A survey published in July by the Williams Institute at UCLA found that of the nearly 3,000 respondents, 85% had favourable attitudes towards the idea of same-sex parents. Nearly 90% supported the idea of same-sex marriage. With Chinese society increasingly tolerant of LGBTQ+ people, “the law should catch up”, said the activist.
It is somewhat frustrating to see China’s economic policy be so forward thinking while its social policies are rather tailist. Like if the CPC was reactionary, I wouldn’t have any expectations from them either way. And we cannot even defend them on this by saying that China isn’t developed enough to have better gay rights, when Cuba, a significantly poorer and more catholic society does. Nor can we say that Chinese society is not ready for better LGBTQ rights, as the survey plainly shows.
I don’t know if this is the case, but I’m speculating that one of the main reasons for the CPC’s bizzare conservatism on some issues might be an over correction for the cultural revolution.
I agree that China should be more progressive with family policy. However, in terms of public opinion the survey only questioned 3000 people. Just looking at the average bilibili comments section where the Paris Olympics ceremony was mentioned, it’s pretty clear that Chinese society has a long way to go.
Eh, a sample size of 3000 is actually pretty good. The standard deviation of the samples is 55 times less than that of the population, which makes it astronomically unlikely that the survey’s results significantly misrepresent chinese views on the topic (ignoring sampling bias, which unfortunately can be a real issue).
Just looking at the average bilibili comments section where the Paris Olympics ceremony was mentioned
I imagine this is partially because chinese people are less familiar with western cultural norms and history, not necessarily that they oppose lgbtq rights, but I am not sure what the comments actually said so this is just speculation in my part.
The survey disproportionately sampled from urban populations over rural. It’s not representative of the whole Chinese population.
It’s a study by a US university about China, cited in an article about China by the Guardian. I knew I was going to find something like that before even opening the link. One would hope that after Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan, the Guardian would no longer have any credibility re China in this community.
China is 1.8 billion people. It’s moving slowly on progressive issues, but it’s moving forward. What it’s not doing is following the West’s example, where it rushes forward on progressive issues at the behest of half the population and then rolls back again next election cycle, letting capitalists commodify progressive virtue, letting the political classes use it as a wedge to divide and rule, and causing the slower half of the population to drag the country into fascism every now and then.
Damn, I had no idea that the sampling bias was that bad. I mean, this is a pathetic error.
There is a certain irony about them not having gone to Xinjiang for more “rural answers”. I wonder why. (wondering if they’re banned now for their bullshit lmao)
Eh if that’s reflective of China’s actual proportions idk if I would call that biased. If 33% of China’s population resides in an area then I would expect 33% of people surveyed to be from that area. Anything else imo would be biased in the other direction unless the rural responses somehow had less weight in the final conclusion to compensate. That (the electoral college, that is, which does exactly that - give the rural minority disproportionate voting power) is how we got to the situation you’re describing in the USA.
Wouldn’t the CPC wanting to overcorrect for the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution mean that they would be jumping at the chance to greenlight LGBTQIA marriage and rights, though? I’m pretty sure that Mao was homophobic.
The cultural revolution’s failures occurred due to ultra-leftist control of the CPC and China, whose main mistakes were adventurism (attempting to change the superstructure of society well beyond what is materially possible to sustain). The reaction to the gang of four’s crimes and mistakes was for the CPC leadership to adopt a much more conservative approach, what might be termed as “right-wing communism”. Essentially, they shifted the focus sharply from developing the superstructure to developing the productive forces of society.
Sometimes, when I look at the CPC’s social policy, I would argue that they might have overreacted and adopted the opposite stance (on some issues) to adventurism, that is, tailism. I think the example of Cuba serves much better to show what a proper vangaurd approach to social issues looks like. There, they used mass participation and referendums to create one of the most progressive family codes in the world. They did so while being significantly poorer and a catholic society, which shows that China is developed enough to adopt a much more LGBTQ friendly policy.
I think that Cuba’s referendum was partially tailist, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. And I think/hope that China will follow the same path for social progress
This is definitely good news. It’s too bad they didn’t go as far as Cuba on their most recent rewrite of family law, but I’m glad things are moving in the right direction.
I hope Didi gains custody of her son soon enough, that will also be a win when it happens.
With Chinese society increasingly tolerant of LGBTQ+ people, “the law should catch up”, said the activist.
Liberals will literally write that sentence and still deny that China is democratic
I’m a bit confused. Wouldn’t that sentence imply that Chinese society isn’t democratic since the will of the people isn’t reflected in law?
(They still are)
They can’t say that because the countries they claim are democracies have the same problem
I understand that you read it as “Well it should but we all know it will not”, but in the context of the article the subtext is more like “generally when public opinion shifts the law follows”
Another China W in the books folks
I think this is really exciting and awesome and definitely a win, and that is always cause for celebration, but I still have a bitter taste in my mouth that the woman wasn’t allowed visitation rights for both children.
I understand that Didi has more leeway since she gave birth to her daughter, and I admit maybe there are specific private legal or situations reasons that she isn’t allowed to at least visit her ex-wife’s son, aside from him being biologically her ex-wife’s son, it still stings.
