Ladyboys among the thousands reporting for military draft in Thailand


“Different cultures, different customs”


Lessons learned the hard way on the mean streets of Trenton.:wink:


Meaner than Staten Island I’m sure.


yyy: perhaps Japan was a bad example, because my point was that their concept of ‘honor’ was incompatible with ours, and we (the Allies) hated them for it. Notice it was the Japanese who got nuked, not the Germans: we considered them subhuman. But yes, oddly enough, I’d say it was their (flawed) concept of honor that allowed them to recover from the war, unlike (say) the Philippines.

Rocket: You’re just evading the issue. In an ideal world (cue yyy posting unicorns and rainbows) we would find ways not to wage war. However, since wars do happen, it would be as well to at least have some completely illogical denunciations - about, say, nuking civilians - as a last line of defence against annihilation or centuries-long carnage.

For example, if you assert - for no logical reason that you will grasp - that women should not be on the front line, then you’ve potentially reduced armed-forces casualties by 50%. I’d say that’s a useful outcome.

But I do get that this is all very British. Talk to an British army officer about rules of engagement and he’ll probably tell you that they are actually based on old-fashioned concepts of honor. American rules are too; it’s just that Americans don’t like to admit it in case they’re accused of old-fashionedness.


Ahhh, yeah, there’s an awful lot of bizarre conclusion-jumping going on there, but I’m busy enough making my original point.

You’re so WEIRD!!!
You’re still talking like there are acceptable ways to blow the shit out of someone’s kids who never did nothing to nobody.
You’re propping up this bullshit phoney-assed “morality” in which you go "OK, here’s the deal, we’re only only going to take your MAN kids and ship them to the other side of the planet where they’ll get blown to smithereens so we can (fill in horseshit economic benefit of your choice). But don’t worry, it’s cool, we’re only going to slaughter the BOYS, you get to keep the GIRLS.

Nice Duterte Math there, man.


Rocket: put this another way: you’re a civilian in an occupied country. You are completely powerless and unarmed. Would you prefer that the occupying power conducts war according to some (in your head) illogical code which holds that shooting unarmed civilians is ‘dishonorable’, or one which prefers to torture all civilians to death, on the basis that it’s fun?

As for blowing the shit out of somebody’s innocent kid, my whole point was that military codes of honor are designed to minimize such things; without them, kids are fair game. Is this really so hard to understand? Of course it doesn’t always work. A military commander’s job is to achieve a strategic objective with the minimum amount of killing, not least because killing people costs money.

The morality of war - the decisions involved in actually going to war - are a whole different issue. I’m talking only of what happens when war isn’t a theoretical possibility but actually happening.


But, but…that’s not even true!
War by its very definition consists of dominating the enemy by killing more of them than they do of you, or at least more of them than they are prepared to lose.
In any real-world conflict, nobody above a non-com’s pay grade gives a monkey’s about conserving the lives of troops on the ground.
And I can think of about 50 ways that killing people costs LESS than saving lives.

“Military codes of honour” are simply trumped-up propaganda deployed by TPTB to convince gullible middle and lower management that it’s OK to perform stupid and inhuman acts endangering their lives and the lives of others, taking risks and ignoring all reasonable measures of self-preservation, all in the service of some phony ideal.

As I pretty much stated in my very first post here, Finno, I don’t see any difference between these levels of honour you’re referencing.
They’re all equally reprehensible.

Why do men get bashed for no reason these days?

I thought you were raised by feral cats in the Pine Barrens???:confused:


Finleyan logic again:

  1. Soldiers are bound by animal instinct, ergo men do not shoot women.
  2. Civilian populations include many women and children. (If the men are out at the other battlefields, women and children are overrepresented in the villages.)
  3. The animal instinct that applies to men regarding women does not apply to women regarding women, ergo female civilians are safer when the invading soldiers are men.
  4. The animal instinct that applies to men regarding women also applies to women regarding children, ergo child civilians are safer when the invading soldiers are women.
  5. Conclusion: women are more important than children, ergo only men should be soldiers. :confused:

Your original point was that ladyboy soldiers would test the honor of men on the other side, but how realistic is that? Are they supposed to go into battle in full ladyboy regalia, with makeup, long hair, high heels and low cleavage? :dancer:

Even if they’ve all had surgery to obtain more feminine faces, when you see them in the distance, with military haircuts and uniforms and camouflage makeup, you’re going to sit there wondering is that a dude, a chick with a Richard, a chick who formerly had a Richard, a chick who never had one, a dude who either lacks a Richard or has an artificial one, or some other category I haven’t thought of, and which ones can I honorably kill?

No wonder you’re worried about losing the war.


In other words, shoot first, ask questions later. :grin:


I’ve been to Thailand and trained, fought, and talked to Thai fighters. One fact they are really proud of Is that no one ever successfully invaded the kingdom of Thailand as they put it. These are guys that look skinny and you probably think would not put up much of a fight but they are some of the toughest people mentally and physically I’ve ever seen. Most of them have fought since they were kids and I know guys with 500 or more fights under their belts. Fighting culture is live and well in Thailand. Muay Thai is their national sport and it’s everywhere. Every nights there is a fight to see. This is a country that would be scary to invade with this mentality amongst men there.

As for the lady boys, I wasn’t so clear but it’s almost like it’s part of their culture. They seem almost proud of it and embrace it in a way I don’t understand. Transsexuals do seem better intergrated into Thai society compared to other places. They just are transsexual and although it’s joked about, there isn’t any malicious hate or prejudice against them. They just accept that they are transsexual and that’s just life. Also it’s also offensive to call them ladyboys there. They say kathoey. They joke about it but it’s not taboo at the same time. Me and other Thai fighters would joke if we took home a lady last night after a wild night of drinking and fighting or seeing a fight. It’s interesting as being gay is seen as taboo still amongst the men, but being a lady boy is not in a way. To be honest, I don’t think there are more transsexuals in Thailand. I only ever seen them as prositutes really. The sex trade is big in Thailand and in pretty bad shape as there are really young sex workers there and many western men come for that and other sex workers. It just seemed like there is a lot of sex workers and and it’s pretty out in the open and ladyboys make a percentage of the sex workers. And since there is some taboo on lady boys for westerners, they think of that since the sex trade is so big and out in the open that’s just what catches their attention more vs how many prositutes there actually are there.


This is always something that interested me. I am familiar with the DSM-4 but now everything’s changed in the DSM-5. Is it that they have done a better job understanding mental disorders or did they change with the pressure of society to rewrite what is diagonistically a mental disorder. Being when I talk about transsexualism I used the DSM-4. But now I’m getting hammered saying I’m wrong with people using the DSM-5.


A lot of them have had surgery, hormones, the works, and they could pass for women even without the makeup. But yeah, point taken.

I’m not sure I follow the rest of your points, but this is an interesting one. It’s possible that female soldiers could be a civilising or restraining influence on the men. Does it happen in practice? Dunno. Are there any historical examples?

[quote]I don’t see any difference between these levels of honour you’re referencing.
They’re all equally reprehensible.[/quote]
You completely evaded the question. There are grades of reprehensibility which become extremely important when it’s happening to you.

Sorry, but I still maintain that some things just ain’t British, so there.


There are examples outside the military sphere. You wouldn’t expect the “laddish” (as you would say) behavior of your hero Travis to result in a complaint from a fellow bro, but admit a woman to the crew, and you get this.

(Presumably, the incident was before that country issued a warrant for his arrest due to Uber being an illegal get rich quick scheme.)

I can’t speak for Rocket, but your talk of honor and evasiveness makes me wonder what happened to Comrade Finley of the Labor Reform thread.

Just because a bunch of public-school desk jockeys wrote a high-falutin’ document and used the word “rights” a lot doesn’t change anything.

There’s nothing more dangerous than a lawyer who believes he can fix What’s Wrong With The World by writing the correct words, because the fact is you can change the world by writing words. Just not necessarily in the way you intended.

This has nothing to do with being smart or stupid. People know what’s valuable to them, personally, and what person X thinks is good for him might not accord with your view of what’s good for him. Lots of people want things that will destroy them. The eternal struggle for society is to decide what we should force people to do, and what we should try to convince them to do.

It might surprise you to learn that, compared to you (or me), poor people have very different views on self-actualisation. Their life goals are not your goals. That’s why they’re poor, and it’s why I said they “want to be poor”.

Replace “rights” with “honor”.
Replace “lawyer” with “businessman”.
Replace “good for him” with “honorable”.
Replace “poor” with “affected by war”.

Does it still work, in Finleyan logic? :ponder:


One last reply, to wit

[quote=“finley, post:53, topic:159475, full:true”]

[quote]I don’t see any difference between these levels of honour you’re referencing.
They’re all equally reprehensible.[/quote]
You completely evaded the question. There are grades of reprehensibility which become extremely important when it’s happening to you.[/quote]

Uhhhh, no, there aren’t, that’s exactly my point, I didn’t evade Jack Shit.
The difference between a quick and painless zotzing and a long drawn out ebbing away of one’s mortal existence is completely academic, in the big picture, which is what we’re addressing here.

Listen, Finner me lad (or El Finnerino, if you aren’t into the whole brevity thing), I believe that you truly believe all of these things. This, combined with my innate fondness for you in general, is why I’m going to debate neither your goofy-assed suppositions nor bizarre Victorian-era misogyny any further.


More of a general post:

Dunno, is it more honorable to send very young men?

[quote]“You were just babies in the war–like the ones upstairs!”

I nodded that this was true. We had been foolish virgins in the war, right at the end of childhood.[/quote]

–Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five, writing about his friend’s wife’s influence on the book

I don’t think anybody should go, it’s horrible stuff, but I don’t feel qualified to say who should and who shouldn’t do the fighting.

–George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia, writing about his experiences in the Spanish Civil War


I hate to open old wounds, but I just came across a photograph that reminded me of this thread.

Is this kosher?

A Thai marine in sniper camouflage yesterday takes part in an annual live-fire exercise at a military base in Chanthaburi Province, Thailand.
May 10, 2017
Photo: Reuters


With camouflage like that, this soldier will definitely blend in with all the drag queens in Thailand’s urban wilds. :slight_smile:


I think he’s trying to look like a farang. Maybe they’re practicing to defend Phuket