Closet Queens

[endure]

Does anyone find it strange that by far the most viewed recent thread in the gay forum is titled 'Is Attraction To Ladyboys A Gay Thing, Or Not?'. Even more strange is that the majority of posters allege that they're 'straight'

[tombkk]

No, I don't find it strange, especially that most posters consider themselves straight (without quotation marks). It just answers the question: It is not a gay thing.

[Ijustwannateach]

^While strictly speaking, that is true- ladyboys aren't a gay thing- this subforum is kind of the umbrella location for all things LGBT/not mainstream-hierarchical-sexual.... though I admit in the past having moved some surplus or regional ladyboy threads into 'straighter' local subforums, where they did just fine in terms of viewership.

I do feel a bit of compassion for the ladyboy community- they are much more publicly vulnerable and though in one sense they have more strongly defined roles available in Thailand, escaping those roles is probably harder for those who wish to do so. And though we laugh at the dilemma of the 'straight', macho enthusiast, there is a certain logic to feeling even more sorry for the poor ladyboy fanciers, who have a very limited community/support system (I don't even know if there is a term for them that is more communally preferred than 'ladyboy fancier'). Although I would suppose they are largely 'straight-identified', it seems unlikely that they would find a greatly sympathetic reception among the straight community, and they are also rejected by the gay community as not being 'gay enough'.

Both groups are tolerated in Thai gay venues but not exactly celebrated; I know of no bar (with the exceptions of certain cabaret setups) specialising in ladyboys either as customers or as staff in the gay world here in Thailand- even in the tourist gay world (there probably IS one out there somewhere; I don't exactly go in search of such a place so I can't claim to be perfectly right in this instance). The closest things to 'ladyboy bars' are usually locations in straight-ish redlight districts.

[tombkk]

Both groups are tolerated in Thai gay venues but not exactly celebrated; I know of no bar (with the exceptions of certain cabaret setups) specialising in ladyboys either as customers or as staff in the gay world here in Thailand- even in the tourist gay world (there probably IS one out there somewhere; I don't exactly go in search of such a place so I can't claim to be perfectly right in this instance). The closest things to 'ladyboy bars' are usually locations in straight-ish redlight districts.

I have often experienced transgender people as personnel in banks, the post office, or other every-day service establishments. I like this level of tolerance in Thailand.

This has nothing to do with the bar scene. The only TV/TS/TG bars I know are in the commercial area of Soi Nana, where self-defined straight guys are the customers. I am not aware of any such place in a gay area.

[LeCharivari]

Oh God, not again ....

I'll inevitably be accused of calling a book a jackrabbit or something like that again, but the problem with all these threads is that to some people "ladyboy" means "TV/TS/TG" while to others it covers the whole spectrum from "fem" gays to guys who have had full SRS (sex re-assignment surgery).

The former (the TV/TS/TG group) seem to be mainly those who want to distance themselves and the "gay community" and "real men" from TVs/TSs/TGs in case they catch something by association.

The latter (the broad spectrum group) are actually 100% correct (just Google ladyboy definition to see that "strictly speaking" ladyboys ARE a "gay thing") but that doesn't seem to matter here. All TGs are ladyboys, but not all ladyboys are TGs. To keep things simple I'll call TGs: TGs.

The idea that the "ladyboy fanciers" are "rejected by the gay community as not being 'gay enough'" may well be true of the relatively small gay community who want to separate themselves from mainstream Thais, but it has little place in the general Thai community where TGs and their "fanciers" are just another part of the general community.

Tom, your experience is pretty well mirrored by my own. TGs are part of every service industry (not just the sex industry) and they can usually be found alongside any female workers doing an identical job anywhere, whether it's in a bank or post office, a hotel or supermarket, driving a taxi or working as a security guard, reading the news or even making the news. I was quite amused a couple of days ago to see a very "Tom" ("khrap") news reporter on Thai TV interviewing a very attractive genuinely female manager of Alcazar. The only place I haven't seen many TGs but where there are plenty of Thai female workers is as construction labourers. The idea that TGs have difficulty "escaping" from limited "roles" is simply wrong.

I, too, "know" of no bar "specialising" in TGs as customers, but I can't see why there would be any need for one - if a TG wants a man for sex (and I don't know any M to F TGs who prefer women, but there probably are some) they can find willing commercial "partners" in any gay bar ("tourist gay" style or "real Thai gay" style). I don't know of any bars where TGs meet either, but I am sure there are some just as I am sure there are some "Tom" bars; just because I don't know of them (and wouldn't be welcome in them) doesn't mean that they don't exist or are so unusual - certainly in the countryside TGs have their own meeting places.

There are, however, plenty of "tourist gay" bars around "specialising" in TGs as staff - such as Pook, Obsessions, La Bamba and Stringfellows in Pattaya .... and no, before someone makes the usual unnecessary comment, I don't know from personal experience but they aren't exactly hard to find - Stringfellows, for example, advertise on the songtaews.

To answer your original question, though, endure, I certainly find it a bit strange. I'm all for integration, etc, but I'd find it a bit strange if someone who wasn't interested in Golf posted in the Golf Forum, who lived in Samui posted on the Pattaya Forum, etc. If I don't like football I can't think of any reason why I'd feel obliged to tell those who do that I don't, on their forum. Bizarre .....

[Ijustwannateach]

^LCV, I'm fairly sure that most of the time in the context of ladyboy threads so far posted here on the subforum the term implies some crossdressing or surgery, though I am aware that some people use the other connotations you raise. I doubt there is any real confusion in the context of the previous posts or threads- do not recall having seen it come up in anyone else's remarks- or that the straight droppers-by which happen to be the topic of this thread are using that 2nd connotation- so I don't think it is particularly topical here, unless we are going to start pointing out all the connotations that all words have that may or may not be actually used which may or may not change the meanings of all the possible conversations that could potentially happen in the thread, which is rather tedious.

Since as a mod my concern is topicality, I will now deem that this thread is only about the straight-identified men, who sometimes post on ladyboy threads in this subforum and others, who are interested in ladyboys of the type who at least are crossdressing or otherwise presenting as female- and there will not be an in depth discussion over what 'presenting as female' actually could mean, how wrong I would be to suggest such a thing, how could we know they are trying to be female or not, the signs aren't really clear'- because I deem that such a discussion would be off-topic and unnecessary.

Otherwise, as I previously stated, I am not an expert on the demographics of ladyboy (as defined above) entertainment venues and I defer to your greater experience in this area; however, my observations of their daily lives and presence on the real gay scene does seem to argue that they are marginalised, notwithstanding the presence of various individuals in various exceptional situations- and I am expressing some sympathy for this, too. Otherwise, I think we should get back to the topic-

which is NOT, in fact, about the ladyboys themselves-

but about their straight-identified foreign fanciers posting on Thaivisa ladyboy threads (see OP).

As you were, gents.

[LeCharivari]

As I said, endure, this "dropping by" of "straight" posters is all a bit too coincidental for me.

I am not one to affix labels or to pigeon-hole as I don't think that the "conventional" labels of gay, straight or bi apply to the majority of people. Most of us are somewhere along the Kinsey scale rather than at one end or the other - I, for example, would prefer to spend the night with an attractive, athletic (boyish?), young and enthusiastic asian female than I would with something farang and male washed up on Dongtan beach (I don't think I need to go into detail). Does that make me bi rather than gay? I don't think so.

I do think, though, that anyone visiting the Gay Forum and being interested enough to post is at least marginally "bi" rather than strictly 100% "straight" (a Kinsey 1 rather than a Kinsey 0), whatever they claim. Its not only the "straight" TG fanciers, as I can't work out why those who claim to be 100% straight, not to be interested in ladyboys and that those who are must be gay, are visiting the Gay Forum.

If I were to post on the Golf Forum it would be a bit disingenuous for me to claim that I only liked a good walk and had no interest in golf.

..... Otherwise, as I previously stated, I am not an expert on the demographics of ladyboy (as defined above) entertainment venues and I defer to your greater experience in this area....

Thanks for the explanation, IJWT - I hope you won't object, though, if I stick to the generally recognised meaning rather than the TV version and refer to TG ladyboys to avoid anyone confusing what I post.

Now that we all know we are talking about TG ladyboys, I must apparently repeat what I also "previously stated" in order that my own "experience" not be over-emphasised: "I don't know from personal experience but they aren't exactly hard to find - Stringfellows, for example, advertise on the songtaews."

[tombkk]

This is getting confusing. Whether a "ladyboy" is an effiminate gay or a TV/TG is certainly philosophically interesting, but I understand this thread as pointing out that many straight-defining males jump into threads about them.

Well. I took straight friends to gay gogo-bars at different occasions and they were surprised to see boyish dancers rather than ladyboys. If you want to see ladyboy dancers, you go to straight areas, and I mentioned Nana.

I did not refer to ladyboy customers at all. Of course, many go to gay places; in fact, I don't know any who go to straight places. But that's anecdotal and is only true within my cirlce of friends. and it is irrelevant whether they define themselves as effiminate guys, TV or TG.

I do know quote a few people who define themselves as straight but have had enjoyable experiences with ladyboys (whichever definition you want to use). I have no reason to classify them as bi.

Maybe these are Western definitions that do not apply here anyway. Kensey and his team did research in the West, and in a time when homosexuality was even more stigmatised than today. Today, and in this part of the world, the terms used is MSM - Men having Sex with Men. That's quite a common behaviour for self-defining straight guys. But then, this forum is dominated by Westeners so maybe the Kinsey scale applies...

I think the scale is simply outdated. And my personal (anecdotal) experience is that those people who fancy TVs/TGs usually define themselves as straight.

To answer the Topic of this thread: No, I do not think they are closet queens. I think they are straight people who fancy a guy in a dress. Or a girl with boobs that has a snake in the nether regions. I don't see a problem with that. At all.

And, by the way, I never saw those advertisings for the bars employing TV/TG staff, and I have taken many a songtaew in Pattaya. It's called selective perception: You see only what you are interested in, as there is too much information (ads) to take in for the brain to process. Hence, it filters the information to make you aware only of what you are interested in.

[LeCharivari]

This is getting confusing......Today, and in this part of the world, the terms used is MSM - Men having Sex with Men.

"confusing" - apparently so.

MSM has nothing to do with gay, bi, straight, or any other term concerning sexual identity, which as IJWT has made very clear is exclusively what this thread is about. MSM concerns sexual behaviour, nothing more. As for it being a term used "in this part of the world", try going into any Thai gay bar ("real" or otherwise) and ask any Thais there if they are MSM and the reaction you get should be a pretty good indicator of just how widely used that "term" is here.

..... by the way, I never saw those advertisings for the bars employing TV/TG staff, and I have taken many a songtaew in Pattaya. It's called selective perception: You see only what you are interested in, as there is too much information (ads) to take in for the brain to process. Hence, it filters the information to make you aware only of what you are interested in.

No, Tom, my noticing the ads and your not doing so has nothing to do with "selective perception".

As you live and work in Bangkok while I do 95% of my shopping in Pattaya's City Limits and have done so for over 18 years there is a pretty good possibility that even if our powers of observation are equal I have had more opportunity to see the few ads there are than you; on the other hand, there is always the possibility that our powers of observation aren't equal at all and that my brain can process more visual information than yours. Either way, it has nothing to do with "interest" or "selective perception".

You are implying that I am more "interested" in TGs than you, just as IJWT said that I had "greater experience" with TGs than him. I don't "reject" TGs as some gays do who are frightened of being associated with them and see them as casting doubt on their gay "manhood", but I have no "interest" and little "experience" of TGs; they are simply not my sexual preference, but each to his own.

Edited September 23, 2011 by LeCharivari

[Ijustwannateach]

Getting back to the subject, I have the feeling that just as there are an apparent high number of gender-bending types who feel free to express themselves in Thailand, the number of straight-identified (foreign or Thai) men who like ladyboys is concurrently higher, and that I would suppose this has to do with a lesser cultural stigma here. I think there still is a stigma, and there are certainly various invisible barriers and ceilings for ladyboys that would not apply to 'straight' men and women- but the stigma is less than in other countries, and imagine that is why more people feel safer to explore those possibilities in relationships when they are interested..

Unfortunately for the sake of forums such as this one, far too many straight male expats in Thailand with little experience of matters gay at all automatically presume (project? ) that gay = ladyboy interest, because it is perhaps all they can imagine in that direction themselves. In past threads related to ladyboys, it had to be repeated firmly and bluntly that foreign interest in ladyboys is really more for the straight-identified. I have known a lot of gay-identified foreigners, and though some of them wound up with crossdressing or postoperative individuals after a period of dating someone who seemed more... male, I am pretty sure from their comments that they did not particularly welcome the change. On the other hand, I have known a number of straight-identified foreigners who were perfectly happy to date or even settle down with ladyboys. There was a poster here some time back who openly stated that his boyfriend was a ladyboy, though it strikes me from what he said about his relationship history that he had gone directly from women to ladyboys, and pretty much had never tried dating gay-identified males (I'm hoping here that my vocabulary is uncontroversial enough to be understood by nearly everyone, and if I succeed except for only one or two, I shall be satisfied).

Regarding 'fear of ladyboys' as an issue in gay men not knowing their bar names:

[tombkk]

This is getting confusing......Today, and in this part of the world, the terms used is MSM - Men having Sex with Men.

"confusing" - apparently so.

MSM has nothing to do with gay, bi, straight, or any other term concerning sexual identity, which as IJWT has made very clear is exclusively what this thread is about. MSM concerns sexual behaviour, nothing more. As for it being a term used "in this part of the world", try going into any Thai gay bar ("real" or otherwise) and ask any Thais there if they are MSM and the reaction you get should be a pretty good indicator of just how widely used that "term" is here.

You are not really into cultural differences, are you. There is no term for "gay" in Thai, did you even know that? People just do what they enjoy, what they feel is right, and they don't need categories to put themselves in. MSM is a term used here by health workers, as the Western-style categories of gay/bi/straight etc simply don't apply over here.

In your nearest "gay bar"what do you think people identify as? My guess is that you are driving at "gay", an English word which they will use even when speaking Thai.

..... by the way, I never saw those advertisings for the bars employing TV/TG staff, and I have taken many a songtaew in Pattaya. It's called selective perception: You see only what you are interested in, as there is too much information (ads) to take in for the brain to process. Hence, it filters the information to make you aware only of what you are interested in.

No, Tom, my noticing the ads and your not doing so has nothing to do with "selective perception".

As you live and work in Bangkok while I do 95% of my shopping in Pattaya's City Limits and have done so for over 18 years there is a pretty good possibility that even if our powers of observation are equal I have had more opportunity to see the few ads there are than you; on the other hand, there is always the possibility that our powers of observation aren't equal at all and that my brain can process more visual information than yours. Either way, it has nothing to do with "interest" or "selective perception".

I think I should stop participating in this conversation with you now. Apparently, my brain cannot process your superior intellect.

[LeCharivari]

.... There is no term for "gay" in Thai, did you even know that? .....In your nearest "gay bar"what do you think people identify as? My guess is that you are driving at "gay", an English word which they will use even when speaking Thai.

Come on, Tom ....just because a word has a foreign origin doesn't mean that it hasn't been adopted/become recognised as a "Thai" word. I'm not talking about Thaiglish or Thinglish but what's called tap sap (ask your Thai b/f if you haven't heard of it) and words like computer and taxi. Saying that Thais have never been "gay" until farangs arrived and introduced the word is a bit like saying that the French never had Saturday and Sunday off until the English introduced Le weekend.

[tombkk]

I never said that Thai people were not gay until farangs arrived, you deliberately misunderstood.

[LeCharivari]

No, Tom, I didn't misunderstand at all.

My point is that just because a current Western term may have no current direct translation in another language other than the Western term does not mean that it has never applied. The French had no word for Le Weekend before they adopted the English word, but they still had and recognised weekends long before they adopted the word. The West has only had "homosexuality" since 1869 and "gay" since the mid20th century, but everyone knew what gays were for hundreds if not thousands of years before that, just as they did in Thailand and the East.

The idea that Thais have always been able to "just do what they enjoy, what they feel is right" without anyone noticing or remarking on it so they never had, needed or used the "gay" word is naive at best - Bangkok Old Hands seem to roll out this urban myth with regularity, citing Peter Jackson's "authoritative research", as if gay Thais have never been stigmatised or sidelined and no-body ever cared or noticed until Westerners and Western hang-ups arrived, and that Thais still don't care or "categorise". Scratch the surface and it's VERY clear that gays have always been noticed, categorised and stigmatised in Thailand just as they have elsewhere.

"There is no term for "gay" in Thai, did you even know that?"

How about nuppoongsaka which was used in Lanna Thai, the Tra Sam Duang legal code and the Tipitaka to refer specifically to homosexuals (one of five non "straight" sexual categories). .... and len sawaat (male homosexuality) banned under the Kod Montien Barn legal code of the Ayutthaya period, just as len peuan (lesbianism) was, both punishable by visible tattooing on the neck?

[endure]

How about nuppoongsaka which was used in Lanna Thai, the Tra Sam Duang legal code and the Tipitaka to refer specifically to homosexuals (one of five non "straight" sexual categories). .... and len sawaat (male homosexuality) banned under the Kod Montien Barn legal code of the Ayutthaya period, just as len peuan (lesbianism) was, both punishable by visible tattooing on the neck?

Who needs gaydar when you've got tattoos?

[Ijustwannateach]

I'm afraid that the topic is not about whether or not Thai colloquial language or antique legal codes have words for 'homosexual'.

I am also pretty much fed up with the practice of putting words in other people's mouths incorrectly, provocatively, and to inflammatory (and trollish) effect.

As of now, posts in this thread and others which attempt to mis-state other's opinions incorrectly, provocatively, and to inflammatory (and trollish) effect will now be taken as against general forum rules, applied to this subforum by me and other mods.

Feel free to REPORT any new posts which violate this rule. Repeat violators will receive the usual warnings which will lead to their eventual banning.

I suggest that posters refrain from attempting to represent other posters unless they are quite sure they being properly representative and inoffensive. I don't really care if the violation is the result of malice, disingenuity, or simple ignorance.

A number of posts will be edited on this thread as an example of the material that will no longer be accepted. Sorry for this interruption of the thread, but the baiting, trolling, and thread-hijacking has continued for too long.