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"
Full text of https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/U1VX7omSTbnMjpoBTHIt-A text translated by firefox:
spoiler
Is this legitimate?
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.