Judging Sexuality: Institutional Heteronormativity and LGBTQ+ Victimization in China

Abstract Introduction This article examines how institutional heteronormativity is reproduced through the linguistic and discursive practices of Chinese judges in criminal cases involving LGBTQ+ victims. Methods This study draws on a thematic analysis of 252 criminal judgments involving 290 LGBTQ+ victims, retrieved from China Judgements Online. A combination of inductive and deductive coding strategies was employed. Results Empirically, the findings map demographic characteristics of victims identified in the judgments, document the predominance of property-related offenses, and highlight the relational dimensions of victimization. Beyond these descriptive findings, the analysis reveals two systematic judicial practices. First, judges frequently erase LGBTQ+ identities from legal narratives by treating sexual orientation as legally irrelevant or omitting it altogether. Second, in cases where sexual orientation is acknowledged, judges often moralize LGBTQ+ relationships by invoking Socialist Core Values and culturally dominant norms. Theoretically, this dual-mechanism model contributes to socio-legal scholarship by demonstrating how judges reproduce institutional heteronormativity through routine adjudicative discretion. Conclusion The article concludes that judicial discourse contributes to ideological governance in China by reproducing normative understandings of sexuality through everyday adjudicative practices. In doing so, courts not only apply the law but also participate in shaping the moral and political framing of LGBTQ+ identities. Policy Implications Enhancing judicial practice requires a fundamental reorientation of training philosophy. Judicial education should incorporate modules on sexuality and anti-discrimination awareness. A pragmatic and incremental strategy would be to embed perspectives on gender and vulnerability within existing, officially sanctioned training frameworks. Another promising avenue is fostering collaboration among scholars, judicial training institutions, and local courts.