will understand my point. There will be some that will not. C'est la vie.

I asked, Just how much time have you spent in a Thai officers mess, mister?

Although I can't be positive, I would imagine probably considerably more than you. My father was a relatively senior officer in the Thai Army, as are two of my brothers.

Well that .certainly explains the sensitivity and defensiveness. I was unaware that family members were allowed into the officers mess in Thailand. Nor was I aware that Thai's outside of an official capacity were allowed entry. I have learnt something new..

I didn't ask if you were a base commander or an NCO. I made a definitive statement that you were not and you have confirmed that. I can also confirm that I have not seved in the Thai military, not that I would want to serve in the Thai army as I believe it is a corrupt organization. (Excluded from that comment is the Navy and Air Force. I have respect for the RTN and RTAF). I give you credit for at least agreeing with me with your last 2 lines.

The Thai Army does not have "XO"s; this is strictly an American and a Navy term; we have unit 2i/c's whom I have never had any problem with when talking about gay issues (although I am realistic enough to realise that this would not have been very likely under the circumstances). Were some gays "out to the NCOs and officers"? Some certainly were, but the majority almost certainly weren't - rather like those in most similar professions in most countries.

When I said base commander I wasn't restricting it to the army. I agree the army doesn't use the term XO, but the navy does, as does the airforce. My fault on that as I only think navy. And just so there is no disagreement here are 2 examples of the use of XO;

1. Gp.Capt.THANOM YAEMMONTHA, Executive Staff Officer , Dir.of Logistics, Royal Thai Air Force

2. From an expertise contact directory; Lt. Kittisak Nilrat received a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Hydrographic Engineering from the Royal Thai Naval Academy in 2003. He has served with the Thai Royal Navy since 2004 and is now the Executive Officer of the H.T.M.S. Suk (Oceanographic Surveying Vessel) in the Surveying Vessel Group of the Hydrographic Vessel Division of the Royal Thai Navy's Hydrographic Department.

Thank you for your attempted diagnosis. Unfortunately, it is another Fail. Please do not give up your day job.

Sorry, I know I said I'd try to follow you "all over the place", but this is a bit too much like a mad woman with an attack of diarrhea even for me.

Really? I thought you were the outsider here, not me!

oooooooooooooooo. That really was my favourite part. It gets the Thai spirit award. My comment in respect to being an outsider was in respect to the delivery of health services. Do you think someone made a comment like yours during the local assessments and that's why the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn't fund the projects as the government had hoped? Or do you think that kind of attitude is why some of the drug manufacturers withdrew from research and development and instead transfered resources to India ? Not that I am arguing I'm not an outsider, because I am one. I have no delusions. However, unless one is part of the bureaucracy making the health care services delivery decions, one is is an outsider, even if Thai.. I think the difference though is that the outsider farangs are the ones being asked to fund certain research projects, so they just might be a teeensie weensie bit closer to the glass wall than you think. Something about making sure the money goes where it is supposed to go and not paying for some bureacrat's house or new car.

Anyway, this really has been a learning experience for me, and I do mean that in all sincerity. I will apply the lessons learnt. Smell ya later.

Edited November 3, 2010 by geriatrickid