125
China: Research Office for the Supreme People's Court makes statement on the application of the law to Gender Identity, Expression and Sexuality (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Awoo@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As a result of an individual petition, the Supreme Court in China has issued a statement clarifying the application of laws protecting minorities in China and their validity in cases of discriminatory speech on issues of sexuality, gender identity and gender expression. This statement includes guidelines on judgements and a clear explanation of how the law applies.

To implement the provisions of laws such as the Constitution, the Civil Code, and the Employment Promotion Law, and to effectively safeguard citizens' personal dignity against infringement, the Supreme People's Court hereby clarifies the following adjudication rules:

First, regarding cases involving the public insult or defamation of an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, people's courts generally deem such acts to constitute an infringement of general personality rights; they order the cessation of the infringement, a formal apology, and compensation for emotional distress, thereby explicitly establishing the illegality of discriminatory speech and conduct based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

Second, in the contexts of recruitment, hiring, job reassignment, or dismissal, should an employer engage in differential treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, people's courts shall, in accordance with the law, determine that the employer has committed employment discrimination; they shall order the revocation of the relevant decisions, compensation for losses, and other remedies, thereby explicitly prohibiting unreasonable discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression within the sphere of employment.

Third, should a school impose inappropriate disciplinary measures against students—or fail to fulfill its administrative duties, thereby leading to campus bullying—on the grounds of the students' sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, people's courts shall, in accordance with the law, hold the school liable, thereby reinforcing schools' obligation to protect students' personal liberty and dignity. These cases collectively demonstrate the people's courts' unequivocal stance: that the legitimate rights and interests of sexual minorities are entitled to equal protection under the law, and that any unreasonable discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression is strictly prohibited by law.

...

Moving forward, we will continue to systematically review cases nationwide involving the protection of sexual minorities' rights and interests, summarize adjudication rules, and standardize adjudication criteria. At appropriate junctures, we will formalize established adjudication rules through various mechanisms—such as judicial interpretations, conference minutes, guiding cases, reference cases, and exemplary cases—to enhance the provision of legal norms. Furthermore, we will incorporate topics such as the protection of personality rights into judicial training programs, thereby ensuring the protection of citizens' personal liberty and dignity in accordance with the law.” — Reply to the "Proposal on the Application of Law to Explicitly Prohibit Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Judicial Adjudication"

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/U1VX7omSTbnMjpoBTHIt-A

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The link now says

This page cannot be found.

In response to the relevant complaint, this account is suspected of violating the "Internet user public account information service management regulations", viewDetails

The title of the linked page translates to "Internet users public account information service management provisions_Central Network Security and Information Committee Office" and is basically an acceptable use agreement.

The content of the page appears to be republished identical at this link shared in the news mega.

Also, I find in the the "Related" section of the above CDT this: [404 Library] Excellent Partner | A letter of recommendation from a graduate student with a sexual minority, received an official reply from the Supreme Law Research Office which begins:

CDT editor's note: The original text has been deleted, and CDT has been transferred from "Ding Sheng China Forum".

At Ding Sheng China Forum, some people are saying the above is a lie or rumor but I lack the contextuals to guess who is telling the truth, or who even has access to correct information.

And @Awoo@hexbear.net as it is your thread

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chinese/727303.html

That link is very useful. The site, owner and its purpose is sus af though if you look into who owns it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao_Qiang

[-] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

lol that is a comically evil biography. I will keep in mind. But in this case, the content is a word for word mirror of your own posted link. I still can't tell if there is any reason to believe in the legitimacy of this story or not. Is it a chain letter fantasy or something more substantial? is there any other source? Is the account Neutral Rainbow known?

By some measures, being picked up by some VOA-ass news blog might even cast more doubt on the OP. If the main meat of the Neutral Rainbow's post regarding plans by the SPC is true, then it is some kind of error or internal conflict leading to the post being deleted. (Assuming that the account wasn't engaged in something else that led to the deletion of all their posts.) But at the end of the day, SPC is stronger than ye power tripping mods of qq.com (especially in the authoritarian 1984-like hellscape that is PRC according to Qiang), so the progress of LGBTQ people is assured. Is that really the kind of news this site is interested in? Now that it is deleted, the story can be told as "Chinese censors remove account and posts advocating for gay and trans people's human rights".

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But in this case, the content is a word for word mirror of your own posted link

Yep. I translated and read it before posting, it's certainly the same as it was.

If the main meat of the Neutral Rainbow's post regarding plans by the SPC is true

Right. I was chatting about this with a friend and we came up with two possibilities:

  1. That it's anti-lgbt censorship to prevent progress on lgbt issues.
  2. That it's censorship intended to prevent a negative reaction to progress on lgbt issues.

We came up with the second possibility when discussing how trans issues have absolutely blown up and the focus on trans people has set back progress. If trans issues had stayed in the background where people didn't care about them then trans issues would have simply continued to see progress and improvements. Instead they got weaponised by the right to motivate and galvanise reactionaries.

The censor in China is a black box. We can ultimately only completely speculate upon the whys of anything they do. There are no answers. But one thing that leans me towards possibility two over possibility one is that these issues have seen nothing but progress in China, there have been no setbacks, it has only marched forwards. Does that sound consistent with a state that is actively suppressing progress? It doesn't to me. Russia is quite clearly actively suppressing progress but China's results do not seem consistent in comparison. So the second possibility that they censor things for the purpose of preventing reaction seems quite plausible to me.

Ultimately we can not know one way or another, and if these were the reasons for the action taken they would certainly never say so as it would undermine it.

[-] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago

so forgetting about the post being deleted, do you have reason to believe it was true in the first place?

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Only that it looked fairly legit and Chinese friends said it was worded the way you would expect it to be. If it was fake then it was exceptional.

Like imagine someone writing a supreme court statement for the US, there would be some weird things that stand out about it if it wasn't written completely flawlessly. I couldn't find anyone that could fault it.

And if it was fake and yet got significant traction online, why not officially say it was not a real reply made by them?

[-] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago

After I thought a few more, I decided the idea of this being a plan to sort things out for LGBTQ people without attracting attention is illogical. It would be possible to apply this strategy when the activities were taking out of view and without much participation of the general population. For example, having decent healthcare available, nobody need really notice it.

But the point of laws is to modify behavior. You cannot secretly, quietly change how laws are enforced. Nobody will know about the new law, or the new interpretation, so how can they comply? It doesn't make any sense.

Instead they got weaponised by the right to motivate and galvanise reactionaries.

Furthermore, I don't think the discord about these things is just a forgone outcome of them having a natural small degree of publicity. It is due to the intentional agitation of bigots, very well funded and connected by agents of capital. Using it as they do requires constant care and attention from these people.

You have kind of cooked up a sort of "trust the plan"-type positive conspiracy theory tbh.

Only that it looked fairly legit and Chinese friends said it was worded the way you would expect it to be. If it was fake then it was exceptional.

Legal documents use standardized format and language, so that they may be clearly understood by anyone with the required expertise. There is no reason to think any kind of legal document should be difficult to forge, in terms of the wording. Any lawyer framiliar with the appropriate area of law could mock up a statement to say pretty much anything. Really just a grasp of formal writing is required. What is so exceptional about this? Are your friends in regular secret communication with the chinese courts? Maybe they do have a special way of writing which is not obvious in translation.

But for me, just looking on their website, I find a few sample documents of the sort to compare. I chose just based on topics that I thought wouldn't be overly technical, in the sections that seem to be potential

Here are things I notice that make them look like very usual legal documents from any country:

  • published on the website of the relevant court

  • dates: on which become effective; publication; when meetings were conducted

  • referencing prior relevant document dates for reference

  • authors

  • attributed to SPC

  • attributed to subordinate body, e.g. "Press Bureau of the Supreme People's Court", district etc

  • individual people, e.g. at the bottom see "Responsibilities Editor"

  • citations throughout to specific laws generally as well as the particular portions, e.g:

Article 24 In the case of a guardian who disposes of the property of minors, the provisions of Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code and Article 16 and 17 of the Law on the Protection of Minors shall be accurately applied

  • describe who is responsible for doing what:

When the insured person applies to the social insurance agency of the insured place in writing to pay the first payment, he shall inform the cause of the injury caused by the injury and the third party does not pay the medical expenses or cannot determine the third party's situation. After the social insurance agency reviews according to law, it shall pay the corresponding part of the medical expenses in accordance with the provisions of the basic medical insurance fund in the coordinated area.

  • describes common conflicts that can occur and how to think about them fairly according to the law

Article 5 Where the plaintiff requests punitive damages for the defendant's intentional infringement of unfair competition other than trade secrets, the people's court will not support it, except as otherwise provided in the law.

  • Structured with sections, articles, chapters, subsections. Things are numbered so they can be referred to.

But the main thing is the improbability of basic claim that something called "Research Office" would be in a position to secretly make promises of sweeping changes to interpretation of existing legislation. Very strange and unwieldy way to conduct a legal system suggesting an unstable jurisprudence.

And if it was fake and yet got significant traction online, why not officially say it was not a real reply made by them?

I think this question is better posed in the inverse. If it was real, why not officially take responsibility. Very sneaky of them. As to why not refute a forgery, has anybody asked them? has any publication except that VOA-ass one covered it? Are they even aware of it? I wouldn't expect even a small municipal government to issue a formal reply to every joke or hoax posted on social media. That is silly.

All I am asking is if there is any reason to believe this is real but all there is is baking. The original claim was that this was widely circulated among queer activists. So have others acknowledged they got it as well? Or is just this one random account still.

[-] MelianPretext@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

@Awoo@hexbear.net @hellinkilla@hexbear.net

Tagging you both as I've also been looking into this. A statement this positive if enacted as actual working policy would be, without exaggeration given China's population, the biggest potential advancement for global LGBT rights since Obergefell so it's annoying that the only people commenting about it are the "dissident" type losers but the fact that the original WeChat post was removed by the platform took the wind out of its sails.

The Pekingnology substack describes that this petition and response process is a unique institution:

https://www.pekingnology.com/p/chinas-top-court-appears-to-privately

Petition, known in Chinese as 信访 xinfang, is a centuries-old channel through which people in China have appealed directly to the authorities. In its modern form, it allows citizens to submit complaints, requests, or policy suggestions to state bodies, which are usually handled one-to-one and outside public view. The Communist Party of China and State organs, including the Supreme People’s Court, are generally required to register them and to inform petitioners whether and how they will be handled.

However, responses to petitions are generally not regarded as legally binding decisions, nor do they in themselves constitute new legislation or policy. They are usually understood only as a summary of existing measures and a very preliminary indication of possible next steps. In other words, they may offer some insight into how the responding authority views a given issue, but should not be read as formal policy change.

This Chinese LGBT focus YouTuber with 25K subscribers claims to be responsible for the WeChat post and vouches for its authenticity.

According to his YouTube bio: "Uncle Qiang: founded PFLAG China in 2008, has written columns for Tencent Dajia, Holland Online, Stage and Screen, and many other media outlets, his personal blog, "Husband and Husband Life", has been a visiting scholar at the Kennedy School of Harvard University, and the Yale University Law School."

Here is a AI-generated transcription of the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkElBkCDJ-c

Hello everyone, I am Ah Qiang. So over the past two days, there has been a very hot, I suppose, incident. Namely, one of our friends wrote a suggestion letter to the Supreme Court, the Supreme People's Court. The title of this suggestion was very long, and then, very luckily, she received a reply from the Supreme Court. Then, I interviewed the person involved yesterday, and I have also kept in touch with her over these past two days. I will introduce the general sequence of events to everyone, which can also dispel the doubts of some friends who are thinking, is this real? Could it be photoshopped? Is it fabricated? I want to tell everyone that I did indeed do a fact-check on this. First, I had no fewer than five phone calls with the person involved; this is a true event. Second, I want to share the entire sequence of events with everyone next.

Actually, it was yesterday morning, because yesterday morning, one of our volunteer dads posted about this matter. At the time, after I read that article, I found it very interesting. I said, hey, where did you find out about this information? Are you familiar with the person involved? He said, I am familiar with the person involved. I said, then can you forward the contact information of the person involved to me? He then forwarded the person's WeChat to me. Then, around ten o'clock, I added this friend and subsequently did an interview with her. I was actually quite curious because I felt like, hey, whoever did this, at least in the current environment, I think it's quite a positive thing, a thing with relatively positive energy. So I wanted to understand a bit more; I was quite curious about who this person was.

So after chatting with her, I also learned that she is currently a graduate student, located in Shandong. Now regarding this court matter, because I felt that it's possible, right, that in a typical Chinese style, you write this suggestion letter, and then the court's reply might just be a procedural requirement, so they wrote this thing. I feel that what they say and what they do might not necessarily be connected, but I still think this matter is worth paying attention to because it is a very positive signal. When I was calling this friend, she talked to me for a long time about how you should go about writing this kind of suggestion letter, what quotes from whom you need to put at the beginning; it was very interesting.

So after this was done, because I was quite busy yesterday. When I went to work this morning, the very first thing was that I felt this matter actually deserves to be known by more people. Therefore, I wrote an article for the official public account. It was because her screenshot from the court website was actually not very clear, because she originally sent it to the WeChat group, so it wasn't particularly clear. If you put it in the article, the reading experience for the audience would actually be bad. I took the text of that court reply and put it into the dialogue box of Feishu, which we use for work, and then I took a new screenshot of it. So some people online were saying, hey, why are these two screenshots different? Isn't this obviously a fake? It's definitely not. This is because I took the original text—I'll say it again—put it into the Feishu dialogue box, and took a new screenshot, mainly for the reader's experience when reading, just so it could be seen more clearly.

So after that was done, I think about an hour or so passed. The person involved said, hey, can you change my name? She said it was because she didn't want her letter to appear in this viral spread. So later I said, alright then, and I went and modified her letter again. This is one situation. As for this person involved, let me introduce her to everyone. Of course, she doesn't particularly want this to spread and affect her own daily schooling. She was born in 2001, is a graduate student, and I think she is quite a powerful person. She didn't just write to the Supreme Court; she apparently also wrote to the Communist Youth League, and to another department as well, and the relatively good thing is that she received responses from all of them. Moreover, she said the Communist Youth League called her on the phone, and the Supreme Court gave her a reply on their website. Actually, this Supreme Court reply has a document number, and I even had her send that document number to me. The document number is: (2026) 法信字 Document No. 80029.

What was the reaction of the person involved? Uh, actually, this friend involved called me three times today; I feel she is a bit anxious. Because of this matter, in the morning, after our article was published, aside from the first time when she asked me to change her letter because she didn't want to be affected too much... And then after that, some time passed, and the account of our volunteer parent was retweeted by a large account on Twitter. After it was retweeted, she was very nervous. She said others told her that the article had been retweeted to a large account, and she was worried she would be affected. I said, well, this has happened, it's a public matter, and after it's been retweeted, there's nothing you can do. Furthermore, regarding writing this article, I said we all approached it from a positive, affirmative angle, rather than a critical angle. Including when I myself was putting together that article, I also felt that this is progress, this is a very meaningful thing. I wrote it from an angle of praise and appreciation; we are not criticizing. So speaking from this angle, I offered her some reassurance.

Then by the evening, she contacted me again. She felt like, hey, why have all the articles been deleted? Will they come looking for me? She herself was actually a little bit tense. I just said this is also very normal, right? We didn't fabricate anything, so even if they come to ask about it, it's normal. I feel that overall, for the person involved, I felt she was a little bit anxious today. Because she is a student, after all, so it can be understood. That is roughly the situation.

This YouTuber also made a substack post about this, though largely repeating the content of that WeChat post:

https://substack.com/@ahqiang/p-198537514

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 3 points 1 week ago

Excellent.

I honestly think this should be its own post. An update post. Others will not be aware of this further information otherwise.

[-] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Thanks, I appreciate taking these matter seriously enough to investigate.

Moreover, she said the Communist Youth League called her on the phone, and the Supreme Court gave her a reply on their website. Actually, this Supreme Court reply has a document number, and I even had her send that document number to me. The document number is: (2026) 法信字 Document No. 80029.

So the matter of veracity can be put to rest if this document can be located on the website.

Then there is remaining question of what is the meaning. The above provides some clarifications. I would be interested to learn more about the mechanisms here personally.

I agree with Awoo, nobody is looking at this thread anymore, it needs a new top post. I have seen this story reposted many times as recently as yesterday. It is of obvious interest to the site.

ETA:

hellin

ETA2: Now that I read the substack link, I see this:

Response Message: [Supreme People’s Court]

Hello. Your petition has been processed. You may log in to the “People’s Courts Online Appeals and Petitions Platform” (https://zxfw.court.gov.cn/) using the mobile phone number registered for this matter to view the detailed response. Thank you for your understanding and support of the work of the people’s courts.

I am thinking there may not be a way to confirm the text via the doc number?

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah I don't have answers to any of those questions shrug-outta-hecks

this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
125 points (100.0% liked)

news

24776 readers
381 users here now

Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:

We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.

Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:

The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.

  1. Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.

  2. Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.

  3. Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.

  4. Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.

  5. Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.

  6. Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.

  7. American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.

  8. Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.

  9. AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Alaskaball@hexbear.net
carpoftruth@hexbear.net
Breath_Of_The_Snake@hexbear.net
Infamousblt@hexbear.net
Redcuban1959@hexbear.net