In this blog, Weiyuan Wu and Catherine Atkinson-Ross challenge familiar assumptions about LGBTQ educational leadership by exploring leadership in contexts where LGBTQ visibility is neither straightforward nor necessarily safe.
Drawing on research with lesbian and gay middle leaders in Chinese schools, the authors argue that leadership and inclusion are often enacted through subtle, everyday practices rather than public visibility. Weiyuan Wu and Catherine Atkinson-Ross’ contribution highlights the importance of understanding educational leadership within its cultural, political and institutional context, inviting readers to reconsider the interconnection between authenticity and visibility surrounding LGBTQ educational leadership.
If you have any comments or thoughts about this blog and the points it raises, then do share on social media using the hashtag #BELMASblog or contact the BELMAS Blog editorial team by emailing: blog@belmas.org.uk
Educational leadership research has increasingly engaged with issues of diversity and social justice, including LGBTQ inclusion. As sexuality forms an integral part of both personal and professional identity, recent studies have begun to highlight how LGBTQ school leaders, whether intentionally or inadvertently, can challenge gender and sexual norms and shape school cultures (Courtney, 2014; Baird et al., 2026). Yet these discussions often rely on a familiar assumption: that visibility – being “out”, recognised, or publicly affirmed – is the primary marker of LGBTQ inclusion and resistance. What happens when leadership takes place in contexts where gender and sexual diversity remain heavily regulated, and visibility itself may carry significant professional and personal risk?
Drawing on a recent study with three lesbian and gay middle leaders in Chinese schools, we suggest that LGBTQ leadership needs to be understood differently in restrictive contexts, and queer agency may exercise through quieter and more subtle forms of practice.
Leadership is Shaped by a ‘Chinese Heterosexual Matrix’ That Constrains Visibility
In China, school leadership can be understood as operating within a ‘Chinese heterosexual matrix’: a system in which expectations about gender and sexuality are reinforced by both Confucian social norms and broader state surveillance (Atkinson-Ross & Wu, 2025). In this context, schools are not just places of learning; they are also moral and political spaces. Teachers and leaders are expected to embody moral propriety, social stability, and normative family values (Wu, 2026).
For LGBTQ educators, this creates very real pressures. All three participants spoke about the expectation to appear “normal”, particularly through marriage, which is often seen as a sign of maturity and reliability, and therefore tied to professional credibility. As a result, all three remained closeted at work. One participant described entering a pro forma marriage to meet these expectations:
‘What should I do? I couldn’t marry the same sex, and my family was under pressure and colleagues at work would also ask about it, and there was also pressure.’ (Participant 1, gay man)
Participants also described carefully managing what they said, how they presented themselves, and how they interacted with colleagues. Leadership, in this sense, involved continual self-monitoring – avoiding suspicion while trying to remain fit to teach and lead (Tooms, 2007):
‘In that atmosphere (of public schooling), you would become increasingly afraid to speak and become unable to express yourself.’ (Participant 2, lesbian)
What this shows is how regulation works through silence and ambiguity. In this context, (in)visibility is not simply a matter of personal choice; it is shaped by institutional, social, and cultural conditions.
LGBTQ Leaders Exercise Agency Through Strategic and Subtle Practices
At the same time, it would be too simplistic to view LGBTQ leaders as merely passive. Our participants demonstrated various forms of agency, but these were often subtle and strategic. Rather than openly challenging norms, they created small but meaningful moments of inclusion in their everyday work. For instance, one participant supported a (presumed) queer student by recognising their authority in the classroom:
‘There’s a girl in my class who has short hair and has a boyish personality. She is quite authoritative in our class, so I made her our class representative.’ (Participant 3, gay man)
Another participant introduced discussions of LGBTQ experiences without calling attention to her own sexual identity:
‘I said (to the students) I have a lot of LGBT friends, and some of them told me they were very depressed in school.’ (Participant 2, lesbian)
These actions may seem modest, especially when compared with more visible forms of advocacy. But in constrained environments, such practices matter. They create moments of recognition and possibility for students, while remaining professionally legible and safe. Seen this way, LGBTQ leadership does not only happen through open confrontation; it can also take shape through everyday decisions, negotiations, and acts of care.
What Does This Mean for How We Think About Educational Leadership?
First, it invites us to rethink the link between authenticity and visibility. In contexts shaped by surveillance and regulation, being “out” is not always possible. Strategic invisibility can itself be a form of agency, rather than a sign of absence or failure (Cui, 2023; Wu, 2025a, 2025b).
Second, it reminds us that context matters. Much of what we know about LGBTQ leadership comes from Euro-American settings. These contexts differ in important ways from others around the world. Models of inclusive leadership cannot simply be transferred without considering local cultural, political, and institutional dynamics.
Finally, it encourages us to think about inclusion differently. Inclusion is not only about policies or official statements. It is about the everyday conditions that shape whether people can safely exist, lead, and belong. In some contexts, inclusion happens quietly – in small actions, careful conversations, and what is left unsaid as much as what is spoken.
Atkinson-Ross, C., & Wu, W. (2025). Inside the Chinese heterosexual matrix: lesbian and gay middle leaders’ experiences in Chinese schools. Gender and Education, 37(5), 525-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2025.2506356
Baird, A., Lee, C., Feather, C., & Burman, D. (Eds.). (2026). LGBTQ+ Leadership in Education: Visibility, Vision, and Voice. Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80592-613-9
Courtney, S. J. (2014). Inadvertently queer school leadership amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) school leaders. Organization, 21(3), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413519762
Cui, L. (2023). Out queer teachers as role models for queer students? Implications drawn from closeted gay academics’ experiences in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 117, 102137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102137
Tooms, A. (2007). The right kind of queer: Fit and the politics of school leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 17(5), 601-630. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460701700503
Wu, W. (2025a). Conceptualising Confucian queer subjectivation: How Chinese LGBTQ teachers make sense of and navigate their sexuality in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2025.2599738
Wu, W. (2025b). Confucian queer agency: Conceptualising the mechanisms of LGBTQ teachers’ resistance in Chinese schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 46(6), 937-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2025.2534598
Wu, W. (2026). Elucidating Confucian heteronormativity: The case of Chinese schooling. Sociology, 60(2), 449-467. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385251359765
