57
Awoo [she/her]
newsAs 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
China says trans rights?
China says harmonious society
https://xcancel.com/amber_digit2/status/2056872457014009922#m
explanation: this document is an online reply to a specific complaint regarding conversion therapy against trans and queer people. it is not an official court ruling, has no legislative power, cannot be cited in legal cases, and is meant to dismiss the original complaint. while it is indeed the first time the court explicitly mentions the illegality of discrimination based on gender & sexuality, there is still much more to be done for it to bear any legal weight
important context. still great sign of progress but important not to over-exaggerate victories
I feel that this is still very good. With it coming from the research office of the supreme people's court it is clearly the essential belief of the highest court.
That doesn't mean that all judges will interpret the law as they want them to, but it does mean that this is how they believe the law is laid out and also how they want it to be applied.
From that base the push for tweaks and changes that actually result in this being the consistent outcome of cases can intensify. Citing examples where the law is clearly not being applied in that way can further the push towards achieving the desired outcome.
I see it as very good to have this out in the open. It will embolden efforts.
Is it out in the open?
China W.
Hopefully this continues and China reaches Cuban levels of social progress.
I gotta learn Chinese, fuck the west, China is the future
It's the present. We are firmly in the Chinese century now. Believe it.
China went woke!
Full text of https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/U1VX7omSTbnMjpoBTHIt-A text translated by firefox:
::: spoiler spoiler
The Supreme Court's letter is encouraging.
[The Original] Multi-world harmony
Neutral Rainbow said
18 May 2026 01:42
Rare answer of the Supreme Court! Regarding the protection of the rights of sexual minorities, there are big changes in this letter.
(In May 2026, a reply from the Supreme People's Court to a letter was quietly circulated in the circles of China's sexual minorities.
This is no ordinary reply. It comes from the Research Office of the Supreme People's Court, and the date of payment is May 8, 2026. In the letter, the Supreme Law not only responded positively to citizens' suggestions on the principle of "explicit prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in judicial trials", but also systematically sorted out the three major breakthroughs in the protection of the rights and interests of sexual minorities in Chinese courts in recent years, and clearly stated that any unreasonable discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression is prohibited by law.
This is a belated but heavy weight of the "reassurance pill". It clearly outlines the three solid defense lines for the protection of the rights and interests of sexual minorities in China's judicial practice.
From "sickness" to "people": the first line of defense for the protection of personality rights
The letter first recalled the landmark "Chinese gay correction treatment" case. In this case, the effective decision clearly stated: “Homosexuality is not a mental illness”.
This sentence breaks the long-term stigma and shackles. Its significance goes far beyond the success of the case, but at the judicial level: sexual orientation, not disease, but one of the normal sexual orientation of human beings. Therefore, any electric shock, hypnosis and aversion therapy in the name of “treatment” are not only ineffective, but also a serious violation of the human dignity of citizens.
The court's judgment is clear: in cases of public insulting and slandering others' sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, they are generally considered to constitute infringement of general personality rights, and orders to stop the infringement, make amends for apologies, and compensate for moral damage. This means that the law will protect everyone from public humiliation and assault on their own identity.
Refusal to discriminate: judicial red lines of employment discrimination
The second type of typical case mentioned in the letter is the first transgender employment discrimination case in China. For the first time in the case, the concepts of “gender identity” and “gender expression” emerged.
The party in the case was employed by the company without understanding because he was wearing clothing that matches his gender identity. The court finally found that the employer applied differential treatment on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, which constituted employment discrimination, and decided to revoke the relevant decision and compensate for the loss.
The significance of this decision is that it extends the protection of equal employment rights from traditional gender discrimination to deeper gender identity and expression. It sends a clear signal to all employers that your bias cannot be a reason to deprive others of their job opportunities.
Third, to protect campus security: the judicial bottom of the student's right to life
The third type of case mentioned in the letter is that the school has failed to perform bullying in schools due to improper punishment of students' sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, etc., or failure to perform management duties, and the court has ordered the school to be responsible according to law.
In the case of Zhang and a school education institution liability dispute in Hefei, the court decided that because the school did not take appropriate psychological intervention for gay students with suicidal tendencies, it simply asked parents to bring it back and ordered the school to bear 30% of the liability.
This judgment is a wake-up call for all schools: in the face of sexual minorities, the responsibility of the school is not to "correct" or "avoid", but to provide a safe and inclusive learning environment to protect their personal freedom and human dignity. Any form of bullying in schools, as well as school inaction, will face legal accountability.
More importantly, the future planning in the letter.
The value of this reply is not only to review past jurisprudence, but also to clarify the direction of the future.
The letter reads: "In the next step, we will continue to sort out the cases involving the protection of the rights and interests of sexual minorities in the national courts, summarize the rules of the judgment, and unify the standards of the judgment; clarify the mature judgment rules through judicial interpretation, meeting minutes, guiding cases, etc. in a timely manner, and strengthen the provision of rules; incorporate the protection of personality rights into the training of judges."
This means that the Supreme Court is preparing to translate these scattered, ground-breaking case experiences into systematic, nationally unified judicial rules. In the future, the trial of similar cases will no longer rely on the enlightenment of individual judges, but there are clear rules to follow.
Write to everyone in trouble.
Many times, change does not happen overnight. It is like this reply, not a earth-shattering declaration, but a sincere step for the judicial system to listen to public opinion and respond to demands.
From the end of "corrective treatment", to the prohibition of employment discrimination, to the accountability of bullying in schools, the law is building a protective net for every minority citizen. This net may not be close enough, but it is becoming more and more solid.
If you or someone around you is experiencing injustice, remember that you are not alone. These cases, this letter, are the most powerful weapons in your defense.
Equality is never the charity of others, but our rights. The law is becoming our strongest support. Come out for help, please contact a great partner (has helped 500,000+)
Converge the stars with a glimmer, light up the rainbow with goodwill, thank you for the warm heart.
:::
Is this legitimate?
In May 2026, a reply from the Supreme People's Court to a letter was quietly circulated in the circles of China's sexual minorities
Is it a normal way for any court to do business?
The general content is quite confusing. Are they making law or enforcing law? Brief research tells me that unlike the tiny SC of (say) the US, the Chinese SC has a few hundred judges, so obviously they are doing things a bit differently. I also see something about issuing guidance generally or in specific cases. The text is attributed to the Research Office. It would make more sense to be quietly circulating a letter advising that they would embark upon research, maybe asking for feedback (which this is not). rather than asserting what the future rulings and declarations will be (which this is).
The OP text says "the Supreme People's Court hereby clarifies the following adjudication rules" but why would you only tell LGBT people about that? Wouldn't you want to tell the legal community, at least?
Possibly something is lost in translation?
I also poked around a bit on the SPC website which is quite navigable using firefox translation. There are a lot of text-as-images but if you hover your mouse over them they have link titles (or alt tags) that do get translated. They also maintain an english website but I wouldn't expect it to be as comprehensive or up to date.
