Talk:LGBTQ rights in Taiwan

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)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

---

LGBT rights in the Republic of China → LGBT rights in Taiwan - This article only deals with information post 1949 and it is not an official government title so therefore it should fit in with other articles and use Taiwan not Republic of China.C. 22468 Talk to me 22:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 01:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Yup. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the country article's name and WP:COMMONNAME. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - agree with above Amn12 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indigenous lesbian couple 'adopts' daughter in tribal ceremony

http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201501040018.aspx 217.247.109.63 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be moved. Note: Move requires admin assistance, which I will request at WP:RMT. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

---

LGBT rights in Taiwan (ROC) → LGBT rights in Taiwan – Per common name of the state and that the current title is unusual and unworkable Tærkast (Discuss) 17:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support, per previous RM, and Taiwan is located there, not at Taiwan (ROC). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support per User:Tbhotch. —  AjaxSmack  02:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk wasn't moved

This page should be moved to reflect the article's move. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Constitutional court ruling

Someone needs to edit this page to reflect 24 May 2017's court ruling in favour of same-sex marriage. (I'm new to Wikipedia and don't want to mess anything up by trying to do it myself.) LivaG (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)LivaG

Taiwan's LGBT rights are regarded as the most progressive in Asia

As far as I know, Israel’s civil union protection for same-sex couples is better than that of Taiwan. They can Joint adoption, IVF, and even donate blood. Israel recognizes same-sex marriage abroad. Taiwan’s protection for transgender is not even as good as Israel and Pakistan.--S59112024 (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

"Though Taiwan is widely regarded as the most progressive place in Asia for gay rights". This source does not mention transgender people. It only said Taiwan is widely regarded as the most progressive place in Asia for gay rights.--S59112024 (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think not only trans rights needs reliable secondary sources, but also gay rights. Does taiwan can change legal gender without surgery like Israel? Does taiwan can Joint adoption like Israel? Does taiwan can use IVF service like Israel? Does taiwan can donate blood like Israel without following five years of abstinence from sex? Does taiwan recognize same-sex marriage abroad like Israel?--S59112024 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Although taiwan have a civil-like marriage, but lack of marriage rights compare of Israel.--S59112024 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

References

First sentence

@Kwamikagami: Take a look at the manual of style before continuing to make reversions. For example, in MOS:FIRST: When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations... Removing it altogether doesn't make sense here. The piped link comes from "in Asia", not simply "Asia", and is relevant to the sentence since readers might be interested in the comparison being made, but you're right there's some ambiguity. I'm open to other ways of wording or organizing the lead if you have other ideas but I think the title and link should stay at least. Soapwort (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason to repeat a descriptive title in the lead. When doing so results in bad prose, there's reason not to repeat it. That just make the article sound stupid, which isn't something we should be striving for. And it doesn't matter if the preposition is included -- there's no reason for a reader to think that either "Asia" or "in Asia" would be an article on LGBT rights. My version read naturally and had a natural link to that article. I'm sure you can come up with other wording that would be just as good, but you shouldn't be making an article intentionally worse.

That's my 2 cents, anyway, but there's enough bad writing on WP that I'm not going to worry about it in this case. I was just here to remove the apparently spurious claim that Taiwan has joint adoption. If we can find refs that it actually does (and not just an isolated court case or two) then great, we can update all our articles and maps to match. — kwami (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Adoption, conflicting status and possibly outdated information?

Apologies if I am missing an obvious reference guide or similar, but I have searched for one before posting this. I am unsure of how to reffer to the sources and citations used, for ease of understanding I have decided to refer to the citation number as of the 25th of May 2023 at 9 am Greenwich time, clarification and direct links to these sources will be provided if asked.

As of posting this the article clearly states that married LGBTQ couples now have the right to jointly adopt children since 2023 in the first paragraph with clarification that they have full adoption rights/ the child does not need to be related to either parent much later on. Yet in some places it states that a same-sex partner can only adopt their partners biological child. As the more recent sources clearly specify that the bill has already been passed with the implication that it is effective immediately, why is the article still maintaining that stepchild adoptions are the only available form of adoption for married same-sex couples?

It would be prudent to not use citation [53], [54], [55], [60], and [63] as the sources for adoption rights in 2023. Instead, they are now relevant in regards to adoption when same-sex marriage was first legalised and leading up to and part of May 2023. Citations [1], [66], [67], and [119] seem more useful for the situation during and after May 2023.

Similarly, the use of citation [63] to state that no legalisation to codify the court ruling seems outdated, as citations [66] and [67] are used in the next paragraph to support the statement that legalisation in support of said ruling has been passed, with the implication that it became effective immediately. Unless there is a difference larger than minor semantics between passing and codifying a legalisation these two statements seem to contradict each other.

As such I propose a larger overhaul of the [Adoption and family planning] subcategory to update it in regards to what is the status of adoption rights in 2023 and what it was before that using more precise language. Similar edits seem to be needed in other places too. Furthermore, a complete rewrite of everything adoption-related in the [Adoption and family planning] subcategory that increases the coherency without losing any information anlog the way would be personally appreciated. Citations [1], [66], [67], and [119] seem to be the most suited for the current status while citations [53], [54], [55], [60], and [63] seem to be better suited for the historical background. Some of the more recent citations refer to the same source without any jumps and just linking to it without retrieval date, that should also be undertaken.

I am willing to do all of this myself, but as these would be major edits I want at the minimum some feedback beforehand in this plan so that I don't do a mistake or preferably someone more experienced in editing takes on some of the more tricky parts. 176.10.220.162 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

History of treatment of same-sex relations

Can someone add information to the "Legality of same-sex sexual activity" section about the history of the current legal status? I gather from a novel I'm reading that it was illegal at least as recently as the late 1970s. Largoplazo (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

From what I had read about zh-wiki and related cited source, it seemed ROC/Taiwan didn't have "anti-'sodomy'" law per se, in the first place, at its beginning, but relied on general "public order" law as part of Temporary Provisions against the Communist Rebellion, in response to post-(?1st?)civil war (?becuase of possible future invasion?). Both were repealed in the 90s during democratization away from fascism. However, I'm not Taiwanese though, just only read these above. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The scenario in the novel is a teenage student in a rural town who frequents a bookstore co-owned by a pair of men. At one point a character sees them hand in hand behind the counter before they realize a customer has entered. Then we see the police come take them away, one policement yelling "Pervert" at one of them. Maybe it was a matter of a "general public order" law being used as a pretext to oppress the couple. Largoplazo (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes the excuse/reason was "general public order" and not "sodomy"...as most far-right authoritarian regimes they were also too conservative...but since there's no "sodomy" laws...(and not sure it has to do with Taiwan/ROC-US relations for not enacting "sodomy" law)...they would use "public order" as an excuse/reason to harass or detain them (so far haven't seen sources about formally charge with any crime)...and that continued even after democratization ([notably 1997])...where Taipei police, which was controlled by a chief whose political party was different from the elected mayor (en-wiki didn't mentioned however is mentioned in zh-wiki with sources), police continue to harass them and police even "vowed" to ""continue to (catch &) interrogate until no one gather anymore) "持續臨檢到沒有人來為止"" (pg 14)...even though there were protests as a result, so far I hadn't seemed any source mentioning about suing the police for (according to the community) illegal detention.

though I'm not Taiwanese so maybe I let other Taiwanese who knew the situation on the ground at that 70's time to say (Taiwan/ROC are at least better than other countries that do/did have "anti-'sodomy'" laws on its books :( --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Around 1980 nearly half the states in the US still outlawed homosexual relations (and a dozen still have such laws though they were voided by a US Supreme Court ruling in 2003). People who engaged in same-sex relations couldn't legally join the military services. Until the late 1970s gays and lesbians were banned from employment by the US federal government and, until the 1990s, were barred from national security positions. So it seems unlikely that the ROC was concerned about offending the US in this regard. Largoplazo (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh...I see....unfortunately all of former British colonies (with few enlightened and repealed that law - now most of them) still have "anti-'sodomy'" law in their books dictated/imposed by British. LGBT rights in the United Kingdom#Homosexuality as an offence...therefore [exporting] anti-homosexuality laws throughout the British Empire....just saying --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I found that Sodomy law Taiwan section only merely mentioned about unconsented sexual assaults...so I made changes to include history of no "sodomy" law existed and general public order laws during Martial law in Taiwan --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan rejects gay marriage and rejects the gay agenda

The majority of Taiwanese people reject the gay agenda in favor of promoting traditional ancient Chinese family values based on the ancient Chinese culture of Confucius. And because of this Confucian culture of politeness, the Taiwanese people are, in general, polite to everyone including the fringe minority of gays living in Taiwan. But this culture of politeness should not be seen as “gay friendly” since the majority of Taiwanese voters have repeatedly voted against any gay marriage and any gay agenda.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46329877

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/11/25/taiwan-gay-marriage-orig-acl.cnn

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B0C5:E456:D8E6:CD5A:4793:668A (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I see the articles, I have skimmed them, please, refrain from making changes until consensus can be reached. (please also sign your comments using 4 ~)

Cheers! Geardona (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, anonymous IP keep on changing and changing over and over again until getting blocked.

Speaking of politeness, there are always the good, the bad and the ugly in every communities, like the above anonymous IP and another one who ask how to do <ref> after accusing me of being "cyber army", even though I'm just an ordinary 50s programmer boy/sometimes girl.

Actually such politeness comes from culture, not Confucianism religion, as there are other religions ethnic Chinese are members of too, which is not what the above anonymous IP said.

There's also Taoism not just Confucianism, which is also not as what above blocked IP said

Taoism...Which brings to Rabbit God too.

About 2018 Taiwanese referendum, the opposition are mostly led by more conservative Christians (zh:2018年中華民國全國性公民投票#同性婚姻與性別平等教育相關公投提案) (Taiwanese Presbyterian Church is one of the two largest christian groups, which like other Presbyterian Church support same-sex marriage, the other well, Catholic Church), and counting the actual yes vote in a vote turn out of only 55%, in a yes 61% vote, the actual yes vote is only around ~~ 25%-30%. Most are rather not care about other private intimate life, be it hetrosexual infidelity (as spotlighted in unintended virus transmission and afraid of disclosure during contact tracing in capital city Taipei during 2020 outbreak from Mainland China under communist prc regime) or LGBT (there is a same concept here similar to english expression of Mind your own business)

Recently in May 2023, there is support for same-sex marriage, quoting even from an opposition camp media (which the opposition camp are not really enthusiastically keen on LGBT equality, and whose 1st 2 presidents under emergency powers were, at least in membership, Christians. (Lee Teng-hui, as Presbyterian mentioned way above in 2018 referendum, lead transition from fascism to democracy) --- emergency powers after lost of Mainland China to communists (which like soviet union are also not accommodating to LGBT, especially recent times right now) --- from United Daily News 同婚合法4周年前夕 行政院公布民調：同婚支持度逾6成 May 2023 article - 4 years after legalization of same-sex marriage Executive Yuan exit poll found support for Same-sex marriage more than 60%

--- Cat12zu3 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article is "LGBT rights in Taiwan", not "What Taiwanese think of LGBT people". Stop trying to turn it into the latter. Largoplazo (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, that IP was blocked, and some of the statements and also links about 2018 referendum are misleading, including the "yes" (for Marriage restriction) campaign, (which as far as I'm aware of in Taiwanese media coverage both in spoken Standard Chinese (Mandarin) and spoken Taiwanese Hokkien in written Traditional Chinese at that time 2018 of the referendum (3 out of 10 referendum questions), the "yes" campaign was led by mostly conservative Christian groups. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Weird wording

What does "LGBT people in Taiwan are regarded as the most comprehensive" mean? Comprehensive people? That's ridiculous. I'd say you guys overdid it. Again. Cyanmax (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be ridiculous if that's what it said. What it does say is that their rights are the most comprehensive. Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Re Cyanmax massive revert

@Cyanmax: I don't understand why you had revert so many since today. Since you came to this page early this year, you had some wrong info from ILGA, in particular the year of criminalization, which is 1912. ILGA had rely mostly on english source for early historical history, which ILGA could erred on this. I'm find it puzzling that you claimed Academica Sinica from ROC Taiwan itself is not reliable. Do you know Chinese language? Any source to back up "1907" against reputable source, albeit Chinese language however still allowed per WP:NOENG about decriminzation in Greater China in 1912? I'm actually took the WP:RS source from zh:台灣LGBT歷史#中華民國政府統治（解嚴以前） which are still there now. I'm actually a chinese speaker too. (I don't like to say it out language/ethnic/race, ashamed and not proud, for some reasons, such as myself hospitalized for Wuhan pneumonia in bad shape, I ashamed to name myself actual ethnic/racial group, and would rather called myself Asian (just like some other Asians post-2020 & Europeans post-2022) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The rest of the statement with citing ILGA are ok. It's just the "1907" whereas its actually 1912 with 1912 provisional criminal code, along with 1935 (permanent) criminal code. I also find it puzzling you claim I'm disruptive. I had provide reason in summary edit, and did not disrupt, say for example, remove the other 4 statement citing ILGA (which are correct), and certainly I'm too old to have much energy to fool around in vandalism (probably you are half the age as mine). Also the WP:NOENG Academica Sinica source is way back last year Special:Diff/1188336597, before you came, and I had given the translation myself as a native chinese speaker (again I'm ashamed to be chinese and rather called myself asian). I started to fill in this gap in responding to @Largoplazo: Largoplazo's highlighting the absence of information in this article about sodomy history from the early days #History of treatment of same-sex relations --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have gave translation about Academica Sinica ROC Taiwan & Renmin University PRC mainland China per WP:NOENG. Academica Sinica research academy in Taiwan with Taiwan's Academic freedom seemed more likely WP:RS reliable enough.

I saw User:Rolando 1208 revert, User:Rolando 1208 has 612 edits, and apparently not seen WP:NOENG.

I will just stated in the edit summary for posterity and let it go and give up now. I'm too old at 53 with right eye blind and 2 health issues (I awared there is Bilndness wiki community) and not much energy for this. I gave up. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Catzu and @Largoplazo I'm aware of WP:NOENG. Though English sources are not required, they're still preferred if available. It's certainly gonna make settling this dispute easier as all of us will be able to verify the sources. As long as they're available, that is. Another thing, my edit count has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I fail to see the relevance, Catzu. Rolando 1208 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Rolando 1208 - but with your summary edit in Special:Diff/1232187774 Chinese speaker or not, that's not relevant. Could you provide English sources so we can all understand them? xiexie. certainly show you don't know about WP:NOENG, you had not been fully aware of it...

(you had not been fully aware of it - actually I wouldn't use the word inexperience becuase it's not in my character)...

also is this My pronouns are he/him necessary Special:Diff/1232212508?...
I only mentioned I saw User:Rolando 1208 revert, Rolando 1208 has only 612 edits, and apparently not seen WP:NOENG.
Your past edits doesn't appeared to be involved in any LGBT topics Special:Contributions/Rolando 1208. Just to let you know there's WP:HARASS.

With some egos (and possibly trolls) to tend, rather than to build an encyclopedia...I might just quit. Anyway, I gave up. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright then, I won't revert you.

And yes, it is necessary. You don't have to repeat my name unnecessarily when you can use my preferred pronouns which are he/him. As for quitting, just take a break pengyou, and come here when you feel better. Zaijian. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You say you're aware of it but when you delete sourced content because you can't read the sources, you appear not to understand it. If one user's inability to validate the text from a cited source justified the conclusion that they can treat the source as invalid and remove the text, the provision expressly allowing non-English sources to be cited would be meaningless. Your reaction to not being able to read a source has to be to let it stand and leave it to others who can read it, or at least who have the initiative to use an online translator, to assess its validity. Largoplazo (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Machine translation is far from ideal, but alright I won't insist further. You've made a good point. Rolando 1208 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)