Talk:LGBT rights in Thailand

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JTorre23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Pattaya
I read the following post on the Pattaya talk page. "Another attempt has been made to include prurient references to this article. Unlike Amsterdam, every form of prostitution in Thailand is illegal, and punishable by law. The function of an encyclopodia is to provide intellectual and lawful information, not to serve as a scandal sheet where people can learn where to find prostitutes, homosexuals and other illegal activities. People can find every type of perversion listed on Google--it is not proper to list it on Wikipeia. If one feels it necessary to inform others of such activities, then please start another article about prostitution, homosexuality, pickpockets, murder, rape, corruption, and sexual perversion in Thailand, where you can list places and venues where they can be found. But please do not continue to besmirch the Pattaya article. " I didn't know that homosexuality was an illegal activity. 125.27.9.208 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality is NOT illegal in ANY part of Thailand. However, public displays of sexuality, of ANY kind, are illegal. But these statues draw no distinction between homo, hetero or any other sexual behaviour--it is the act of public indecency that is deemed a transgression. Thailand is a predominantly Buddhist country--a religion predicated upon tolerance. Hence why the country is synonymous for transsexuals or "ladyboys". That is, transgender people are accepted by the greater society. That's not to say discrimination does not exist, for it does. But most of it is of the 'passive' variety (e.g., preference given to non TG people in employment, intra-family discord). But to say homosexuality is "illegal" in Thailand, much less Pattaya, is erroneous in the extreme. It's not Saudi Arabia! Sablicious (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

An outdated sentence
"This topic will be addressed in a seminar on June 28 at Thammasat University" Did this event occur? And would that seminar notable? IMHO, it makes no sense for an encyclopedic article.--Adûnâi (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003003538/http://www.globalgayz.com/country/Thailand/view/THA/gay-rights-in-thailand-2007 to http://www.globalgayz.com/country/Thailand/view/THA/gay-rights-in-thailand-2007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LGBT rights in Thailand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090830064722/http://www.petertatchell.net/international/thailand.htm to http://www.petertatchell.net/international/thailand.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Adjusting phrasing in Gender identity section
Good morning. I'd like to suggest a tweak to a sentence in the Gender identity and expression section. It currently reads "Transgender people are quite common in Thai popular entertainment, television shows and nightclub performances..." Which is not offensive, but can be a bit objectifying, as it positions trans people as something to be seen and their transness as a defining characteristic. I say this as a trans person myself.

I suggest that this language be changed to "Transgender people are notably visible in Thai society and frequently work in popular entertainment, television shows and nightclub performances..." This language is a bit more empowering, especially because it uses an active verb. It also expands on the sentiment I assume to be implied here, which is that trans people are quite visible in Thailand, particularly in comparison to many other countries, especially in Asia.

I had made this edit, but it was reversed and I was encouraged to raise the point in the discussion. I look forward to hearing others' opinions.-SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think the intention was necessarily objectifying, but either way I prefer your proposed wording. Not only is it more empowering, as you mention, but it also just feels more encyclopædic to me. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Owen. I also invite @Mathglot to share their opinion, as they seemed to diagree with my suggestion. -SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can make a case for "more encyclopedic", that could work. I don't see it as so, and I think "common" is fine (and encyclopedic), but if consensus here supports your wording, I won't object. (But you don't have it quite yet.) On the other hand, I'll strongly oppose "empowering" as a reason to support your wording, as there is no policy or guideline that supports that as a reason for changing wording, and there are pages that oppose it (such as WP:RGW and even WP:ADVOCACY). And thanks for the ping, which definitely puts you in a good light as far as respecting consensus. Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in. What would it take to reach consensus? And do you have suggestions for how to bring more attention to this discussion and invite more editors to respond?
 * And thank you for linking to those pages. While I wrote "empowering" as a reason initially, a more accurate word to describe what I mean would be "humanizing". Throughout history, trans people have been frequently dehumanized and viewed as something "other", something to gawk at. Using active, humanizing language is a matter of acknowledging the fact that trans people are active, human participants in society, and I believe it falls under what WP:RGW mentions as writing about things already reported by other reputable sources. Further, I don't think this particular suggested language tweak counts as advocacy. Was the intention of the original language to be objectifying and dehumanizing? No, I don't think so. Can the language stay as is and be okay? Sure, I think so. But I also think that the change is easy enough and on net, provides for more humanizing and respectful treatment of a community of humans which is a good thing. I.e. if we can make it better, why not? Just wanted to further explain my point. -SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Believe me when I say both that I understand you, and I'd march beside you in a place that was about advocating for trans rights. This is not that place. To be blunt about it: we don't attempt to be especially empowering, or humanizing, or respectful here towards a particular group more than any other (nor the opposite, either). What we attempt to do here, is to maintain a completely neutral point of view as best we can, and summarize the majority point of view of reliable, independent, secondary sources about a topic, along with the most important minority views (if any), using an encyclopedic tone appropriate to an article in an encyclopedia. That's it. More humanizing and respectful is great in all sorts of areas, and in life, but this is an encyclopedia, and we report what's actually out there, the good, the bad, and the ugly. That doesn't mean you can't write respectfully about a topic as long as you are summarizing the sources that are available, simply that you mustn't let your personal feelings about a topic or your wish for things to be better than they are to affect how you write about the topic. Just do your best, and don't worry too much about it; if what you write has a non-encyclopedic tone or appears non-neutral, probably another editor will say something about it, and then you can hash it out on the Talk page. As far as gaining more participants, see WP:APPNOTE for ideas. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Coming back to your original question: I think if you have a source that directly supports the assertion "more visible in Thailand" and you cite it, then I would have no objection to that language. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, my two-penneth, for what it's worth: I prefer "frequently work in..." over "are common in..." because it seems more... precise? and therefore more encyclopedic in tone and sourceable. I have a slight concern with "...are notably visible in Thai society." - 'Notable' is a bit of a red flag for me on Wikipedia (notable to who?). If we mean to say that transgender people are relatively visible in Thai society (compared to other countries) we can say that instead, but it would need a specific source for sure. Jdcooper (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)